Objectivity

Home/Principles of Research Integrity/Objectivity

Should I be the “whistleblower”?

In real life it is not easy for research misconduct to come to light. This is because details of how research is conducted are often known only to the people who work on it. And when research misconduct is perceived, not everyone is willing to speak out. Section 2.8 of HKU Policy on Research Integrity says, “Members of the university should report to the authorities concerned any research misconduct or suspected misconduct.” It recognises everyone shares the responsibility to uphold research integrity within the institution,

Categories: Accountability, Objectivity, Reporting Irresponsible Research Practices|

Should you accept a funding opportunity limited by conditions imposed by the sponsor?

Professor Peter Miller and others apply the PERIL analysis to determine if a funding opportunity which is accompanied by conditions should be accepted. Case study: PERIL analysis of a funding opportunity limited by conditions imposed by a collaborating organisation A residential rehabilitation charity approaches you to collaborate in an application to fund doctoral research into the long-term effect of its project. The charity reports that it has been involved in research previously and has found it beneficial. The methodology is discussed and agreed. The application

Categories: Case Studies, Duty of Care, Objectivity|Tags: |

How should researchers procure goods and services?

Prof. Mark Israel (Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services) has kindly given permission for this hypothetical case study to be reproduced. Simon has been awarded a grant by the UGC. The research will require him to purchase services from interpreters, travel agents, and employ research assistants. He suspects that he might get the best deal from his wife's translation agency, his brother's travel agency, and the daughter of a senior manager at the UGC, who topped the class in the relevant area, is looking for

Categories: Case Studies, Disclosure of Conflict of Interest, Honesty, Non-Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest, Objectivity|Tags: , |

Should you accept conference honoraria/travel funding from a sponsor?

Professor Peter Miller (School of Psychology, Deakin University) and others argue in an article that researchers should be aware that their objectivity might be compromised if they accept honoraria and travel funds from a sponsor that funds industry-favourable research. Also, they highlight the opportunities to fraternise with industry executives at such conferences. They give the example of the alcohol industry sponsoring academics to attend conferences, at which industry executives have the opportunity to meet researchers. Miller and others argue that, because the alcohol industry funds

Categories: Case Studies, Disclosure of Conflict of Interest, Non-Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest, Objectivity|Tags: , |

Should you peer review an article written by a former colleague?

Prof. Mark Israel (Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services) has kindly given permission for this hypothetical case study to be reproduced. Karen is asked by a journal to review an article written by a former colleague. They have not co-authored together, though they did discuss doing so once. They are both in the same very narrow field of specialisation and have found themselves repeatedly competing for the same jobs around the world. This article appears to be covering similar ground to the work Karen recently

Categories: Case Studies, Disclosure of Conflict of Interest, Non-Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest, Objectivity, Plagiarism and Self-plagiarism, Publication-related Conduct|Tags: , , |

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.

Categories: Case Studies, Disclosure of Conflict of Interest, Duty of Care, Good Research Practices, Non-Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest, Objectivity|Tags: , |

CityU researcher convicted after failure to disclose interest

Facts The researcher was an associate professor in the Department of Asian and International Studies at the City University of Hong Kong (CityU). She was also Associate Director of the Southeast Asian Research Centre (SARC) at CityU. In 2006, SARC obtained a grant of HK$53 million from the British Government to conduct a research project, 'Women's Empowerment in Muslim Contexts'. The Defendant (D) was the main person responsible for the project. D requested quotations from four service providers for the supply of IT services for the project,

Categories: Case Studies, Disclosure of Conflict of Interest, Non-Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest, Objectivity|Tags: , |

Conflict of interest and suppression of legitimate results by a sponsor – a COPE case study

One case study from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website (http://publicationethics.org/case/attempt-supress-legitimate-scientific-results): The journal is operated by institute A, and the editor is an employee of institute A. A manuscript was submitted late in 2014 by authors from institute B, a similar type of organisation in the same country. The manuscript was reviewed by two referees who both recommended publication following minor revision. One of the reviewers noted that the abstract contained a vague statement related to the effectiveness of a treatment for a major

Categories: Abuse of Data, Case Studies, Disclosure of Conflict of Interest, Non-Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest, Objectivity|Tags: , |

‘Want a favourable peer review? Buy one.’

The following is an extract from an article ('Want a favorable peer review? Buy one') by Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus which appeared on the STAT News website (21 April 2016): The EditPub site (which seemed on Thursday to be no longer up and running), is almost entirely in Chinese, but its homepage bills it as a “service center for scientific research.” Its existence came to light earlier this month after the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology retracted a 2015 article by a group from

Categories: Case Studies, Objectivity|Tags: , |

R (BAT) v DOH – a landmark judgment on research integrity

On 19 May 2016, Mr Justice Green handed down his judgment in the English High Court case of R. (on the application of British American Tobacco UK Ltd & Others) v Secretary of State for Health [2016] EWHC 1169 (Admin) in which the claimant tobacco companies challenged the legality of the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015. This decision is significant as Mr Justice Green discusses the way in which the Court, in the context of a judicial review, should evaluate expert evidence in

Categories: Abuse of Data, Disclosure of Conflict of Interest, Good Research Practices, Non-Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest, Objectivity|Tags: , , , |