You don’t have to kill the orchids – good practices in orchid research

In this paper, we propose the adoption of moral philosophy and in particular normative ethics, to clarify the concept of “good” evaluation of “research practices”. Using MacIntyre (1985)’s notion of a practice we argue that research is a form of social practice. As a result of this characterization, we claim that research practice typically requires three typologies of researcher: the leader, the good researcher and the honest researcher. Reflecting on what is a “good” research practice and on what is the role of researchers in it provides insight into some aspects of both the self-assessment process and how this promotes individual improvement. Moreover, this kind of reflection helps us to describe the functions (missions) of the research practices. A “good” evaluation should take into account all the building constituents of a “good” research practice and should be able to discriminate between good and bad research practices, while enforcing the functions of good research practices. We believe that these reflections may be the starting point for a paradigm shift in the evaluation of research practices which replaces an evaluation centred on products with an evaluation focused on the functions of these practices. In the last sections of the paper, we introduce and discuss an important aspect for the implementation of the proposed framework. This relates to the assessment of the virtues of researchers involved in a good research practice. Some examples of questions and preliminary items to include in a questionnaire for the assessment of Virtues in Research Practices are also provided.

Research partnerships between Tribal Nations and rural colleges and universities can support rural development and strengthen Tribal Nation building through reclamation of economic, political, cultural, and social affairs. However, Tribal Nation–University relationships have received little attention in rural sociology. While scholars identify best practices for research engagement in light of colonial harms, the ideal visions that Tribally and university‐affiliated people have for research partnerships and the barriers to achieving those ideals are poorly understood. Without identifying these visions and barriers, we risk making wrong assumptions about each party's needs and cannot implement appropriate policies. Semi‐structured interviews with Tribally‐affiliated (n = 20) and university‐affiliated (n = 20) people in rural southeastern Idaho suggest, contrary to literature on best practices for collaborative research, that participants in both groups viewed what we term “Tribally‐responsive research engagement” as ideal, though few projects met this goal. Tribally‐responsive research directly addressed Tribal priorities but did not necessarily involve close collaboration. The University's failure to acknowledge past or colonial harms, university‐affiliated researchers' historicization of those harms, and negative Native student experiences reinforced distrust, limiting desired research engagement. In sum, Tribally‐responsive research engagement could strengthen Native Nation building, but requires universities to acknowledge harms, create more welcoming campus environments, and prioritize Tribal benefits in research.

