Considerable demand for academic research and publications is not a new subject of discussion in the academic field. In Indonesia, there is increasing challenge and pressure to conduct scientific publications, making it a very competitive field for academics, particularly for lecturers and postgraduate students. The present study examines Indonesian scholars’ perceptions of academic publishing as a demand from institutions and the government, as well as their understanding of academic misconduct. We conducted a survey with open-ended questions to 55 scholars. (...) The results suggest that Indonesian scholars are knowledgeable about academic publishing and believe that this obligation is inevitable and beneficial for them. To what extent academic misconduct in publications falls under their understanding, though, is still unclear. When presented with information on academic misconduct, in particular using unethical publication services, they show an ambiguous and inconsistent manner, as if the misconduct is understandable. Interestingly, they also reveal other ethically dubious behaviors that appear to be common among Indonesian scholars. The findings indicate that the issue of academic misconduct is still addressed ambiguously by using publication demands as a scapegoat to justify certain unethical publication practices. (shrink)

Ethical violations can cause wasteful use of resources, unfair advantage for some scientists over others, and setting a bad example to the scientific community and young scientists_._ Awareness of these violations helps to prevent moral contamination of the academic community. A web-based survey with 30 items was sent to all residents and academic staff worked at different faculties in our university to evaluate the participants' thoughts and knowledge about academic publication ethics. There were 48 female and 53 male (...) respondents. 44.6% of the participants had never taken ethics courses. 57.4% of the participants think that the ethics course should be given throughout life. The responses to “when ethical course should be given?” was significantly different between males and females, but not according to academic titles and age ranges. Except residents, all participants had complete information about the predatory journals, books and congresses. 29% of the participants were not aware of ghost authorship and 20% were misinformed. The participants did not have sufficient knowledge and awareness about plagiarism, except for some sub-titles. Although lack of awareness is mostly evident among non-academicians, both academicians and non-academicians need to be educated and trained about plagiarism. (shrink)

Sometimes researchers explicitly or implicitly conceive of authorship in terms of moral or ethical rights to authorship when they are dealing with authorship issues. Because treating authorship as a right can encourage unethical behaviours, such as honorary and ghost authorship, buying and selling authorship, and unfair treatment of researchers, we recommend that researchers not conceive of authorship in this way but view it as a description about contributions to research. However, we acknowledge that the arguments we have given for this (...) position are largely speculative and that more empirical research is needed to better ascertain the benefits and risks of treating authorship on scientific publications as a right. (shrink)

Background Sharing anonymized/de-identified clinical trial data and publishing research outcomes in scientific journals, or presenting them at conferences, is key to data-driven scientific exchange. However, when data from scientific publications are linked to other publicly available personal information, the risk of reidentification of trial participants increases, raising privacy concerns. Therefore, we defined a set of criteria allowing us to determine and minimize the risk of data reidentification. We also implemented a review process at Takeda for clinical publications (...) prior to submission for publication in journals or presentation at medical conferences. Methods Abstracts, manuscripts, posters, and oral presentations containing study participant information were reviewed and the potential impact on study participant privacy was assessed. Our focus was on direct and indirect identifiers, such as sex, age or geographical indicators in rare disease studies or studies with small sample size treatment groups. Risk minimization was sought using a generalized presentation of identifier-relevant information and decision-making on data sharing for further research. Additional risk identification was performed based on study participant/personnel parameters present in materials destined for the public domain. The potential for participant/personnel identification was then calculated to facilitate presentation of meaningful but de-identified information. Results The potential for reidentification was calculated using a risk ratio of the exposed versus available individuals, with a value above the threshold of 0.09 deemed an unacceptable level of reidentification risk. We found that in 13% of Takeda clinical trial publications reviewed, either individuals could potentially be reidentified or inappropriate data sharing plans could pose a data privacy risk to study participants. In 1/110 abstracts, 58/275 manuscripts, 5/87 posters and 3/58 presentations, changes were necessary due to data privacy concerns/rules. Despite the implementation of risk-minimization measures prior to release, direct and indirect identifiers were found in 11% and 34% of the analysed documents, respectively. Conclusions Risk minimization using de-identification of clinical trial data presented in scientific publications and controlled data sharing conditions improved privacy protection for study participants. Our results also suggest that additional safeguards should be implemented to ensure that higher data privacy standards are met. (shrink)

