Selected Ethical Issues in the Analysis and Reporting of Research: Survey of Business School Faculty in Malaysia

This study reports the perceptions of business school faculty on ethical behaviors related to data analysis and research reporting as well as the prevalence of such behaviors in their academic environment. Survey data for the study were obtained from a sample of 102 business school faculty from five government-funded universities in Malaysia. Study results showed that a majority of the respondents considered practices such as fabrication, manipulation, and distortion of data to be ethically unacceptable, and these behaviors were reported to be least prevalent. In contrast, the practice of misapplying statistical techniques was considered ethically acceptable and reported to be quite prevalent. On research reporting, although a majority of the respondents agreed that plagiarism and taking undeserved authorship credit were ethically unacceptable, they also reported having observed the frequent occurrence of such behaviors. Finally, practices such as cutting up research data and simultaneous submissions to more than one publication outlet at the same time were less likely to be viewed as unethical and seen to be quite a common practice. In general, the findings of this study indicate that the perceptions of the ethicality and frequency of occurrence of behaviors related to data analysis and research reporting vary among business school faculty.     

Reflecting team processes in family therapy: a search for research

Tom Andersen's Reflecting Team approach is widely (and creatively) employed in family therapy. Despite continuing enthusiasm for the practice, however, there are few journal articles reporting empirical research and only one (now dated) review of the literature. After defining reflecting team processes through practices that are embedded in particular approaches to knowledge construction and theoretical interpretation, we offer an overview of the empirical research found in our search of the literature. In the second half of this article we ask why there is so little existing research in this area. Various possible explanations are explored and future directions proposed. We conclude that a dialogue around the complex interweaving of practice, theory and research (that is, praxis) would be a helpful overall stance to adopt in relation to future work in this area.     

Missing data: prevalence and reporting practices

Results are described for a survey assessing prevalence of missing data and reporting practices in studies with missing data in a random sample of empirical research journal articles from the PsychINFO database for the year 1999, two years prior to the publication of a special section on missing data in Psychological Methods. Analysis indicates missing data problems were found in about one-third of the studies. Further, analytical methods and reporting practices varied widely for studies with missing data. One may consider these results as baseline data to assess progress as reporting standards evolve for studies with missing data. Some potential reporting standards are discussed.     

The India Experience

This article featuring India constitutes one of five articles in a collection of essays on local capacity-building in research ethics by graduates from the University of Toronto’s Joint Centre for Bioethics MHSc in Bioethics, International Stream program funded by the Fogarty International Center for Advanced Study in the Health Sciences. Research ethics is a growing area of work and interest in India. Ethics review remains the weakest component in the mechanism of good clinical practice, and there is a severe dearth of professionals trained in ethics who can provide leadership. Although the Indian Good Clinical Practice Guidelines, the Indian Medical Council Act, and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act require that the Indian Council of Medical Research’s ethical guidelines be followed as a mandatory requirement for physicians who conduct research, there is a pervasive lack of awareness of basic requirements guiding the ethical conduct of research. There is a great need to strengthen India’s research ethics capacity and regulatory framework for research.     

Systemic family therapy can be manualized: research process and findings

Determining the efficacy of therapeutic interventions is becoming an increasing political and ethical necessity. Comparative therapeutic outcome trials are most powerful when there is a precise specification, or manualization, of the forms that therapies took. Manuals have begun to be developed for structural/behavioural family therapy and couple therapy. The development of these manuals is often reliant on experts' self-report, rather than a systematic analysis of the therapeutic process as it happens. This can limit their validity and applicability to standard clinical practice. In addition, no manuals exist which reflect less structured forms of family therapy aimed at incorporating systemic, postmodern and narrative frameworks. The feasibility of producing a workable manual that reflects the fluidity of such practices has been questioned.
A research project to systematically create and test such a manual is reported. Multiple data sources and research methods, primarily qualitative, were applied to generate a rich specification of the therapy. In reporting these results the contents of various aspects of the final manual are indicated. Procedures to ensure that the prescribed practice is consistent with a widely used approach to systemic family therapy are also described.
The manual will be an important tool for outcome research and therapeutic practice. The account of the research process should be helpful to researchers engaged in constructing a manual for other models of family therapy based on a rigorous analysis of actual practice. The manual itself is available for use by outcome researchers who wish to evaluate this widely used form of systemic family therapy.     

Why researchers don't study women: The responses of 62 researchers

Sixty-two researchers accounting for 64 single-sex studies that appeared in 1970 1971 issues of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology reported why they had limited their studies to a single sex and why they had preferred either males or females for their studies. Also, articles and abstracts were read as a way of checking researchers' reporting practices. The replies were analyzed for thematic content and formed three major types: scientific (56%), practical (28%), and extrascientific (15%). The responses helped to explain why there has been an imbalance in psychology which led to the study of men rather than women instead of the exploration of both sexes. Sggestions are offered to help counteract this trend in future psychological research and reporting.     

