Literature DB >> 10905651

Research ethics: ethical issues of data reporting and the quest for authenticity.

C A Marco1, G L Larkin.   

Abstract

The search for truth and its unbiased reporting are ultimate goals of conducting scientific research. Ideally, the reporting of research data ought to be an objective task. In practice, however, it is fraught with numerous statistical and ethical pitfalls, seldom addressed in formal emergency medicine training. The lure of academic celebrity and related influences may persuade researchers to report results in ways that make data appear more interesting, or worthy of publication. Several examples of potentially misleading data reporting are illustrated, including using inappropriate statistical tests, neglecting negative results, omitting missing data points, failing to report actual numbers of eligible subjects, using inappropriate graph labels or terminology, data dredging, and others. Although potentially inaccurate or inflated methods of data reporting may not constitute overt scientific misconduct, the intentional misrepresentation of data is a form of fraud or deception. Publicly funded academic inquiry is a privilege and honor enjoyed by a trusted few. Regardless of outcome, every effort should be made to report data in the most scientifically accurate method. To this end, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Code of Conduct and American College of Emergency Physicians Code of Ethics provide important guidance toward the accurate, compassionate, competent, impartial, and honest conduct of scientific research. Accuracy and authenticity in data reporting are first and foremost a matter of individual integrity, and are crucial to the preservation of academic credibility, the protection of future patients, and the public's trust in the medical research enterprise.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10905651     DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2000.tb02049.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Emerg Med        ISSN: 1069-6563            Impact factor:   3.451


  13 in total

Review 1.  Risk and protection in prodromal schizophrenia: ethical implications for clinical practice and future research.

Authors:  Nasra Haroun; Laura Dunn; Ansar Haroun; Kristin S Cadenhead
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2005-10-05       Impact factor: 9.306

2.  Principles for the ethical analysis of clinical and translational research.

Authors:  Jonathan A L Gelfond; Elizabeth Heitman; Brad H Pollock; Craig M Klugman
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-07-12       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Bioethical issues in biostatistical consulting: development of a survey.

Authors:  Min Qi Wang; Ralph V Katz; Donna Howard; B Michelle Harris; Fang Yan
Journal:  Psychol Rep       Date:  2007-02

4.  Spin kills science.

Authors:  L A Harvey
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 2.772

5.  Ethical perspectives on knowledge translation in rehabilitation.

Authors:  John D Banja; Arri Eisen
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2012-11-17       Impact factor: 3.966

Review 6.  Ethics in exercise science research.

Authors:  Roy J Shephard
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 11.136

7.  A proposal for assessing study quality: Biomonitoring, Environmental Epidemiology, and Short-lived Chemicals (BEES-C) instrument.

Authors:  Judy S LaKind; Jon R Sobus; Michael Goodman; Dana Boyd Barr; Peter Fürst; Richard J Albertini; Tye E Arbuckle; Greet Schoeters; Yu-Mei Tan; Justin Teeguarden; Rogelio Tornero-Velez; Clifford P Weisel
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2014-08-17       Impact factor: 9.621

8.  Spin in RCTs of anxiety medication with a positive primary outcome: a comparison of concerns expressed by the US FDA and in the published literature.

Authors:  Lian Beijers; Bertus F Jeronimus; Erick H Turner; Peter de Jonge; Annelieke M Roest
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-03-29       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Identifying bioethical issues in biostatistical consulting: findings from a US national pilot survey of biostatisticians.

Authors:  Min Qi Wang; Alice F Yan; Ralph V Katz
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-11-16       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Outcome Reporting Bias in Government-Sponsored Policy Evaluations: A Qualitative Content Analysis of 13 Studies.

Authors:  Arnaud Vaganay
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-09-30       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.