Data Sharing Under the General Data Protection Regulation: Time to Harmonize Law and Research Ethics?

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became binding law in the European Union Member States in 2018, as a step toward harmonizing personal data protection legislation in the European Union. The Regulation governs almost all types of personal data processing, hence, also, those pertaining to biomedical research. The purpose of this article is to highlight the main practical issues related to data and biological sample sharing that biomedical researchers face regularly, and to specify how these are addressed in the context of GDPR, after consulting with ethics/legal experts. We identify areas in which clarifications of the GDPR are needed, particularly those related to consent requirements by study participants. Amendments should target the following: (1) restricting exceptions based on national laws and increasing harmonization, (2) confirming the concept of broad consent, and (3) defining a roadmap for secondary use of data. These changes will be achieved by acknowledged learned societies in the field taking the lead in preparing a document giving guidance for the optimal interpretation of the GDPR, which will be finalized following a period of commenting by a broad multistakeholder audience. In parallel, promoting engagement and education of the public in the relevant issues (such as different consent types or residual risk for re-identification), on both local/national and international levels, is considered critical for advancement. We hope that this article will open this broad discussion involving all major stakeholders, toward optimizing the GDPR and allowing a harmonized transnational research approach.

A Survey of Iranian Retracted Publications Indexed in PubMed

Background:

Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the literature and a warning for readers in relation to publications that contain serious flaws or erroneous data. As a result of growth and development of Iranian publications in the last two decades, that brings unethical behavior of researchers led to retraction of their publications. We aimed to investigate Iranian retracted publications indexed in PubMed database.

Methods:

All Iranian retracted publications published in PubMed up to Dec 2017 have been retrieved. Bibliographic information of retracted publications, retraction notice, time lag between article publication date and the date of retraction notice, reasons of retraction, Issuer of retraction and acknowledge information of retracted publication were recorded. Additionally, citation data of retracted publications before 2013 were analyzed.

Results:

Overall, 164 Iranian retracted publications were identified. Meantime lag was 20.8 months. “Islamic Azad University” and “Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS)” were two affiliations that have received highest number of retracted publications. The most issuer of retraction publications was editor-in-chief and the most mentioned reasons for retractions were authorship issues, plagiarism, and redundant publication. Thirty-three (20.12%) publications have received funds from various agencies. Citation study of retracted publications indicates that these publications have received 789 citations (Citation per publication=11.6).

Conclusion:

Although Iranian retracted publications represent small portion of all Iranian publications, but the number of retracted publications has increased. More than half of retracted publications have had authorship issues and plagiarism that requires more attention to research ethics authorities.

[The dissemination of knowledge]

Writing content regarding the progress of medical knowledge demands the adherence to recommended practices in scientific research. It also requires clear communication, choosing the most fitting journal for its review, and observing author’s instructions in order to enable its publication.

Research ethics committee decision-making in relation to an efficient neonatal trial

OBJECTIVE

Randomised controlled trials, a gold-standard approach to reduce uncertainties in clinical practice, are growing in cost and are often slow to recruit. We determined whether methodological approaches to facilitate large, efficient clinical trials were acceptable to UK research ethics committees (RECs).

DESIGN

We developed a protocol in collaboration with parents, for a comparative-effectiveness, randomised controlled trial comparing two widely used blood transfusion practices in preterm infants. We incorporated four approaches to improve recruitment and efficiency: (i) point-of-care design using electronic patient records for patient identification, randomisation and data acquisition, (ii) short two-page information sheet; (iii) explicit mention of possible inclusion benefit; (iv) opt-out consent with enrolment as the default. With the support of the UK Health Research Authority, we submitted an identical protocol to 12 UK REC.

SETTING

RECs in the UK.

MAIN OUTCOME

Number of REC granting favourable opinions.

