Jump to comment:

• Trust, Review, Response and Ethical control
  hinpetch daungsupawong, viroj wiwanitkit
  Published on: 16 October 2023
• Trust is dead, long live trust
  Hugh Davies
  Published on: 22 September 2023

• Published on: 16 October 2023

  Trust, Review, Response and Ethical control

  • hinpetch daungsupawong, academic consultant private academic consultant, Laos
  • Other Contributors:
    • viroj wiwanitkit, medical professor

  Trust, Review, Response and Ethical control
  Hinpetch Daungsupawong1; Viroj Wiwanitkit2
  1. Private Academic Consultant, Phonhong, Lao People's Democratic Republic ORCID: 0009-0002-5881-2709
  2. Adjunct professor, Chandigarh University, India ORCID 0000-0003-1039-3728 Correspondence
  Hinpetch Daungsupawong
  Private Academic Consultant, Phonhong, Lao People's Democratic Republic
  Email: hinpetchdaung@gmail.com
  Post Publication correspondence Professor Viroj Wiwanitkit Chandigarh University, India Eamil: wviroj@yahoo.com
  Authors’ contribution
  HD 50 % ideas, writing, analyzing, approval
  VW 50 % ideas, supervision, approval Page 2 of 6 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/medethics Journal of Medical Ethics

  Conflict of interest : Authors declare no conflict of interest
  Acknowledgement: none

  Dear Editor, the article “Trust and the Goldacre Review: why trusted research environments are not about trust” give many concerns in the current practice [1]. The article highlights the significance of trust and trustworthiness in the exchange of health data. It emphasizes the importance of carefully considering where confidence is appropriate and desirable in different elements of data sharing, such as people, institutions, and data platforms. Because of the complexiti...

  Show More

  Trust, Review, Response and Ethical control
  Hinpetch Daungsupawong1; Viroj Wiwanitkit2
  1. Private Academic Consultant, Phonhong, Lao People's Democratic Republic ORCID: 0009-0002-5881-2709
  2. Adjunct professor, Chandigarh University, India ORCID 0000-0003-1039-3728 Correspondence
  Hinpetch Daungsupawong
  Private Academic Consultant, Phonhong, Lao People's Democratic Republic
  Email: hinpetchdaung@gmail.com
  Post Publication correspondence Professor Viroj Wiwanitkit Chandigarh University, India Eamil: wviroj@yahoo.com
  Authors’ contribution
  HD 50 % ideas, writing, analyzing, approval
  VW 50 % ideas, supervision, approval Page 2 of 6 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/medethics Journal of Medical Ethics

  Conflict of interest : Authors declare no conflict of interest
  Acknowledgement: none

