An Incomplete History of Research Ethics

Welcome to An Incomplete History of Research Ethics! My name is Ismael and I hope you find this site of use.

An Incomplete History of Research Ethics is a free, online resource to discover some of the events that, throughout the very lengthy history of human knowledge, can be drawn on to reflect on the complex nature of modern research ethics.

This site contains a more accessible version of the text on the Tiki-Toki platform, which is more dynamic and interactive. This site is also directly linked to this GitHub repository, where you are very welcome to contribute! More on contributing later! For now, let’s see how to use this site.

There are three main parts to all pages on this site:

  • The header above has the relevant title of the page you have open, as well as a button related to contributing via GitHub, and a search box.
  • The content of the page will reflect the section you are reading. Links in the content and elsewhere will open in the same tab on your browser.
  • The menu on the left contains options for navigating stories: by century, category and tag. The protocols are also listed there. Both stories and protocols are shared below too, so you can always come back to the Home Page to find what you need!

Finding stories

Thanks to how we navigate timelines on Tiki-Toki, stories fit into one of four categories, and can relate to up to four tags. You can search for stories based on their tags or categories.

Categories

  • Opening Up Knowledge: These are stories that have helped knowledge become more accessible. In ancient times, temples, libraries and universities helped store and share knowledge. These institutions continue to up to this day, and the recent open science movement has given this notion great momentum.
  • Legislation, Declarations & Frameworks: Numerous documents and guidelines have been created throughout the ages that have shaped how research is conducted. This has not always been for the better. The stories in this category captures these documents and some of the debates that surround them.
  • Research Tragedies: These are examples we find in common discussions of the history of research ethics. They are the tragedies that inspire declarations, legislation and frameworks. But, above all, research tragedies help us learn of the complex nature of research and precisely how not to do it.
  • Improving Research: This category is for a wide-range of stories that - you might realise - don’t quite fit in any of the others! Some of these stories have to do with improvements in scientific methodologies, conceptual developments that help us better engage with society, and activist movements that shape research for the better.

Tags

  • How We Do Things: Roughly, stories with this tag have influenced approaches to the conduct of research and the spreading of knowledge;
  • What We Value: These are stories about the rise of moral and epistemic values throughout the ages, and do not necessarily reflect any present individual’s belief system;
  • Science Influencers: Stories with this tag are mostly about how people, documents and movements from outside science have shaped its conduct and underlying values; and
  • Bioethics: Stories that relate with medical research ethics and have had a particularly strong influence on modern research ethics more broadly)

A Word of Caution

The content of The Timeline, as it is at this point in time and as it will develop, requires engaging with sensitive topics. There is a story about the legal foundation for racism in the US’s Jim Crow laws, there are mentions of Nazi experimentation in Germany, and there is a story about the rise of racist and ableist pseudoscience in England.

The content is not intended to be technically difficult to read, but it can be distressing. I do not know if this is avoidable, but I don’t think it should be avoided. I have kept the “research tragedies” I have listed (very few at the time I write this) from being too detailed. I think this is okay. But it would be wrong to ignore the pernicious ideologies that have oppressed enormous swathes of the human population and shaped research throughout the ages. It is for this reason that I use the label “What We Value” not as the desired values of a virtuous person, but what we, as a society, have valued during the course of our difficult history.

Stories

Below are the stories currently captured in An Incomplete History of Research Ethics. Many of these are still a work in progress, as indicated in their name (they end with “(WIP)”). You are free to share these in any format, just please attribute them back to this site. If you would like to help shape the stories or even just see a typo that should be fixed, please have a look at the protocols further below.

Protocols

Protocol Protocol

Protocols for An Incomplete History of Research Ethics are on different topics. Their one defining element is their flexibility. Neither of the below protocols are set in stone, nor shielded from critique. Rather, contributors should feel welcome to create issues to discuss ideas for improving these protocols as per Protocol 3. Please also note that “An Incomplete History of Research Ethics”, “The Timeline” and “the project” are used interchangeably to refer to the present project.

