• Users Online: 342
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 Table of Contents  
EDITORIAL
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 59-60

Responsible research


Editor, Journal of Orthopaedic Diseases and Traumatology, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India

Date of Submission11-Dec-2021
Date of Acceptance11-Dec-2021
Date of Web Publication20-Dec-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Ritesh Runu
Department of Orthopaedics, Room No 325, Ward Block, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, 800014, Bihar
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jodp.jodp_42_21

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Runu R. Responsible research. J Orthop Dis Traumatol 2021;4:59-60

How to cite this URL:
Runu R. Responsible research. J Orthop Dis Traumatol [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 Jan 24];4:59-60. Available from: https://www.jodt.org/text.asp?2021/4/3/59/332950



Research activity is a part of academic activity. It is an integral part of teaching, training, and enhancement of knowledge in all the fields.[1] It is increasingly used by industries to produce new products and move ahead. The pressure on research and its patent rights are increasingly becoming more important with changing global market patterns and competitions.[2] Our medical science is not immune to this global competition pattern. With new researches in basic and applied sciences, their industrial collaboration, and clinical practices, the pressure on research and publication has increased.

The research funding from government sources using public money and private sources has made this area as a high financial transaction zone. The effect of money has led to biased and unauthentic results.[3] It may lead to change in clinical practice and may benefit a certain segment of pharmaceutical units. To prevent this, the scientific research should be reliable, responsible, and transparent.

The reliability and validity of research are threatened due to detrimental research practices, lack of supervision and mentoring, the system of research with hypercompetition, unidimensional assessment criteria, an individualistic research culture, and publication pressure.[4] To increase the authenticity, the focus on responsible research practices (RRPs) has increased. This has been increasingly in focus to reduce the misbehaviors such as falsification, plagiarism, and questionable research practices.[5]

To reduce the misbehaviours in research and publications, changes are required in organizational and systemic factors including the research climate, organizational settings and incentive structures.[6] The research environment can trigger research misconduct.[7] To improve RRP, transparency and openness are two important factors. This can be brought by fair data, open access, and open science. The practice of open science was proposed for opening up the whole research process for open scrutiny to make it transparent. For this, the data should be findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable, and open. The software code for statistics and peer review is also open.[8]

Simultaneously, the research integrity should be maintained. The research integrity are honesty, scrupulousness, transparency, independence, and responsibility.[3] This needs to be followed in the research practices. This has to be incorporated in the various policies made by the funding agencies, research, and teaching institutions to maintain high standards. Awareness about the principles of research and open science needs to be propagated.[9] The propagation of RRP is possible through the empirical cycle which is similar in many fields and types of research. The empirical cycle starts from theory(step 1) where a new hypothesis is framed (step 2), a study design is made (step 3), then data is collected (step 4), analysis done (step 5), a conclusion is derived (step 6), and finally publications and presentations are done (step 7). It is based on De Groot (1961) publication. Not all publications fit in this frame, but it provides a framework for thought process and research activities.[8] Through meta-analysis, we found that most of the studies do not fit in because of inadequate sample size or the analytical tools. The results are inadequate, and need for further research exists. Hence, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the Meta-Analysis Systematic Review Support are framed for proper reporting systems. Similarly, other reporting guidelines are also in practice for the authors and editors in our medical publication field such as STROBE for observational and case–control studies, CONSORT for randomized controlled trials, CARE for case reports, and SQUIRE for quality improvement projects. Knowledge and awareness about the guidelines are provided by all the medical journals for the authors and editors.

Even after all the guidelines, the perversive practices are prevalent in medical publications. The official bodies governing the medical professionals have pressurized them by linking the number of publications with selection and promotion in medical colleges. Pressure to publish in indexed journals for promotion is compromising the quality of research and papers. The undue stress among medical professionals has led to publication in predatory journals.[10] This practice needs to be discouraged, and authentic research activities driven by interest and enthusiasm should be encouraged.

Considering advancements in knowledge and understanding in our medical field, the data handling and publications need ethical inputs at all the levels. Simultaneously, the publications should have informations which are authentic and reliable.



 
  References Top

1.
Shirani Bidabadi N, Nasr Isfahani A, Rouhollahi A, Khalili R. Effective teaching methods in higher education: Requirements and barriers. J Adv Med Educ Prof 2016;4:170-8.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Lach S. Patents and productivity growth at the industry level: A first look. Econ Lett 1995;49:101-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
The European code of conduct for research Integrity. Revised edition. Berlin: All European Academies. 2017.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Fanelli D, Costas R, Larivière V. Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PLoS One 2015;10:e0127556.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
John LK, Loewenstein G, Prelec D. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychol Sci 2012;23:524-32.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Haven T, Tijdink J, Martinson B, Bouter L, Oort F. Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: Results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam. Res Integr Peer Rev 2021;6:7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Davies SR. An ethics of the system: Talking to scientists about research integrity. Sci Eng Ethics 2019;25:1235-53.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Tijdink JK, Horbach SP, Nuijten MB, O'Neill G. Towards a research agenda for promoting responsible research practices. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2021;16:450-60.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
O'Carrol C, Hyllseth B, Berg R, Kohl U, Kamerline C. Providing Researchers with the Skills and Competencies they Need to Practice Open Science. Luxembourg: Publications office of the European Union; 2017.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Bahl R, Bahl S. Publication pressure versus ethics, in research and publication. Indian J community Med 2021;46:584-6.  Back to cited text no. 10
  [Full text]  




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed412    
    Printed6    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded0    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal