Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros14Ethical Issues of the Organizatio...

Ethical Issues of the Organization and Management of Research Information

Questions éthiques liées à l’organisation et à la gestion de l’information de recherche
Cuestiones éticas relacionadas con la organización y gestión de la información de la investigación
Joachim Schöpfel et Otmane Azeroual

Résumés

Cet article propose un examen complet des considérations éthiques entourant la gestion de l’information sur la recherche au sein d’une organisation. Il comprend un résumé des résultats d’enquête et une vue d’ensemble des efforts de recherche en cours. Une attention particulière est accordée aux normes éthiques relatives à la qualité des données, aux modèles de données et aux formats de données, qui sont des facteurs essentiels dans l’organisation des connaissances issues de la recherche. À mesure que la science ouverte gagne en importance, l’éthique de la recherche - telle que l’intégrité, l’ouverture et la transparence - devient de plus en plus cruciale. L’adhésion à ces principes de la science ouverte jouera un rôle essentiel dans la détermination du financement futur de la recherche. Il est donc essentiel de comprendre comment les systèmes d’information sur la recherche (CRIS), un type particulier de systèmes d’organisation des connaissances, traitent les questions relatives aux mauvaises pratiques scientifiques et intègrent dans leurs structures de données des lignes directrices en matière d’éthique pour les individus et les institutions.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

The paper is based on research conducted by the French GERiiCO laboratory and the German DZHW since 2019 (Schöpfel & Azeroual, 2022 and 2023; Schöpfel et al., 2020 and 2022).

  • 1 Because CRIS is the preferred term in Europe, this paper will use CRIS instead of RIMS.

1Assessing and monitoring research performance pose significant challenges for research management. To address these challenges, Research Information Management Systems (RIMS), also known as Current Research Information Systems (CRIS)1, have been developed. These systems be described as specialized databases or federated information systems that consolidate research-related information from diverse sources (administrative, scientific, etc.) to provide a structured overview of an organization’s equipment, services, and activities, as well as its organizational units (Azeroual et al., 2018). Their primary objectives are to generate valuable and dependable knowledge about research and to assist research institutions in providing funding information and facilitating reporting processes (Bryant et al., 2017; De Castro, 2018).

2CRIS provide recorded knowledge about research, i.e., about projects, activities, outcomes, structures, individuals, infrastructures, equipment, facilities, and more, generating indicators that aid research management. In other words, they are a particular kind of knowledge organization systems, understood as a generic term for tools “designed to support the organization of knowledge and information in order to make their management and retrieval easier” (Mazzocchi, 2018). They are complex and highly structured systems, emphasizing the connections between terms and concepts (Hodge, 2000); at their heart are knowledge organization tools, including structured metadata models and controlled vocabularies (Lee et al., 2018).

3Ethics of knowledge representation and organization gained interest since more than 15 years (Lopez-Huertas, 2008). Today, ethical issues in this field are more prevalent than ever, and ethical concerns have become part of the core concepts of knowledge organization (Smiraglia, 2020).

4Being a specific type of knowledge organization system, CRIS are influenced by ethical concerns in two distinct ways. Initially, their data model must possess the capability to incorporate the ethical dimensions inherent in research projects, given their vital role in evaluating and overseeing research activities within universities and research institutions. Secondly, the development, implementation, and upkeep of CRIS should align with the established ethical standards in the field of scientific research.

5To put it differently, ethical considerations have a significant impact on molding the structure of CRIS, guaranteeing their ability to adequately grasp and portray the ethical facets of research initiatives. Furthermore, CRIS must conform to established ethical principles and standards to guarantee their ethical conformity at every stage, starting from their creation and continuing through their deployment and continued operation. By addressing these ethical aspects, CRIS can facilitate the responsible and ethical execution of research, while also fostering transparency and integrity within the scientific community.

6The importance of research ethics, which encompasses integrity, openness, and transparency, has gained even greater prominence due to the advancement of open science. The evolution of open science has placed heightened emphasis on research ethics. Indeed, there is a strong likelihood that future research funding will be contingent upon a firm commitment to the principles of open science. Complying with these principles could potentially be a determining factor in the success of grant applications, as noted by Düwell in 2019.

7The following paper conducts an examination of critical elements in this subject matter, encompassing survey findings, ongoing research endeavors, and a particular focus on prior investigations into ethics within the domain of knowledge organization.

