Ethics and Publishing

what spawned the belmont report

Tuskegee Syphilis Study

• Research Question: why do so many poor black men in south have syphilis?

• Method: looking for progression of syphilis, recruited 600 rural black men from south with syphilis, and refused to treat them, even after penicillin was found to treat syphilis

• Didn’t tell participants they had syphilis

• researchers came together to outline principles to ensure this doesn’t happen again

belmont report (1976)

a broad set of principles to guide research with human subjects, motivated by problems with tuskegee syphilis study

what are the 3 principles of the belmont report

• respect for persons

• beneficence

• justice

respect for persons

informed consent, particularly for groups with reduced autonomy (children, prisoners, etc.)

Beneficence

protect participants from harm, ensure well-being (cost/benefit analysis)

justice

fair balance of benefits and costs associated with research participation

APA ethical principles and standards

the american psychological association provides enforceable standards for psych research

key issues

• institutional review boards

• coercion and undue influence

• informed consent

• deception

• debriefing

• research misconduct

• animal research

institutional review boards

committee that reviews research at universities to ensure ethical conduct

• review research before its conducted

• must balance the welfare of participants with the researcher’s goal of contributing knowledge to society

submit all relevant things for your research, board features 5 people (scientist, non-scientists with research interests, person from public)

coercion

explicit or implicit suggestion that someone who chooses not to participate will suffer negative consequences

undue influence

offering an incentive too attractive to refuse

informed consent

must provide participants with information about the study, particularly risks and benefits, so they can decide if they want to participate 

what is included in informed consent

• brief description of procedures

• potential risks and benefits (including compensation)

• confidentiality

• right to withdraw

• contact information

why wouldn’t you want to get informed consent

• people won’t behave naturally

• some people can’t give informed consent (ex. children)

• consent may be impractical or impossible to obtain (ex. old patient data?)

when can you maybe skip informed consent

• behavior is public (no reasonable expectation of privacy)

• no more than minimal risk of harm (an amount that would occur in everyday life)

deception

researchers withhold some details about the study, either through omission or commission

ex. of deception

• withholding true purpose of study

• confederates

• fake feedback (ex. want to see how people react to some feedback)

confederates

an actor playing a role for the study 

omission

omitting details about the study, withholding information

commission

deliberately giving false info

how do participants feel about deception

participants may prefer deceptive studies if conducted with respect and given a thorough debriefing

debriefing

informing participants about all aspects of the study after the study is over 

• essential for deceptive studies, but always a good idea

• general guideline: leave participants in as good or better of a state as when they arrived 

research misconduct

ethical principles relevant to the publishing stage

• three sins to avoid: plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification

plagiarism

misrepresenting the ideas or words of others as one’s own

data fabrication

inventing data

data falsification

inappropriately messing with data (eg. selectively deleting observations

animal research

APA has specific guidelines for animal research (only about 7-8% of psych research)

• three R’s' —> replacement, refinement, reduction

replacement

find alternatives to animal research when possible

refinement

minimize or eliminate animals’ distress

reduction

use as few animals as possible

publication process

when research written up

• manuscript sent to one journal for consideration

• editor assigns paper to associate editor

• associate editor identifies 2-5 reviewers

what does associate editor/appointed 2-5 reviewers do

• experts in field

• anonymous to authors

• may not even know authors’ identities

• write, review, and decide plausibility

what does associate editor do in publication process

takes reviews and makes the final decision about publication

• accept as is (verrryyy rare for first time submissions)

• accept with minor revisions

• revise for invited resubmission

• reject (common for first time submissions)

how long does it take for authors to receive news about publication decisions

3-6 months

what do reviewers and editors look for

• significance of the question (to the field, to society)

• novelty

• interesting-ness (idea and findings)

• methods high in construct, internal, and external validity

• appropriate analyses and interpretation of data

• good writing