Abstract
Coningham R, Lewer N, Acharya KP, et al. (2024) Enabling equitable and ethical research partnerships in crisis situations: Lessons learned from post-disaster heritage protection interventions following Nepal’s 2015 earthquake. Res. Ethics 20(4): 835-846. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241234502
Zhang X and Wang P (2024) Research misconduct in China: towards an institutional analysis. Res. Ethics 21(1): 76-96. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241247720
Pherali T, Bragg S, Borra C, et al. (2024) Research ethics in social science research during health pandemics: what can we learn from COVID-19 experiences? Res. Ethics 21(1): 97-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241252414
Hosseini M and Resnik DB (2024) Guidance needed for using artificial intelligence to screen journal submissions for misconduct. Res Ethics 21(1): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241254052
Ravinetto R, Adhiambo J and Kimani J (2024) Research ethics preparedness during outbreaks and public health emergencies: Focus on community engagement. Res. Ethics 20(4): 731-743. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241254169
Nguyen LT and Tuamsuk K (2024) Factors influencing researchers’ scientific integrity in scholarly publishing: a path analysis approach. Res. Ethics 21(3): 384-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241257445
Cavolo A and Pizzolato D (2024) Expanding the ethical debate on human artificial placenta trials. Res. Ethics 21(1): 9-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241259127
Jakob U, Kraemer F, Kraus F, et al. (2024) Applying Ethics in the Handling of Dual Use Research: The Case of Germany. Res. Ethics 21(2): 228-244. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241261044
De Peuter S, Reck J, Bellekens S, et al. (2024). Gift and ghost authorship and the use of authorship guidelines in psychology journals: A cross-sectional survey. Res. Ethics 21(3): 408-424. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241262244
Lake-Bullock H, Smith J, Matuszak E, et al. (2024) Institutional requirement and central tracking of RCR training of all researchers and research eligible individuals. Res. Ethics 21(3): 425-447. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241264171
Doerksen E, Gunay AE, Neufeld SD, et al. (2024) Community-led approaches to research governance: a scoping review of strategies. Res. Ethics 21(3): 519-545. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241269154
Lev O and Keren A (2024) Addressing the risks of dual use research: who is responsible? Res. Ethics 21(2): 267-285. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241268685
Gřundělová B, Broskevičová Z and Kowolová I (2024) When a gatekeeper denies a researcher access: circumstances of gate closure in social work research. Res. Ethics. Epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241273813
Robinson C (2024) Ethical considerations of children’s involvement in school-based research: balancing children’s provision, protection, and participation rights. Res. Ethics 21(3): 480-502. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241272872
Lay W, Gasparini L, Siero W, et al. (2024) A rapid review of the benefits and challenges of dynamic consent. Res. Ethics 21(1): 180-202. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241278064
John J and Castleden H (2024) “Dear John”: Overriding institutional axiology by privileging Indigenous relational ethics. Res. Ethics. Epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241288649
Onyango J, Wango G-N, Okeyo N, et al. (2024) Comparing comprehension of consent document between adolescent girls and caregivers of adolescents in Siaya County, Kenya: implications for research with adolescents. Res. Ethics. Epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241290627
Gauckler C (2024) Dual-use research in philosophy: can there be such a thing? Res. Ethics 21(2): 286-301. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241297731
Allen JW, Schaefer O, Porsdam Mann S, et al. (2024) Augmenting research consent: should large language models (LLMs) be used for informed consent to clinical research? Res. Ethics. Epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241298726
Cavolo A, Pizzolato D, Gastmans C, et al. (2024) Fair access challenges in maternal-fetal surgery trials. Res. Ethics 21(3): 546-552. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241303300
Bernasconi L and Grossmann R (2025) Navigating the future of clinical trial management – insights on the transformative role of AI. Res. Ethics. Epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241309347
Hoskins K, Sebetka K, Thomas A, et al. (2025) Pragmatic and ethical challenges in navigating inauthentic participation in remote qualitative research. Res. Ethics. Epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161251316286
Koloi-Keaikitse S, Geller G, Jankie D, et al. (2025) Nature and value of health research: perspectives from local communities in Botswana. Res. Ethics. Epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161251319130
Cheung K, Ehrenkranz R, and Yaden DB (2025) Enhanced independence: De-biasing processes in psychedelic research and beyond. Res. Ethics. Epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161251326588
Rasmussen LM, Jones ED, Martin V, et al. (2025) Equitable payments for research participation: A successful case of exceptionalism. Res. Ethics 21(3): 553-557. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161251335426
Zirak Ghazani A (2025) Amplifying voices, dismantling silences: Ethical praxis in multimodal child-centered research. Res. Ethics. Epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161251339785
In the above-mentioned articles, the following information has been removed from the funding section:
All articles in Research Ethics are published as open access. There are no submission charges and no Article Processing Charges as these are fully funded by institutions through Knowledge Unlatched, resulting in no direct charge to authors. For more information about Knowledge Unlatched please see here: http://www.knowledgeunlatched.org.
The articles have been updated to reflect the corrections.