Tag Archives: review

CAN YOU PROVIDE SOME TIPS FOR CONDUCTING A THOROUGH LITERATURE REVIEW

Develop a plan for your literature review. Come up with a list of keywords, key authors, journals, databases etc. that are relevant to your topic. Define the scope and purpose of your review. Will it be comprehensive or focused on a certain aspect? Develop search terms to find relevant literature.

Do preliminary searches of bibliographic databases and other sources to get an initial sense of the available literature. Academic search engines like Google Scholar, ProQuest, Scopus and subject-specific databases will allow you to search for journal articles, books, conference papers and more. Search reference lists of relevant papers for additional sources.

Develop inclusion and exclusion criteria for literature. Decide what types of literature and from what date ranges will be included. For example, you may focus only on peer-reviewed journal articles published in the last 10-15 years written in English. Keep detailed notes on your criteria.

Use effective search strategies in databases. Start with controlled vocabulary/subject terms for your topic when available. Use Boolean search operators (AND, OR, NOT) to combine terms. Do iterative searches to expand or narrow your search. Search for variations in terminology.

Screen titles and abstracts against your criteria to identify sources for full text review. Download, request or note citations of relevant sources. Keep a bibliography or reference list as you go along using a citation management system like EndNote, Mendeley etc. This will help organize your sources.

Read selected sources in full. As you read take detailed notes summarizing key points, methods, findings, theories and concepts. Note agreements and disagreements between studies. Highlight useful quotes that relate to your review questions. You may need to read some sources multiple times.

Analyze and evaluate sources critically. Consider research design, methods, sample, measures. Note sources of funding and potential biases. Weigh evidence from different types of research. Use critical appraisal checklists for different study designs. Analyze conceptual frameworks used, research gaps identified.

Synthesize findings thematically from multiple sources rather than summarizing individual studies. Group studies together by factors such as topic, methodology, theoretical perspective, chronology etc. Compare and contrast evidence on your review questions while also identifying consistencies. Note relationships between studies.

Interpret overall significance and implications of research. Explain how studies connect or differ in their findings, scope and theories. Identify how research adds to the overall field. Note limitations and knowledge gaps. Explain how research could be improved, extended or applied. Assess overall strength and quality of evidence while remaining objective.

Structure the literature review around key themes, concepts and topics rather than individual studies. Develop an argument while discussing relevant literature. Provide insight into how reviewed literature relates to your topic and purposes of the review. Guide the reader through your synthesis of evidence.

Reference all sources using a consistent citation style. Include all sources cited within the text in a reference list. The reference list should contain full citations for all sources consulted even if not directly cited within the text. Check for accuracy and consistency of citations.

Provide a critical summary and conclusions. Briefly reiterate the key areas, discussions and debates covered in the review. Identify significant findings as they relate to your stated purposes and objectives. Highlight major limitations, generalizability and implications of body of literature. Suggest directions for future research. Consider review’s limitations and suggest ways to improve future versions.

Conducting a thorough literature review takes significant time, focus and effort. By developing and sticking to a clear plan, searching systematically, analysing and synthesising critically, and structuring the review thoughtfully – you can ensure a high quality output that justifies, contextualises and advances knowledge on your topic of interest. Maintaining organization and keeping detailed records at each stage is also crucial for producing a rigorous, replicable literature review.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING NECESSARY CLEARANCES FROM INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS

Institutional review boards (IRBs) are committees that are mandated by law to review and approve human subject research in order to protect the welfare and rights of research participants. Any research conducted by investigators affiliated with an institution that involves human subjects, their data, or their biological samples requires IRB review and approval prior to beginning the research. This includes research conducted by faculty, staff, and students affiliated with colleges, universities, hospitals, or other institutions.

The first step in obtaining IRB approval is to submit an application to the IRB of the institution with which the researcher is affiliated. IRB applications typically require researchers to describe in detail the purpose and design of the study, the participant population, recruitment methods, data collection procedures, potential risks and benefits to participants, confidentiality protections, and plans for obtaining informed consent from participants. Researchers must also provide copies of all materials that will be used to recruit and communicate with participants, such as advertisements, consent forms, surveys, and interview questions.

