Marco Túlio Elias Alves’ Post

Call for a Uniform Policy on Research Publications 🚨 Addressing Exploitation in Research: A Call to Action 🚨 As researchers and scholars, we dedicate countless hours to advancing knowledge, yet we face two persistent issues that threaten the integrity of academia: 1️⃣ Exorbitant publication charges that limit access for many researchers. 2️⃣ Unethical practices, including research theft and improper attribution. These challenges disproportionately affect early-career researchers and Ph.D. students, creating barriers to equitable knowledge dissemination and recognition for our hard work. Proposed Solution: A Uniform Policy and National Committee To tackle these issues, I propose the establishment of a Uniform Policy for Research Publications under a National Committee for Ethical Research and Publication Standards (NCERPS). This initiative would ensure: 🔑 Affordable and Transparent Publication Practices Capped publication fees for indexed journals. Fee waivers or subsidies for economically disadvantaged researchers. Mandatory disclosure of all publication charges upfront. 🔑 Protection Against Research Theft Strict guidelines for authorship attribution based on contributions. A centralized National Research Repository for transparent tracking of research ownership. Severe penalties for plagiarism and unethical practices. 🔑 Accessible Research for All Government subsidies for publications in high-impact journals. Promotion of open-access research funded by public money. 🔑 Grievance Redressal and Ethical Oversight Institutional Research Ethics Committees to resolve disputes. A centralized portal for reporting unethical practices with anonymity for whistleblowers. Time-bound resolutions for grievances to avoid delays. Why This Matters Academia thrives on fairness and integrity. By adopting such a framework, we can ensure that no researcher is denied the opportunity to share their findings due to financial constraints or exploited by unethical practices. This policy is not just a reform—it’s a necessity for fostering equitable and ethical research globally. Join the Movement I urge fellow researchers, educators, policymakers, and institutions to come together and advocate for these much-needed reforms. Let’s create an ecosystem where knowledge is shared, not restricted, and contributions are valued, not stolen. 👉 What are your thoughts on this proposal? How can we push for such systemic changes? Comment below and let’s discuss! #ResearchReform #AcademicIntegrity #AffordablePublishing #PhDVoices #EthicsInResearch #InnovationForAll

Can we rely on self-reports when it comes to learners' self-assessment as a measure to evaluate the effectiveness of research ethics and integrity training? While the most prevalent means to measure the effectiveness of research ethics and integrity training formats is using learners’ self-assessments, there is a need for reliable and feasible self-assessment tools to evaluate the level of understanding. Our partners from the University of Helsinki, Anu Tammeleht and Erika Löfström, have conducted a study and published their findings. You can read more by accessing their open-access article here: Full article: Learners’ self-assessment as a measure to evaluate the effectiveness of research ethics and integrity training: can we rely on self-reports? (tandfonline.com) Erika Löfström Anu Tammeleht Rosemarie de la Cruz Bernabe Vivian Mbanya keziah Chanyisa Khayadi Dash Eero Kaila Anni Sairio Anaïs Rességuier Ian Slesinger Daniele Fanelli Daniel Pizzolato Vivian Mbanya Susanne van den Hooff Alina Coman Signe Mežinska Lisa Häberlein Nathalie Voarino Tonje Lossius Husum Carole Chapin, PhD Giulia Inguaggiato Dr Rowena Rodrigues

In the research process, ethical lapses can undermine the credibility of the research, harm participants, and damage the researcher's reputation. In this series of posts, we are listing key ethical considerations and how to address them. Citations. When drawing on the work of others, it is essential to give credit. This includes direct quotations, paraphrased ideas, and data from other studies. In addition, when it comes to collaborative research, it is important to clearly define contributions and ensure that all participants receive appropriate recognition. Authorship disputes can arise if these issues are not addressed early on in the research process. Other conflicts of interest can come up when researchers have financial, personal, or professional interests that could influence their work. It's important to identify and disclose any potential conflicts. For instance, researchers should disclose who is funding their research and whether there are any potential biases associated with this funding. Additionally, researchers must report their findings objectively, regardless of any personal or financial interests. If a conflict of interest is present, it is essential to be transparent about it and take the required steps to mitigate its impact on the research.

