Responsible handling of ethics in data publication

Lowenberg, Daniella; Puebla, Iratxe

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001606

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Lowenberg and Puebla ( 2022 , p. 3) it is important “before the research begins (…) to learn (…) what it means to publish data.” In general, it should be ensured that study participants’ personal data are completely anonymized or pseudonymized (Fujii 2012 ). As Henry et al.…”

Section: What To Consider When Working With Digitally Mediated Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using digitally mediated methods in sensitive contexts: a threat analysis and critical reflection on data security, privacy, and ethical concerns in the case of Afghanistan

Guntrum

Güldenring

Kuntke

et al. 2022

Z Friedens und Konflforsch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the lack of empirical examples of how research can be conducted via digital means in sensitive contexts, this paper provides a threat model using Afghanistan, where the Taliban took power in August 2021, as an example. Both technical and non-technical research-related risks are analyzed, paying attention to research ethics, data security, and privacy. We argue that any threat model and risk analysis is highly context-dependent. Our analysis reveals that in certain research processes, human security does not necessarily coincide with data security and that an ambivalence exists between privacy and usability. In addition to the concrete threat analysis, the paper identifies some general technical solutions (e.g., encryption methods, communication software) for different research steps to foster secure and ethically justifiable research.

show abstract

Section: What To Consider When Working With Digitally Mediated Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using digitally mediated methods in sensitive contexts: a threat analysis and critical reflection on data security, privacy, and ethical concerns in the case of Afghanistan

Guntrum

Güldenring

Kuntke

et al. 2022

Z Friedens und Konflforsch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We believe this could help secure the sustainable funding sources that are urgently needed for databases to facilitate the public and unrestricted access to and dissemination of retraction notices. The second question is timely given the increasing attention to scholarly objects, beyond publication, even in the space of data ethics: in September 2021 a new COPE/FORCE11 Research Data Publication Ethics taskforce published their best practice recommendations [ 122 , 123 ]. The third question will develop hypotheses about what is going right and wrong, which will help design better metadata workflows in the future.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: recommendations from the RISRS report

Schneider

Woods

Proescholdt

et al. 2022

Res Integr Peer Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Retraction is a mechanism for alerting readers to unreliable material and other problems in the published scientific and scholarly record. Retracted publications generally remain visible and searchable, but the intention of retraction is to mark them as “removed” from the citable record of scholarship. However, in practice, some retracted articles continue to be treated by researchers and the public as valid content as they are often unaware of the retraction. Research over the past decade has identified a number of factors contributing to the unintentional spread of retracted research. The goal of the Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: Shaping a Research and Implementation Agenda (RISRS) project was to develop an actionable agenda for reducing the inadvertent spread of retracted science. This included identifying how retraction status could be more thoroughly disseminated, and determining what actions are feasible and relevant for particular stakeholders who play a role in the distribution of knowledge. Methods These recommendations were developed as part of a year-long process that included a scoping review of empirical literature and successive rounds of stakeholder consultation, culminating in a three-part online workshop that brought together a diverse body of 65 stakeholders in October–November 2020 to engage in collaborative problem solving and dialogue. Stakeholders held roles such as publishers, editors, researchers, librarians, standards developers, funding program officers, and technologists and worked for institutions such as universities, governmental agencies, funding organizations, publishing houses, libraries, standards organizations, and technology providers. Workshop discussions were seeded by materials derived from stakeholder interviews (N = 47) and short original discussion pieces contributed by stakeholders. The online workshop resulted in a set of recommendations to address the complexities of retracted research throughout the scholarly communications ecosystem. Results The RISRS recommendations are: (1) Develop a systematic cross-industry approach to ensure the public availability of consistent, standardized, interoperable, and timely information about retractions; (2) Recommend a taxonomy of retraction categories/classifications and corresponding retraction metadata that can be adopted by all stakeholders; (3) Develop best practices for coordinating the retraction process to enable timely, fair, unbiased outcomes; and (4) Educate stakeholders about pre- and post-publication stewardship, including retraction and correction of the scholarly record. Conclusions Our stakeholder engagement study led to 4 recommendations to address inadvertent citation of retracted research, and formation of a working group to develop the Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern (CORREC) Recommended Practice. Further work will be needed to determine how well retractions are currently documented, how retraction of code and datasets impacts related publications, and to identify if retraction metadata (fails to) propagate. Outcomes of all this work should lead to ensuring retracted papers are never cited without awareness of the retraction, and that, in public fora outside of science, retracted papers are not treated as valid scientific outputs.

show abstract

“…A key component of sharing is that it must be done thoughtfully and responsibly. [28] As discussed above, there are specialised repositories which can help manage access to sensitive data.…”

Section: Barriers and Precautionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Legal regimes, such as the General Data Protection Regulation in Europe, must also be considered when sharing sensitive data derived from research. A key component of sharing is that it must be done thoughtfully and responsibly 47. As discussed previously, there are specialised repositories which can help manage access to sensitive data.…”

Section: Barriers and Precautionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sharing study materials in health and medical research

DeVito

Morton

Cashin

et al. 2022

BMJ EBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Making study materials available allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the scientific literature. Sharing can take many forms and include a wide variety of outputs including code and data. Biomedical research can benefit from increased transparency but faces unique challenges for sharing, for instance, confidentiality concerns around participants’ medical data. Both general and specialised repositories exist to aid in sharing most study materials. Sharing may also require skills and resources to ensure that it is done safely and effectively. Educating researchers on how to best share their materials, and properly rewarding these practices, requires action from a variety of stakeholders including journals, funders and research institutions.

show abstract

Responsible handling of ethics in data publication

Abstract: A global working group has developed recommendations for the responsible handling of the growing range of ethics cases related to data publication, but further community work is needed toward a responsible and cohesive data publishing ecosystem.

Cited by 5 publications

References 6 publications

Using digitally mediated methods in sensitive contexts: a threat analysis and critical reflection on data security, privacy, and ethical concerns in the case of Afghanistan

Using digitally mediated methods in sensitive contexts: a threat analysis and critical reflection on data security, privacy, and ethical concerns in the case of Afghanistan

Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: recommendations from the RISRS report

Sharing study materials in health and medical research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About