ArticlePloS one2019
Research ethics in inter- and multi-disciplinary teams: Differences in disciplinary interpretations.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Public health and research ethics education: the experience of developing a new cadre of bioethicists at a Ugandan institution.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Reproducibility in the Social Sciences.Annual review of sociology · 2022Article
- Taiwanese and American Graduate Students' Misconceptions Regarding Responsible Conduct of Research: A Cross-National Comparison Using a Two-Tier Test Approach.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As research teams are increasingly comprised of members from multiple disciplines, ranging from the physical sciences, life sciences, social and behavioral sciences to the arts and humanities, it is important to revisit how research is conducted at several levels. Coupled with the national concern over rigor and reproducibility in research, it is therefore crucial to ensure that all members of such multidisciplinary teams view the need for ethics in the conduct of research in similar ways. Towards this end, Wayne State University developed a course in the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) which was mandatory for all its 1500 doctoral students across all disciplines in its 75 PhD programs. We found that student perceptions of the validity, applicability and usefulness of the course varied by discipline. This was in spite of iterative changes made to the course by faculty in those disciplines to make the content palatable to all. The findings show that more work needs to be done to fully incorporate the needs of social sciences and humanities disciplines in a comprehensive university course. This is especially important as these students become members of large multidisciplinary research teams in order to uphold the highest levels of rigor, reproducibility and ethics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.