Research Ethics

The unethical practice of gift authorship and hostage authorship was portrayed in detail in previous issues of Research Ethics. The aim of this short article is to explore the impact of penalising junior researchers for partaking in gift authorship, and the occurrence and implications of missing authorship in publication. It concludes with reflections on current guidelines and suggestions put forth by Bulow and Helgesson, and Tang, and potential strategies for counteracting the frequency with which both occur.

Confirming multisite studies presents an ongoing challenge for researchers based in England. Those wishing to set up a multisite study must undergo local Research & Development review, in addition to ethical review by a Research Ethics Committee. However, both the documentation required for multisite review and the length of time it takes to complete such a review can cause significant difficulty to researchers and add to research delays. This short article will examine the process of confirming multisite studies and the implications of current practice.

The practice of communicating research findings to participants has been identified as important in the research ethics literature, but little research has examined empirically how this occurs and what research participants’ views are in this regard. We interviewed 21 adults with cystic fibrosis who had previously participated in research and 2 research coordinators at a cystic fibrosis clinic. We aimed to better understand research participants’ views on receiving research results, types of findings they are interested in, how they would like to receive this information, and the impact this might have on future participation. Participants reported that they do not generally recall receiving study findings, though many reported that they would like to receive them. While some participants were not interested in receiving results, all participants felt that these results should be provided when desired by participants and believed that receiving study findings would support future participation. Participants felt that an accessible format, such as a lay summary, would be most helpful. This study supports calls to make study findings available to participants, though the format in which they are provided requires consideration. Participants rarely recalled receiving findings despite the clinic in which this study was conducted returning them regularly. Therefore, questions pertaining to the provision of study findings must focus less on whether to share the findings and more on how to share them with participants most effectively. The logistics of providing study findings may be challenging in some cases, but participant support for the practice highlights its importance.

Ethics review of research involving humans has become something of an institution in recent years. It is intended to protect participants from harm and, to that end, follows rigorous standards. Given recent changes in research methodologies utilized in medical research, it may be that ethics review for some kinds of studies needs to be reexamined. The purpose of this paper is to stimulate dialogue regarding the kind of review required for citizen science-based research. We describe a case study of a proposal submitted to our research ethics board and propose different approaches to proportionate review in research involving citizen scientists. In particular, we describe how problems with the term “participant” led to confusion in review of this study and examine the study in light of current Canadian guidelines. We suggest that the term participant and indeed the general approach to low-risk community-based studies such as the one described warrant reexamination.

Without peer reviewers, the entire scholarly publishing system as we currently know it would collapse. However, as it currently stands, publishing is an extremely exploitative system, relative to other business models, in which trained and specialized labor is exploited, in the form of editors and peer reviewers, primarily by for-profit publishers, in return for a pat on the back, and a public nod of thanks. This is the “standardized” and “accepted” form for deriving mainstream peer reviewed literature. However, except for open peer review, where reports are open and identities are known, traditional peer review is closed, and the content of peer reports is known only to the authors and editors involved. Publons launched in 2012 as a platform that would offer recognition to peer reviewers for their work. In 2016, Publons rewarded the most productive reviewers with a “Sentinels of Science” award, accompanied by a dismal monetary reward (38 US cents/review) for their efforts. A site aimed at registering pre- and post-publication peer efforts, Publons was perceived as a positive step towards a more transparent peer review system. However, the continued presence of fake peer reviews and a spike in retractions, even among publishers that were Publons sponsors, suggests that perhaps peers may be exploiting Publons to get recognition for superficial or poor peer review. Since all reviews are not public, their content and quality cannot be verified. On 1 June 2017, Clarivate^TM Analytics, which owns the journal impact factor—most likely the most gamed non-academic factor in academic publishing—which is a measure of the number of citations of papers in journals, many of which are published by the for-profit publishers—including Publons sponsors—that “employ” free peer reviewers to quality check the literature they then sell for profit, purchased Publons. Touting the purchase as a way to increase transparency, and stamp out fake peer review, some who had supported Publons felt betrayed, even cancelling their Publons accounts immediately when learning of this purchase. Their concerns included the possible “gaming” of peer review as had taken place with the journal impact factor. This commentary examines possible positive and negative aspects of this business transaction, and what it might mean to academics and publishers.

‘Vulnerability’ is a key concept used to understand the ethical implications of conducting refugee-focused research. This case study illustrates the need to follow Luna’s (2009) call for a shift from a ‘labels’ to a ‘layers’ approach to vulnerability by analysing how two university ethics committees responded to issues of informed consent in two similar refugee research projects using the PhotoVoice method. The following commentary argues that, when driven by a research governance regime, ethics review risks viewing refugees through a static label of vulnerability, negatively affecting research viability and data quality. In contrast, a layers approach opens space for understanding the potential for vulnerability amongst refugee research participants while supporting PhotoVoice’s goals of empowerment and facilitating agency. The case study highlights the need for national-level ethics statements that encourage a more flexible approach within research institutions.