Debriefing and accountability in deceptive research

Debriefing is a standard ethical requirement for human research involving the use of deception. Little systematic attention, however, has been devoted to explaining the ethical significance of debriefing and the specific ethical functions that it serves. In this article, we develop an account of debriefing as a tool of moral accountability for the prima facie wrong of deception. Specifically, we contend that debriefing should include a responsibility to promote transparency by explaining the deception and its rationale, to provide an apology to subjects for infringing the principle of respect for persons, and to offer subjects an opportunity to withdraw their data. We also present recommendations concerning the discussion of deception in scientific articles reporting the results of research using deception.     

Outcome Knowledge and Under‐reporting of Safety Concerns in Aviation

High‐risk industries may learn from accidents, incidents and unsafe behaviours if they are reported and investigated. Despite this, significant under‐reporting of safety concerns occurs. One possible explanation is that because concerns cannot always be reported immediately, the outcome of the concern may influence whether reports are made. In Study 1, participants judged six vignettes in which unsafe acts were described: bad outcomes were judged as more likely to be reported than identical acts with innocuous outcomes. Informing participants that luck may determine whether an outcome is innocuous or bad could increase the reporting of unsafe acts with innocuous outcomes. Although implicit prompts did not increase the likelihood of reporting innocuous outcomes (Study 2), there was evidence that explicit prompts to report safety issues with innocuous outcomes increased the likelihood of reporting. Suggestions for further research and a means to reduce the effect of outcome bias on under‐reporting are presented. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Reporting Race and Ethnicity in Genetics Research: Do Journal Recommendations or Resources Matter?

Appeals to scrutinize the use of race and ethnicity as variables in genetics research notwithstanding, these variables continue to be inadequately explained and inconsistently used in research publications. In previous research, we found that published genetic research fails to follow suggestions offered for addressing this problem, such as explaining the basis on which these labels are assigned to populations. This study, an analysis of genetic research articles using race or ethnicity terms, explores possible features of journals that are associated with improved reporting of race and ethnicity in genetic research. A journal’s expressed commitment to improving how race and ethnicity are used in genetic research, demonstrated by an editorial or in its instructions to authors, was the strongest predictor of following recommendations about reporting race and ethnicity. Journal impact factor had only a limited positive effect on attention to these issues, suggesting that editorial resources associated with higher impact factor journals are not sufficient to improve practices. Our findings reiterate that race and ethnicity variables are used inconsistently in genetic research, but also shed light on how journals might improve practices by highlighting the need for scientists to carefully scrutinize the use of these variables in their work.     

A Systematic Review of Propensity Score Methods in the Social Sciences

The use of propensity scores in psychological and educational research has been steadily increasing in the last 2 to 3 years. However, there are some common misconceptions about the use of different estimation techniques and conditioning choices in the context of propensity score analysis. In addition, reporting practices for propensity score analyses often lack important details that allow other researchers to confidently judge the appropriateness of reported analyses and potentially to replicate published findings. In this article we conduct a systematic literature review of a large number of published articles in major areas of social science that used propensity scores up until the fall of 2009. We identify common errors in estimation, conditioning, and reporting of propensity score analyses and suggest possible solutions.     

Forensic standards in the American Psychological Association's new ethics code

The 1992 revision of the American Psychological Association's ethics code includes, for the first time, a section devoted to forensic issues. This article examines the adequacy with which the Forensic Activities section addresses fundamental ethical issues inherent in forensic practices (i.e., being competent in forensic practice, dealing with requests for service, providing informed consent, providing services, and reporting findings). We conclude that the ethics code modestly addresses important forensic ethical issues and that it too often is characterized by inconsistencies, insufficient information, omissions, and the inappropriate application of the term forensic to general standards not uniquely related to forensic practice.     

The Pakistan Experience

This article featuring Pakistan constitutes one of five articles in a collection of essays on local capacity-building in research ethics by graduates from the University of Toronto’s Joint Centre for Bioethics MHSc in Bioethics, International Stream programme funded by the Fogarty International Center for Advanced Study in the Health Sciences (FIC). Research ethics in Pakistan is an emerging field seeking to articulate best ethical standards for research practices. It is best understood as the initiation of a dialogue. Still, there are weak mechanisms for research ethics and there is an absence of mechanisms for monitoring ongoing research, particularly for assessing compliance with the recommendations of ethics review committees. Further, there are few qualified individuals in research ethics in both the private and public sectors. There are multiple challenges associated with research ethics, many of them stemming from issues around development and democratization, which cannot be addressed by guidelines and regulatory processes alone.     