ArgumentBy the late nineteenth century, science pedagogues and academicians became involved in a vast movement to popularize science throughout the Russian empire. With the aftermath of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, many now found the new Marxist state a willing supporter of their goals of spreading science to an under-educated public. In the Stalin era, Soviet state officials believed that the spread of science and technology had to coalesce with the Communist Party's utilitarian goals and needs to revive the industrial sector (...) of the economy. This resulted in a new Stalinist technologically oriented popularization campaign. In the Khrushchev era (1953–64), Soviet politicians became increasingly more aware of the competitive power of Soviet technology in the global arena and developed extensive campaigns to publicize Soviet feats for a broad domestic and foreign public audience. This was particularly true for topics such as the space program and big technologies such as nuclear power. (shrink)

We are currently witnessing a fundamental structural transformation of the scientific public sphere, characterized by processes of specialization, metrification, internationalization, platformization and visibilization. In contrast to explanations of this structural transformation that invoke a technological determinism, we demonstrate its historical contingency by drawing on analytic concepts from organization theory and the case of the Open Access transformation in Germany. The digitization of academic journals has not broadened access to scientific output but narrowed it down even further in the (...) course of the ‘serials crisis’. For a long time, research institutions were not able to convince large academic publishers to adopt less restrictive forms of access to academic journals. It was only through the emergence of new and in part illegal actors (shadow libraries and preprint servers) that the existing path could be broken, and an Open Access path constituted. Following this analysis, we discuss consequences of the Open Access transformation for the public spheres of science and democracy. We conclude that Open Access publishing can only help to transform both communicative spaces towards the normative ideal of a public sphere when complemented by systematic support for non-profit publication infrastructures. (shrink)

Este artículo aborda la labor de la revista Humanidades Médicas desde su creación en el 2001 hasta la actualidad y las principales acciones implementadas para contribuir al desarrollo de la publicación científica, que permitan elevar las competencias profesionales de autores, árbitros y editores, a partir de las deficiencias detectadas durante el proceso editorial y la necesidad de asesoramiento a los especialistas de otras revistas científicas cubanas que realizan el proceso de marcación para el proyecto SciELO. This article deals with the (...) work of Humanidades Médicas journal since its creation in 2001 up to the present, and the main actions implemented to contribute to the development of the scientific publication for increasing the professional competences of the authors, referees and editors, from the deficiencies detected during the editorial process and the need of counselling to specialists of other Cuban scientific journals that perform the process of marking for the SciELO project. (shrink)

A simple tool is provided to assist researchers in assessing contributions to a scientific publication, for ease in evaluating which contributors qualify for authorship, and in what order the authors should be listed. The tool identifies four phases of activity leading to a publication—Conception and Design, Data Acquisition, Analysis and Interpretation, and Manuscript Preparation. By comparing a project participant’s contribution in a given phase to several specified thresholds, a score of up to five points can be assigned; (...) the contributor’s scores in all four phases are summed to yield a total “contribution score”, which is compared to a threshold to determine which contributors merit authorship. This tool may be useful in a variety of contexts in which a systematic approach to authorial credit is desired. (shrink)

The subject matter of research is contradictions and moral-legal antinomies arising in the philosophy of science, in relation to a set of technologies called “Anti-Plagiarism”. The formal-logical and formal-axiological aspects of the notions “property”, “common property”, “private property”, “theft”, “plundering” and others are considered. The paper argues for the urgent necessity to allow authors unlimited reuse of any fragments of their previously published texts in their new publications actually containing novel scientific results. The condition is that such duplication is (...) indispensable for understanding and rechecking the novel discovers. The scientific novelty: theoretic arguments are exemplified by a hitherto never published new scientific result made within a discrete mathematical model of natural law of private and common ownership. (shrink)

