ERIC's new tool for engaging children in research ethics

Development, Validity, and Reliability Assessment of the Professional Ethics Scale for Faculty Members of Farhangian University | 2024, 7(2): 8-15 Mirmajid Mohammadi Fomani, Asghar Sharifi, Al'addin Etemad Ahari Abstract: Purpose: Given the educational mission of universities in Iran, paying attention to the ethical component in the education and training of human resources is essential. Therefore, the preparation and validation of a native instrument for assessing the professional ethics of the educational staff appears to be necessary. The aim of this study was to construct and normalize a scale for assessing the professional ethics of faculty members at Farhangian University. Methodology: The present study was a sequential exploratory mixed method research. For this purpose, a sample of 267 faculty members and staff of Farhangian University in the northwest of the country was selected using a cluster sampling method. The research instrument was a researcher-made questionnaire. For data analysis, in addition to descriptive indices, Cronbach's alpha and retest methods were used to assess reliability, and factor analysis, content validity, and convergent validity methods were used through SPSS-V22 and Lisrel-V8.8 software. Findings: Based on the results of the exploratory factor analysis, using varimax rotation, honesty, justice, respect, responsibility, adherence to laws, loyalty, and preservation of human dignity were identified as components of professional ethics among faculty members of Farhangian University. Conclusion: Overall, the results showed that this scale has satisfactory reliability and validity in assessing the professional ethics of faculty members. Keywords: Psychometrics, Professional Ethics, Faculty Members, Farhangian University. https://lnkd.in/gBTpQuR5

This week I had the privilege of attending the GW Ethics in Publishing Conference 2025, hosted by the Graduate Program in Publishing at George Washington University. It was a deeply inspiring and thought-provoking gathering of editors, publishers, librarians, scholars, and change-makers. Here are a few of my takeaways: Ethics as foundation, not ornament: From “Ethics Over Optics” in peer review to rethinking editorial board policies, many sessions emphasized embedding ethics deeply in workflows—not as a bolt-on. Equity, accessibility & inclusion matter: Sessions on inclusive internships, neurodivergent collaboration strategies, accessible publishing workflows, and equitable contracts underscored how much work is needed to democratize who gets published—and how. AI: tool or trap? In “Publishing Ethics in the Age of AI,” the discussion centered on how AI might be integrated responsibly in editing, review, and production—if we retain human judgment, fairness, and transparency. Gatekeeping, censorship & power: Conversations about soft censorship, book bans, and the ethical role of translation and editing across languages highlighted the ongoing tensions in who gets to speak, and under what terms. As someone developing the Peer Review Lab, I found the conference a powerful reminder that the future of publishing depends on how we nurture ethical awareness at every stage — from research design to review, editing, and dissemination. Grateful to the organizers and speakers for creating a space that challenges and inspires us to make publishing more fair, accessible, and human-centered. #ethicsinpublishing #scholarlycommunication #peerreview #equity #accessibility #researchintegrity #diversityinpublishing #openscience GW Journal of Ethics in Publishing John W. Warren

Superintelligence and Generative Ethics White Paper Policy Research and Strategic Foresight Abstract: This white paper explores the ethical architecture of superintelligence, focusing on AI self-evolution, ethical decision-making, and governance mechanisms. It synthesizes philosophical inquiry, technological ethics, and policy foresight to propose a generative framework for sustainable AI futures. Chapter 1 Introduction: The emergence of superintelligence not only represents a breakthrough in computing power but also signifies a reshaping of human knowledge and value structures. This chapter elucidates the research background, the issues addressed, and the research objectives of this white paper. Chapter 2 Literature Review This chapter reviews the major literature on current AI ethics research, technology governance, and philosophical reflection, with a particular focus on generative AI and autonomous decision-making. Chapter 3 Methodology This chapter employs an interdisciplinary analytical approach, combining philosophical interpretation, system simulation, and policy modeling to explore the possible structures of AI ethical generation. Chapter 4 Generative Ethics Framework This chapter proposes an ethical model centered on "generation," emphasizing the openness, self-correction, and symbiotic orientation of ethical action. Chapter 5 Conclusion & Policy Recommendations This white paper recommends establishing a global AI ethics observation system and a cross-sectoral governance collaboration platform, and using generative ethics as the philosophical foundation for long-term AI policy design.

