【英語論文の書き方】第71回 「研究倫理 パート1: 研究デザインとデータ報告」について

2020年3月26日 10時00分

第70回では「結論を出す ~AbstractとConclusionsの違い~」を取り上げました。

第71(今回)のテーマは「研究倫理 パート1: 研究デザインとデータ報告」についてです。
 
Geoffさんによると、研究者の職業倫理の中で
重要であるけれども忘れられがちな一面とは、
同じ研究者仲間に対して取った行動の結果に関することだそうです。
 
研究者が、他の研究者仲間に対して担う倫理的な責任について、
今回の記事では次の2つを挙げています。
 
1つは、公表に値するような、確かな結果を生む実験を計画すること。
そしてもう1つは、データを厳密にチェックすること。
 
その理由とは、どのようなことなのでしょうか。
 
次回のパート2も関連するトピックとなっておりますので、
ぜひ続けてお読みください。

 

Ethics, part I: The ethics of research design and data reporting By Geoffrey Hart

Ethics is the field of philosophy that investigates the issues of right and wrong behavior. In English usage, ethics is sometimes considered to relate to principles that are universally applicable, whereas morals is considered to relate more to the relationship between personal behavior and the principles for right and wrong behavior that have been defined by a specific group, culture, or society. However, in common practice, most English writers use the two terms as if they mean the same thing. For the sake of simplicity, I will refer to both concepts as ethics in this article and the follow-up article.
There’s a widespread belief that science is inherently ethically neutral, since knowledge only becomes “good” or “bad” when it is applied in good and bad ways. Although that’s true, most fields of research have developed their own set of ethical principles (a “code of ethics”) to guide both how research is conducted and how researchers communicate the results of that research. That is, these codes help to clarify the principles that define good and bad behavior for researchers in that field. These principles are usually developed based on the current social and scientific contexts for a field, and are revised whenever new discoveries create new ethical contexts with implications that must be carefully considered. If you work in a specific field, find the time to determine whether a code of ethics exists for your field, and familiarize yourself with that code and how it constrains your behavior. If you find no code, you may be able to find a suitable code of ethics that you can follow from a related field—or perhaps you’ll feel motivated to lead an initiative to develop a code that meets the specific needs of your field.
The purpose of an ethical code is to shift the balance of the consequences of research towards behavior that is predominantly good for the group, culture, or society, and to minimize neutral and negative behavior. But an important and neglected aspect of professional ethics relates to the consequences of your actions for your colleagues. In this article, I’ll discuss two important ethical responsibilities to your colleagues. In part 2 of this article, I’ll discuss a third responsibility: to avoid wasting a reader’s time.
The first responsibility is to design experiments that produce reliable results that are worth publishing. Many researchers, particularly early in their career, simply apply existing research methods, without carefully considering whether their research context differs enough from the context for those original methods to require a change in approach. Every experiment occurs under certain constraints that differ between contexts: different organisms, different environments, and different prior conditions can all affect the design and performance of research. Before you adopt another researcher’s method, carefully consider whether your unique situation requires a change in their methods to account for your unique constraints. This increases both the accuracy of your data and the likelihood of repaying the time and money you invest in your research. In a world with many alternative uses for money, including feeding, housing, and healing the poorest citizens, that’s an important consideration.
The second responsibility is to rigorously check your data, no matter how boring this task seems. Any errors in recording your data or in transferring it to (for example) statistical software creates a problem in all subsequent stages of your data analysis and interpretation of the results. As an editor, I have seen (and corrected) many examples of errors in which the author reversed two columns of data in a table or the variables on two axes of a graph, leading to inaccurate and highly misleading conclusions. Asking one or more colleagues to carefully check all your data to confirm that it has been correctly transferred and analyzed is ethical, but it also provides good training for students who have not yet begun independent research careers. Similarly, double-check all calculations—compare your calculations with the same calculations performed by a coauthor, and if there are any discrepancies between the two results, sit down together and identify the source of the error so you can determine which result is correct.
This verification is time-consuming, but it greatly reduces the risk of introducing potentially serious errors into the literature. These errors may affect other researchers for many years. Once results are published, they become a permanent part of the literature, and affect all future researchers who read your paper. The most serious errors may require withdrawal of a paper from the journal (i.e., eliminating it from the journal’s Web site). Although it’s possible to publish errata and response letters, so that the correction becomes part of the literature, there’s no way to ensure that all readers of the original paper will learn about these corrections. Indeed, placing this burden on readers of the literature is unethical and impractical. Imagine, for example, that you wrote a typical journal paper that includes 20 or more literature citations. Nobody has the desire and few people have the time to do a literature search for each of those 20 papers to see whether there have been retractions and corrections or whether critical comment letters have been published. This leads us to the third ethical responsibility: to not waste the reader’s time. That’s sufficiently important that I’ll discuss this in part 2 of this article.
The problem of distributing corrections can be particularly serious for copies of papers that have already been distributed. It’s impossible to find all copies of the paper that had been read before the correction was published or distributed around the world. For example, a paper’s Abstract may appear in hundreds of online databases around the world, and there’s no way to find all of these databases and ask their owners to correct the errors. It’s also not possible to correct all the printed copies of a journal that have been purchased by subscribers and libraries around the world. Finally, many researchers archive printed copies of papers, or PDF copies, so that they will not need to find and download the paper in the future. It’s impossible to find and correct all of these copies of the original paper.
Ethics seems like something abstract that would be of interest primarily to philosophers. It’s not. You can’t eliminate 100% of the problems I described in this article, but you can try to remember that your decisions have real consequences for others, and invest a few minutes of your time to minimize the frequency and consequences of such errors.
 

