Ethical issues in research
Can we claim to have done rigorous research if our literature review is not rigorous?
Can we claim relevant and replicable research if – after writing the literature review section – we ignore and even contradict how we defined, searched, selected and analysed literature?
Can we claim innovative and original research if we simply summarise and extend past studies?
Can we claim valid, reliable, comprehensive and convincing research if we do not explicitly make the literature review method clear and transparent?
How often can/should we cite our own prior publications in one single paper such as a review?
How often can/should we cite our colleagues and advisors?
On what basis can we claim to have thoroughly searched in relevant databases?
- included the dominant authors on a topic?
- built solid hypotheses?
- reviewed empirical facts versus assumptions?
- gained knowledge of the chronological and disciplinary development of a research area?