Protocol 1: Code of Conduct

A key purpose of An Incomplete History of Research Ethics is to demonstrate the variety of disciplines and backgrounds that can help gain a richer notion of research ethics. Whilst this “richness” needs spelling out, this is not the place for that. This is the place where we note the pernicious aspects of human nature, which become particularly salient when we encounter voices we are not accustomed to and perspectives that differ from our own in areas we are especially passionate about. The necessity for diversity in a project such as A History of Research Ethics can result in clashes or conflicts. This code will continue to be improved, but it sets out two things: (i) expected behaviours when contributing to the present repository, and (ii) methods for resolution.

Principles for Participation

Participating in discussions on the present repository means adhering to the following principles, adapted from All European Academies (2011):

  • Duty of care is paramount. We are all here to learn from one another and that requires that we all feel safe and included in discussions, even when they do get heated. Kindness is key to the success of An Incomplete History of Research Ethics.
  • Honesty in engaging with views and interpretations that differ from our own, and in providing evidence to argue for one’s position. It also means being honest about the contributions we make to The Timeline.
  • Humility relates to honesty insofar that we must be honest with our own limitations. Contributors to The Timeline must be open to others’ perspectives and accepting that someone else just knows more about a certain domain.
  • Charitability is about treating all perspectives with the same due diligence. No perspective is automatically better than another, and adequate argumentation is necessary to overcome differences.
  • Open communication requires that discussions about the repository and published stories be maintained publicly. This is not to enforce full transparency. There will be cases where an author of a story might have got something “embarrassingly wrong” (me) and should be messaged privately. This is perfectly acceptable. (Changes are then tracked through the repository.) But the go-to method for discussing and improving stories is by opening an issue using the “Lightbulb Moments 💡” template.
  • Reliability of sources drawn on when contributing to The Timeline. This principle is captured by Protocol 6.
  • Impartiality from political, financial or ideological pressure groups. This does not mean you are to be “apolitical” (the history of humanity is deeply political), but contributing with some political, financial or ideological agenda can lead to biased readings of historical events.
  • Sustainability of The Timeline hinges on contributors being aware of this code of conduct and broader governance procedures. The Protocols capture guidelines for all contributors to adhere to.

    Resolution: Reconciliation or Reprimand

    The Timeline is a private endeavour. There are no formal mechanisms for mediation, but personality clashes and unassailably divergent communication styles sometimes meet. The above eight principles will guide behaviours and be drawn on to establish whether an engagement is in good faith or crosses a line. However, whistleblowers and victims will always be taken seriously, and the principles will adjust if needed. Three approaches to conflicts between contributors are listed below:

    1. The priority when handling relationships that have soured will be reconciliation. The key is that all contributors get on together. If, through dialogue, we can set our differences aside and move on in tandem, so it shall be!
    2. When problems have gone too far, we can aim for tolerance; the parties shall need to learn to tolerate that the other is also a part of the project. However, the involved parties will be assigned different tasks to work on, so that encounters are kept to a minimum.
    3. In the unfortunate case that a contributor posts unkind or unhelpful comments that clearly break with the eight principles, they will wither be blocked or given a warning after a discussion with Ismael-KG, which will only take place if they are deemed redeemable.

Protocol 2: Referencing The Timeline

A History of Research Ethics is intended to be a useful resource for various audiences, and the best way to reach these audiences is by being shared as much as possible! This protocol is of particular use to ⭐ Advocates ⭐, as per Protocol 7 This protocol attempts to supplement (and certainly does not override) the citation file and the licence. As the licence is CC-BY 4.0, references to The Timeline must be attributed appropriately.

In the case of sharing screenshots of A History of Research Ethics in presentations or other media, please share either of the below lines on the slide:

© 2021 Ismael Kherroubi Garcia

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5731453

In-line references to A History of Research Ethics can be made by referencing either:

  • Kherroubi Garcia et al., 2021; or, if a specific story is being referenced,
  • Kherroubi Garcia et al., 2021: §[story name].

For example:

Kherroubi Garcia et al. (2021) claim […].

The Timeline (Kherroubi Garcia et al., 2021) provides a case in point.

A History of Research Ethics (Kherroubi Garcia et al., 2021) has failed to demonstrate […].

Autonomy is a key value in modern bioethics (Kherroubi Garcia et al., 2021: §The Principle of Patient Autonomy).