La bibliografía reporta amplitud en lo concerniente al campo de la edición de revistas científicas donde los avances científico tecnológicos aportaron una nueva dinámica. Las nuevas tecnologías de la información y la comunicación sirven de herramientas y han transformado radicalmente el escenario de la evaluación de la publicación científica. Variedad de perspectivas, instrumentos e indicadores impactan en los procesos de evaluación. El objetivo de este trabajo es ofrecer una valoración del proceso actual de evaluación de las publicaciones científicas seriadas. Los (...) procedimientos utilizados son la revisión bibliográfica, análisis de textos y síntesis de los hallazgos desde lo teórico. Se concluye que la publicación científica seriada ha pasado a ser, más que un proceso singular de la comunicación científica, el modo fundamental de evaluación de la calidad del trabajo científico, de ahí la importancia de tener claridad y propuestas propias de los indicadores de la evaluación. There is amplitude in bibliography, regarding the edition of scientific journals, where the scientific technological achievements that have been made in recent times have contributed with a new dynamic. The edition in digital format has its name due to the appearance of the new information and communication technologies. The recently emerged perspectives, instruments and indicators impact evaluation of publications processes and the accreditation in the higher education. The aim of this document is to offer an assessment on the current situation of the evaluation process of serialized scientific publications through the use of indicators. The text analysis and bibliographic review procedures were used to achieve the previous goal. In conclusion, the serialized scientific publications have become the main way quality of scientific research evaluation rather than a specific process of scientific communication. That is why is important to be certain of the combination of indicators for evaluating the scientific publications. (shrink)

The object of this paper is two-fold: first, to show that contrary to what seem to have become a widely accepted view among historians of biology, the famous 1953 first Nature paper of Watson and Crick on the structure of DNA was widely cited — as compared to the average paper of the time — on a continuous basis from the very year of its publication and over the period 1953–1970 and that the citations came from a wide array (...) of scientific journals. A systematic analysis of the bibliometric data thus shows that Watson's and Crick's paper did in fact have immediate and long term impact if we define "impact" in terms of comparative citations with other papers of the time. In this precise sense it did not fall into "relative oblivion" in the scientific community. The second aim of this paper is to show, using the case of the reception of the Watson—Crick and Jacob—Monod papers as concrete examples, how large scale bibliometric data can be used in a sophisticated manner to provide information about the dynamic of the scientific field as a whole instead of limiting the analysis to a few major actors and generalizing the result to the whole community without further ado. (shrink)

Uncertainty is recognized as a key issue in water resources research, amongst other sciences. Discussions of uncertainty typically focus on tools and techniques applied within an analysis, e.g. uncertainty quantification and model validation. But uncertainty is also addressed outside the analysis, in writing scientific publications. The language that authors use conveys their perspective of the role of uncertainty when interpreting a claim —what we call here “framing” the uncertainty. This article promotes awareness of uncertainty framing in four ways. 1) (...) It proposes a typology of eighteen uncertainty frames, addressing five questions about uncertainty. 2) It describes the context in which uncertainty framing occurs. This is an interdisciplinary topic, involving philosophy of science, science studies, linguistics, rhetoric, and argumentation. 3) We analyze the use of uncertainty frames in a sample of 177 abstracts from the Water Resources Research journal in 2015. This helped develop and tentatively verify the typology, and provides a snapshot of current practice. 4) Provocative recommendations promote adjustments for a more influential, dynamic science. Current practice in uncertainty framing might be described as carefully-considered incremental science. In addition to uncertainty quantification and degree of belief (present in ~5% of abstracts), uncertainty is addressed by a combination of limiting scope, deferring to further work (~25%) and indicating evidence is sufficient (~40%) – or uncertainty is completely ignored (~8%). There is a need for public debate within our discipline to decide in what context different uncertainty frames are appropriate. Uncertainty framing cannot remain a hidden practice evaluated only by lone reviewers. (shrink)