RESULTS

The use of electronic patient records was acceptable to all RECs; one REC raised concerns about the short parent information sheet, 10 about inclusion benefit and 9 about opt-out consent. Following responses to queries, nine RECs granted a favourable final opinion and three rejected the application because they considered the opt-out consent process invalid.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of RECs in this study consider the use of electronic patient record data, short information sheets, opt-out consent and mention of possible inclusion benefit to be acceptable in neonatal comparative-effectiveness research. We identified a need for guidance for RECs in relation to opt-out consent processes. These methods provide opportunity to facilitate large randomised controlled trials.

Metrics in academic profiles: a new addictive game for researchers?

This study aims to promote reflection and bring attention to the potential adverse effects of academic social networks on science. These academic social networks, where authors can display their publications, have become new scientific communication channels, accelerating the dissemination of research results, facilitating data sharing, and strongly promoting scientific collaboration, all at no cost to the user.One of the features that make them extremely attractive to researchers is the possibility to browse through a wide variety of bibliometric indicators. Going beyond publication and citation counts, they also measure usage, participation in the platform, social connectivity, and scientific, academic and professional impact. Using these indicators they effectively create a digital image of researchers and their reputations.However, although academic social platforms are useful applications that can help improve scientific communication, they also hide a less positive side: they are highly addictive tools that might be abused. By gamifying scientific impact using techniques originally developed for videogames, these platforms may get users hooked on them, like addicted academics, transforming what should only be a means into an end in itself.

[Bioethical Approach for Nursing Research -Focused on the Use of Research Ethics Committees]

PURPOSE

This paper was written to introduce methods of using the research ethics committee (RES) from requesting the initial review to reporting the close-out for nursing researchers.

METHODS

General ethical principles were described by reviewing the 'Bioethics and Safety Act' and other related guidelines, and constructing some questions and answers.

RESULTS

The results were composed of three parts; definition of RES, steps in using RES, and archiving. The 7 steps for using RES were; identifying whether the study needed to be reviewed, by the RES identifying whether the study could be exempted, requesting the initial review after preparing documents, requesting the re-review, requesting an amendment review, requesting a continuing review and reporting the close-out.

CONCLUSION

Nursing researchers need to receive RES approval before starting nursing research involving human subjects. Nursing researchers are urged to use the steps reported in this paper to receive RES approval easily and quickly.

Reporting results of research involving human subjects: an ethical obligation

Researchers have an ethical responsibility to report the results of research involving human subjects. Dissemination of results ensures that patient care is based on good science and that the field of medicine advances based on complete and accurate knowledge. However, current evidence suggests that publication is often neglected or substantially delayed, especially in the case of negative and inconclusive results. Researchers, editors and reviewers should value all high-quality research regardless of the conclusiveness of the results and ensure that all research involving human subjects is registered in a publicly accessible database.

Factors that Affect Integrity of Authorship of Scientific Meeting Abstracts

BACKGROUND

Strict criteria for manuscript authorship exist to guide decisions on who should be considered an author. Less is known about how authorship for scientific meetings is determined. Our goal was to explore factors that influence decisions about authorship of conference abstracts.

METHODS

In 2010, we conducted qualitative focus groups with a stratified sample of 36 trainees, 19 junior faculty, and 11 senior faculty. Focus group transcripts were coded using a coding scheme derived from an initial review of the transcripts and a preliminary theoretical framework, which was based on the literature, anecdotes, and personal experience.

RESULTS

We identified 6 themes related to abstract authorship: comparisons with manuscripts; collaboration dynamics; time; experience and professional development; standards for authorship; and funding. We found that: views of abstracts as a lesser form of publication lead to diminished integrity of authorship; trainee inexperience and the dynamics of collaboration adversely influence the integrity of authorship independently of the perceived difference between an abstract and an article; and early communication about authorship appears to increase the integrity of authorship decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Authors do not hold abstracts to the same standard as manuscripts. As such, authorship decisions are frequently inconsistent with authorship criteria pertaining to manuscripts. Such inconsistencies might be improved with stricter institutional rules, clear and consistent authorship guidelines for abstracts submitted to conferences, a requirement that all authors verify their contributions to the abstract, and additional training in the responsible conduct of research.