The Ethical Compass: Establishing ethical guidelines for research practices in sports medicine and exercise science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Research in sports medicine and exercise science has experienced significant growth over recent years. With this expansion, there has been a concomitant rise in ethical challenges specific to these disciplines. While various ethical guidelines exist for numerous scientific fields, a comprehensive set tailored specifically for sports medicine and exercise science is lacking. Aiming to bridge this gap, this paper proposes a comprehensive, updated set of ethical guidelines specifically targeted at researchers in sports medicine and exercise science, providing them with a thorough framework to ensure research integrity. Methods: A collaborative approach was adopted, involving contributions from a diverse group of international experts in the field. A thorough review of existing ethical guidelines was conducted, followed by the identification and detailed examination of 15 specific ethical topics relevant to the discipline. Each topic was discussed in terms of its definition, consequences, and preventive measures. Results: The research in sports medicine and exercise science has grown significantly, bringing to the fore ethical challenges unique to these disciplines. Our comprehensive review identifies 15 key ethical challenges: plagiarism, data falsification, role of artificial intelligence chatbots in academic writing, overstating results, excessive/strategic self-citation, duplicate publications, non-disclosure of conflicts of interest, image manipulation, misuse of peer review, ghost and gift authorship, inadequate data retention, data fabrication, falsification of IRB approvals, lack of informed consent, and unethical human or animal experimentation. For each identified challenge, we propose practical solutions and best practices, enriched by the diverse perspectives of our collaborative international expert panel. This endeavor aims to offer a foundational set of ethical guidelines tailored to the nuanced needs of sports medicine and exercise science, ensuring research integrity and promoting ethical responsibility across these vital fields. Conclusion: This article represents a seminal contribution to the establishment of essential ethical guidelines specifically designed for the fields of sports medicine and exercise science. This article charts a clear course for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers by integrating these ethical principles at the heart of our scholarly and clinical activities. Consequently, it envisions a future where the principles of research integrity and ethical responsibility consistently inform every scientific discovery and every clinical engagement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.478 | 0.539 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.039 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".