Throughout the history of science, novel ideas that diverge from mainstream thought have often been met with condemnation, derision, and ad hominem attacks. These reactions have sometimes led to the premature rejection of such ideas, only for them to be later revived and even accepted as the prevailing paradigm. While robust debate is essential in science, the use of derogatory language is unethical, for it discourages research on existing hypotheses, deters funders, corrupts the scientific record, and delays or prevents (...) the advancement of science. In this article, I discuss the case of unethical language repeatedly used against proponents of the hypothesis that an extraterrestrial impact event triggered the Younger Dryas cool period. (shrink)

The aim of the article is to present the results of bibliometric analyzes of scientific papers on the quality management of medical services published in 2001–2017 and indexed in the Scopus database. The analysis uses basic techniques of bibliometric analysis with the technical support of VOSviewer software. The publication proposes an original procedure for analyzing the literature on the subject. The results of the study allowed to determine the trends in the number of publications from 2010 to 2017. (...) At the same time, an analysis of areas of science was presented, in which issues related to the management of the quality of medical services were analyzed, as well as citation of main authors and research centers. The whole analysis concerning the topic of quality management of medical services and bibliometric analysis of scientific works on the concepts and interrelations studied has identified the main six clusters that related to the management of quality of medical services ranging from broadly understood changes in healthcare organizations, internal quality management factors, development issues and education, regulation and standardization of the concept of quality improvement, and technological aspects of quality management in medical services. It seems, therefore, that the conducted studies can be considered as a specific guide for those interested in risk and uncertainty, despite the fact that they are not free of restrictions, for example, due to the narrowing of the time or criteria concerning the types of documents examined. In this context, the analyzes carried out give a wide range of opportunities to propose new research ideas on the above issues in contemporary organizations. (shrink)

Should scientific facts and methods have an epistemically privileged status in public reason? In Rawls’s public reason account he asserts what we will label the Scientific Standard Stricture: citizens engaged in public reason must be guided by non-controversial scientific methods, and public reason must be in line with non-controversial scientific conclusions. The Scientific Standard Stricture is meant to fulfill important tasks such as enabling the determinateness and publicity of the public reason framework. However, Rawls leaves (...) us without elucidation with regard to when science is and is not ‘non-controversial’ and more importantly, we are left without a justification for a stricture which excludes certain controversial beliefs and methods of inquiry from the realm of political justification. In this article, we offer what we deem to be the most plausible interpretation of Rawls’s Scientific Standards Stricture. We then use Rawls’s general theoretical framework to examine various potential justifications for privileging these ‘non-controversial’ scientific methods and conclusions. We conclude that no viable justification is available to Rawls. (shrink)

In the last decade, there has been increased recognition of the importance of disclosing and managing non-financial conflicts of interests to safeguard the objectivity, integrity, and trustworthiness of scientific research. While funding agencies and academic institutions have had policies for addressing non-financial interests in grant peer review and research oversight since the 1990s, scientific journals have been only recently begun to develop such policies. An impediment to the formulation of effective journal policies is that non-financial interests can be (...) difficult to recognize and define. Journals can overcome this problem by providing guidance concerning the types of non-financial interests that should be disclosed, including direct research interests, direct professional interests, expert testimony, involvement in litigation, holding a leadership position in a non-governmental organization, providing technical or scientific advice to a non-governmental organization, and personal or professional relationships. The guidance should apply to authors, editors, and reviewers. (shrink)