Representing research ethics

8Research ethics, falling under the umbrella of applied ethics, remains an ongoing subject of discourse, as noted by Corvol in 2017. It can be broadly defined as the commitment to conducting scientifically rigorous research in an ethical and morally upright manner, adhering to universally accepted standards of excellence, and following all necessary protocols to guarantee responsible research behavior across all aspects of a researcher’s endeavors, as indicated by Martinson et al. (2005), DuBois and Antes (2018), and Simonnot (2018). This encompasses various elements, such as the proper management of data, handling conflicts of interest, ensuring the well-being of human and animal participants, maintaining laboratory safety, and upholding principles of honesty, integrity, respect for colleagues and their intellectual property, as well as fairness.

9The increasing digitalization of society and research methodologies is introducing novel ethical considerations, as highlighted by Domenget et al. (2021 and 2022). These considerations encompass issues like securing informed consent in online research, ensuring equitable access, conducting research in sensitive domains, and innovating methodologies to ensure the quality of research data at every stage of the research process.

10Institutions have been gathering data on research ethics for a considerable period through dedicated systems designed for institutional research ethics. Case studies highlight the exchange of data between ethics committee databases and CRIS, with a specific focus on the medical and health domains. The Norwegian national CRIStin system for instance feeds data on research projects into regional ethics committee databases (Karlsen and Lingjaerde, 2019). These studies generally recommend adapting the CRIS data model to be able to incorporate ethical advice in an appropriate manner (Brennan, 2017; Klausen, 2016; Vancauwenbergh, 2018 and 2019).

11In a broader context, there are some studies about ethics as a subject within bibliographic classification systems (Biagetti, 2009) and about standardized terminology or controlled vocabularies of ethical issues (Koepsell et al. 2009; Hedge et al. 2022). Yet, the practical implementation of CRIS data models to represent ethical performance, both at the individual and institutional levels, including instances of scientific misconduct, raises operational questions. Few systems handle information about ethical issues, and according to experts, these systems are not well prepared for the area. Which issues are important? In Spring 2021, we conducted small-scale exploratory survey with CRIS providers, project managers and system administrators. They considered objectivity, integrity, human subject protection, openness, and honesty as the most important and relevant principles of research ethics.

12Another question was about individual misconduct; here, the CRIS experts identified falsifying or cooking research data, plagiarism, omitting observations, and failing to present data as particularly harmful unethical behaviors for research.

13When asked about potential and relevant indicators, experts suggest the existence of an ethics committee, the number of its audits and reviews, the number of its members, the nature and number of cases of unethical behavior, and the number of article retractions. Based on the review of papers on ethics and our survey, a few operational, objective, and measurable indicators can be identified, including institutional actions and individual practices (table 1).

Table 1. Potential indicators of research ethics

Element

Indicator

Person

Ethics expert

Member of ethics committee

Event

Training session

Meeting of ethics committee

Organization (structure)

Ethics committee

Output

Advice of ethics committee (audit)

Individual report (problem)

Retraction of a paper (withdrawal)

Skills

Ethics expertise

14According to our survey, CRIS generated metrics related to ethical aspects primarily pertain to institutions rather than individuals. These institutional metrics include factors such as the count of ethics experts, the presence of a local ethics committee within the institution, and the number of individuals serving on this committee. While certain systems appear to have some degree of flexibility in accommodating these metrics, it appears that this feature is not currently functional, or at the very least, it is not included in the standard version of the system. In a broader context, survey respondents emphasize the need for the CRIS format to be adaptable in representing this specific type of data.

15From both ethical and legal perspectives, the institutional indicators do not present significant challenges. However, there are other indicators that capture unethical behavior within a research team or by individual researchers, such as article retractions, plagiarism, or falsification of data. This distinction underscores the second ethical dimension of these systems, which pertains to the ethical considerations that arise during their development, implementation, and use.

16Certain respondents argue that storing potentially damaging information about individuals in a database raises ethical concerns. Keeping records of misconduct incidents has the potential to affect individuals’ funding opportunities and career prospects. According to experts, it is crucial to distinguish between these two levels of ethical performance - separating institutional indicators from individual indicators - while acknowledging the importance of both. The emphasis should be on highlighting institutional indicators without disregarding the significance of individual indicators.

17Biased terminology is another issue. Especially in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and probably more and more in South America, the issue of biased data (potentially harmful or offensive descriptors, prejudices...) in catalogs and databases is growing. Regarding knowledge organization systems, studies have shown how the choice of headings, for instance, can lead to misrepresentation and cause harm (Adler & Tennis, 2013). It seems possible to objectively evaluate the ethical sensibilities of a given classification; but “for a classification to be just or good, the classification must be based in a practice (aka a domain) and not bound to particular institutions” (Mai, 2013). This issue will certainly also arise, in time, with the terminology used by CRIS.

