Abstract
For the below-mentioned papers, conflict of interest statements were missing, hence correct information is listed as:
The authors of “Ethically important moments as data: reflections from ethnographic fieldwork in prisons” by Carol Robinson (Research Ethics, 16(1–2), 1–15. DOI: 10.1177/1747016119898401) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “The introduction of research ethics review procedures at a university in South Africa: review outcomes of a social science research ethics committee” by Simeon EH Davies (Research Ethics, 16(1–2), 1–26. DOI: 10.1177/1747016119898408) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Ethical reflections on children’s participation in educational research during humanitarian crises” by Maglio et al. (Research Ethics, 16(1–2), 1–19. DOI: 10.1177/1747016119898409) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Research ethics in practice: challenges of using digital technology to embed the voices of children and young people within programs for fathers who use domestic violence” by Lamb et al. (Research Ethics, 17(2), 176–192. DOI: 10.1177/1747016120936324) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Islamic concepts in ethics of pediatric clinical research” by AlFattani et al. (Research Ethics, 16(1–2), 1–11. DOI: 10.1177/1747016119898405) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Preventing ethics dumping: the challenges for Kenyan research ethics committees” by Chatfield et al. (Research Ethics, 17(1), 23–44. DOI: 10.1177/1747016120925064) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Research ethics courses as a vaccination against a toxic research environment or culture” by Yeo-Teh et al. (Research Ethics, 17(1), 55–65. DOI: 10.1177/1747016120926686) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “On-site monitoring of clinical trials by an Ethics Committee in India: a road less travelled” by Shafiq et al. (Research Ethics, 17(1), 45–54. DOI: 10.1177/1747016120933923) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “The responsibility of knowledge: Identifying and reporting students with evidence of psychological distress in large-scale school-based studies” by Kern et al. (Research Ethics, 17(2), 193–216. DOI: 10.1177/1747016120952511) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Ethical challenges in researching and telling the stories of recently deceased people” by Caswell et al. (Research Ethics, 17(2), 162–175. DOI: 10.1177/1747016120952503) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Fostering the trustworthiness of researchers: SPECS and the role of ethical reflexivity in novel neurotechnology research” by Tubig et al. (Research Ethics, 17(2), 143–161. DOI: 10.1177/1747016120952500) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Community-based health care providers as research participant recruitment gatekeepers: ethical and legal issues in a real-world case example” by Celedonia et al. (Research Ethics, 17(2), 242–250. DOI: 10.1177/1747016120980560) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Ethical rationale for better coordination of clinical research on COVID-19” by Francois Bompart (Research Ethics, 16(3–4), 1–10. DOI: 10.1177/1747016120931998) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Pandemic ethics: the case for risky research” by Chappell et al. (Research Ethics, 16(3–4), 1–8. DOI: 10.1177/1747016120931920) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Fostering ethical biomedical and health research in India during the COVID-19 pandemic” by Kumar et al. (Research Ethics, 16(3–4), 1–10. DOI: 10.1177/1747016120941632) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Online educational research with middle adolescent populations: Ethical considerations and recommendations” by Mackenzie et al. (Research Ethics, 17(2), 217–227. DOI: 10.1177/1747016120963160) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “COVID-19: Africa’s relation with epidemics and some imperative ethics considerations of the moment” by Tangwa et al. (Research Ethics, 17(2), 217–227. DOI: 10.1177/1747016120937391) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “The ethics of COVID-19 tracking apps – challenges and voluntariness” by Klar et al. (Research Ethics, 16(3–4), 1–9. DOI: 10.1177/1747016120943622) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “COVID-19 human challenge trials – what research ethics committees need to consider” by Tambornino et al. (Research Ethics, 16(3–4), 1–11. DOI: 10.1177/1747016120943635) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Unethical governance: capacity legislation and the exclusion of people diagnosed with dementias from research” by James Rupert Fletcher (Research Ethics, 17(3), 298–308. DOI: 10.1177/1747016120982023) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Pandemic vaccine trials: expedite, but don’t rush” by Angus Dawson (Research Ethics, 16(3–4), 1–12. DOI: 10.1177/1747016120943730) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Publish or be ethical? Publishing pressure and scientific misconduct in research” by Paruzel-Czachura et al. (Research Ethics, 17(3), 375–397. DOI: 10.1177/1747016120980562) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Ethics in global research: Creating a toolkit to support integrity and ethical action throughout the research journey” by Reid et al. (Research Ethics, 17(3), 359–374. DOI: 10.1177/1747016121997522) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “How ethical challenges of covert observations can be met in practice” by Nicole Podschuweit (Research Ethics, 17(3), 309–327. DOI: 10.1177/17470161211008218) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Towards an Ọmọlúàbí code of research ethics: Applying a situated, participant-centred virtue ethics framework to fieldwork with disadvantaged populations in diverse cultural settings” by Bukola Oyinloye (Research Ethics, 17(4), 401–422. DOI: 10.1177/17470161211010863) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “A critical self-reflexive account of a privileged researcher in a complicated setting: Kakuma refugee camp” by Neil Bilotta (Research Ethics, 17(4), 435–447. DOI: 10.1177/17470161211037386) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Ethical approval: none sought. How discourse analysts report ethical issues around publicly available online data” by Stommel et al. (Research Ethics, 17(3), 275–297. DOI: 10.1177/1747016120988767) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Ethical research landscapes in fragile and conflict-affected contexts: understanding