Responsible public policy making in a technological society must rely on complex scientific reasoning. Given that ordinary citizens cannot directly assess such reasoning, does this call the democratic legitimacy of technical public policies in question? It does not, provided citizens can make reliable second-order assessments of the consensus of trustworthy scientific experts. I develop criteria for lay assessment of scientific testimony and demonstrate, in the case of claims about anthropogenic global warming, that applying such criteria is easy (...) for anyone of ordinary education with access to the Web. However, surveys show a gap between the scientific consensus and public opinion on global warming in the U.S. I explore some causes of this gap and argue that democratic reforms of our culture of political discourse may be able to address it. (shrink)

Irregularities in data/results of scientific research might be spotted pre-publication by co-workers and reviewers, or post-publication by readers typically with vested interest. The latter might consist of fellow researchers in the same subject area who would naturally pay closer attention to a published paper. However, it is increasingly apparent that there are readers who interrogate papers in detail with a primary intention to identify potential problems with the work. Here, we consider post-publication peer review (PPPR) by (...) individuals, or groups of individuals, who perform PPPRs with a perceptible intention to actively identify irregularities in published data/results and to expose potential research fraud or misconduct, or intentional misconduct exposing (IME)-PPPR. On one hand, such activities, when done anonymously or pseudonymously with no formal discourse, have been deemed as lacking in accountability, or perceived to incur some degree of maleficence, and have been labelled as vigilantism. On the other, these voluntary works have unravelled many instances of research misconduct and have helped to correct the literature. We explore the tangible benefits of IME-PPPR in detecting errors in published papers and from the perspectives of moral permissibility, research ethics, and the sociological perspective of science. We posit that the benefits of IME-PPPR activities that uncover clear evidence of misconduct, even when performed anonymously or pseudonymously, outweigh their perceived deficiencies. These activities contribute to a vigilant research culture that manifests the self-correcting nature of science, and are in line with the Mertonian norms of scientific ethos. (shrink)

Animal welfare scientific literature has accumulated rapidly in recent years, but bias may exist which influences understanding of progress in the field. We conducted a survey of articles related to animal welfare or well being from an electronic database. From 8,541 articles on this topic, we randomly selected 115 articles for detailed review in four funding categories: government; charity and/or scientific association; industry; and educational organization. Ninety articles were evaluated after unsuitable articles were rejected. The welfare states of (...) animals in new treatments, conventional treatments or control groups with no treatment were classified as high, medium or low according to one or more. More articles were published in which the welfare of animals in new treatments was better than that of animals in the conventional or no treatment groups, demonstrating a positive result bias. Failure to publish studies with negative or inconclusive results may lead to other scientists unnecessarily repeating the research. The authors’ assessments of the welfare state of the groups were similarly rated high, medium or low, and it was found that new treatments were rated lower if the research was funded by industry, and higher when funded by charities, with government funding agencies intermediate. These differences were not evident in the Five Freedoms assessment, demonstrating an authors’ assessment bias that appeared to support the funding agencies’ interests. North American funded publications rated the welfare of animals in New treatments higher and those in a Conventional or No Treatment lower, compared with European-funded publications. It is concluded that preliminary evidence was provided of several forms of publication bias in animal welfare science. (shrink)

When scientific research collides with social values, science's right to self-governance becomes an issue of paramount concern. In this article, I develop an account of scientific autonomy within a framework of public oversight. I argue that scientific autonomy is justified because it promotes the progress of science, which benefits society, but that restrictions on autonomy can also be justified to prevent harm to people, society, or the environment, and to encourage beneficial research. I also distinguish between different (...) ways of limiting scientific autonomy, and I argue that government involvement in scientific decision-making should usually occur through policies that control the process of science, rather than policies that control the content of science. (shrink)