18Lately, there have been reservations voiced regarding international collaboration. In certain nations, collaborations in research with China and other countries have become a topic of heightened sensitivity. During a recent G7 Science and Technology meeting in Sendai, Japan, there was expressed concern about the possibility of some entities seeking to exploit or manipulate the open research environment unfairly and misappropriate research outcomes for military purposes, with a clear reference to China2. Consequently, it raises the question of what consequences might arise from documenting information on international partnerships within a CRIS, both for the institution and, more importantly, for the researchers involved.

Compliance with ethical requirements

19To generate valuable and pertinent knowledge about research, it is essential for CRIS to adhere to principles of good scientific practice, comply with legal frameworks, and uphold the guiding values and principles of research conduct. These considerations should apply to all types of research (Diener & Crandall, 1978; Guillemin & Gillam, 2004).

20Some studies emphasize the need for close collaboration between CRIS operators and ethics committees during all phases of such a project (Davidson et al., 2014), because, more than other digital devices, such a system engages the institutional responsibility of the scientific organization or institution involved (Küsters & Klages, 2018). For similar reasons, the Swedish Science Council has implemented a model, in which the ethics committee is part of the federal leadership of the national scheme for grant management (Lind, 2013). Yet, regrettably, few CRIS project teams engage ethics consultants. Research ethics often appear to be perceived by CRIS developers and operators as a matter of "low risk, low impact" (Moreira, 2013).

21Some CRIS offer ethics-related functionality, including informed consent and ethics approval procedures or privacy and security issues (Jetten and Simons, 2019). Solutions offered by Clarivate Analytics (Converis) and Elsevier (Pure) can produce information relevant to ethical protocols (Jägerhorn, 2015; Alroe, 2015). In the public sector, the Spanish project Hércules, promoted by the Conference of University Presidents of Spain and coordinated by the University of Murcia, is developing a functional module for ethics management (Hernandez Mora Martinez, 2019).

22An increasing body of research highlights recurrent ethical dimensions related to information systems. While legal adjustments and new regulations have addressed some of these ethical issues, there is limited organization and oversight regarding concerns such as discrimination, autonomy, human dignity, and power imbalances (Royakkers et al., 2018). In the realm of big data and artificial intelligence (AI), ethically-aligned technology has been defined as technology that is beneficial, respectful of people and the environment, robust and secure, values human autonomy, promotes fairness, and is explainable, accountable, and understandable (Morley et al., 2020).

23However, there exists a substantial gap between the theoretical principles of AI ethics and the practical design of AI systems, as observed by Morley et al. (2021). Our research indicates that the same observation applies to CRIS (Schöpfel et al., 2022). Ethics committees are rarely involved in CRIS projects, and there is a scarcity of literature on ethics in the field of CRIS. In our survey, experts express two main concerns. The first pertains to the data itself, including sensitive data, data loss, intellectual property issues, and personal data protection. The second concern relates to the implementation of research evaluation systems, as software misimplementation can have adverse consequences on individuals; as one expert pointed out, "you can hurt people by implementing software incorrectly."

24Fondermann (2012) was among the pioneers in emphasizing the importance of considering the human element as a critical factor in the success of CRIS projects. Fondermann advocated for transparency and engagement as ethical practices to secure the support and acceptance of researchers. While CRIS project management, administration, data source selection, and the configuration of indicators and standard reports are typically evaluated in terms of their utility, efficiency, and outcomes, their alignment with research ethics is seldom assessed. However, ethical concerns related to the quality and origin of data, especially personal data, are integral to the design of knowledge organization systems, particularly in contexts involving user- generated (non-professional) classification systems (Cope, 2012). The recording of personal attributes and, more specifically, the reuse of records from external sources, can raise ethical questions related to privacy and the control of identity, as discussed by Seeman (2012), Moulaison et al. (2014), and Wells (2021).

25The survey respondents identify pertinent data source selection as one of the main future priorities. The comments converge on the point that this is primarily an internal matter, to be managed within an institution, and more particularly in close partnership with the ethics committee. Any decision must be aware of the importance of the quality and the reliability of data and data sources. Data sources (databases, library catalogs, institutional repositories, retraction watch, anti-plagiarism software…) must be carefully selected and kept under permanent and continuous quality control, as poor metadata quality (unreliable data, incomplete or erroneous information) can constitute misinformation and misrepresentation and be harmful for people and organizations.

