ArticlePloS one2024
Emerging technologies and research ethics: Developing editorial policy using a scoping review and reference panel.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrity in Radiation Oncology Research: A Systematic Review of Retracted Studies, Retraction Notices, and Their Impact on the Field.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Emerging technologies and research ethics: Developing editorial policy using a scoping review and reference panel.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmerging technologies and societal changes create new ethical concerns and greater need for cross-disciplinary and cross-stakeholder communication on navigating ethics in research. Scholarly articles are the primary mode of communication for researchers, however there are concerns regarding the expression of research ethics in these outputs. If not in these outputs, where should researchers and stakeholders learn about the ethical considerations of research?
objectivesDrawing on a scoping review, analysis of policy in a specific disciplinary context (learning and technology), and reference group discussion, we address concerns regarding research ethics, in research involving emerging technologies through developing novel policy that aims to foster learning through the expression of ethical concepts in research. APPROACH: This paper develops new editorial policy for expression of research ethics in scholarly outputs across disciplines. These guidelines, aimed at authors, reviewers, and editors, are underpinned by: a cross-disciplinary scoping review of existing policy and adherence to these policies;a review of emerging policies, and policies in a specific discipline (learning and technology); and,a collective drafting process undertaken by a reference group of journal editors (the authors of this paper).
resultsAnalysis arising from the scoping review indicates gaps in policy across a wide range of journals (54% have no statement regarding reporting of research ethics), and adherence (51% of papers reviewed did not refer to ethics considerations). Analysis of emerging and discipline-specific policies highlights gaps.
conclusionOur collective policy development process develops novel materials suitable for cross-disciplinary transfer, to address specific issues of research involving AI, and broader challenges of emerging technologies.
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.