Bert Gordijn

This paper analyzes the ethics of social science research employing big data. We begin by highlighting the research gap found on the intersection between big data ethics, SSR and research ethics. We then discuss three aspects of big data SSR which make it warrant special attention from a research ethics angle: the interpretative character of both SSR and big data, complexities of anticipating and managing risks in publication and reuse of big data SSR, and the paucity of regulatory oversight and ethical recommendations on protecting individual subjects as well as societies when conducting big data SSR. Against this backdrop, we propose using David Resnik’s research ethics framework to analyze some of the most pressing ethical issues of big data SSR. Focusing on the principles of honesty, carefulness, openness, efficiency, respect for subjects, and social responsibility, we discuss three clusters of ethical issues: those related to methodological biases and personal prejudices, those connected to risks arising from data availability and reuse, and those leading to individual and social harms. Finally, we advance considerations to observe in developing future ethical guidelines about big data SSR.

This paper presents a literature review on the ethics of self-tracking technologies which are utilized by users to monitor parameters related to their activity and bodily parameters. By examining a total of 65 works extracted through a systematic database search and backwards snowballing, the authors of this review discuss three categories of opportunities and ten categories of concerns currently associated with self-tracking. The former include empowerment and well-being, contribution to health goals, and solidarity. The latter are social harms, privacy and surveillance, ownership control and commodification of data, autonomy, data-facilitated harm, datafication and interpretability of data, negative impact on relation to self and others, shortcomings of design, negative impact on health perception, and regulation and enforcement of rules. The review concludes with a critical analysis of the existing literature and an overview of a future research agenda that could complement the current work on ethics of self-tracking.

This article explores the impact of an Increase in the average Number of Authors per Publication on known ethical issues of authorship. For this purpose, the ten most common ethical issues associated with scholarly authorship are used to set up a taxonomy of existing issues and raise awareness among the community to take precautionary measures and adopt best practices to minimize the negative impact of INAP. We confirm that intense international, interdisciplinary and complex collaborations are necessary, and INAP is an expression of this trend. However, perverse incentives aimed to increase institutional and personal publication counts and egregious instances of guest or honorary authorship are problematic. We argue that whether INAP is due to increased complexity and scale of science, perverse incentives or undeserved authorship, it could negatively affect known ethical issues of authorship at some level. In the long run, INAP depreciates the value of authorship status and may disproportionately impact junior researchers and those who contribute to technical and routine tasks. We provide two suggestions that could reduce the long-term impact of INAP on the reward system of science. First, we suggest further refinement of the CRediT taxonomy including better integration into current systems of attribution and acknowledgement, and better harmony with major authorship guidelines such as those suggested by the ICMJE. Second, we propose adjustments to the academic recognition and promotion systems at an institutional level as well as the introduction of best practices.

BackgroundThe areas of Research Ethics (RE) and Research Integrity (RI) are rapidly evolving. Cases of research misconduct, other transgressions related to RE and RI, and forms of ethically questionable behaviors have been frequently published. The objective of this scoping review was to collect RE and RI cases, analyze their main characteristics, and discuss how these cases are represented in the scientific literature.MethodsThe search included cases involving a violation of, or misbehavior, poor judgment, or detrimental research practice in relation to a normative framework. A search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, JSTOR, Ovid, and Science Direct in March 2018, without language or date restriction. Data relating to the articles and the cases were extracted from case descriptions.ResultsA total of 14,719 records were identified, and 388 items were included in the qualitative synthesis. The papers contained 500 case descriptions. After applying the eligibility criteria, 238 cases were included in the analysis. In the case analysis, fabrication and falsification were the most frequently tagged violations (44.9%). The non-adherence to pertinent laws and regulations, such as lack of informed consent and REC approval, was the second most frequently tagged violation (15.7%), followed by patient safety issues (11.1%) and plagiarism (6.9%). 80.8% of cases were from the Medical and Health Sciences, 11.5% from the Natural Sciences, 4.3% from Social Sciences, 2.1% from Engineering and Technology, and 1.3% from Humanities. Paper retraction was the most prevalent sanction (45.4%), followed by exclusion from funding applications (35.5%).ConclusionsCase descriptions found in academic journals are dominated by discussions regarding prominent cases and are mainly published in the news section of journals. Our results show that there is an overrepresentation of biomedical research cases over other scientific fields compared to its proportion in scientific publications. The cases mostly involve fabrication, falsification, and patient safety issues. This finding could have a significant impact on the academic representation of misbehaviors. The predominance of fabrication and falsification cases might diverge the attention of the academic community from relevant but less visible violations, and from recently emerging forms of misbehaviors.