26Moreover, the use of such information is not self-evident and raises other issues. Even “good data” can become “malinformation”. Thus, a paper from the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) questions the use of analytical data generated by CRIS (Dortmund, 2019): Who has access to the data, and for what purpose? Who controls (and how) the use of these tools? How do we distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate use? How much time will, and should data be stored in the system? How does the system protect the data rights of people involved, especially the rights to access and erasure, and to be forgotten? The questions are posed, but the answers remain to be found within each system, in its actual environment.

27Sometimes, a CRIS project must face questions and fears among different user groups. The integration of ethical aspects in digital devices can only be done through a permanent discussion and a continuous collaboration between users and developers. Data models for research information management exist; what is needed is an ethical framework for these systems.

28This ethical framework pertains to all stages of the data life cycle, spanning from data collection and storage to the delivery of data. The character of the data, as well as its processing and utilization, determine whether implementing a CRIS necessitates input from an ethics committee. During the data analysis phase, it is crucial to ensure compliance with data protection laws and ethical considerations in research. It is important to contemplate the potential harm or risks arising from data misuse. For instance, when archiving extremely sensitive data, such as personal information or projects funded by external sources, it should be acknowledged that access to these data should only be granted to third parties under rigorous security protocols (Schöpfel & Azeroual, 2021).

The impact of open science

29Recent efforts to reform the evaluation of research underscore the significance of ethics. For instance, the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) urges a departure from exclusively quantitative and journal-based metrics for evaluating scientific work. Meanwhile, the newly established Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) calls for the inclusion of diversity considerations in the planning and appraisal of research. These discussions gained prominence at the Paris Open Science European Conference (OSEC) in February 2022, where two primary focal points were transparency and the necessity for a meaningful overhaul of research assessment. The objective is to advance openness, transparency, and replicability in research methodologies, specifically to counteract biased practices, skewed findings, data manipulation, and other forms of misconduct.

30An increasing number of institutions and organizations are dedicated to reshaping the criteria used for evaluating research, emphasizing alternative indicators (altmetrics) and qualitative assessments of the “intrinsic value” of research. However, the current calls for evaluation system transformation often do not consider the evaluation infrastructure. Simply endorsing overarching principles is insufficient to effect change. There must be modifications in the information systems employed for research evaluation, along with changes in their implementation, management, and utilization, to incorporate ethical considerations into research assessment and address the demands of open science.

31Our survey primarily revolves around concerns related to data transparency and accessibility. This entails that CRIS should evaluate both research output and performance criteria, and furthermore, they should strive to enhance transparency and accessibility. In terms of the impact of open science, the challenge for research information management systems can be summarized as follows:

  • Other data: CRIS should be able to ingest and handle more and other data than before, from social and public media, on research data and other non-traditional material, and so on.

  • Other metrics: CRIS should produce qualitative indicators of research impact, assessing not only output but also practice (professional conduct of research, culture of open science…), the reproducibility of results and the originality of ideas, while respecting the diversity of scientific disciplines, research types, research career stages and roles.

  • Different processing: CRIS should be more transparent, explicit, interactive, and open, and they should improve control (and restrict) usage in order to avoid inappropriate manipulation of metrics.

  • Other governance: CRIS should be open source, sustainable, community-driven, and respectful of all communities; vendor lock-in should be avoided.

32Quantitative metrics alone “are insufficient to measure whether researchers follow open science recommendations in a responsible manner. Thus, (...) research assessment schemes (should) include narrative elements and offer researchers the possibility to explain and justify their conduct” (Lindemann & Häberlein, 2023). At least, quantitative indicators should be handled carefully and, as suggested by the GraspOS project, open to community-led curation and annotation (Tatum, 2022), an approach which may, as mentioned above, cause other problems (Cope, 2012).

33This change probably requires more flexibility, agility and communication between the stakeholders and users; and CRIS providers and operators should also be aware of strategic differences between countries and organizations and of the need for cultural and systemic changes that are complex and slow to implement.

CRIS as an ethical infrastructure

34At first glance, the ethical dimension of CRIS can be interpreted as a series of technical problems: How to define relevant indicators to measure the ethical performance of an institution? Which information sources should be selected? How to adapt the data model? How to integrate the data into the system? Based on our survey data and on other studies on ethics of information and knowledge organization systems, especially in the field of knowledge organization systems (Fox & Reece, 2012; Ridi, 2013), the implementation and management of CRIS should pay attention to five points:

  1. A careful and consensual (acceptable) choice of indicators, with special attention to labeling, categories, and granularity;

  2. The selection of reliable sources of information;

  3. Compliance with the legal framework (RGPD), with secure and, if possible, anonymized processing;

  4. Strict control of access to this data;

  5. Strictly supervised use.

35CRIS experts recognize that research ethics will become increasingly important in the future. However, there is less consensus when it comes to integrating ethical considerations into these systems. While the management of the project, including development, parameterization, and implementation, as well as system administration, are generally seen as less significant ethical challenges compared to issues related to indicators like data models, sources, and functionalities, this prioritization may be inadequate. It overlooks what Floridi (2013) refers to as “infraethics” - the inherent ethical nature of the infrastructure itself - and the associated concept of “distributed moral responsibility” (Floridi, 2016), which could potentially lead to legal liability.