论临床试验中的治疗性误解及对策

研究和临床治疗在根本目的、基本方法、风险的正当性,以及应遵循的伦理原则等多方面都存在着根本性的区别。在临床试验的理论与实践中,混淆治疗与研究两者的区别,就会造成治疗性误解,从而违背科研伦理的知情同意原则,损害受试者的利益。以研究和治疗的区分为出发点,对治疗性误解的原因、引起的主要伦理问题及对策加以讨论。     

Expression of Concern

‘How Leader‐Member Exchange Influences Effective Work Behaviors: Social Exchange and Internal‐External Efficacy Perspectives’ by Fred O. Walumbwa, Russell Cropanzano, and Barry M. Goldman DOI: 10.1111/j.1744‐6570.2011.01224.x ‘Leadership in Action Teams: Team Leader and Members’ Authenticity, Authenticity Strengths, and Team Outcomes’ by Sean T. Hannah, Fred O. Walumbwa, and Louis W. Fry DOI:10.1111/j.1744‐6570.2011.01225.x Concern has been raised in relation to five articles published in Personnel Psychology between 2007 and 2011. The substance of the complaint is that the fit statistics reported in the articles contain numerous errors. The journal has conducted an investigation into the matter, including seeking the opinion of a third party. In the case of three of the articles, any errors or omissions were either reconciled or determined not to significantly affect the articles’ findings or conclusions. In the case of the two articles listed above, published online on 22 August 2011 in Wiley Online Library, and in Volume 64, pp. 739–770 and 771–802, respectively, the journal concluded that there may be errors in some of the reported fit statistics, but it is difficult to understand the nature of the potential errors and their implications unless the raw data is made available. Unfortunately, the journal was not provided with the raw data, despite repeated requests to the authors. In the case of the second article (Hannah et al., 2011), a governmental agency confirmed that they collected the data and controlled its storage, but no longer maintained the data after five years and thus could not make it available. Thus, consistent with guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), this Expression of Concern is issued by agreement of the Editor, Bradford S. Bell, and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. to make our readers aware of the potential issues with the results reported in these articles. Dr. Walumbwa, a co‐author on the five respective articles, has requested that readers be informed that he was responsible for the analyses. The journal has updated its article submission process such that authors will now have to explicitly agree to retain their raw data for a minimum of 5 years after publication of the research and to provide their data for verification when requested by the journal and editor, providing confidentiality of participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.     

Impact of Excessive Journal Self-Citations: A Case Study on the Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica Journal

There is an increasing trend towards assessing the scientific performance of researchers and institutions of higher learning in the form of journal publications and the associated citations. Currently, the journal impact factor (JIF) value is the most widely used measure for any academic contents. However, there are growing concerns for the unethical practices adopted by journal editors to manipulate the JIF computations. Recently, a Swiss journal, Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica which has a JIF value of 0.655 in the year 2006 registers a remarkable JIF increment (of 119%) to 1.439 in the year 2007. It is believed that the journal can achieve such a prominent JIF improvement by publishing a single editorial article that self-cited 66 of its own articles published either in the year 2005 or 2006. The journal has been revoked of any JIF value in the following year of 2008. Thus, it is interesting to review the possible alternative bibliographical trend for the journal should the self-cite event has been avoided, the circumstances leading to the decision by the editor to publish such an article and the possible ethical implications or lessons that can be derived from this incident.     

Ethical problems in research on risky behaviors and risky populations

The articles by Brooks-Gunn, Fisher, Hoagwood, Liss and Scott-Jones (all in this issue) present a panoply of real-world ethical issues in conducting scientific research on risky behaviors of children, adolescents, and their parents, particularly those from vulnerable populations. The universal, ethical principles of beneficence, justice, and respect for others are always applicable, but they do not resolve issues of child assent, parental consent, legal reporting requirements for illegal behaviors, and the special problems of studying risky behaviors in risky populations. Taken as a group, the articles raise some of the most interesting ethical problems that arise in developmental research. My discussion elaborates some issues and fails to resolve others. I hold the view that both science and ethics can be served by thoughtfully designed and implemented research on important social issues, but that the studies themselves cannot simultaneously solve the many societal problems of participants and be scientifically credible.     

The Stories We Tell: Introduction to the Special Issue on Ethical Challenges in Community Psychology Research and Practice

This Special Issue examines ethical challenges in community psychology research and practice. The literature on ethics in community psychology has remained largely abstract and aspirational, with few concrete examples and case studies, so the goal of this Special Issue was to expand our written discourse about ethical dilemmas in our field. In these articles, researchers and practitioners share stories of specific ethical challenges they faced and how they sought to resolve them. These first‐person narratives examine how ethical challenges come about, how community psychology values inform ethical decision making, and how lessons learned from these experiences can inform an ethical framework for community psychology.     

The future of psychotherapy outcome research: science or political rhetoric?

Although the relationship between research and clinical psychology has at times been conflicted, it has also been productive. Psychologists from both specialties have benefited from each others' work. The area of psychotherapy outcome research represents an important interface between the fields of clinical and research psychology. In an era of scarce resources and demands for accountability, there is pressure for researchers to justify the value of clinical practices. Recently, numerous articles have appeared recommending changes to the way psychotherapy research is conducted. The authors of these articles emphasize with urgency the importance of conducting and reporting research in a manner that will influence the decisions of policymakers and sanction funding for psychotherapy services. This article is an exploration of the impact of these recommendations, whose objective appears to be the promotion of psychological techniques for inclusion in clinical practice guidelines. It is argued that such recommendations may be in conflict with the philosophy and methods of science and may adversely affect public perception, perhaps leading psychologists to be seen as political lobbyists rather than clinicians and researchers.