What articles in Research Ethics Journal are getting read & cited? The top 10.

The journal Research Ethics is fully open-access. As noted on the home page, this journal is “aimed at all readers and authors interested in ethical issues in the conduct of research, the regulation of research, the procedures and process of ethical review as well as broader ethical issues related to research such as scientific integrity and the end uses of research.” Learn more about this journal in a video interview with editor Dr. Kate Chatfield.

Research Ethics offers three ways to identify the articles that mattered to readers: most read, most cited, and trending on Altmetric. Altmetrics reflect a broad range of online engagement with the article on blogs, media and social media, or reference managers. Altmetrics “can tell you a lot about how often journal articles and other scholarly outputs like datasets are discussed and used around the world.” As you can see, the articles readers selected in the most-read list are earlier ones available in the archive. It might be the case that these are articles of enduring interest assigned as course readings. Find the latest articles here.

5 Most read articles in the last 6 months, listed in order of downloads:

The articles in this collection had between 5,091 and 7,692 views and downloads.

Datta, R. (2018). Decolonizing both researcher and research and its effectiveness in Indigenous research. Research Ethics, 14(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117733296

Abstract. How does one decolonize and reclaim the meanings of research and researcher, particularly in the context of Western research? Indigenous communities have long experienced oppression by Western researchers. Is it possible to build a collaborative research knowledge that is culturally appropriate, respectful, honoring, and careful of the Indigenous community? What are the challenges in Western research, researchers, and Western university methodology research training? How have ‘studies’ – critical anti-racist theory and practice, cross-cultural research methodology, critical perspectives on environmental justice, and land-based education – been incorporated into the university to disallow dissent? What can be done against this disallowance? According to Eve Tuck and K Wayne Yang’s (2012) suggestion, this article did not use the concept of decolonization as a substitute for ‘human rights’ or ‘social justice’, but as a demand of an Indigenous framework and a centering of Indigenous land, Indigenous sovereignty and Indigenous ways of thinking. This article discusses why both research and researcher increasingly require decolonization so that research can create a positive impact on the participants’ community, and conduct research ethically. This article is my personal decolonization and reclaiming story from 15 years of teaching, research and service activities with various Indigenous communities in various parts of the world. It presents a number of case studies of an intervention research project to exemplify the challenges in Western research training, and how decolonizing research training attempts to not only reclaim participants’ rights in the research but also to empower the researcher. I conclude by arguing that decolonizing research training creates more empathetic educators and researchers, transforming us for participants, and demonstrating how we can take responsibility for our research.

Sugiura, L., Wiles, R., & Pope, C. (2017). Ethical challenges in online research: Public/private perceptions. Research Ethics, 13(3–4), 184–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016116650720

Abstract. With its wealth of readily and often publicly available information about Web users’ lives, the Web has created new opportunities for conducting online research. Although digital data are easily accessible, ethical guidelines are inconsistent about how researchers should use them. Some academics claim that traditional ethical principles are sufficient and applicable to online research. However, the Web poses new challenges that compel researchers to reconsider concerns of consent, privacy and anonymity. Based on doctoral research into the investigation of online medicine purchasing, this article presents a case study involving online forums, and reviews the existing ethical guidance surrounding the Web. The suggestion is that new ethical guidelines, particularly in relation to informed consent and participants’ own perceptions of what is public or private, are needed owing to the unique challenges of online research.

Allmark, P., Boote, J., Chambers, E., Clarke, A., McDonnell, A., Thompson, A., & Tod, A. M. (2009). Ethical Issues in the Use of In-Depth Interviews: Literature Review and Discussion. Research Ethics, 5(2), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/174701610900500203

Abstract. This paper reports a literature review on the topic of ethical issues in in-depth interviews. The review returned three types of article: general discussion, issues in particular studies, and studies of interview-based research ethics. Whilst many of the issues discussed in these articles are generic to research ethics, such as confidentiality, they often had particular manifestations in this type of research. For example, privacy was a significant problem as interviews sometimes probe unexpected areas. For similar reasons, it is difficult to give full information of the nature of a particular interview at the outset, hence informed consent is problematic. Where a pair is interviewed (such as carer and cared-for) there are major difficulties in maintaining confidentiality and protecting privacy. The potential for interviews to harm participants emotionally is noted in some papers, although this is often set against potential therapeutic benefit. As well as these generic issues, there are some ethical issues fairly specific to in-depth interviews. The problem of dual role is noted in many papers. It can take many forms: an interviewer might be nurse and researcher, scientist and counsellor, or reporter and evangelist. There are other specific issues such as taking sides in an interview, and protecting vulnerable groups. Little specific study of the ethics of in-depth interviews has taken place. However, that which has shows some important findings. For example, one study shows participants are not averse to discussing painful issues provided they feel the study is worthwhile. Some papers make recommendations for researchers. One such is that they should consider using a model of continuous (or process) consent rather than viewing consent as occurring once, at signature, prior to the interview. However, there is a need for further study of this area, both philosophical and empirical.

