Duty of Care

Is peer review confidentiality overridden when the author is suspected of misconduct?

The following case study was published by the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics): Editor A wrote to editor B, indicating that one of the reviewers of a paper submitted to Journal A contained material that had been submitted at about the same time to Journal B. Editor A requested a copy of the paper submitted to Journal B. Editor B responded, confirming that the paper in question had been submitted to Journal B (submission date two weeks earlier than the paper submitted to Journal A),

How to decide whether to accept sponsorship funding: PERIL analysis

In an article published in 2007, Peter Adams proposed a decision-making framework known as 'PERIL'. Peter Miller summarises Adams' PERIL framework as follows: Purpose refers to the degree to which purposes are divergent between funder and recipient. For example, if the primary purpose of the recipient is the advancement of public good, receiving funds from dangerous consumption industries such as tobacco, alcohol and gambling will probably conflict with this purpose. Similarly, the risk is mitigated partially if the funder has a clear public good role.

Interviewing vulnerable people – a University of Sheffield case study

The following is an extract from an article by Professor Jerry Wellington of the University of Sheffield in February 2014 (with emphasis added): Interviewing Vulnerable People in a Funded Evaluation This scenario is designed to present two ethical dilemmas which can occur during fieldwork: can researchers always produce the 'hard data' required by funding bodies? And can interviewers draw a line between a research interview and a counselling session? I was asked to be part of a research team to evaluate a National project aimed

Leak of a confidential draft by a peer reviewer – a COPE case study

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has shared a case study on its website regarding the leak of a confidential draft by a peer reviewer (http://publicationethics.org/case/online-posting-confidential-draft-peer-reviewer): Shortly before publication, I received an email from the authors of a systematic review telling me that a version of the paper as first submitted to the journal for peer review had appeared on the website of a campaign group based in the USA. It was clear that the version of the document posted on the website was the

Responsibility towards research participants: HKU and other policies

When conducting research involving human participants, it is important to carry out the research in a manner that respects the dignity of the human participants. This is particularly relevant for those conducting empirical legal research, as well as research in the area of behavioural law and economics. HKU Policy on Research Integrity ('Principles of Research Integrity', Section 1):  All researchers have a duty to care for the human participants ... under study. HKU Policy on Research Integrity ('Responsible conduct of research', Section 2.1):   The