How do you know it is true? Integrity in research and publications: AOA critical issues

Disciplinary Imbalances in Urology and Gynecology Research Publications within Functional Urology

(1) Background: This study aimed to quantify and evaluate the publication rate and discrepancies of functional urology abstracts from international conferences, and to explore the interdisciplinary contributions of urology and gynecology to the field. (2) Methods: A retrospective bibliometric and content analysis was conducted on abstracts presented between 2015 and 2019 at the EAU and ICS congresses, focusing on functional-urological keywords. A discrepancy scoring system ranging from 0 (minor discrepancies) to 3 (significant discrepancies) assessed the consistency between conference abstracts and full-text publications, and an in-depth analysis determined the disciplinary origin of these publications. (3) Results: Between 2015 and 2019, 53% of EAU and 57% of ICS congress abstracts were published as full-text articles, with minor discrepancies in 38% of EAU and 49% of ICS publications, and significant discrepancies in 17% from both. Urology departments dominated publications, contributing 68% at EAU and 55% at ICS, whereas gynecology contributed only 1% at EAU and 12% at ICS. (4) Conclusions: This study illuminates the need for improved reporting standards and interdisciplinary collaboration in functional urology, as well as increased gynecology research in functional urology-related fields, suggesting that addressing these issues is crucial for advancing the field and enhancing patient care.

A review of the literature on ethical issues related to scientific authorship

The article at hand presents the results of a literature review on the ethical issues related to scientific authorship. These issues are understood as questions and/or concerns about obligations, values or virtues in relation to reporting, authorship and publication of research results. For this purpose, the Web of Science core collection was searched for English resources published between 1945 and 2018, and a total of 324 items were analyzed. Based on the review of the documents, ten ethical themes have been identified, some of which entail several ethical issues. Ranked on the basis of their frequency of occurrence these themes are: 1) attribution, 2) violations of the norms of authorship, 3) bias, 4) responsibility and accountability, 5) authorship order, 6) citations and referencing, 7) definition of authorship, 8) publication strategy, 9) originality, and 10) sanctions. In mapping these themes, the current article explores major ethical issue and provides a critical discussion about the application of codes of conduct, various understandings of culture, and contributing factors to unethical behavior.

Scientific Integrity Principles and Best Practices: Recommendations from a Scientific Integrity Consortium

A Scientific Integrity Consortium developed a set of recommended principles and best practices that can be used broadly across scientific disciplines as a mechanism for consensus on scientific integrity standards and to better equip scientists to operate in a rapidly changing research environment. The two principles that represent the umbrella under which scientific processes should operate are as follows: (1) Foster a culture of integrity in the scientific process. (2) Evidence-based policy interests may have legitimate roles to play in influencing aspects of the research process, but those roles should not interfere with scientific integrity. The nine best practices for instilling scientific integrity in the implementation of these two overarching principles are (1) Require universal training in robust scientific methods, in the use of appropriate experimental design and statistics, and in responsible research practices for scientists at all levels, with the training content regularly updated and presented by qualified scientists. (2) Strengthen scientific integrity oversight and processes throughout the research continuum with a focus on training in ethics and conduct. (3) Encourage reproducibility of research through transparency. (4) Strive to establish open science as the standard operating procedure throughout the scientific enterprise. (5) Develop and implement educational tools to teach communication skills that uphold scientific integrity. (6) Strive to identify ways to further strengthen the peer review process. (7) Encourage scientific journals to publish unanticipated findings that meet standards of quality and scientific integrity. (8) Seek harmonization and implementation among journals of rapid, consistent, and transparent processes for correction and/or retraction of published papers. (9) Design rigorous and comprehensive evaluation criteria that recognize and reward the highest standards of integrity in scientific research.

"Publish or Perish" Promotes Medical Literature Quantity Over Quality

When it comes to medical research, incentives align to promote "publish or perish." This results in quantity over quality. A solution is to change the goal of medical scientist and clinician training from bolstering a curriculum vitae to mastering scientific research methods. In addition, the metric for scholarly authorship should be quality, for which validated measurement tools exist, rather than number of publications.

A scoping review to explore how universal design for learning is described and implemented by rehabilitation health professionals in school settings

BACKGROUND

Universal design for learning (UDL) is a framework that provides guidelines to support children with diverse needs in the classroom and promotes inclusion of all children. Although UDL is recognized as a promising approach for school-based rehabilitation health professionals (RHPs), there are no studies that synthesize evidence on the use of UDL by RHPs in the school setting. Therefore, the research question for this study is: How is UDL described and implemented in school settings by RHPs? This study specifically examined literature from occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and speech-language pathology.

METHODS

A scoping review was completed to (a) summarize how UDL is described in the rehabilitation literature, (b) summarize the recommended and reported role of RHPs in the delivery of UDL, and (c) identify gaps in the evidence base. CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science, and ERIC electronic databases were searched. Numerical summaries and theoretical thematic analysis were used to describe the data both quantitatively and qualitatively.

RESULTS

Inclusion criteria were achieved for 45 of the 3,998 screened documents. Most of the included documents lacked a definition of UDL. Analysis suggested that speech-language pathologists and occupational therapists implement UDL in a variety of ways within the school setting. No physiotherapy literature was found, and limited high-level empirical research has been conducted within rehabilitation.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review provides a broad understanding of how RHPs describe and implement UDL-aligned services in school settings. UDL is a promising framework that provides RHPs with guidance on how to support children with diverse needs in the classroom, with the overall aim to promote inclusion of all children. There is a need for further research to determine the effectiveness of UDL as implemented by RHPs and to examine the role of physiotherapists in using UDL-type services.