  Dear Editor, the article “Trust and the Goldacre Review: why trusted research environments are not about trust” give many concerns in the current practice [1]. The article highlights the significance of trust and trustworthiness in the exchange of health data. It emphasizes the importance of carefully considering where confidence is appropriate and desirable in different elements of data sharing, such as people, institutions, and data platforms. Because of the complexities of public views and behaviors, deliberate techniques of accessing and surveying the public on health data sharing are required. According to the authors, the concept of "building public trust" may need to develop, because data sharing should ideally be accompanied with assurances and guarantees about data storage, sharing, and use. To protect data security and enhance trustworthiness, good governance structures, regulation, and external limitations are emphasized. While trust may still be required in cases where data access and use cannot be directly monitored, constant monitoring, audits, and security assurances can help to lessen the requirement for trust. However, trust may be required in circumstances where judgment is still required. The issue of trust becomes critical in the setting of an author with a famous "big name" and quality control to certify the code of conduct. In this circumstance, trust entails not only the author's reputation and reliability, but also the assurance that they adhere to ethical norms and follow a code of behavior. To solve this, quality control measures that verify and certify the author's adherence to the code of conduct should be put in place. This can include stringent peer review processes, transparent evaluation criteria, and ethical guidelines that writers must follow. To achieve impartiality, quality control measures should be independent, impartial, and carried out by professionals in the subject. Transparency and accountability are also important in developing confidence. Any conflicts of interest or unethical activities should be acknowledged and handled, and the author's actions and behaviors should be scrutinized. This can assist readers and the broader academic community build trust. It is also critical to foster a culture of responsible research and publishing. Institutions and publishers should encourage and enforce ethical behavior, give research integrity training, and establish clear criteria for authors to follow. This can include rules for data sharing, proper citation standards, and adherence to professional organizations' ethical guidelines. Finally, a combination of quality control methods, transparency, responsibility, and a culture of responsible research can aid in the establishment and maintenance of trust in the work of researchers. In the current era of widespread AI use, such as chatbots, the issue of fictitious authoring becomes more significant as it can undermine trust in the information provided [2]. Quality control measures should be implemented to verify the authenticity and credibility of authors in AI systems, ensuring that they adhere to ethical standards and follow a code of conduct. Transparency and accountability are crucial to build trust in AI-generated content and to prevent the dissemination of fictitious information. Transparency is also essential in developing trust. Users should be made aware of the AI system's nature and limits, as well as any potential involvement of human operators in the content generating process. Users can make educated decisions and understand the level of trust they can place in the information presented if it is clear whether the content is generated exclusively by AI or if there is human involvement. Accountability is another important part of establishing confidence in AI systems. Concerns or complaints concerning bogus authoring should be addressed through procedures. This can include reporting mechanisms, inquiry, and appropriate sanctions for any unethical practices or misuse of AI systems. Trust may be built by keeping authors and operators accountable for their activities. Finally, post-publication ethical control is critical for preserving research trust by monitoring and addressing any ethical violations, errors, or fraudulent practices that may have occurred during the publication process [3]. It ensures the scientific literature's integrity and fosters transparency and accountability among researchers and authors. To maintain trust in the scientific community, post-publication ethical control must be prioritized. Continuous monitoring, discovery, and correction of ethical violations, errors, and fraudulent practices in published research is required. It is critical to create and implement ethical principles and standards, foster transparency and responsibility, and promote a culture of responsible research conduct in order to preserve trust. Journals and publishers should develop robust peer review processes, provide means for reporting concerns, and take action in cases of misconduct as soon as possible. Furthermore, collaboration among researchers, professional organizations, and regulatory agencies is critical for establishing best practices, sharing information, and cultivating a collective commitment to preserving ethical norms. The scientific community may safeguard the integrity and reliability of research papers by prioritizing post-publication ethical control. Enhancing transparency through clear disclosure of cnflicts of interest, data sharing, and full technique explanations are among the recommendations for strengthening post-publication ethical control. Journals should implement post-publication review systems and encourage the scientific community to actively participate in examining and replicating study findings. Collaboration between researchers, peer reviewers, and editors can help to identify ethical infractions and inaccuracies. Furthermore, funding agencies and institutions should prioritize research integrity and, when appropriate, provide support for investigations and retractions. By implementing these guidelines, the scientific community may strengthen trust in research and uphold the highest ethical standards throughout the study process, including the postpublication phase, which is little acknowledged.

  Reference
  1. Graham M, Milne R, Fitzsimmons P, Sheehan M. Trust and the Goldacre Review: why trusted research environments are not about trust. J Med Ethics. 2023 Oct;49(10):670-673.
  2. Koga S. The Integration of Large Language Models Such as ChatGPT in Scientific Writing: Harnessing Potential and Addressing Pitfalls. Korean J Radiol 2023;24:924- 925. 3. Stebbing J, Sanders DA. The importance of being earnest in post-publication review: scientific fraud and the scourges of anonymity and excuses. Oncogene. 2018 Feb 8;37(6):695-696.

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top
• Published on: 22 September 2023

  Trust is dead, long live trust

  • Hugh Davies, Chair of a Research Ethics Committrr Oxford A REC

  I had difficulty with the Goldacre report, when it starts with the apparent contradiction of dismissing trust (in no uncertain terms). yet then proposing these TREs. (Trusted research environments). Where do the authors actually stand?

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top