Scientific misconduct - investigators are on a hamster-wheel chasing metrics and no wonder this breeds rampant misconduct BUT .. Who can stem this tide? Does the responsibility lie with institutions, funders, journals or a collective? The article linked in comments explores this problem that has grown to a mammoth scale in the present day, with respect to the infamous case of superconductivity studies that were flagged recently. In my opinion: - Institutions are often as wound up as investigators in chasing metrics as it benefits their rankings, funding and general scientific clout. - Accordingly, they may fail to adequately investigate or report misconduct even when it has been flagged. - Unless there can be higher quality control from the end of funders and country-specific policymakers. - Retractions can be due to many reasons. There are several cases of investigators who identify problems with the outcomes of their previous studies e.g., due to an oversight or inadvertent errors that cannot be fixed with an erratum and self retract it. Self-retractions in such cases demonstrate integrity that should be viewed in a positive light. - Journals must consider a more pro-active role in investigating misconduct if they suspect it is not being adequately done at the institutional end. At the very least they must report concerns to funders who can then make it imperative for institutions to do due diligence. - As often repeated the rat-race for metrics will only hurt science. Easier said than done but we need more mature institutional and funder policies that focus on science and not the glamour chasing business of numbers. Finally, the negative connotation and implications from retractions made when investigators, institutions or funding bodies follow rigorous standards should NOT be penalised. Afterall there is “nothing to be ashamed of in preserving the integrity of the scientific record” #research #ethics #scientificintegrity

Under the leadership of Prof. N.K. Chakrabarti Vice Chancellor, WBNUJS,Kolkata and with my assistance, Informatics (https://lnkd.in/eT7NGR7V) is bringing out a journal entitled " Journal of Contemporary Law and Society" .The general scope of the journal is : Journal of Contemporary Law and Society is an Open Access journal dedicated to publishing articles in the interplaying fields of law and society. The justice system and defenses, condign punishment, or proportional justice. The self-defense, insanity, automatism, and mistake of fact, necessity, duress, and provocation, brainwashing defense, the archaic social background defense, the battered woman defense, the deprivation rage defense, the cultural defense, and religious defense. Poor and the fear of the applied law, access to justice, ignorance of the law, poor and property rights, labor rights, and law for mainstreaming the poor. Other aspects of law, some already included in the above are: disability, education, election law and the country, environmental law and policy, finance, accounting, and strategy, financial and monetary institutions, gender ,health, food, and drug ,immigration,intellectual property, jurisprudence and legal theory, economics, political economy, religion, leadership, legal history, legal profession and ethics, Lgbtq+, negotiation and alternative dispute resolution, role of race ,law and tax, state and central government, tax law and policy, technology law and policy, trusts, estates, fiduciary law, contracts, comparative law, corporate and transactional law, courts, jurisdiction, and procedure. We are sure that this journal will open a new round of opportunities for the legal-social community.

If a supervisor submits a paper using a student as the first author without the student’s consent or knowledge, it is a serious breach of academic and research ethics. Implications 1. Violation of Research Integrity: • Authorship requires informed consent from all authors, as per established guidelines like the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) or other relevant policies. • This act undermines the student’s autonomy and their right to decide how their work is presented. 2. Potential Academic Misconduct: • The supervisor’s actions could constitute academic misconduct, which may be grounds for formal investigation by the university or relevant academic bodies. 3. Damage to the Student’s Reputation: • If the paper has errors or is challenged, it could negatively affect the student’s credibility, even though they were unaware of the submission. 4. Erosion of Trust: • Such actions can damage the trust between students and supervisors, as well as the institution’s broader research culture.

