Teaching and Assessing the Responsible Conduct of Research: A Delphi Consensus Panel Report

In an effort to foster research integrity, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation mandate education of all trainees in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). Nevertheless, recent studies suggest that rates of questionable research practices and scientific misconduct are both high and considerably underreported. In part, this may be due to the fact that some ethical norms (e.g., authorship assignment) are far from clear and researchers are unsure how to respond to perceived misconduct. With funding from the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI), we convened four panels of experts to develop a consensus on the overarching goals and teaching content of RCR instruction. Our panelists recommended nine overarching objectives for RCR instruction that require us to rethink common modes of instruction, and they identified issues and standards that should be covered within controversial areas such as authorship assignment and whistle-blowing. Additionally, our experts recommended two new core areas for RCR instruction: The social responsibilities of scientists and current topics in RCR.     

Seeking Justice and Redress for Victim-Survivors of Image-Based Sexual Abuse

Feminist Legal Studies - Despite apparent political concern and action—often fuelled by high-profile cases and campaigns—legislative and institutional responses to image-based sexual...     

Negative Campaigning in the Social Media Age: Attack Advertising on Facebook

Recent studies examine politicians’ decisions to use social media, as well as the content of the messages that these political actors disseminate on social media platforms. We contribute to this literature by examining how race competitiveness and a candidate’s position in the race relative to her opponent affect their decisions to issue attacks. Through content analysis of nearly 15,000 Facebook posts for tone (positive or negative), we find that while competitive races encourage both candidates to issue more negative posts, candidates in less competitive races embrace attack messages with more or less frequency depending on whether they trail or lead their opponent. We find that social media negativity is much more likely to be a desperation strategy employed by underdog candidates in less competitive races. We also run separate models examining the factors that drive policy and personal attacks. While underdog candidates are more likely to engage in issue attacks, candidates in competitive races are significantly more likely to use Facebook to make personal attacks.