the challenges” by Shanks et al. (Research Ethics, 18(3), 169–192. DOI: 10.1177/17470161221094134) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Queer considerations: Exploring the use of social media for research recruitment within LGBTQ communities” by Littler et al. (Research Ethics, 17(3), 267–274. DOI: 10.1177/17470161211003021) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “What are the most common reasons for return of ethics submissions? An audit of an Australian health service ethics committee” by Brandenburg et al. (Research Ethics, 17(3), 346–358. DOI: 10.1177/1747016121999935) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Ethical and practical considerations in HIV drug trial closure: perspectives of research staff in Uganda” by Nalubega et al. (Research Ethics, 17(4), 423–434. DOI: 10.1177/17470161211030971) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Can research ethics codes be a conduit for justice? An examination of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander guidelines in Australia” by Zion et al. (Research Ethics, 18(1), 51–63. DOI: 10.1177/17470161211053199) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Negotiating the practicalities of informed consent in the field with children and young people: learning from social science researchers” by Sherwood et al. (Research Ethics, 17(4), 448–463. DOI: 10.1177/17470161211014941) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Evaluating the prospects for university-based ethical governance in artificial intelligence and data-driven innovation” by Christine Hine (Research Ethics, 17(4), 464–479. DOI: 10.1177/17470161211022790) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “‘Grey areas’: ethical challenges posed by social media-enabled recruitment and online data collection in cross-border, social science research” by Bamdad et al. (Research Ethics, 18(1), 24–38. DOI: 10.1177/17470161211045557) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Navigating conflict between research ethics and online platform terms and conditions: a reflective account” by Shi Min Chua (Research Ethics, 18(1), 39–50. DOI: 10.1177/17470161211045526) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “A phenomenographic study of scientists’ beliefs about the causes of scientists’ research misconduct” by Cairns et al. (Research Ethics, 17(4), 501–521. DOI: 10.1177/17470161211042658) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Motives and risk perceptions of participants in a phase 1 trial for Hepatitis C Virus investigational therapy in pregnancy” by Kislovskiy et al. (Research Ethics, 18(2), 132–150. DOI: 10.1177/17470161211066159) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Recruiting pupils for a school-based eye study in Nigeria: Trust and informed consent concerns” by Okoye et al. (Research Ethics, 18(1), 13–23. DOI: 10.1177/17470161211045772) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Reshaping the review of consent so we might improve participant choice” by Hugh Davies et al. (Research Ethics, 18(1), 3–12. DOI: 10.1177/17470161211043703) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “A modest proposal to the peer review process: a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach in the assessment of scholarly communication” by August John Hoffman (Research Ethics, 18(1), 84–91. DOI: 10.1177/17470161211051230) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Reporting incidental findings from non-biological assessments in human subject research” by Pingitore et al. (Research Ethics, 18(3), 241–249. DOI: 10.1177/17470161221093877) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Personalising the dilemma: research ethics in fiction” by Sally Dalton-Brown (Research Ethics, 18(2), 114–125. DOI: 10.1177/17470161211066445) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Waving away waivers: an obligation to contribute to ‘herd knowledge’ for data linkage research?” by Owen M Bradfield (Research Ethics, 18(2), 151–162. DOI: 10.1177/17470161211058311) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Reporting and discoverability of “Tweets” quoted in published scholarship: current practice and ethical implications“ by Mason et al. (Research Ethics, 18(2), 93–113. DOI: 10.1177/17470161221076948) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Scientific journals must be alert to potential manipulation in citations and referencing” by Mina Mehregan (Research Ethics, 18(2), 163–168. DOI: 10.1177/17470161211068745) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Experiences and practices of key research team members in obtaining informed consent for pharmacogenetic research among people living with HIV: a qualitative study” by Sylvia et al. (Research Ethics, 18(3), 193–209. DOI: 10.1177/17470161221076974) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Equality and Equity in Compensating Patient Engagement in Research: A Plea for Exceptionalism” by Bélisle-Pipon et al. (Research Ethics, 18(2), 126–131. DOI: 10.1177/17470161211059993) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Ethical considerations in social media analytics in the context of migration: lessons learned from a Horizon 2020 project” by Mahoney et al. (Research Ethics, 18(3), 226–240. DOI: 10.1177/17470161221087542) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Informed consent in a tuberculosis genetic study in Cameroon: information overload, situational vulnerability and diagnostic misconception” by Mohammed-Ali et al. (Research Ethics, 18(4), 265–280. DOI: 10.1177/17470161221106674) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “The intervening effect of the What Being the Parent of a New Baby is Like-Revised questionnaire on maternal affect” by Beeck et al. (Research Ethics, 18(3), 250–262. DOI: 10.1177/17470161221094929) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Principlism and citizen science: the possibilities and limitations of principlism for guiding responsible citizen science conduct” by Baard et al. (Research Ethics, 18(4), 304–318. DOI: 110.1177/17470161221116558) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Ethics review and conversation analysis” by Jeffrey P Aguinaldo (Research Ethics, 18(4), 319–328. DOI: 10.1177/17470161221116552) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors of “Overcoming barriers to informed consent in neurological research: Perspectives from a national survey” by Sankary et al. (Research Ethics, 19(1), 42–61. DOI: 10.1177/17470161221131497) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.