Tolich, M. (2014). What can Milgram and Zimbardo teach ethics committees and qualitative researchers about minimizing harm? Research Ethics, 10(2), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016114523771

Abstract. The first objective of this article is to demonstrate that ethics committee members can learn a great deal from a forensic analysis of two classic psychology studies: Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Study and Milgram’s Obedience Study. Rather than using hindsight to retrospectively eradicate the harm in these studies, the article uses a prospective minimization of harm technique. Milgram attempted to be ethical by trying to protect his subjects through debriefing and a follow-up survey. He could have done more, however, by carrying out what ethics committees routinely insist on today for those researching sensitive topics. The establishment of counselling supports to identify harm to participants would have minimized additional harm. Were these in place, or in Zimbardo’s case had the Stanford Ethics Committee properly identified Zimbardo’s conflict of interest – he was both a principal investigator and the prison warden – how much harm could have been minimized? The second aim is to examine how some qualitative authors routinely demonize these classic studies. It might appear that there are too few cases of unethical qualitative research to justify such an examination; however, this article identifies a number of recent examples of ethically dubious qualitative research. This would suggest that qualitative research should examine its own ethics before poaching from psychology.

Morris, M. C., & Morris, J. Z. (2016). The importance of virtue ethics in the IRB. Research Ethics, 12(4), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016116656023

Abstract. Institutional review boards have a dual goal: first, to protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects, and second, to support and facilitate the conduct of valuable research. In striving to achieve these goals, IRBs must often consider conflicting interests. In the discussion below, we characterize research oversight as having three elements: (i) research regulations, which establish a minimum acceptable standard for research conduct; (ii) ethical principles, which help us identify and define relevant ethical issues; and (iii) virtue ethics, which guides the prioritization of relevant issues. We describe specific ways in which the lessons of virtue ethics suggest revisions to the IRB structure and review process, the education and training of IRB members, and the appropriate limits of regulations in research ethics oversight.

3 Most cited articles in the last 3 years, listed in order of citations:

Zschirnt, E. (2019). Research Ethics in Correspondence Testing: An Update. Research Ethics, 15(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016118820497

Abstract. Correspondence testing to research discrimination in the marketplace has become common and the use of internet applications has allowed researchers to send greater numbers of applications. While questions of research ethics always arise when planning a correspondence test, the issue receives relatively little attention in published correspondence tests. This paper addresses the question of ethics in correspondence testing in the age of ready internet access. It focusses on the ethical issues that arise in correspondence testing, looking at potential problems (regarding voluntary participation, informed consent, deception, entrapment of employers, employers’ rights) and possible solutions, and technical challenges. European country examples show that the ethical questions raised in correspondence testing have to be renegotiated depending on the national context. The paper argues that correspondence testing, if planned carefully and executed responsibly, can meet most of the ethical requirements of Social Science ethics guidelines.

Dal-Ré, R., Bouter, L. M., Cuijpers, P., Gluud, C., & Holm, S. (2020). Should research misconduct be criminalized? Research Ethics, 16(1–2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016119898400

Abstract. For more than 25 years, research misconduct (research fraud) is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP)—although other research misbehaviors have been also added in codes of conduct and legislations. A critical issue in deciding whether research misconduct should be subject to criminal law is its definition, because not all behaviors labeled as research misconduct qualifies as serious crime. But assuming that all FFP is fraud and all non-FFP not is far from obvious. In addition, new research misbehaviors have recently been described, such as prolific authorship, and fake peer review, or boosted such as duplication of images. The scientific community has been largely successful in keeping criminal law away from the cases of research misconduct. Alleged cases of research misconduct are usually looked into by committees of scientists usually from the same institution or university of the suspected offender in a process that often lacks transparency. Few countries have or plan to introduce independent bodies to address research misconduct; so for the coming years, most universities and research institutions will continue handling alleged research misconduct cases with their own procedures. A global operationalization of research misconduct with clear boundaries and clear criteria would be helpful. There is room for improvement in reaching global clarity on what research misconduct is, how allegations should be handled, and which sanctions are appropriate.

Klar, R., & Lanzerath, D. (2020). The ethics of COVID-19 tracking apps – challenges and voluntariness. Research Ethics, 16(3–4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120943622

Abstract. As COVID-19 continues to spread, a variety of COVID-19 tracking apps (CTAs) have been introduced to help contain the pandemic. Deployment of this technology poses serious challenges of effectiveness, technological problems and risks to privacy and equity. The ethical use of CTAs depends heavily on the protection of voluntariness. Voluntary use of CTAs implies not only the absence of a legal obligation to employ the app but also the absence of more subtle forms of coercion such as enforced exclusion from certain social and work activities. The protection of individual rights to voluntary use can be enhanced through an ethics by design approach in the development of CTAs that treat the introduction of CTAs for what it is: a complete novelty that is being tested for the first time in democracies.

2 Most mentioned articles in the last 3 months on altmetrics:

Mehregan, M. (2022). Scientific journals must be alert to potential manipulation in citations and referencing. Research Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211068745

Abstract. Citation is an essential practice in scientific publishing. However, it is mandatory that citing the sources in a scientific work is performed in a proper manner. Manipulating citations in research articles is one form of academic research misconduct that violates publication ethics. Citation manipulation simply occurs for the purpose of increasing the number of citations of a researcher or a journal. Unfortunately, there has been a growing trend for this type of misconduct recently and this has not received much attention from the science community. The most effective solution to prevent the growth of such unethical practices is for reputable journals to impose stricter rules on reference evaluation criteria in order to emphasize on the appropriateness of the citations.

Datta, R. (2018). Decolonizing both researcher and research and its effectiveness in Indigenous research. Research Ethics, 14(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117733296 (Also listed in most-read articles.)

---

More Methodspace posts with editor interviews and top journal articles