The use of uncertainty measures is very common in scientific publications. However, the uncertainty measure or "±" such as SD, SE, CI is not systematically defined. This also affects error bars as their use is very heterogeneous in publications. ➡ This clearly impacts the interpretation of findings and their reproducibility. Several authors do not seem to know the difference between SD and SE and tend to report SE as it is conveniently smaller than SD (unless n=1, which would be ... (fill in the blank)). For inferential purposes, it is more informative to report CIs than SEs. 🔑 Clear universal guidelines in publications must be defined and implemented ensure reproducibility of scientific findings. Feel free to share your experience. For more info, consult this post: https://lnkd.in/eVw3_KDe We have been providing consulting and training services for over 30 years now. https://lnkd.in/eZ_5UFKG, but sadly the situation I described has not improved much. #correctly #reporting #uncertainty #better #science

CfP - Special Issue on Ethical Leadership in Administrative Sciences (Open Access) We warmly welcome submissions for our Special Issue "Improving Ethical Leadership in its Cultural Context: New Challenges and Prospects" in Administrative Sciences, (Open Access, Impact Factor of 3.0), see for more info: https://lnkd.in/gw8248Ny In this Special Issue, we seek to encourage debate across various disciplines in order to broaden and deepen the interpretations and theorisations of ethical leadership in its cultural context. We are therefore interested in case studies that illuminate cultural contexts, especially from non-Western settings (cf. Van Eeden Jones & Lasthuizen, 2018), alongside studies that employ psychological or quantitative approaches in order to identify and compare how particular contextual factors affect ethical leadership (Eissenbeiß & Brodbeck, 2014), but also studies that explore how ethical leadership is constructed and contested historically, culturally and politically (Eissenbeiß, 2012; Knights & O'Leary, 2006; Liu, 2017). The submission deadline has been extended to 15 October 2024. Manuscript Submission Information The article should be between 5,000–10,000 words and follow the guidelines of the journal. The guidelines and Call For Papers can also be found on the journal website. For further details on the submission process, please see the Instructions for Authors on the journal website (https://lnkd.in/gPNXJySh). All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. A first decision is provided to authors approximately 22 days after submission; acceptance to publication is undertaken in 5 days.That is fast! Fees For authors facing financial constraints, AS is offering discounts of 20% to 50%. If authors require fee waivers, they can email Coraline Chen, Section Managing Editor, MDPI Beijing (Email: [email protected])

🔍 𝗗𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗙𝗶𝘅𝗲𝗱-𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗺 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗔𝗰𝘁 (𝗪𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗭𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗩𝗚) 𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺: 𝗡𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 The WissZeitVG sets the legal framework for fixed-term contracts in academia, impacting many early-career researchers. With reforms underway, understanding the process is essential. Here’s where things stand and what’s ahead: 📌 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘀: • Draft Presentation: In March 2024, the Ministry of Education (BMBF) presented and revised a draft after feedback from stakeholders. • Stakeholder Feedback: In May and June, several postdoc networks shared critical statements on the draft. • First Reading: On October 16, the draft had its first reading in the Bundestag and was referred to the Committee on Education, Research, and Technology Assessment. ➡️ 𝗨𝗽𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽𝘀: • Committee Stage: Amendments can be proposed here, with review taking several weeks to a few months, depending on the committee’s workload. • Second and Third Readings: The bill will return to the Bundestag for final debate and voting. Amendments are still possible. • Bundesrat Consideration: This bill does not require Bundesrat approval, though the Bundesrat has generally supported its objectives. • Publication and Enactment: After passing, the bill will be signed by the Federal President and published. Changes will likely take effect six months later, with current contract regulations staying in effect until contracts expire. For further details, check out statements from the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (Federal Ministry of Education and Research), the German Scholars Organization e.V. (GSO), and the Leibniz PostDoc Network. The final outcome remains uncertain during the committee phase, where key amendments can still be made. We’ll keep you updated on the progress of the WissZeitVG reform and the ongoing debate. ----------------------------- For more information: 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐟𝐭 https://lnkd.in/esbratDC https://lnkd.in/e_3VUJgh 𝐃𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐙𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐕𝐆 Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung https://lnkd.in/dFKNi8En German Scholars Organization e.V. (GSO) https://lnkd.in/dxZ8r_FX Leibniz PostDoc Network https://lnkd.in/dnABU-8T #WissZeitVG #AcademicContract #Postdoc

How and which #matrices to use to assess a #researcher’s #impact? This paper provides a broad description of those used in #academia so far. They also discuss them as well as provide #limitations to these matrices. https://lnkd.in/gqcM8z3G Charles H. Cho, PhD, CPA, Erica Pimentel PhD, CPA, CA, Julie Bernard, Joel Bothello, Alessandro Ghio, Dr. Leanne Keddie