無料メルマガ登録

メールアドレス
お名前

これからも約2週間に一度のペースで、英語で論文を書く方向けに役立つコンテンツをお届けしていきますので、お見逃しのないよう、上記のフォームよりご登録ください。
 
もちろん無料です。

バックナンバー

第1回 if、in case、when の正しい使い分け:確実性の程度を英語で正しく表現する

第2回 「装置」に対する英語表現

第3回 助動詞のニュアンスを正しく理解する:「~することが出来た」「~することが出来なかった」の表現

第4回 「~を用いて」の表現:by と with の違い

第5回 技術英文で使われる代名詞のitおよび指示代名詞thisとthatの違いとそれらの使用法

第6回 原因・結果を表す動詞の正しい使い方:その1 原因→結果

第7回 原因・結果を表す動詞の使い方:その2 結果→原因

第8回 受動態の多用と誤用に注意

第9回 top-heavyな英文を避ける

第10回 名詞の修飾語を前から修飾する場合の表現法

第11回 受動態による効果的表現

第12回 同格を表す接続詞thatの使い方

第13回 「技術」を表す英語表現

第14回 「特別に」を表す英語表現

第15回 所有を示すアポストロフィー + s ( ’s) の使い方

第16回 「つまり」「言い換えれば」を表す表現

第17回 寸法や重量を表す表現

第18回 前置詞 of の使い方: Part 1

第19回 前置詞 of の使い方: Part 2

第20回 物体や物質を表す英語表現

第21回 句動詞表現より1語動詞での表現へ

第22回 不定詞と動名詞: Part 1

第23回 不定詞と動名詞の使い分け: Part 2

第24回 理由を表す表現

第25回 総称表現 (a, theの使い方を含む)

第26回研究開発」を表す英語表現

第27回 「0~1の数値は単数か複数か?」

第28回 「時制-現在形の動詞の使い方」

第29回  then, however, therefore, for example など接続副詞の使い方​

第30回  まちがえやすいusing, based onの使い方-分詞構文​

第31回  比率や割合の表現(ratio, rate, proportion, percent, percentage)

第32回 英語論文の書き方 総集編

第33回 Quality Review Issue No. 23 report, show の時制について​

第34回 Quality Review Issue No. 24 参考文献で日本語論文をどう記載すべきか​

第35回 Quality Review Issue No. 25 略語を書き出すときによくある間違いとは?​

第36回 Quality Review Issue No. 26 %と℃の前にスペースを入れるかどうか

第37回 Quality Review Issue No. 27 同じ種類の名詞が続くとき冠詞は付けるべき?!​

第38回 Quality Review Issue No. 22  日本人が特に間違えやすい副詞の使い方​

第39回 Quality Review Issue No. 21  previous, preceding, earlierなどの表現のちがい

第40回 Quality Review Issue No. 20 using XX, by XXの表現の違い

第41回 Quality Review Issue No. 19 increase, rise, surgeなど動詞の選び方

第42回 Quality Review Issue No. 18 論文での受動態の使い方​

第43回 Quality Review Issue No. 17  Compared with とCompared toの違いは?​

第44回 Reported about, Approach toの前置詞は必要か?​

第45回 Think, propose, suggest, consider, believeの使い分け​

第46回 Quality Review Issue No. 14  Problematic prepositions scientific writing: by, through, and with -3つの前置詞について​

第47回 Quality Review Issue No. 13 名詞を前から修飾する場合と後ろから修飾する場合​

第48回 Quality Review Issue No. 13 単数用法のThey​

第49回 Quality Review Issue No. 12  study, investigation, research の微妙なニュアンスのちがい

第50回 SinceとBecause 用法に違いはあるのか?

第51回 Figure 1とFig.1の使い分け

第52回 数式を含む場合は現在形か?過去形か?

第53回 Quality Review Issue No. 8  By 2020とup to 2020の違い

第54回 Quality Review Issue No. 7  high-accuracy data? それとも High accurate data? 複合形容詞でのハイフンの使用

第55回 実験計画について

第56回 参考文献について

第57回 データの分析について

第58回 強調表現について

第59回 共同研究の論文執筆について

第60回 論文の略語について

第61回 冠詞の使い分けについて

第62回 大文字表記について

第63回 ダッシュの使い分け

第64回 英語の言葉選びの難しさについて

第65回 過去形と能動態について

第66回 「知識の呪い」について

第67回 「文献の引用パート1」について

第68回 「文献の引用パート2」について

第69回 「ジャーナル用の図表の準備」について

第70回 「結論を出す ~AbstractとConclusionsの違い~」について


〒300-1206
茨城県牛久市ひたち野西3-12-2
オリオンピアA-5

TEL 029-870-3307
FAX 029-870-3308
ワールド翻訳サービス スタッフブログ ワールド翻訳サービス Facebook ワールド翻訳サービスの動画紹介