In May 2025, "Gaps in Ethics 4" was released as the latest Research Ethics Instructional Videos, "Gaps in Ethics" Series. This video focuses on the theme of "Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) " and covers issues such as the handling of research data and communication within the laboratory in two versions : One in the humanities and social sciences, and the other in the natural sciences. By simulating the issues that can arise in any research setting through the drama, the video aims to provide an opportunity for researchers, students, etc. from various perspectives to view research ethics as a personal issue.

At this seminar, we invited professors who supervised and cooperated in the production of these instructional videos to give lectures on ethical issues in research settings, the reality of QRPs, and how to utilize the instructional videos in RCR training.

For instructional videos of "Gaps in Ethics" Series, visit
https://www.jst.go.jp/kousei_p/en/measuretutorial/mt_video_e.html

● How to Avoid Questionable Research Practices - From the Perspective of Psychology

Professor Kai Hiraishi, Faculty of Letters, Keio University

Prof. Hiraishi was in charge of supervising the humanities and social sciences version of "Gaps in Ethics 4 - Gray Zones in Research Activities 2." The lecture began by mentioning the background of this instructional video, the "replicability crisis" that occurred in the field of psychology in the early 2010s and then went on to explain what has been discussed since then and what measures have been taken.

In the field of psychology, a major incident occurred in 2011 when a paper stating that "people have the ability to predict the future" was published after peer review in a top social psychology journal, sparking a huge boom in replication studies. Then, in 2015, a paper was published in Science stating that after replicating around one hundred studies published in three major psychology journals in 2008, the replicability rate was less than 40%. In response to this "replicability crisis," investigations into the causes of such situation revealed that practices such as "Multiple testing" , in which researchers collect large amounts of data, analyze it indiscriminately by swapping variables, and report only statistically significant combinations and "HARKing", in which researchers retroactively adjust hypotheses and claim that interpretations were "predicted from the beginning," has been particularly problematic and led to a reassessment of research integrity. Prof. Hiraishi explained that the newly produced humanities and social sciences version of "Gaps in Ethics 4" depicts the process from Multiple testing to HARKing and points out the problems involved.

Next, he mentioned a point that was not mentioned in the video: the essence of these problems is the confusion between "Prediction" and "Postdiction," and that as a way to prevent this problem in the field of psychology, a Pre-registration system has been adopted, in which research plans are registered with a timestamp before data is acquired.

　Prediction: Predictions made before an experiment, derived from theory or hypotheses.
　Postdiction: New explanations and interpretations born from experimental results
　　　　　　(New Predictions to be verified in the next research)
　* Science advances through repeated cycles of the Prediction and Postdiction

Additionally, he mentioned that since there are also loopholes in Pre-registration, such as "Pre-registration after the results are out," a system called Registered Report is considered as a more advanced measure, and being implemented in some journals.

Registered Report：
A system in which the research plan itself is peer-reviewed in advance, and any results obtained based on a plan that has passed peer review are accepted, in principle

However, since any system can be hacked (misused; or used in a way that is different from its intended purpose even if not maliciously), it is important not only to strengthen the system but also to build trust and transparency among researchers. In terms of mentoring, it was also said that "multi-layer mentoring" is important, where multiple people support students from various positions and approaches. It was noted that one of the good things about this instructional video was that the people around the protagonist were each portrayed as someone to consult with.

●Thinking about a "Healthy" Laboratory in Terms of Research Activities in the Gray Zones

Professor Satoshi Tanaka, Division of Pathological Sciences - Laboratory of Pharmacology, Kyoto Pharmaceutical University

Prof. Tanaka was in charge of supervising the natural sciences version of "Gaps in Ethics 4 - Gray Zones in Research Activities 2." Based on this video, the lecture focused on the "Gray Zones" problems that often arise in research settings and talked about specific ways to avoid these risks and how to run a laboratory.

