Satisfaction of essential needs in E-learning as a mediator of the links between students' attitudes and ethical misbehaviors

The current study investigated the links between attitudes toward e-learning, satisfaction of essential needs in e-learning and ethical misbehavior in a survey of 1001 students from different higher education institutions in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Structural equation modeling analyses present-that a positive attitude toward e-learning was linked to lower levels of ethical issues, and those links were explained in part (i.e., mediated) by higher levels of the satisfaction of essential needs. In contrast, an unaccepted view about e-learning was associated with lower levels of the satisfaction of essential needs during E-learning and correspondingly higher levels of ethical misbehavior engagement. The effects are tackled in the sense of essential-need satisfaction in e-learning, principled themes, and exposure to e-learning.

Screening for domestic abuse and its relationship with demographic variables among elderly individuals referred to primary health care centers of Shiraz in 2018

BACKGROUND

Elder abuse is an important public health problem. The present study was aimed to determine the rate of domestic abuse and its relationship with demographic characteristics among elderly people referred to Primary Health Care (PHC) centers in Shiraz, Iran, 2018.

METHODS

This descriptive and cross-sectional study was conducted on 400 older people aged 60 years old and above who referred to 22 PHC centers of Shiraz. The data were collected using demographic characteristics questionnaire, Katz index, the domestic elder abuse questionnaire, and elder neglect checklist through face-to-face interview and observation methods. Backward linear regression model was used for analyzing the data.

RESULTS

The results indicated that 52.5% of the participants were female and 51.8% aged 60-69 years old. A total of 159 cases (39.8%) reflected at least one form of elder abuse or neglect. The results indicated that 21% of the participants (n = 84) were abused by their own children. Care neglect was the most reported form (42.8%), followed by psychological abuse (41.3%), emotional neglect (38.8%), and financial abuse (34.3%). The most common types of neglect were motion limitations (25%) followed by the dental problems (23.8%). The results also showed a significant relationship between domestic elder abuse and level of income (p = 0.017), having a house (p = 0.028), type of perpetrator (< 0.001), and insurance status (p = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

The results revealed a considerable rate of domestic abuse against elderly people, causing a serious risk for their health and security.

Researchers' Perceptions of Ethical Authorship Distribution in Collaborative Research Teams

Authorship is commonly used as the basis for the measurement of research productivity. It influences career progression and rewards, making it a valued commodity in a competitive scientific environment. To better understand authorship practices amongst collaborative teams, this study surveyed authors on collaborative journal articles published between 2011 and 2015. Of the 8364 respondents, 1408 responded to the final open-ended question, which solicited additional comments or remarks regarding the fair distribution of authorship in research teams. This paper presents the analysis of these comments, categorized into four main themes: (1) disagreements, (2) questionable behavior, (3) external influences regarding authorship, and (4) values promoted by researchers. Results suggest that some respondents find ways to effectively manage disagreements in a collegial fashion. Conversely, others explain how distribution of authorship can become a "blood sport" or a "horror story" which can negatively affect researchers' wellbeing, scientific productivity and integrity. Researchers fear authorship discussions and often try to avoid openly discussing the situation which can strain team interactions. Unethical conduct is more likely to result from deceit, favoritism, and questionable mentorship and may become more egregious when there is constant bullying and discrimination. Although values of collegiality, transparency and fairness were promoted by researchers, rank and need for success often overpowered ethical decision-making. This research provides new insight into contextual specificities related to fair authorship distribution that can be instrumental in developing applicable training tools to identify, prevent, and mitigate authorship disagreement.

Misconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements in Collaborative Science

Scientific authorship serves to identify and acknowledge individuals who "contribute significantly" to published research. However, specific authorship norms and practices often differ within and across disciplines, labs, and cultures. As a consequence, authorship disagreements are commonplace in team research. This study aims to better understand the prevalence of authorship disagreements, those factors that may lead to disagreements, as well as the extent and nature of resulting misbehavior. Methods include an international online survey of researchers who had published from 2011 to 2015 (8364 respondents). Of the 6673 who completed the main questions pertaining to authorship disagreement and misbehavior, nearly half (46.6%) reported disagreements regarding authorship naming; and discipline, rank, and gender had significant effects on disagreement rates. Paradoxically, researchers in multidisciplinary teams that typically reflect a range of norms and values, were less likely to have faced disagreements regarding authorship. Respondents reported having witnessed a wide range of misbehavior including: instances of hostility (24.6%), undermining of a colleague's work during meetings/talks (16.4%), cutting corners on research (8.3%), sabotaging a colleague's research (6.4%), or producing fraudulent work to be more competitive (3.3%). These findings suggest that authorship disputes may contribute to an unhealthy competitive dynamic that can undermine researchers' wellbeing, team cohesion, and scientific integrity.