A Revista Brasileira em Promoção da Saúde (Brazilian Journal in Health Promotion), movida pela necessidade de uma cultura que estimule a integridade em pesquisa, quer enfatizar sua preocupação, não apenas com o conteúdo de suas publicações, mas também com os aspectos éticos que envolvem a submissão e a publicação dos manuscritos. Com isso, pretende levantar a discussão sobre boas práticas em pesquisa científica, ressaltando a importância de que este reforço ocorra desde os primeiros estágios da carreira dos pesquisadores. As más condutas éticas ocorrem em virtude das exigências crescente de produção intelectual e consequentemente as pressões sobre os pesquisadores vinculados aos programas de pós-graduação que utilizam os indicadores, principalmente, internacionais(1). A proliferação destas condutas antiéticas também é influenciada pelo “sistema de recompensas” existente, no qual o pesquisador é avaliado pela sua produtividade. O primeiro evento mundial sobre a integridade em pesquisa ocorreu em 2007 na cidade de Lisboa(2) e buscou sensibilizar a comunidade científica e editores para a importância de promover a conduta responsável na pesquisa. Em 2010, houve a segunda conferência mundial em Singapura(3). Desta conferência emergiu a “Declaração de Singapura sobre integridade em pesquisa” trazendo como princípios de integridade: a honestidade, a responsabilidade, o respeito e imparcialidade profissionais e a boa gestão da pesquisa(3). Em 2013, a terceira edição ocorreu em Montreal e teve como grande linha temática as investigações que cruzam as fronteiras e as parcerias internacionais(4). A exemplo destes movimentos internacionais, o Brasil também se mobilizou. Entretanto, esta preocupação é recente e tomou corpo após séries de publicações a respeito desta temática elaborado pela Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)(5) e pela publicação do Relatório da Comissão de Integridade de Pesquisa do Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)(6). Paralelo a estas publicações, dois importantes eventos ocorreram nos anos de 2011 e 2012 no Brasil que abordaram ações para promoção da integridade científica norteando pesquisadores e instituições brasileiras, o I e II Brispe (Brazilian Meeting on Research Integrity, Science and Publication Ethics)(7). Neste ano de 2015, o Brasil sediará a “4ª Conferência Anual para Integridade da Pesquisa” (4th World Conference on Research Integrity) no Rio de Janeiro, que irá explorar a “excelência da investigação científica em seus diferentes sistemas”(8). Somado a estes movimentos nacionais, destacamos a importância de que os periódicos científicos discutam suas políticas editoriais com a comunidade científica para exercermos o papel de educador das boas práticas em pesquisa e prevenir as más condutas, como plágio, autoplágio, fraude, autoria indevida, entre outros. Dentre estes, o plágio vem ganhando destaque no cenário internacional em virtude do crescente número de relatos deste tipo de má conduta. No Brasil, a situação é preocupante, calcula-se a proporção disto quando renomado pesquisador da área afirma “o Brasil encontra-se entre os vinte países com o maior índice de ocorrência de plágio e de redundância (autoplágio) o que foi constatado por meio de uma amostra de artigos publicados na PubMed entre 2008 e 2012”(8,p.1). Nas diretrizes do CNPq(6), considera-se plágio: “...apresentação, como se fosse de sua autoria, de resultados ou conclusões anteriormente obtidos por outro autor, bem como de textos integrais ou de parte substancial de textos alheios sem os cuidados detalhados nas Diretrizes.” Em consonância com estes movimentos, a Associação Brasileira de Editores Científicos (ABEC) promove eventos e lança textos de pesquisadores renomados no intuito de manter constante debate sobre a qualidade e consolidação das publicações/periódicos editados no país, seguindo os padrões internacionais de editoração e ética. Por fim, as más condutas na pesquisa são assunto de interesse das revistas científicas, que devem implantar mecanismos que permitam identificar e desestimular as práticas fraudulentas na pesquisa e estimular sua integridade. Movida por este desejo, a Revista Brasileira em Promoção da Saúde institui, neste ano de 2015, uma política de submissão/avaliação dos manuscritos que envolverá, além da inclusão de dois documentos obrigatórios, o parecer de aprovação do projeto em comitê de ética em pesquisa com seres humanos ou com animais e a declaração de autoria, autilização de programa antiplágio em todos os manuscritos submetidos para análise, e com isso, almeja educar autores e proliferar a ideia de que os artigos publicados estão em consonância com a ética e integridade mundiais.

Previous research has consistently highlighted the importance of stakeholder engagement in identifying and developing solutions to ethical challenges in genomic research, especially in Africa where such research is relatively new. In this paper, we examine what constitutes good ethical practice in research, from the perspectives of genomic research participants in Uganda. Our study was part of a multi-site qualitative study exploring these issues in Uganda, Ghana and Zambia. We purposively sampled various stakeholders including genomic research participants, researchers, research ethics committee members, policy makers and community members. This paper presents the findings from in-depth interviews with 27 people with diabetes who had participated in a diabetes genomic study. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews. Manual thematic content analysis was conducted using a framework approach. Findings indicate three key requirements that research participants see as vital for genomic research to be more responsive to research participants’ needs and contextual realities: (1) de-emphasising the role of experts and institutions in the consenting process, (2) clarity about the timing and nature of feedback both of findings relevant to the health of individuals and about the broad progress of the study, and (3) more effective support for research participants during and after the study.