Prof. Tanaka first explained the risk of "False Positive (Alpha error, Type I error)." In areas such as life sciences, where there are large individual differences and many assessment criteria , "large differences can occur by chance," and even if they are statistically significant, they may not be replicated. This is likely to be a problem when there are few specimens and many assessment criteria. For example, the risk of false positives is particularly high in experiments with a small number of subjects or in research where expression data for many genes is obtained at once. When dealing with such things, it is important to conduct experiments again to check for replicability, increase the number of specimens, and conduct experimental verification from a different angle.

Next, he mentioned the responsibility of mentors . If a mentor has strong preconceived notions about a hypothesis, the student or young researcher (mentees) may feel that they have to produce the expected results, which could result in the breakdown of a healthy relationship. For this reason, he said, Mentors are required to be vigilant and cautious when favorable results are obtained and always be open to different hypotheses.

Furthermore, concerns were expressed about the competitive research environment surrounding universities and laboratories. Obtaining research funding, personnel evaluations, and project time limits can create pressure to hurry up with research results, which can affect researchers' psychology and judgment. In particular, he advised that since faculty members can lose sight of the meaning of their own research due to their busy schedules with research, teaching, and academic affairs, it is recommended that those who provide support within the university understand that this can happen and provide support accordingly.

Regarding collaborative research, he stated that risks arise when the division of roles remains unclear or when differences in positions make it difficult to hold equal discussions. To avoid this, it is important for all parties involved to clearly define responsibility and build relationships of trust with sufficient discussion.

Another problem was "data selection (cherry picking)," in which students arbitrarily shelved experiments they had conducted, attributing unwanted experimental results to their own inexperience. He emphasized that when unexpected results or unexplained data are obtained, it is important to treat the results with care, taking it as an opportunity to improve the experimental method or develop a more appropriate hypothesis.

Finally, he said that if researchers' initial motivations for research, such as "satisfying their intellectual curiosity" or "wanting to treat intractable diseases," are met, they are unlikely to see value in misconduct, and that returning to "what was their original motivation" may be a clue to promoting an honest research environment. Prof. Tanaka also introduced a pamphlet "Guidelines for Creating a 'Healthy Research Environment'" created as part of the JST-RISTEX project, and suggested that since the pamphlet's six guidelines (see below) be linked to this instructional video, it would be good to use them together with the video in workshops, etc.

Six guidelines:
1) Respect free thinking
2) Engage in discussion on equal terms
3) Keep detailed experimental records
4) Value unexpected Results
5) Be wary of favorable results
6) Establish networks beyond the laboratory

●The Same Fact Can Be Both "True" and "False" - What Is the Purpose of Data Management?

Professor Satoshi Iimuro, Graduate School of Public Health, International University of Health and Welfare

Prof. Iimuro has been involved in supporting medical research for many years, and for the natural sciences version of "Gaps in Ethics 4 Gray Zones in Research Activities 2," he provided guidance and cooperation on how to use electronic lab notebooks and data management. This time, he gave a lecture on what perspectives can be taken when using the two versions of Gaps in Ethics 4 in research integrity education.

Prof. Iimuro first mentioned the natural sciences version, raising the question of whether it is acceptable to place the integrity of research solely on the ethical viewpoints of individual researchers. He mentioned the scene in the instructional video, where the protagonist Shimura is worrying that "he cannot replicate the data he is aiming for," explaining that even if the data does not match his hypothesis, the data he has obtained is not a lie. because it was obtained through various backgrounds and circumstances (metadata)." He emphasized so as a person in a position to manage data. He went on to say that when doubts arise about research, it is important to be able to explain the origin of the data, and that this is why the usefulness of electronic lab notebooks is emphasized.

