Bjørn Hofmann
Bjørn Hofmann
Polarization in research or mere dissent - a need for better demarcation [0.03%]
研究的分歧与单纯的异议——建立更好的区分标准的需求
Bor Luen Tang
Bor Luen Tang
Dr Bjørn Hofmann's views on polarization in research are insightful. However, many if not most types of differences in scientific opinions might thus be included as polarization. It could be argued that true polarization in scientific rese...
On polarization, incommensurability, and value-laden research. A response to Bjørn Hofmann, 2024 [0.03%]
关于极化、不可公度性和价值负载研究的评论——回应Bjørn Hofmann，2024年
Jacopo Ambrosj
Jacopo Ambrosj
In this commentary, I integrate Bjørn Hofmann's thorough analysis of polarization in research with two considerations. First, Hofmann defines polarization as characterized by incommensurable positions. This makes his definition too strict,...
On and off-the-record correction practices: A survey-based study of how chemistry researchers react to errors [0.03%]
关于纠错的实情与记录：一项针对化学研究者的调查研究
Frédérique Bordignon
Frédérique Bordignon
Aim: This survey-based study (982 participants) explores chemistry researchers' practices and motivations in correcting errors in scientific publications. ...
Robert Klitzman
Robert Klitzman
Background: Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) courses seek to heighten awareness of the importance of mentor/mentee interactions and other topics, but questions remain - e.g., how best to train mentors/mentees to esta...
Psychiatry vs. medicine editor-in-chiefs' research publications in their own journals before, during, and after their tenures - An exploratory study [0.03%]
一项探索性研究：精神病学与内科主编在其任职期间及前后以主编身份在各自期刊上发表的科研论文数量对比
Justin N Nguyen,Christopher K Tuohino,Charlotte S Horowitz et al.
Justin N Nguyen et al.
Objective: To compare self-publication rates by editors-in-chief (EICs) of psychiatry vs. medicine journals before, during, and after their editorships. M...
Assessing the influence of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) on awareness and behavior in medical research integrity: An online survey study [0.03%]
评估生成式人工智能（GenAI）对医学研究诚信认知和行为的影响：一项在线调查研究
Xiaoting Peng,Yufeng Cai,Dehua Hu et al.
Xiaoting Peng et al.
Background: Generative Artificial Intelligence(GenAI) significantly enhances medical research efficiency but raises ethical concerns regarding research integrity. The lack of systematic guidelines for its ethical use unde...
Daniel Crean,Michał Wieczorek,Bert Gordijn et al.
Daniel Crean et al.
Guided by Brey's Anticipatory Technology Ethics, we examined AI-based research mentors (AIRMs) through technology foresight as well as identification and evaluation of ethical issues. Scenario planning was employed to inform foresight, yiel...
From disclosure to evidence: Toward auditable AI use and contribution provenance [0.03%]
从披露到证据：迈向可审核的人工智能使用和贡献来源
Hengzhi Hu,Harwati Hashim
Hengzhi Hu
Randomised clinical trials integrity and patient, carer and public involvement: A scoping umbrella review [0.03%]
系统综述：随机临床试验的完整性与患者、护理者和公众的参与
Balázs Juhász,Klejda Harasani,Sandra Martín-Peláez et al.
Balázs Juhász et al.
Background: Patient, carer and public involvement (PCPI), an approach being endorsed in research, may also improve research integrity. After prospective registration (https://osf.io/nfgxp), we conducted a scoping umbrella...