In this article, we explore the institutional negotiation of public engagement in matters of science and technology. We take the example of the Science in Society dialogue program initiated by the UK’s Royal Society, but set this case within the wider experience of the public engagement activities of a range of charities, corporations, governmental departments, and scientific institutions. The novelty of the analysis lies in the linking of an account of the dialogue event and its outcomes to the values, (...) practices, and imperatives—the institutional rationality—of the commissioning organization. We argue that the often tacit institutional construction of scientific citizenship is a critical, and relatively undeveloped, element of analysis—one that offers considerable insight into the practice and democratic implications of engaging publics in science and science policy. We also present evidence indicating that over time the expanding ‘‘capacities’’ associated with dialogue can act in subtle ways to enroll other elements of institutional architectures into more reflexive modes of thinking and acting. In the concluding section of the article, we consider the ways in which research and practice could engage more squarely with facets of institutional context and culture. (shrink)

Animal welfare scientific literature has accumulated rapidly in recent years, but bias may exist which influences understanding of progress in the field. We conducted a survey of articles related to animal welfare or well being from an electronic database. From 8,541 articles on this topic, we randomly selected 115 articles for detailed review in four funding categories: government; charity and/or scientific association; industry; and educational organization. Ninety articles were evaluated after unsuitable articles were rejected. The welfare states of (...) animals in new treatments, conventional treatments or control groups with no treatment were classified as high, medium or low according to one or more. More articles were published in which the welfare of animals in new treatments was better than that of animals in the conventional or no treatment groups, demonstrating a positive result bias. Failure to publish studies with negative or inconclusive results may lead to other scientists unnecessarily repeating the research. The authors’ assessments of the welfare state of the groups were similarly rated high, medium or low, and it was found that new treatments were rated lower if the research was funded by industry, and higher when funded by charities, with government funding agencies intermediate. These differences were not evident in the Five Freedoms assessment, demonstrating an authors’ assessment bias that appeared to support the funding agencies’ interests. North American funded publications rated the welfare of animals in New treatments higher and those in a Conventional or No Treatment lower, compared with European-funded publications. It is concluded that preliminary evidence was provided of several forms of publication bias in animal welfare science. (shrink)

Una búsqueda en la historia de las publicaciones de la provincia de Camagüey, fundamentalmente revistas y periódicos que incluyeron artículos de carácter científico entre las décadas del treinta y el cincuenta del siglo XX, es propósito esencial de este trabajo. El sondeo realizado permitió la valoración de la figura de la primera doctora camagüeyana en Medicina Gertrudis Aguilera Céspedes y su actuación descollante en este período. Para ello se revisaron los documentos que atesoran la Sala de Fondos Raros y Valiosos (...) de la Biblioteca Provincial “Julio Antonio Mella”, el Departamento de Investigaciones del Museo Provincial “Ignacio Agramonte” y bibliotecas particulares de algunos médicos y profesionales del territorio. La búsqueda condujo a la demostración del impacto que en el orden científico representó esta galena y además, una contribución para preservar la memoria cultural de nuestra ciudad A search in the Camagüey´s publications, mainly articles with scientific purposes during the thirty's up to the fifty's in the XX Century, is covered under the scope of this work. The study was carried out to value the figure of the first female doctor in Medicine Gertrudis Aguilera Cespedes and her outstanding performance at that time. Some journals and documents from different libraries were revised. The search led to the demonstration of the impact that Tula Aguilera represented for this scientific field, at the same time this is a contribution to preserve the cultural memory of Camagüey city. (shrink)

Redundant publication in biomedical sciences is the presentation of the same information or data set more than once. Forms of redundant publication include “salami slicing”, in which similar text accompanies data presented in disaggregated fashion in different publications and “duplicate or multiple publication” in which identical information is presented with a virtually identical text. Estimates of prevalence of the phenomenon put it at 10 to 25% of published literature. Redundant publication can be considered unethical, or fraudulent, (...) when the author(s) attempt to conceal the existence of duplicate publication from editors and readers. Redundant publication in the area of clinical trials is potentially dangerous as it tends to overestimate the effects of interventions. The scientific community at large and governments should take urgent steps to safeguard the public from the possible effects of fraudulent multiple publications. (shrink)