On the other hand, he explained that simply introducing electronic lab notebooks does not guarantee the integrity of research; what is important is "process management," which involves managing the necessary metadata in the necessary way. Furthermore, he pointed out that when looking at the instructional video with a focus on the electronic lab notebooks, there were doubts as to whether the electronic lab notebooks were being used effectively in this laboratory and that this point would also be a point for discussion. He also pointed out that if the rules for using the electronic lab notebook to ensure proper process management had been clearly defined, and if Professor Kanzaki and Assistant Professor Sakurai were looking at the electronic lab notebook and looked a little deeper into concerns such as equipment usage logs, they could have supported the young researcher. He suggested that such issue could be discussed through this instructional video.

Furthermore, he explained the humanities and social sciences version from the perspective that cases of research misconduct in other fields should be studied. As a story related to HARKing, which was featured in the humanities and social sciences version, Prof. Iimuro introduced the case of "HPT," a cerebral circulation/metabolism ameliorator, which was developed in the late 1970s but whose approval was revoked in 1996 after a reassessment found no significant difference with placebo (a fake drug that does not contain any active ingredients). In this case, he explained that it is possible that a large number of endpoints were prepared and only those that showed statistical significance were reported; to prevent such cases , clinical studies adopted a system in which primary/secondary endpoint analysis methods, inclusion/exclusion criteria, etc. were registered in advance. On the other hand, in the case of basic research, it is difficult to pre-register each individual research, but he stated that it is important to keep records using various systems, including electronic lab notebooks. He mentioned that to researchers, experiments that produce satisfactory results, such as champion data, seem to shine brightly, but it is necessary to reflect on their own experiments and consider the background where the data was obtained. To that end, it is important to set up quality control activities within the lab and manage metadata appropriately.

Finally, he re-emphasized points to keep in mind regarding research integrity, such as "whether it is appropriate to place research integrity solely on personal ethical viewpoints (especially for young researchers)," and that "the history of research misconduct and research integrity is a similar story that has been repeated many times in different fields," and recommended that future research integrity education should be structured across disciplines. He also stated that there is much to be gained from the newly produced "Gaps in Ethics 4" by looking at both the humanities/social sciences and natural sciences versions, regardless of one's specialty.

●Questions & Answers

During the question-and-answer session after the lecture, the following discussion took place:

Q: Did you refer to other fields, such as medicine, when designing your pre-registration system? Does the system exist globally?

Prof. Hiraishi：

There was talk of basing it on an existing system in the medical field, but some aspects of it were not suitable for use in psychology as is, so we ran several ideas in parallel and discussed what aspects were important as a research field, fine-tuning them. The largest system is thought to be that created by an organization called Open Science Collaboration, based in the United States. Since the standards for information disclosure vary depending on which country or region the data is stored in, the system allows you to choose where to store your data.

Q: When using the instructional videos, what questions would be effective to ask researchers?

Prof. Hiraishi：

As Prof. Iimuro mentioned in his lecture, it seems to be important not to place research integrity solely on personal ethical viewpoints. It would be good to think about what kind of mechanisms and systems would be best for an organization.

Prof. Tanaka:

Exchanging opinions with other researchers can provide an opportunity to think about what one's own research should be, so it would be effective to create opportunities for discussion.

Prof. Iimuro:

Each researcher seems to have their own underlying ideas. Although it will take some effort, it would be a good idea to effectively involve the heads of the labs where the research will be conducted and the head of human resources, etc., in the discussions.

The following comments were received in the questionnaire: (Excerpted and edited by JST)

• The instructional videos were set in a realistic way, that is why I could relate to them. Listening to the professors' talks, I gained a deeper understanding.
• I understood that something akin to cherry-picking can occur during the research process, and that the fewer subjects there are, the higher the risk of pseudo-positives, so we must proceed with caution.
• I can provide feedback to my own institution about the fact that even if mentors have no malicious intent, they can make a statement that puts young researchers in a difficult situation.

Previous JST Workshop Report, The 2nd & 3rd JST Workshop in 2024 on Promoting Activities toward Research Integrity, "Let's use the Guidebooks on Gaps in Ethics."