Researchers have been using generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) to support writing manuscripts for several years now. However, as GenAI evolves and scientists are using it more frequently, the case for mandatory disclosure of GenAI for writing assistance continues to diverge from the initial justifications for disclosure, namely (1) preventing researchers from taking credit for work done by machines; (2) enabling other researchers to critically evaluate a manuscript and its specific claims; and (3) helping editors determine if a submission satisfies their editorial policies. Our initial position (communicated through previous publications) regarding GenAI use for writing assistance was in favor of mandatory disclosure. Nevertheless, as we show in this paper, we have changed our position and now support instituting a voluntary disclosure policy because currently (1) the credit due to machines for assisting researchers is moving below the threshold of requiring recognition; (2) it is impractical (if not impossible) to accurately specify what parts of the text are human-/GenAI-generated; and (3) disclosures could increase biases against non-native speakers of the English language and compromise the integrity of the peer review system. Consequently, we argue, it should be up to the authors of manuscripts to disclose their use of GenAI for writing assistance. For example, in disciplines where writing is the hallmark of originality, or when authors believe disclosure is beneficial, a voluntary checkbox in manuscript submission systems, visible only after publication (rather than a free-text note in the manuscripts) would be preferable.

This introduction explains the rationale behind the volume at hand against the backdrop of the existing state of the art in research related to disasters and disaster bioethics. The volume offers an overview of how disasters are conceptualized in different academic disciplines relevant to disaster bioethics (Part I), and addresses normative issues that arise in responding to disasters from the perspective of a number of fundamental normative approaches in moral and political philosophy (Part II). Part I aims at identifying and exploring the dominant approaches to basic concepts and categorization criteria of disasters in different academic disciplines, including Philosophy, Theology, Law, Economics, Public Health, Literature Studies, Political Science, and Gender Studies. The eight chapters in Part I provide an introduction to conceptual research in disasters and aim to stimulate further work. It thereby contributes to enhanced awareness and recognition of the real-world importance of basic concepts and disaster criteria. Part II provides a broad range of normative perspectives (Consequentialism, Virtue Ethics, Kantian virtue ethics, Capabilities approach, Deontology, Human Rights and Communitarianism). These chapters are offered as a starting point, not a final conclusion on the topic of disaster ethics. Ethical justification for actions taken in the face of disasters needs recourse to normative traditions and this book aims at setting the stage for more focused normative debates.

Background Working in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) or pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) entails making difficult decisions about children at the end of their lives that raise significant ethical issues. This review identified the ethical content of the papers containing expert guidelines and recommendations in relation to end-of-life decisionmaking in NICUs and PICUs, by analyzing ethical positions and ethical principles behind them. Methods Systematic search was limited to the period from 1990 to 2023 and encompassed 6 bibliographic databases (Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus), grey literature sources and relevant reference lists. The international, national, or institutional papers providing expert guidelines and recommendations comprehensively addressing either withholding/withdrawing of life sustaining treatment, palliative care, and/or intentional life terminating actions in NICUs and PICUs were included in analysis. Also, only papers published in English language were considered. Papers that were not developed by intensive care expert communities and those that were either too narrow (e.g., dealing with specific issues or specific patient groups) or broad (e.g., addressing issues of interest on general and abstract level) were excluded. The search data were gathered and deduplicated, partly by Mendeley software. Titles and abstracts were screened by three independent reviewers, and full-text papers further reviewed and assessed for eligibility. Subsequently, data of interest were extracted, and qualitative analysis was performed. Results Initial search retrieved 6784 papers from bibliographic databases and 363 from other utilized sources. Titles and abstracts from 2827 papers were screened. 17 full texts were further assessed resulting in a total number of 9 papers (6 from bibliographic databases and 3 from other sources) which met the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. The papers were published from 2001 to 2021. Four papers primarily focus on NICU setting, while five on PICU. A total of 38 ethical positions were identified and were grouped under 5 themes according to the content of the positions, relating to: patients, parents, medical team, decision-making and treatment options. A total of 12 ethical principles were mentioned in the papers. The principle of beneficence emerged as the most prominent one. It was explicitly mentioned in all included papers except one.