The paper addresses issues of scientific conduct regarding relations between science and the media, relations between scientists and journalists, and attitudes towards the public at large. In the large and increasing body of literature on scientific conduct and misconduct, these issues seem underexposed as ethical challenges. Consequently, individual scientists here tend to be left alone with problems and dilemmas, with no guidance for good conduct. Ideas are presented about how to make up for this omission. Using a practical, (...) ethical approach, the paper attempts to identify ways scientists might deal with ethical public relations issues, guided by a norm or maxim of openness. Drawing on and rethinking the CUDOS codification of the scientific ethos, as it was worked out by Robert K. Merton in 1942, we propose that this, which is echoed in current codifications of norms for good scientific conduct, contains a tacit maxim of openness which may naturally be extended to cover the public relations of science. Discussing openness as access, accountability, transparency and receptiveness, the argumentation concentrates on the possible prevention of misconduct with respect to, on the one hand, sins of omission—withholding important information from the public—and, on the other hand, abuses of the authority of science in order to gain publicity. Statements from interviews with scientists are used to illustrate how scientists might view the relevance of the issues raised. (shrink)

In this paper I try to challenge some received views about the role and the function of the traditional academic practice of publishing papers in peer?reviewed journals. I argue that our publishing practices today are rather based on passively accepted social norms and humdrum work habits than on actual needs for communicating the advancements of our research. By analysing some examples of devices and practices that are based on tacitly accepted norms, such as the Citation Index and the new role (...) of DOI attributions in digital publishing, I advocate an epistemically vigilant stance not only towards our ways of acquiring knowledge, but also towards the implicit norms we accept when we produce research. (shrink)

Despite decades of concerted efforts to communicate to the public on important scientific issues pertaining to the environment and public health, gaps between public acceptance and the scientific consensus on these issues remain stubborn. One strategy for dealing with this shortcoming has been to focus on the existence of scientific consensus on the relevant matters. Recent science communication research has added support to this general idea, though the interpretation of these studies and their generalizability remains a matter (...) of contention. In this paper, we describe results of a qualitative interview study on different models of scientific consensus and the relationship between such models and trust of science, finding that familiarity with scientific consensus is rarer than might be expected. These results suggest that consensus messaging strategies may not be effective. (shrink)

Most, if not all, journals require the use of Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, to be acknowledged. This article argues that current guidelines do not go far enough as the use of an LLM may be acknowledged but the reviewers, and future readers, do not know which parts of the article were generated with AI (Artificial Intelligence) assistance and how that text was subsequently edited. It’s possible that an entire article could be generated with AI and, as long, (...) as the authors acknowledge that an LLM was used then they are meeting the journal’s guidelines. In this opinion article current publisher guidelines are examined, followed by a brief case study which highlights some of the issues that the scholarly community faces. Proposed changes to the guidelines are presented which say that LLM prompts, and the generated text, should be provided to the reviewers, and to future readers, so that they can see which parts of the article were generated and what edits were made to that text. (shrink)

Recent advances in our understanding of the human genome have raised high hopes for the creation of personalized medicine able to predict diseases well before they occur, or that will lead to individualized and therefore more effective treatments. This possibility of a more accurate science of the prevention and surveillance of disease also illuminates the field of public health, where the translation of genomic knowledge could provide tools enhancing the capacity of public health authorities to promote health and prevent diseases. (...) But beyond scientific considerations, the use of genomics in public health research and interventions gives rise to several ethical and social issues of great importance. Considering the impact that PHG could have on the future of public health while still paying attention to the uncertainty surrounding the use of genomic databases for the benefit of populations, this article seeks to explore the promise of genomics in public health and the ethical issues that emerge from its application. (shrink)

I defend three main conclusions. First, whether a method is public is important, because non-public methods are scientifically illegitimate. Second, there are substantive prescriptive differences between the view that private methods are legitimate and the view that private methods are illegitimate. Third, Descriptive Experience Sam-pling is a public method.

