研究公正の諸側面 : 再現性と研究倫理審査体制

The purpose of this paper is to report on the result of a cross-field survey of the reproducibility of research and the system of research ethics review boards. In medicine and psychology, the reproducibility problem, which includes a form of research misconduct, is addressed through approaches such as compliance with research protocols or appropriates use of statistical analysis. On the other hand, in research that does not use numerical data or statistical analysis, reproducibility issues can arise in the form of arbitrary arguments toward an intended conclusion. In this regard, there is not sufficient research and sharing of efforts in the humanities and social sciences in general.
To clarify these points, this paper presents an exploratory analysis of the results of a web-based questionnaire survey to examine the training and guidance systems in place for researchers and graduate students to promote research integrity, and how research ethics review boards can contribute to the management of research objectivity and transparency in terms of research ethics and its impact on research activities and integrity. The results were analyzed in an exploratory manner.
The results are as follows. First, it is necessary to reformulate the recognition of the issue of reproducibility of research in a manner specific to each area of humanities and social science. Second, in terms of ethical review processes in the fields of humanities and social sciences in general, the results of this study did not reveal any significant deficiencies or inadequacies in the current system. However, it is possible that the high need for ethical review in certain fields within the humanities and social sciences, such as sociology and psychology, may be elevating overall awareness. Finally, this study was unable to directly analyze the reason for the different perceptions of the significance of research ethical review committees in the fields of social sciences and medicine. The results do indicate, however, that the field of medicine places more emphasis on rules and it is possible that the presence of standardized guidelines may be a contributing factor.