36Good infraethics means that it is oriented towards facilitating the occurrence of what is morally good. “At its best, an infraethics is the grease that lubricates the moral mechanism in the right way and successfully” (Floridi 2017, 392). CRIS can be considered as a special kind of ethical infrastructure or enabler of “infraethics”, insofar they can enhance the quality of other systems, through high-quality, reliable and trustful data. Research assessment has partly become the result of increasingly opaque algorithmic operations to manage and analyze complex sets of metrics, which leads de-facto to a “black-boxing” of the assessments, which are no longer transparent, and their value has become contested. This raises concerns about the characteristics of the underlying data and their quality. Given the importance of research assessment for individuals, research institutions and the chances to acquire funding, the incentives are high to tamper with the data. Hence, transparency of data quality and the properties of the data set are crucial for the (ethical) quality of machine learning applications, which are already used to identify influential researchers, recommend reviewers and publications and topic modeling.

37From an ethical point of view, a CRIS is not morally good in itself. To fully grasp the ethical dimension of these systems, it would be relevant to assess their ecosystem and the role of their stakeholders and users. We would also suggest to apply the dimensions of ethically-aligned technology mentioned above (Morley et al., 2020), especially regarding the beneficence of research information management, its explicability, fairness (justice) and respect of human values (autonomy). With the words of Fox & Reece (2012), information organization should be “consequence-driven, emphasizing improvement of practice”, and it should treat people as ends with basic rights and responsibilities: “Regardless of whether a theoretical foundation for rights can ever be established, the practical necessity to take rights seriously stems from the historical realities of discrimination and genocide and forms of conceptual violence that support such atrocities”.

Perspectives

38The main results of our findings can be summarized as follows:

  • Research information management systems have the potential to incorporate ethical practices, but institutions have generally not utilized these features to support their research performance adequately.

  • While indicators related to ethics-related activities, such as the presence of an ethics committee or the extent and reach of ethics programs, typically present minimal or no ethical or legal issues, the collection of information on individual misconduct can be considerably more problematic.

  • Concerns about data reliability, security, and the uncontrolled reuse of CRIS data are substantial risks for both organizations and individuals.

  • There are apprehensions regarding the potential negative consequences of system implementation, the risk of political surveillance, and the use of biased or offensive terminology.

  • The gap between ethics committees and CRIS systems remains substantial, and the conversation surrounding ethics, transparency, integrity, and the advancement of research evaluation has not fully aligned with the ongoing discussions about enhancing research information management systems.

  • Members of ethics committees seem to recognize the value of CRIS in their work, suggesting a high likelihood of these systems being accepted within this community.

39As part of their open science policies, research performing and research funding organizations highlight the importance of openness, transparency, and integrity of research. This trend is particularly pronounced in the field of medical and health sciences, fueled in part by widely publicized cases of misconduct (Armond et al., 2021). Key concerns encompass the falsification and fabrication of research data, informed consent, patient safety, plagiarism, and conflicts of interest.

  • 3 Ethical Requirements of Current Research Information Systems (ERaCRIS), submitted to the Franco-Ger (...)

40However, while there is a growing corpus of studies on ethics, information and communication technologies and digital infrastructures, along with an increasing awareness of the ethical dimension of research assessment, only few papers have been published on the ethical dimension of research assessment infrastructures. Our new research project3 will fill the gap, with the ambition to assess CRIS as a special use case of digital transformation. Our assumption is that following Morley et al. (2020), CRIS should be considered as ethical if and insofar they are beneficial to, and respectful of, people and the environment, robust and secure, respectful of human values, fair, and explainable, accountable, and understandable.

41Further research should focus on four topics:

  1. The development of a precise, valid, and exhaustive catalogue of measurable key performance indicators of research ethics that can be translated into data models of research information management systems.

  2. The assessment of responsible research information management, i.e., the analysis of the development, implementation, governance, and usage of these systems from an ethical point of view, including a survey of the status quo.