I'm preparing content for a class on ethical considerations in qualitative research and found some important, potentially transformative pieces that take a more critical-emancipatory perspective on research ethics. Thought to share them here for those conducting qualitative research (and research in general): Udah, H. (2024). Decolonising research for justice: Ethical imperatives and practical applications. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23, 16094069241294040. Jean-Pierre, J., Boatswain-Kyte, A., Collins, T., & Ojukwu, E. (2025). Designing afro-emancipatory qualitative research with and for Black people. Qualitative Research, 25(2), 520-542. Dutta, M. J., Basu, A., Kaur-Gill, S., Dutta, D., Pal, M., Basnyat, I., ... & Carter, A. (2025). Anticolonialism and qualitative methods for culture-centered interventions. Journal of Communication, 75(4), 244-258. Aluwihare-Samaranayake, D. (2012). Ethics in qualitative research: A view of the participants' and researchers' world from a critical standpoint. International Journal of qualitative methods, 11(2), 64-81. Denzin, N. K. (2017). Critical qualitative inquiry. Qualitative inquiry, 23(1), 8-16. Shashika Bandara Keiko Shikako Kathleen Rice Matthew Hunt Laurence Roy Aliki Thomas, PhD Ebrahim Mahmoudi Seye Abimbola and many others (please share)

We are pleased to introduce our keynote speaker Diletta Huyskes, researcher in the programme “Towards a Decolonized Artificial Intelligence” at the Centre for Philosophy and Technology (PHILTECH) at the Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Italy. She is also an Affiliated Researcher at the Data School, Utrecht University (NL). Since 2023, she has been co-founder and co-CEO of Immanence, the Italian company that assesses the impacts and risks of digital technologies and AI and offers solutions to ensure ethics, non-discrimination, and accountability. Her interests range from the ethics of technologies to the relationship between social exclusion and processes of datafication or algorithmization, the governance of artificial intelligence and how different cultures can shape different artifacts. With a theoretical background rooted in hermeneutics, gender and technology studies, and social constructivism (STS), her doctoral research at the Department of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Milan, included empirical and ethnographic work between Italy and the Netherlands to investigate how automated decision-making processes (ADMs) are shaped by contingent and contextualized human behaviors, decisions and negotiations which can lead to negative impacts on society and social groups, such as amplified discrimination. Previously, she worked as an Assistant Researcher in Data Ethicist at Fondazione Bruno Kessler (FBK) in Trento, Italy, where she followed a number of digital projects proposed by the local public administration with ethics by design recommendations. Stay tuned for the next keynotes of the 20th Anniversary Design Principles and Practices Research Network conference (part of Common Ground Research Networks), focused on the theme Design across Time! Conference info at: https://lnkd.in/dV3MhDCv Regular Proposal Deadline is set to 23 November 2025. Call for papers: https://lnkd.in/gYqejJJw

** The Tuskegee Study: A Lesson About Research, Secrecy, and Ethics ** In the 1930s, a group of scientists in the US began what became one of the most shocking medical studies in history, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. This research, carried out by the U.S. Public Health Service in Tuskegee, Alabama, aimed to observe how syphilis, a serious sexually transmitted disease, affected the human body if left untreated. The study involved about 600 Black men, most of them poor farmers. Around 399 had syphilis, while the rest did not. The men were told they were being treated for “bad blood,” a local term used for several illnesses. In reality, they were never told they had syphilis, and no proper treatment was given, even after doctors discovered that penicillin could cure the disease in the 1940s. The researchers wanted to watch the disease progress naturally, so they kept the men in the dark for 40 years. By the time the study was exposed in 1972, many men had died, gone blind, or suffered severe mental problems. Their wives and children were also infected. The U.S. government later apologized, and the study became a major reason for creating strict rules in research ethics, including the need for informed consent, meaning people must know what a study is about before agreeing to take part. Some scientists argue that research often needs time, patience, and sometimes secrecy to avoid bias and produce reliable results. For example, medical trials or vaccine studies may keep details hidden until data is complete to ensure fair results. However, the Tuskegee case shows that secrecy must never come at the cost of honesty or human rights. Researchers must protect participants, be transparent, and always value human life above discovery. References Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2023). U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study at Tuskegee. https://lnkd.in/gGegzdsG Jones, J. H. (1993). Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. Free Press. National Archives. (n.d.). The Tuskegee Timeline. https://www.archives.gov