Ambient assisted living technologies can provide assistance and support to persons with dementia. They might allow them the possibility of living at home for longer whilst maintaining their comfort and security as well as offering a way towards reducing the huge economic and personal costs forecast as the incidence of dementia increases worldwide over coming decades. However, the development, introduction and use of AAL technologies also trigger serious ethical issues. This paper is a systematic literature review of the on-going scholarly debate about these issues. More specifically, we look at the ethical issues involved in research and development, clinical experimentation, and clinical application of AAL technologies for people with dementia and related stakeholders. In the discussion we focus on: the value of the goals of AAL technologies, the special vulnerability of persons with dementia in their private homes, the complex question of informed consent for the usage of AAL technologies

This article contributes a systematically approached, up-to-date synthesis of the current literature on ethics and carbon pricing. This is the first study on this topic performed using PRISMA methodology. We identify 210 sources discussing the ethical arguments for and against a variety of carbon pricing instruments. By analysing the primary arguments within the debate, we offer insights for policymakers regarding the selection and design of emissions abatement policy instruments. The review indicates that carbon pricing remains divisive in the debate about ethical policy choices to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, for most price instruments, many ethical objections can be resolved with careful attention to the instrument design. Also, although careful policy design may not fully resolve all justice concerns raised, this is not necessarily a strong argument against carbon pricing as alternative mitigation instruments may leave some justice-relate concerns unresolved. The key exception is offsets, for which the literature does not offer a solid ethical defense. This result has two main implications. First, research on the ethics of carbon pricing speaks against relying on offsets to close the gap between the developing countries' needs and current climate finance flows. Instead, less controversial forms of carbon pricing — such as a carefully designed international carbon tax — may provide new and innovative sources of climate finance. Second, while many critiques of carbon pricing are focussed on the shortcomings of carbon pricing as a policy used in isolation from other tools, we call for further research on how to incorporate both pricing and non-pricing instruments into a more comprehensive climate policy.

Presented here is a systematic literature review of what the academic literature asserts about: (1) the stages of the ethical decision-making process (i.e. awareness, reasoning, motivation, and action) that are claimed to be improved or not improved by RI teaching and whether these claims are supported by evidence; (2) the measurements used to determine the effectiveness of RI teaching; and (3) the stage/s of the ethical decision-making process that are difficult to assess. Regarding (1), awareness was the stage most claimed to be amenable to improvement following RI teaching, and with motivation being the stage that is rarely addressed in the academic literature. While few, some sources claimed RI teaching cannot improve specific stages. With behaviour (action) being the stage referenced most, albeit in only 9% of the total sources, for not being amenable to improvement following RI teaching. Finally, most claims were supported by empirical evidence. Regarding (2), measures most frequently used are custom in-house surveys and some validated measures. Additionally, there is much debate in the literature regarding the adequacy of current assessment measures in RI teaching, and even their absence. Such debate warrants caution when we are considering the empirical evidence supplied to support that RI teaching does or does not improve a specific stage of the decision-making process. Regarding (3), only behaviour was discussed as being difficult to assess, if not impossible. In our discussion section we contextualise these results, and following this we derive some recommendations for relevant stakeholders in RI teaching.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.