The preferred citation style in bibliographies (as the citation file might be unclear) is: Kherroubi Garcia et al. (2021) [story name if you reference only one, In] A History of Research Ethics, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5731453. For example:

Kherroubi Garcia et al. (2021) A History of Research Ethics, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5731453

Kherroubi Garcia et al. (2021) The Principle of Patient Autonomy, In A History of Research Ethics, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5731453

Protocol 3: Contribution Types

This protocol establishes the roles that contributors may fall under. Similar to CRediT, the point is to acknowledge the different types of effort contributors bring to the wider project. In the case of The Timeline, emphasis is on types of contribution rather than categorising contributors. This can help if, in the future, a contributor wants to show evidence (to potential employers, etc.) that they can make a certain type of contribution - that they have a certain skill. The below taxonomy can also be used by potential contributors to be inspired as to how they might support the creation and maintenance of A History of Research Ethics.

It is worth noting that there is a low bar for becoming a contributor to this project. At present, practically taking the time to discuss the project with me (@Ismael-KG) will render you a contributor. I intend that to continue being the case, and to be clear that all contributions are deemed equally valuable.

Contributions then fall under one of two broad categories: sustainability or stories. Each of these, in turn, are broken down as follows:

Sustainability

Sustainability contributions are those that relate to the GitHub repository and have little to do with the content of stories.

  • Engineering: these are contributions that have to do with (i) how the GitHub repository is managed and arranged, (ii) how different sites host content pertaining to the timeline, and (iii) maintenance of the present platform (Tiki-Toki) and its eventual migration to a better platform (hopefully).
  • Policy-making: this is about writing and improving protocols. For example, on the review process, the code of conduct, or even this very taxonomy!
  • Communications: these include contributions relating to strategising about social media-usage, but also spreading the word online (at present, communications is mostly @Ismael-KG’s tweets, which don’t get very far!).
  • Ideation: this is a broad type of contribution to acknowledge that both stories and protocols can result from discussions that can be held on GitHub issues or offline.

Stories

The content of the timeline can be improved and maintained by the following contribution-types:

  • Conceptualisation: contributions of this sort occur early on in the story-creation life-cycle. This can amount to something as simple as drawing a fellow contributor’s attention to some historical event that might be worth capturing in The Timeline.
  • Research: research contributions are useful during the conceptualisation and story-writing stages. It is mostly about providing links to useful resources.
  • Authorship or co-authorship: this is when a new story has been drafted in full by one or more people.
  • Review: providing reviews requires expertise on the stories to be reviewed. It is about ensuring the accuracy of claims and quality of argumentation. Reviews are “higher-level” than copy-editing.
  • Proofreading: proofreeding is when contributors scour stories for syntactical, grammatical and spelling mistakes.
  • Copy-editing: this is a thorough analysis of a text’s consistency and clarity, and ensures that the text is also in line with The Timeline’s style guide (yet to be made). Further details on this type of contribution are available in Protocol 10: Editorial Care.

Recognition

It would be unfair to create a system where anybody can contribute yet nobody gains recognition. As contributions grow, sustainability ones will be acknowledged at the end of protocols. For example, a protocol might end with “This protocol was designed by @/so-and-so.”

Similarly, stories will end with an acknowledgements section, listing stories-type contributions and the people behind them.

To acknowledge contributors in one place, contributors are also listed in Contributors.md alongside a link to what they helped develop.

The principles of honesty and humility are particularly important to recognition, as we must truthfully recognise both the work we conduct, and where we have requested for others’ help.

Protocol 4: Lifecycle of a Story

There are eight ateps to the development of stories for The Timeline. Each one can be repeated, and you can always revisit previous steps. You are strongly encouraged to develop stories (i) with the help of others, and (ii) by creating an issue using the “Conceptualisation 🖊️” template. This Protocol is written with potential authors in mind. For more details on reviewing contributions, see Protocol 10: Editorial Care.

Step 1: Idea generation

This is where you can put your most creative self to work. There are at least two approaches to idea generation:

  • Top-down idea generation means thinking big and whittling down. You might be curious about the warring states period in Ancient China, or perhaps evolutionary psychology, or anything! From this broad interest of your own, the goal is then to establish an event that has a clear link to a question for research ethics.
  • Bottom-up idea generation is about starting with an event or concept you are aware of, and then studying the broader historical context in which that phenomenon originated. The link between the historical event and topic for research ethics can be established through the process of studying the historical context.

Once you have clarity on the idea or feel you need support to develop it, raise an issue following the “Conceptualisation 🖊️” template and invite discussion by using the “Help Wanted” label.

Step 2: Compiling Resources

You are encouraged to employ diverse sources of information when at the idea generation stage. Once an idea becomes clearer, you should draw on sources that adhere to Protocol 6.

Step 3: Finding coherent narratives

With the general idea and the vast quantity of resources you have found, it is finally time to establish the outline of the story and any philosophical arguments to be put forward. Protocol 5 can help you structure your thoughts.

Also, don’t be afraid to discard academic papers, articles or books that become irrelevant. The story must be clear and coherent. This is not to say you should adjust evidence to your own narrative (that would be deeply unethical), but that you must focus on clear arguments and not lead readers astray by introducing too many topics or events.

Step 4: Create a WIP file

Having made it to step three, the story will have earned a file in the “Works_In_Progress” folder! You can create a “shell” story with a title, date and intro by either:

  1. Opening the folder » click “Add File” at the top right » select “create new file” » Name the file following Protocol 8: File Naming Conventions » Copy and paste the story template into the new file » Input the basic information you have so far, making sure to mark wip: true and indicate the number of the relevant “Conceptualisation 🖊️” issue after issue: (for example: issue: 72).
  2. Or just mentioning @Ismael-KG in the “Conceptualisation 🖊️” issue for the story and ask to have the file created. Be clear about the event’s title, date and intro.

To show how far you’ve made it on the “Conceptualisation 🖊️” issue, add the labels “good first issue” (following convention for issues where contributions are relatively easy) and “WIP”. This also helps potential contributors see they can help you by listing your issue here.

Step 5: Draft and re-draft the story

And re-draft again and again and again! You can choose to do this publicly using HackMD or your preferred collaboration tool, or you can draft work privately. Be open to holding discussions on GitHub using the “Conceptualisation 🖊️” issue, but don’t feel pressured to share things publicly until you feel comfortable to do so.

Step 6: Pre-Publication Peer Review

Once you are happy to share what you have written with the help of collaborators, it’s time to get it peer reviewed!

GitHub is not intended to be used as a text editor. For this reason, once stories are drafted, they are to be pasted into this HackMD document, which uses markdown (similarly to GitHub) but is much easier to comment on. This will require signing up to HackMD.

Drafts are kept in the pre-publication document for a period of anything between nine and fifteen days, the last day of which will always be a Saturday. This allows for storiesto be uploaded “in bulk” on Sundays.

During the pre-publication review period, the HackMD document is re-shared publicly and people are encouraged to contribute and help improve the drafts.

Step 7: Publish on GitHub

On the day after the end of the pre-publication peer review (a Sunday), the drafted story is to be revised one last time by its authors. Depending on the complexity of the comments received, their integration can be more or less swift. Don’t feel like you need to adopt all the comments, or do so too quickly!

Once you are happy with the polished story, go to the WIP file you created in step 4, click the “edit pencil” at the top-right and paste the story! By following the steps, you will raise a pull request where you can ask for “reviewers.” Add @Ismael-KG as a “reviewer” when creating your edits can be made to the WIP file. You might be asked to make some final changes, but the previous six steps are there to ensure not much (if anything) needs changing! Requests for changes be considered “copy-editing contributions”.

Step 8: Publish on tiki-toki

@Ismael-KG can now go ahead and publish your new story on the tiki-toki platform, as he has the admin rights. Once this is done, there are just two more steps to follow:

  1. In the opening comment of the relevant “Conceptualisation 🖊️” issue, keep the title, date and intro, and replace the rest with the following text:

    **This story has been published [on Tiki-Toki](insert the relevant Tiki-Toki link here), but please feel free to reopen this issue and make any suggestions below!**

  2. Change the “Conceptualisation 🖊️” issue’s labels to only the “Published!” one, and finally close the issue! 🎉

Protocol 5: Style Guide

This protocol is intended for stories to adhere to some loose rules. By writing stories following the below, they can fit into a more consistent whole.

All stories must have

  • A short title
  • An introductory line with less than 240 characters.
  • A summary paragraph at the start to excite readers but also keep people from wasting their time if a text is not that relevant;
  • At least one paragraph on basic historical context (e.g.: “the events took place as eugenics were gaining traction across the pond…”);
  • A clear message for researchers and/or research governance folk (e.g.: “we here see the importance of including perspectives from groups who have been historically marginalised from academia”).