Bounded ethicality refers to people’s limited capacity to consistently behave in line with their ethical standards. Here, we present results from a pre-registered, large-scale (N = 11,050) survey of researchers in Sweden, suggesting that researchers too are boundedly ethical. Specifically, researchers on average rated themselves as better than other researchers in their field at following good research practice, and rated researchers in their own field as better than researchers in other fields at following good research practice. These effects were stable across all academic fields, but strongest among researchers in the medical sciences. Taken together, our findings illustrate inflated self-righteous beliefs among researchers and research disciplines when it comes to research ethics, which may contribute to academic polarization and moral blindspots regarding one’s own and one’s colleagues’ use of questionable research practices.

To review UK guidelines regarding the use of financial incentives for healthcare professionals to become involved in clinical trials, and to survey perceptions and current practice. Electronic databases were searched from inception to June 2006. Interviews were held with NHS healthcare professionals, research managers from the pharmaceutical industry and members of the public. From the searches, 634 identified studies were assessed for inclusion in the systematic review, but only three met the criteria for data extraction. Fifty-eight individuals were interviewed: 38 chief investigators, six non-research active clinicians, eight public and six pharmaceutical managers. Investigators were selected from those funded by the HTA Programme, the other by 'snowballing' and personal contact. The evidence from the literature was limited and inconclusive. In UK guidelines, the issues around payments to clinicians or patients were implied rather than stated, usually linked to discussion of conflict of interest and disclosure of any such conflicts. Developments in NHS research governance had led to increased transparency in all payments for research participation and for payments to be made to NHS Trusts rather than individual clinicians. While reimbursement of costs incurred by research was strongly supported by the interviewees, payments to incentivise recruitment were not. A code of practice was suggested for payments in publicly funded trials, which was closely linked to the principles of Good Clinical Practice in research. Factors such as interest in the topic, scope for patient benefit and good communication were considered more important than payment. Interviews with the general public indicated low levels of awareness of the existence of payments to clinicians linked to patient recruitment in trials, and unanimous support for full disclosure. Interviews with managers in the pharmaceutical industry showed greater familiarity with payments for research involvement. GPs were seen as the only group for whom scope existed for individual payments. Concerns were expressed by the pharmaceutical company interviewees at the rising cost of research and unnecessary bureaucracy. The ethical stances outlined in Good Clinical Practice in research were widely endorsed by the three groups interviewed. These allow reasonable payments to clinicians, subject to disclosure of any possible conflicts of interest. The potential for incentivising clinicians to recruit was limited as any payments should be based on the cost of inputs and should not be made to individuals but to their host organisation. NHS professionals were concerned that payments could damage the quality of research and also considered full disclosure to patients as challenging. Patients and members of the public favoured full disclosure and payment of expenses to patients involved in research. Pharmaceutical company interviewees viewed payment to the NHS for all research activities as normal and highly regulated. They complained that the prices charged were high and so variable that they required benchmarking. Considerable scope exists for compiling data on the factors that help and hinder the progress of clinical trials and also for experimenting with different incentives to encourage involvement in clinical research. Further research should focus on improved reporting of those organisational aspects of trials that are known to affect recruitment; retrospective analysis of the factors associated with different levels of recruitment to RCTs; prospective comparative research on trial recruitment; qualitative research on participants' experiences of being involved in different kinds of trials, and proposals to include within trials experiments with payments methods.

Core facilities are an effective way of making expensive experimental equipment available to a large number of researchers, and are thus well placed to contribute to efforts to promote good research practices. Here we report the results of a survey that asked core facilities in Europe about their approaches to the promotion of good research practices, and about their interactions with users from the first contact to the publication of the results. Based on 253 responses we identified four ways that good research practices could be encouraged: (i) motivating users to follow the advice and procedures for best research practice; (ii) providing clear guidance on data-management practices; (iii) improving communication along the whole research process; and (iv) clearly defining the responsibilities of each party.