  3. A critical analysis of the impact of recent initiatives to transform research assessment on CRIS data models, governance, and development.

  4. An ethical investigation of the CRIS ecosystem, on three levels: an analysis of the stakeholders, their roles, and responsibilities; an analysis of CRIS as a particular case of “infraethics”, with issues like accountability, intellectual property rights, neutrality, openness, privacy, transparency, and trust; and an analysis of the security of CRIS data, especially in the context of vertical integration of infrastructures (Chen et al., 2019) and of “surveillance publishing”, i.e., monetizing CRIS data to feed predictive analytics and models (Pooley, 2019), and the convergence of CRIS and institutional repositories.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Adler, M., & Tennis, J. T. (2013). Toward a taxonomy of harm in knowledge organization systems. Knowledge Organization, 40(4), 266–272. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2013-4-266

Alroe, B. (2015). ORCID in Pure – Elsevier Research Intelligence. euroCRIS Membership Meeting, Barcelona, Nov 9-11, 2015. https://dspacecris.eurocris.org/handle/11366/439

Armond, A. C. V., Gordijn, B., Lewis, J., Hosseini, M., Bodnár, J. K., Holm, S. & Kakuk, P. (2021). A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases. BMC Medical Ethics, 22(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00620-8

Azeroual, O., Saake, G., Abuosba, M. & Schöpfel, J. (2018). Text data mining and data quality management for research information systems in the context of open data and open science. 3rd International Colloquium on Open Access - Open Access to Science Foundations, Issues and Dynamics, Rabat, Nov 28-30, 2018. https://dspacecris.eurocris.org/handle/11366/715

Biagetti, M. T. (2009). Philosophy in bibliographic classification systems. Knowledge Organization, 36(2–3), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2009-2-3-92

Brennan, N. (2017). Fifteen Years of Research Information Management in Ireland. euroCRIS Membership Meeting, Dublin, May 29-31, 2017. https://dspacecris.eurocris.org/handle/11366/592

Bryant, R., Clements, A., Feltes, C., Groenewegen, D., Huggard, S., Mercer, H., Missingham, R., Oxnam, M., Rauh, A. & Wright, J. (2017). Research information management: Defining RIM and the library’s role. Dublin, OH: OCLC Research. https://www.oclc.org/research/publications/2017/oclcresearch-defining-rim.html

Chen, G., Posada, A. & Chan, L. (2019). Vertical Integration in Academic Publishing. In Connecting the Knowledge Commons — From Projects to Sustainable Infrastructure (pp. 15– 40). Marseille: OpenEdition Press. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.oep.9068

Cope, J. (2012). Librarianship as intellectual craft: The ethics of classification in the realms of leisure and waged labor. Knowledge Organization, 39(5), 356–362. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2012-5-356

Corvol, P. (2017). L’intégrité scientifique  : de l’entre-soi à une approche systémique. Médecine/Sciences, 33(8–9), 689–690. https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/20173308001

Davidson, J., Molloy, L., Jones, S. & Kejser, U. (2014). Emerging good practice in managing research data and research information within UK Universities. CRIS2014: 12th International Conference on Current Research Information Systems, Rome, May 13-15, 2014. http://dspacecris.eurocris.org/handle/11366/201

De Castro, P. (2018), Mapping the European CRIS infrastructure and its potential applications. ECOOM Workshop "Working with national bibliographic databases for research output", Antwerp, Sep 10-11, 2018. https://dspacecris.eurocris.org/handle/11366/705

Diener, E. & Crandall, R. (1978). Ethics in Social and Behavioral Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Domenget, J.-C., Wilhelm, C., Arruabarrena, B., Alloing, C., Barats, C., Desfriches, O., … Szoniecky, S. (2022). Ethics in a digital context questioned by information and communication sciences. Revue Française des Sciences de l’Information et de La Communication, (25). https://doi.org/10.4000/rfsic.13194

Domenget, J-C., Wilhelm, C. & Dolbeau-Blandin, C. (2021). Questionnement éthique par rapport au numérique. In Paquienséguy, F. & Pélissier, N. (eds.). Questionner les humanités numériques. Positions et propositions des SIC (99-117). Paris : Editions de la SFSIC.