Titles

Story titles must be under 70 characters and conform to one of the following styles (or result in an issue to expand this list if they do not meet these guidelines):

Introductory lines

These are very short, are to be kept under 240 characters, and should:

  • Introduce the main event, and/or
  • Introduce the concept that is relevant to ethics.

A case with both points is found in Princess Dashkova’s story:

Princess Dashkova Yekaterina Romanovna Vorontsova is appointed to direct the Petersburg Academy of Arts and Sciences, establishes the Russian Academy, and helps reflect on gender stereotypes and allyship.

But both points needn’t be present, as 240 characters is a tight limit. The event is, for example, the only element present in the case of Comptes Rendus:

Following some, perhaps unpleasant, exchanges with journalists, “Comptes Rendus” becomes the French Académie’s academic journal.

A story’s intro that emphasises only the second point can be found in the Humboldt University story:

“Academic freedom” gains form in Humboldt’s University of Berlin, in Germany.

Summaries

Must include at least one sentence on:

  • Sociohistorical context;
  • The event the story will study; and
  • The key ethical question that the story raises.

Historical Context and clear message

This is really the body of the story, and the following “structures” subsection provides some guidance.

Structures

The basic structure for stories to follow:

  1. The historical scene must be set to absorb the reader into this different world, whether it be a year or a thousand years earlier. Sociohistorical context means answering to where, when and why the event took place.
  2. The event itself must respond to what and how. What requires a description of the particular event. How means engaging with the continuous nature of, well, time.
  3. The scene is set for an Ethical Quandary™️. It is here where different dramatic structures might be employed. Is it all smooth-sailing until panic! A nefarious application of some technology! Or, perhaps the quandary section begins with sorrow and woe — unforgettable pain or untenable obstacles — and we gradually come to see the light. The point is that we can draw on some degree of theatricality. This is both (i) so that the narrative is captivating and (ii) that the very palpable distresses that complex ethical questions can come to cause are made as salient as possible. (Think Hacking’s 1996 “sensationalism.)
  4. The conclusion must outline either (i) key ethical concepts gained from (3) above, (ii) questions for researchers to reflect on in their work, and/or (iii) thoughts for research governance folk to draw on when designing or reviewing policies. Ideally, the conclusion is not a summary of (1), (2) and (3), as we might find in an academic philosophy paper.

Communication style

Given the diverse audiences The Timeline seeks to adapt to, the below guidelines emphasise the need to break down barriers.

  • Prioritise simple terminology and explain any technical jargon immediately. By technical jargon, I mean terms used by a particular professions and which are hard for others to understand. (See what I did there?)
  • Don’t be afraid of trying to be funny. A History of Research Ethics is not a dull academic journal that almost purposefully alienates anybody who isn’t in the academics’ club already. Humour breaks down barriers between writers and readers.
  • On breaking down barriers, take readers on a journey with you. Learn together and speak in terms of “we.” For example: “In this story, we will visit the complexity of conducting research in environments where we don’t share the training that our colleagues have” (roughly).
  • The language employed can be informal. Feel free to use contractions, for example, and see Nordqist (2020) for more on informal language. But informality must not detract from clarity, or undermine the severity of stories or certain parts of stories. More formal tones can be employed when discussing more technical aspects of stories, either the ethical frameworks that they hint at, or any field-specific knowledge that might need spelling out.

Protocol 6: Reliable Sources

@EthicsInBricks on Twitter provide an image of a LEGO version of Diogenes saying 'don't believe everything you read online'

The quality of stories in A History of Research Ethics will depend on their accuracy. Accuracy in recounting historical events - from their dates to their main characters and broader context - requires drawing on reliable sources. Whilst no source is shielded from corruption and history is often written by the vistors, I suggest taking a leap of faith and employing a variety of some of the following sources when backing up claims in stories:

  • Academic journals
  • Dictionaries
  • Documentaries
  • Encyclopedias
  • News articles that employ clear references
  • Recorded presentations or conferences

This is not to say that other sources cannot be employed or that these are perfect. Feel free to work with Wikipedia, for example, when looking for ideas. Wikipedia often links to sources that are best drawn on to adhere to the principle of Reliability.