Core facilities are an effective way of making expensive experimental equipment available to a large number of researchers, and are thus well placed to contribute to efforts to promote good research practices. Here we report the results of a survey that asked core facilities in Europe about their approaches to the promotion of good research practices, and about their interactions with users from the first contact to the publication of the results. Based on 253 responses we identified four ways that good research practices could be encouraged: (i) motivating users to follow the advice and procedures for best research practice; (ii) providing clear guidance on data-management practices; (iii) improving communication along the whole research process; and (iv) clearly defining the responsibilities of each party.

This study probes into what public Chinese stem cell scientists involve in defining what is 'good research practice'. Thomas Gieryn in 1983 argued that scientists draw up boundaries between the realm of 'real science' and that of 'pseudoscience' in order to claim and defend their own territory. The aim was to protect the autonomy of scientific research and to elicit financial support and political backup (Gieryn, American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781-795, 1983). This article builds on, redefines and extends Gieryn's concept of 'boundary-work' to apply to and include boundaries between ethical and non-ethical science, while emphasising the global scope of boundary work. It shows how scientists use both 'science' and 'bioethics' boundaries to demarcate their own territory and to exclude certain publics from debate in the field. By elaborating Gieryn's concept of boundary work in the new and different context of bioethical science regulation, the article shows how Chinese stem cell scientists, by using both kinds of boundaries— between science and pseudoscience and between ethical and non-ethical science—at the same time welcome and abhor bioethical research regulation. This article also indicates the need to understand this extended form of boundary making in terms of global science collaboration and competition. It shows how the self-awareness of scientists as global actors in stem cell science has led to a moral economy of science and ethics involving global boundaries rather than local conditions. Such boundary making does not just function to strengthen group identity and to elicit political support; it is also mobilised to direct and, in many cases, to ward off discussion with bioethicists and the public.

The advancement of technology has revolutionized education, particularly through video-based learning. In response, the Good Practices in Animal Research (BPEA, "Boas Práticas em Experimentação Animal" in Portuguese) platform was established as a contemporary educational tool for training in laboratory rodent experimental techniques. Designed to replace traditional animal-centered teaching methods, BPEA provided scientifically accurate video content tailored for veterinary medicine students. Mastering animal handling skills is crucial for veterinary students, and BPEA addressed this by offering video demonstrations of experimental procedures, allowing visualization and confidence-building before live animal interaction. The platform's video library covered diverse procedures, such as substance administration and blood collection, accompanied by protocols, images, and diagrams for enhanced learning. The intuitive menu facilitated easy navigation, enabling students to access content aligned with their needs. Website traffic analysis demonstrated widespread usage, with users from Portuguese-speaking countries being prominent. Integration of BPEA into the Laboratory Animal Science course at the University of São Paulo garnered positive student feedback, highlighting its value as a supplementary resource for bridging theoretical and practical learning. While BPEA showed promise in promoting ethical teaching practices and reducing animal stress, it could not entirely replace hands-on training. A balanced approach between video-based learning and live demonstrations is necessary for a comprehensive learning experience. In conclusion, BPEA was a valuable resource contributing to laboratory animal science education, aligning with ethical standards and benefiting students, researchers, and animal care professionals. Continuous improvements based on feedback make the platform a dynamic tool for future advancements in laboratory animal science education.

Good clinical practice in trauma care research: Considerations for inter-hospital patient transfers

In 1994, the Statisticians in the Pharmaceutical Industry published Guidelines for Standard Operating Procedures (GSOPs) on good statistical practice in clinical research. Background and rationale for the GSOPs and the latest release of these guidelines (August 1997) are included in this paper. Users of the GSOPs have found them to be useful when developing company standard operating procedures. The GSOPs help ensure a professional approach, adherence to good statistical practice, and compliance with regulatory requirements. GSOPs are always developing and evolving.

Trends and good practices in research and teaching. A Spanish-English collaboration

Qualitative research, like all scientific research, consists of comparing ideas with observations. In good research, the ideas are thereby changed—strengthened, weakened, qualified, or elaborated. Criteria for evaluating qualitative research focus...

Creating the