This paper examines normative and political aspects of the peer review, scientific consensus and public policy processes related to harmful algal blooms of Pfiesteria in estuarine waters of North Carolina and Maryland in the 1990s. After laying out a brief science and policy case history, the tension between the scientific consensus and public policy processes in this case is analyzed in terms of conflicts between scientific norms, public values and political expediency. The relationship between scientific consensus (...) and public policy in general is then questioned in light of this case. (shrink)

This paper examines the reaction of Victorian Presbyterian culture to the theory of evolution in late nineteenth century Scotland. Focusing on the role played by the Free Church theologian, biblical critic and anthropological theorist, William Robertson Smith, it argues that, compared with Smith’s radical scholarship, evolutionary theories did little to disturb the Scottish Calvinist mind-set. After surveying the attitudes to evolution among a range of theological leaders, the paper examines Smith’s fundamentally threatening proposals and the circumstances that led to the (...) public spectacle of his dismissal from his Free Church professorship. It concludes by suggesting that, ironically, even while his fellow churchmen were making their peace with Darwin, Smith was mobilising an evolutionary outlook that challenged Scotland’s conservative religious culture to its very core. (shrink)

This paper considers the relation between philosophical discussions of, and social-scientific research into popular beliefs about, distributive justice. The first part sets out the differences and tensions between the two perspectives, identifying considerations which tend to lead adherents of each discipline to regard the other as irrelevant to its concerns. The second discusses four reasons why social scientists might benefit from philosophy: problems in identifying inconsistency, the fact that non-justice considerations might underlie distributive judgments, the way in which different (...) principles of justice can yield the same concrete distributive judgments, and the ambiguity of key terms. The third part distinguishes and evaluates three versions of the claim that normative theorising about justice can profit from empirical research into public opinion: that its findings are food for thought, that they amount to feasibility constraints, and that they are constitutive of normatively justified principles of justice. The view that popular opinion about justice has a strongly constitutive role to play in justifying principles of distributive justice stricto sensu is rejected, but it is argued that what the people think (and what they can reasonably be expected to come to think) on distributive matters can be an important factor for the political theorist to take into account, for reasons of legitimacy, or feasibility, or both. (shrink)

Recent and ongoing developments in science and technology - such as the prevention and treatment of disease through genetics and the development of increasingly sophisticated computer systems with wide-ranging applications - hold out the promise of vastly improving the quality of human life, but they can also raise serious ethical, legal, and public policy questions. The thirteen essays in this volume address these questions and related issues from a variety of perspectives. Written by prominent philosophers, economists, and legal theorists, these (...) essays offer valuable insights into the nature of scientific innovation and its implications for our social policies and practices. (shrink)

This essay analyzes the concept of public trust in science and offers some guidance for ethicists, scientists, and policymakers who use this idea defend ethical rules or policies pertaining to the conduct of research. While the notion that public trusts science makes sense in the abstract, it may not be sufficiently focused to support the various rules and policies that authors have tried to derive from it, because the public is not a uniform body with a common set of interests. (...) Well-focused arguments that use public trust to support rules or policies for the conduct of research should specify (a) which public is being referred to (e.g. the general public or a specific public, such as a particular community or group); (b) what this public expects from scientists; (c) how the rule or policy will ensure that these expectations are met; and (d) why is it important to meet these expectations. (shrink)

Disclosure of financial interests in scientific research is the centerpiece of the new conflict of interest regulations issued by the U.S. Public Health Service and the National Science Foundation that became effective October 1, 1995. Several scientific journals have also established financial disclosure requirements for contributors. This paper measures the frequency of selected financial interests held among authors of certain types of scientific publications and assesses disclosure practices of authors. We examined 1105 university authors (first and last (...) cited) from Massachusetts institutions whose 789 articles, published in 1992, appeared in 14 scientific and medical journals. (shrink)