Finally, Reliability does not amount to the “credibility” of authors one draws on. Plenty of high-quality scholarship is created every day without entering the “canon” (the literature that is seen as an established source of truth within some field). Furthermore, authors who are in the “canon” may have violated ethical principles or even broken the law (just consider what is discussed in Research Tragedies!). It is important, then, to critically cite reliable sources.

Protocol 7: Public Engagement

This protocol briefly introduces (i) the intended audiences of The Timeline, (ii) some platforms to consider for sharing the project and example calls to action, and (iii) what it means to become an ⭐ Advocate ⭐.

Intended Audiences

The potential audience of An Incomplete History of Research Ethics is formed by:

  • People who want to learn more about research ethics or the history of science. For these audiences, who do not need to be experts in any particular field, make sure that titles are short and clear, that the intro line describes the importance of the story, and that the abstract (first paragraph) is clear as to what the event entailed and why it carries “ethical significance.”
  • Research governance folk, such as legal teams, policy makers, and even human resources departments. This audience requires that the timeline not ignore the important role of legal frameworks and legal literature in shaping modern research ethics. This audience also requires that the very diverse parties who influence the implementation of research governance – more or less wittingly – have their voices heard. “Technical accuracy” in describing scientific findings, for this audience, can be seen as less important than actionable guidance.
  • Researchers, by which I mean the infinite range between master’s students in theology and tenured professors in astrophysics.

    Platforms

    These diverse audiences require using different platforms to reach them. The broader the range of employed platforms, the better, although each requires its own work and should always link back to Tiki-Toki or GitHub:

  • The present repository is where all changes are made, ideas shared and changes tracked. The DOI means the repo can be releasedon Zenodo, and CiteAs.
  • Tiki-Toki is the visually appealing platform employed for sharing stories, right after they have been shared on the repository.
  • Medium can be used to share series of related stories. The first of these was about the four oldest European science academies (see the first of the six-part series here). The reason Medium might be useful is its simple blog format, where stunning images can be shared, unlike on Tiki-Toki.
  • Twitter is a great place to share links, find possible readers, and connect with potential contributors.
  • LinkedIn also hosts blog posts and shorter status updates. It can be used to specifically reach professionals in governance and policy-making.

    Calls to Action

    Audiences are also encouraged to become contributors. For this reason, when sharing tweets, blog posts, etc., there must be a clear call to action. Don’t forget to link back either to Tiki-Toki or GitHub!

Example calls to action:

Read more on Tiki-Toki!

Please contribute via GitHub!

See what stories can gain from your review on HackMD!

Join the conversation by tweeting #AnIncompleteHistoryOfResearchEthics https://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/1753034/A-History-of-Research-Ethics/

Advocacy

In cases where very kind and supportive people share the joys of The Timeline, they must, of course, be celebrated! 🎉

Raise an issue using the “Communications 🌐” template to share any external references to The Timeline. In the case that a reference is made by someone who is not a contributor, but shared A History of Research Ethics as a useful resource or fun project, consider reaching out and asking whether they would like to be listed as an ⭐ Advocate ⭐ in In the media.md.

Protocol 1’s principles of impartiality and charitability are crucial to ensure the reliability of sources.

  • Impartiality amounts to your own background as a contributor. Whilst we all - wittingly or not - align to some ideology or other, we must (i) seek out sources that might surprise us or not conform to our prejudices, but also (ii) critically evaluate sources. For this reason, various sources must be drawn on to corroborate statements and the validity of analyses.
  • Charitability is necessary when engaging with sources where arguments are unclear to our minds. We must be open to engaging with these in good faith, and begin by giving them the benefit of the doubt. In other words, work from the assumption that sources are clear and rational. Then, provide charitable interpretations. These can then be critically evaluated and refuted on clearer grounds.

Badges

Contributors are encouraged to celebrate that they have contributed to the project by weairing a badge on their GitHub profile! The badge appears as follows:

Contributing An Incomplete History of Research Ethics

To add the badge to your GitHub profile

  1. Go to github.com/[your user name]/[your user name] (For example, @Ismael-KG would go to github.com/ismael-kg/ismael-kg
  2. Click on “Edit README”
  3. Add the following: [![Contributing An Incomplete History of Research Ethics](https://img.shields.io/badge/Contributing-An%20Incomplete%20History%20of%20Research%20Ethics-red)](https://github.com/Ismael-KG/An_Incomplete_History_of_Research_Ethics)
  4. Click “commit” towards the bottom of the screen to confirm the change. You can then visit github.com/[your user name] to see how the badge fits!