Dortmund, A. (2019). CRISs under scrutiny: some recent trends. euroCRIS Membership Meeting, Münster, Nov 18-20, 2019. https://dspacecris.eurocris.org/handle/11366/1239

DuBois, J. M. & Antes, A. L. (2018). Five dimensions of research ethics: A stakeholder framework for creating a climate of research integrity. Academic Medicine, 93(4), 550–555. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001966

Düwell, M. (2019). Editorial: Open Science and Ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 22, 1051–1053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-10053-3

Floridi, L. (2013). Distributed Morality in an Information Society. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 727–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9413-4

Floridi, L. (2016). Faultless responsibility: on the nature and allocation of moral responsibility for distributed moral actions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 374(2083), 20160112. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0112

Floridi, L. (2017). Infraethics–on the Conditions of Possibility of Morality. Philosophy & Technology, 30(4), 391–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0291-1

Fondermann, P. (2012). Participation, Transparency, Compliance – Struggling for Acceptance: Implementing a CRIS in the Era of New Public Management. euroCRIS Membership Meeting, Madrid, Nov 5-6, 2012. http://dspacecris.eurocris.org/handle/11366/177

Fox, M. J., & Reece, A. (2012). Which ethics? Whose morality?: An analysis of ethical standards for information organization. Knowledge Organization, 39(5), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2012-5-377

Guillemin, M. & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, Reflexivity, and “Ethically Important Moments” in Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 261-280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403262360

Hegde, S., Garg, A., Murray-Rust, P. & Mietchen, D. (2022). Mining the literature for ethics statements: A step towards standardizing research ethics. Research Ideas and Outcomes, 8. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.8.e94685

Hernández Mora Martínez, R. (2019). The Hércules Semantic University Research Data project. euroCRIS Membership Meeting, Münster, Nov 18-20, 2019. https://dspacecris.eurocris.org/handle/11366/1237

Hodge, G. 2000. Systems of Knowledge Organization for Digital Libraries: Beyond Traditional Authority Files. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources. http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub91/contents.html

Jägerhorn, M. (2015). Thomson Reuters: Research Information Management. euroCRIS Membership Meeting, Paris, May 11-12, 2015. https://dspacecris.eurocris.org/handle/11366/396

Jetten, M. & Simons, E. (2019). Research Data Management integrated in a Research Information System (CRIS). EUNIS19: 25th EUNIS Annual Congress, Trondheim, June 5-7, 2019. http://hdl.handle.net/11366/1015

Karlsen, E. S., & Lingjærde, G. (2019). CRIStin in the Norwegian research landscape. euroCRIS Membership Meeting, Helsinki, May 27-29, 2019. https://dspacecris.eurocris.org/handle/11366/975

Klausen, M. H. (2016). Even minor integrations can deliver great value – a case study. CRIS2016: 13th International Conference on Current Research Information Systems, St Andrews, June 9-11, 2016. https://dspacecris.eurocris.org/handle/11366/513

Koepsell, D., Arp, R., Fostel, J. & Smith, B. (2009). Creating a Controlled Vocabulary for the Ethics of Human Research: Towards a Biomedical Ethics Ontology. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 4(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2009.4.1.43

Küsters, U. & Klages, U. (2018). Fostering Open Science at Fraunhofer. CRIS2018: 14th International Conference on Current Research Information Systems, Umeå, June 13-16, 2018. https://dspacecris.eurocris.org/handle/11366/644

Lee, D. J., Stvilia, B. & Wu, S. (2018). Toward a metadata model for research information management systems. Library Hi Tech, 38(3), 577–592. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-01-2018-0013

Lind, T. (2013). A New Paradigm for the Research Information Ecosystem. 11th euroCRIS Strategic Seminar: “Metadata in Research Information Systems”, Brussels, Sep 9-10, 2013. https://dspacecris.eurocris.org/handle/11366/274

Lindemann, T. & Häberlein, L. (2023). Contours of a research ethics and integrity perspective on open science. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2023.1052353

López-Huertas, M. J. (2008). Some current research questions in the field of knowledge organization. Knowledge Organization, 35(2–3), 113–136. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2008-2-3-113

Mai, J. E. (2013). Ethics, values and morality in contemporary library classifications. Knowledge Organization, 40(4), 242–253. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2013-4-242

Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S. & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737–738. https://doi.org/10.1038/435737a

Mazzocchi, F. (2018). Knowledge Organization System (KOS). Knowledge Organization, 45(1), 54–78. Also available in Hjørland, B. & Gnoli, C. (eds.), ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization. https://www.isko.org/cyclo/kos

Moreira, J. (2013). Eco-systems of research information systems: a global perspective. euroCRIS Membership Meeting, Porto, Nov 14-15, 2013. http://dspacecris.eurocris.org/handle/11366/62

Morley, J., Floridi, L., Kinsey, L. & Elhalal, A. (2020). From What to How: An Initial Review of Publicly Available AI Ethics Tools, Methods and Research to Translate Principles into Practices. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(4), 2141–2168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948- 019-00165-5