Ethics of Humanitarian Research: Between Values, Standards, and Field Decisions 🌱 Alliance UA CSO team held the first event of the Ukrainian Humanitarian Research Hub (https://lnkd.in/dZQjHXdf) - a workshop dedicated to ethical challenges in humanitarian research. We created the Hub as a space where science meets practice - to foster a culture of research grounded in trust, safety, and responsibility. Humanitarian research is not about the “humanities” as an academic field - it’s about conducting research in humanitarian contexts, where every question can affect a person, their experience, and their dignity. During the workshop, we discussed: ✅ Moral responsibility of researchers in contexts of war and humanitarian crises - Dr. Hugo Slim, University of Oxford; ✅ Global research ethics standards, the FAIR and CARE models, and responsible data governance - Dr. Susan Murphy, Trinity College Dublin; ✅ Protection of respondents and researchers in conflict settings - Rafael Van den Bergh, Protect Humanitarians. In the second part, Ukrainian organizations shared practical cases - from working with adolescents and documenting war crimes to implementing internal ethical policies in large humanitarian structures. We are grateful to NGO Girls, Open Space Works Ukraine, БФ "Схід SOS" | CF "East SOS" and Caritas Ukraine for their openness, professionalism, and courage to speak frankly about complex situations. The strong feedback from participants confirmed: ethics is a critically important issue for the Ukrainian humanitarian sector. It’s not only about formal procedures - it’s about humanity in research: how we collect, store, and publish data, and how we build trust with those who share their stories. This workshop marks the first step toward developing an Ethical Code for Humanitarian Researchers in Ukraine. We sincerely thank all speakers and participants for your engagement and trust. Together, we are building a space where ethics becomes part of the culture of humanitarian response in Ukraine. Already in December, the Hub will host its next event, dedicated to the use of artificial intelligence at different stages of research - from data collection and processing to analysis and presentation of results. We will explore the ethical boundaries of using AI in research, discuss how technology can enhance analytical work without replacing human judgment, and how to preserve humanitarian responsibility in the digital age. Stay tuned 🚀

Sound and clear. This is standard yet it’s too often overlooked. I suspect its because people rush the job. With AI its actually more structured but fraught with conceptual and referential mistakes.

Re: “You need original data to publish”: I was told I couldn’t use my original data to publish until after I submitted my dissertation, so in an attempt to publish as a doc student I struggled to write a review in an area where there was little research. It became a conceptual piece. I had little experience writing conceptual pieces so I didn’t feel confident, eventually drowned in my advisor’s feedback, and gave up. I’m not sure why the dissertation still exists as an outcome if there’s so much pressure to publish before defending. It may be worth reconceptualizing the doctoral process to ditch the dissertation and provide more support with writing different kinds of shorter publications instead.

I wasted 2 years of my PhD waiting to publish. Here's how to publish in 6 months or less... Waiting for ethics approval. Waiting for lab access. Waiting for data collection to finish. Meanwhile, my peers published paper after paper. I had nothing. My supervisor kept saying: "You need original data to publish." I believed him. I was wrong. By year 3 of my PhD, I'd figured something out: The researchers publishing the most papers weren't always collecting the most data. They were mapping the field through scoping reviews. Publishing while they waited. Nobody told me this was possible. So I tried it. Picked my exact research topic. Instead of collecting data, I mapped what was already published. 3 months later: My first scoping review was accepted. Same field I was researching. No original data collected. Just a comprehensive map of existing literature. That paper opened doors I didn't expect: → 12 citations in the first year → 3 collaboration requests → 2 conference invitations → Positioned me as someone who "gets" the field All before I'd collected a single data point. Now, as a Professor, I teach this method to every stuck PhD student I meet. The ones waiting for: - Ethics approval (12-18 months common) - Lab equipment (6+ months) - Recruitment to finish (varies wildly) - International data collection (visa delays) You don't have to wait to publish. Here's the framework that changed my PhD (and now 200+ students): BUILD YOUR FOUNDATION: Clear title indicating it's a scoping review Context for why mapping is needed NOW Specific research questions to guide exploration Objective stating what landscape you're mapping DESIGN YOUR METHOD: Protocol registration (shows you're serious) Framework selection (PRISMA-ScR most common) Search strategy across multiple databases Inclusion/exclusion criteria clearly defined PRESENT YOUR FINDINGS: PRISMA flow diagram (shows transparency) Study characteristics mapped Evidence presented in tables/charts Thematic analysis of what exists Research gaps clearly identified CONNECT THE DOTS: Synthesize what mapping revealed Discuss implications for field and practice Address your review's limitations Point to where primary research needed (hello, your PhD!) The beauty of scoping reviews? They make your eventual empirical papers stronger. You know exactly where your work fits. You can cite your own scoping review. You've already positioned yourself as someone who understands the landscape. Reviewers notice. Are you currently in a waiting period? Ethics, access, recruitment, funding? Tell me in the comments. I'll let you know if scoping reviews make sense for your field and situation. #PhDLife #AcademicCareer #ResearchTips #PhDSuccess #AcademicPublishing