Protocol 8: Naming Conventions

Although GitHub is not ideally used to navigate something like The Timeline, it is helpful to keep files ordered in a coherent manner to faciltate the repository’s maintenance.

To do so, Works_In_Progress and published Stories must be named as follows:

[BCE or CE] YYYY [Story Title]

For example:

image

This means that BCE stories will be ordered backwards, which is something to keep in mind when browsing the present repository.

Protocol 9: Technical Implementation

(Protocol Under Construction 🛠️)

Protocol 10: Editorial Care

An Incomplete History of Research Ethics is not an academic journal with the usual structures in place, such as editorial staff. Rather, it is about creating content and disseminating it as a community. Some structure is proposed in Protocol 3 regarding ways one can contribute, including reviewing, proofreading and copy-editing stories. The present protocol reinforces the principle of Duty of Care listed in the Code of Conduct to ensure these three contribution types in particular are made to the standards of Lau’s (2022) Ethics of Editorial Care.

Whether it is one’s dominion of a certain research field (reviewer), their experience in producing content for The Timeline (copy-editor), or their acute attention to detail (proof-reader), editors stand in a position of power before authors and co-authors because they are able to push back on original content, require more or less substantive changes, and postpone the publication of thoughtful work. The principle of Duty of Care can be adhered to by reviewers, proof-readers and copy-editors following the measures below:

  • Reviewers, proof-readers and copy-editors must clearly describe the improvements they expect to see. For proof-readers and copy-editors, this means justifying why they note the errors they do and explaining how the changes they suggest improve the story.
  • Reviewers and copy-editors must not “weaponise rigour” by suggesting that some “canon” authors must be cited. An Incomplete History of Research Ethics was developed to point out less well-known aspects of human history, and citing authors from historically marginalised communities rather is encouraged (see Protocol 6: Reliable Sources).
  • Copy-editors must advocate for adherence to the Code of Conduct, where Honesty, Humility and Charitability can improve the quality of a story, as authors are encouraged to acknowledge their limitations and engage with the works they cite in good faith.
  • Copy-editors are encouraged – where a draft publication is not to a great standard – to arrange calls with the authors they are reading. The copy-editor can then provide general advice but also check that the authors are happy to receive a lengthy review. The point here is to avoid the dispiriting feeling one might get from having their work “rejected.”
  • Copy-editors must not single-handedly block a publication. Blocking publications can only be done in extreme cases where there is a clear breach of the Code of Conduct. In either case, this will require action through the Resolution mechanism in said code.

Protocol 11: Networking at the Agora

Various activities can be set up to ensure continued engagement with An Incomplete History of Research Ethics. The Agora is where such events take place.

Onboarding Sessions

These can be one-to-one or in small groups, and are delivered by @Ismael-KG on an ad-hoc basis. Those who are new to the project will be invited to attend such a session to:

  • Get to grips with the Code of Conduct
  • Get to grips with how the project uses GitHub
  • Identify suitable contribution types (see Protocol 3)
  • Learning what you want to gain from the community

Other activities

As the community grows and to facilitate networking, the agora can host Randomised Coffees & Teas, book clubs, and Sustainability Chats to workshop ideas for the future of An Incmplete History of Research Ethics.

A brief history of this timeline

This timeline began as a side-project in mid-September 2021. As I wrote it, I wondered if it was worth sharing, but I was unsure about getting it through a peer-reviewed journal; besides, I didn’t think a lengthy text was the most useful way to learn about the history of research ethics. I spent some time looking for sites to host a free timeline and eventually found Tiki-Toki! I created an account on 16 October 2021 and uploaded (almost) everything I had written!

Since then, I have realised that tracking changes is very hard. I had been using a document on HackMD for writing but it got clunky when trying to see how my work was evolving.

So here we are! The latest big changes have been:

  • Creating a DOI,
  • Establishing a list of protocols for potential contributors (rather than this being a lonely endeavour of a mad-man)
  • Creating a site that is less visually pleasing but more accessible than Tiki-Toki (this is entirely thanks to @yochannah’s generous work)

I continue to make tweaks to this repo and creating content for the many stories relevant to research ethics, and encourage you to join in!