Morley, J., Elhalal, A., Garcia, F., Kinsey, L., Mokander, J. & Floridi, L. (2021). Ethics as a service: a pragmatic operationalisation of AI Ethics. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3784238

Moulaison, H. L., Dykas, F., & Budd, J. M. (2014). Foucault, the author, and intellectual debt: Capturing the author-function through attributes, relationships, and events in knowledge organization systems. Knowledge Organization, 41(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943- 7444-2014-1-30

Pooley, J. D. (2021). Surveillance Publishing. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/j6ung

Ridi, R. (2013). Ethical values for knowledge organization. Knowledge Organization, 40(3), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2013-3-187

Royakkers, L., Timmer, J., Kool, L. & van Est, R. (2018). Societal and ethical issues of digitization. Ethics and Information Technology, 20(2), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9452-x

Schöpfel, J. & Azeroual, O. (2021). Ethics and CRIS. EuroCRIS Monthly Webinar, Sep 30, 2021. https://dspacecris.eurocris.org/handle/11366/1826

Schöpfel, J. & Azeroual, O. (2022). Les systèmes d’information recherche comme un nouvel objet du questionnement éthique. RFSIC Revue Française des Sciences de l’Information et de la Communication, 25. https://journals.openedition.org/rfsic/13254

Schöpfel, J. & Azeroual, O. (2023). Ethical Dimensions of Research Information Management. A New Challenge for Information Professionals. In C. Chisita, M. Fombad, M. Majanja & O.

B. Onyancha (eds.), Information Services for a Sustainable Society in an Era of Information Disorder. Berlin : IFLA De Gruyter Saur. https://www.degruyter.com/document/isbn/9783110772753/html

Schöpfel, J., Azeroual, O. & Jungbauer-Gans, M. (2020). Research Ethics, Open Science and CRIS. Publications, 8(4), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8040051

Schöpfel, J., Azeroual, O. & de Castro, P. (2022). Research Information Systems and Ethics relating to Open Science. Procedia Computer Science, 211, 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.10.174

Seeman, D. (2012). Naming names: The ethics of identification in digital library metadata. Knowledge Organization, 39(5), 325–331. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2012-5-325

Simonnot, B. (2018). Conduire des recherches en régime numérique  : vers un cadre conceptuel de réflexion éthique. In L’éthique en contexte info-communicationnel numérique (11–21). Louvain-la-Neuve : De Boeck Supérieur. https://doi.org/10.3917/dbu.balic.2018.01.0011

Smiraglia, R. P. (2020). ISKO 16’s bookshelf: Knowledge organization on the verge of the pandemic - An editorial. Knowledge Organization, 47(8), 619–630. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2020-8-619

Tatum, C. (2022). GraspOS: Next Generation Research Assessment to Promote Open Science. euroCRIS Membership Meeting, Nijmegen, Nov 30 - Dec 2, 2022. https://dspacecris.eurocris.org/handle/11366/2269

Vancauwenbergh, S. (2018). Research data management at the Flemish universities: state-of- affairs. CRIS2018: 14th International Conference on Current Research Information Systems (Umeå, June 13-16, 2018). https://dspacecris.eurocris.org/handle/11366/687

Vancauwenbergh, S. (2019). Analyzing the research data infrastructure in Europe. euroCRIS Membership Meeting, Münster, Nov 18-20, 2019. https://dspacecris.eurocris.org/handle/11366/1225

Wells, D. (2021). Online Public Access Catalogues and Library Discovery Systems. Knowledge Organization, 48(6), 457–466. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2021-6-457

Haut de page

Notes

1 Because CRIS is the preferred term in Europe, this paper will use CRIS instead of RIMS.

2 NHK World-Japan, 13 May 2023 https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20230513_14/

3 Ethical Requirements of Current Research Information Systems (ERaCRIS), submitted to the Franco-German call for proposals in Social Sciences and Humanities (FRAL 2023).

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Joachim Schöpfel et Otmane Azeroual, « Ethical Issues of the Organization and Management of Research Information »Communication, technologies et développement [En ligne], 14 | 2023, mis en ligne le 26 décembre 2023, consulté le 16 mai 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/ctd/9857 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/ctd.9857

Haut de page

Auteurs

Joachim Schöpfel

GERiiCO Laboratory, University of Lille, 59653 Villeneuve-d’Ascq, France
joachim.schopfel[at]univ-lille.fr

Otmane Azeroual

German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW), 10117 Berlin, Germany
azeroual[at]dzhw.eu

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search