Once an application is submitted, it undergoes an initial administrative review by IRB staff to determine whether it is complete or requires clarification, modification, or additional information. Incomplete applications will not be reviewed until all requested information has been provided by the researcher. Complete applications are then reviewed during a convened meeting of the full IRB board or a designated subcommittee. The IRB may approve the research, request modifications to secure approval, or defer the research for further review and revisions. Factors considered include the study’s risks and anticipated benefits, selection of participants, informed consent process, data privacy and confidentiality protections, and compliance with regulatory requirements and ethical standards.

If modifications are requested, researchers must submit a response describing the changes made and addressing each IRB concern. The revised application then undergoes further review. Once all issues have been adequately addressed and the research deemed to satisfy ethical and regulatory standards, the IRB will issue an approval letter specifying any ongoing requirements for the approved project period, usually one year. Annual renewals are then required along with reporting of any changes to the approved research protocol, unanticipated problems, protocol deviations or violations.

For studies involving more than minimal risk to participants, expedited review is not permitted and the convened IRB board must review and approve the research. Some research may qualify for exemption from full board review but still requires determination of exemption status from the IRB. International research involving non-U.S. sites or participants or sponsored by external funders also has additional IRB requirements for protection of human subjects beyond U.S. borders. Federally funded research is also subject to oversight from federal funding agencies like the Office of Human Research Protections to ensure compliance with regulations and policies governing human subjects protection.

IRB review is intended to be a collaborative process between researchers and the board to ensure research protections while avoiding unnecessary delays or restrictions on ethical studies. Undergoing IRB approval can be time-consuming as additional clarifications, modifications or paperwork are often requested in multiple review rounds before final approval is granted. Researchers need to plan for this multi-step process requiring patience and responsiveness to address all IRB feedback and concerns adequately prior to approval and initiation of participant recruitment and data collection activities. Following IRB determinations and ongoing oversight helps guarantee research participants are respected and protocols satisfy ethical standards of scientific inquiry involving human subjects.

Obtaining IRB clearance requires detailed disclosure and review of a research study design and protocol, with the goal of protecting the rights and welfare of human participants. This involves submitting comprehensive IRB applications, working collaboratively through potentially multiple review rounds, and complying with determination letters, ongoing reporting requirements and established ethical guidelines. Careful planning and responsiveness to IRB feedback are important for navigating this mandatory human subjects research review and approval process.

HOW CAN AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS AND CERTIFICATION PROGRAM HELP VALIDATE ADHERENCE TO THE CHATBOT ETHICS FRAMEWORK

Establishing an independent review process and certification program for chatbots is an important way to validate that chatbot developers are building systems according to an established ethics framework. An effective review and certification model can help foster trust among users that chatbots are acting in a fair, safe and transparent manner.

The independent review process would involve chatbot systems being audited by a panel of expert ethicists, engineers, advocates and other relevant stakeholders who are not directly affiliated with the chatbot developer. This independent panel of reviewers would assess whether a chatbot system adheres to the established ethics guidelines. Their review would evaluate aspects such as how the chatbot was trained, whether its responses align with the guidelines, how it handles sensitive topics or potentially dangerous discussions, how user data is collected and managed, and its process for updating its training over time.

The reviewers would produce a detailed report on their findings regarding the chatbot’s compliance with the ethics framework. They would note any areas where the chatbot failed to meet certain aspects of the framework or identify potential risks that were not properly addressed in its design and training. Based on this evaluation, the reviewers would determine whether the chatbot warrants certification. If not, they would provide recommendations to the developer on necessary improvements before resubmitting for another review.

For certified chatbots, the independent reviewers could conduct periodic audits to check for ongoing adherence as the system is updated over time with new training data or capabilities. Recertification would be required if substantial changes are made to the underlying model or functionality. This ongoing monitoring helps assure users that certified chatbots continue to uphold the same standards of ethical and responsible design even as they evolve technologically. It also incentivizes developers to properly address any new issues or risks identified during recertification reviews.

To complement the independent review process, a formal certification program would be established where certified chatbots could display a recognized certification mark indicating they have successfully undergone and passed review. Having a visible certification would help users identify chatbots that have been objectively evaluated against an ethics standard versus non-certified chatbots of unknown provenance. It also provides meaningful validation for developers who invest in the certification process.

The certification program would be administered by an independent non-profit organization with expertise in AI safety and ethics. This organization would be responsible for overseeing and coordinating the independent review process, selecting qualified reviewers, and awarding/renewing certifications. To maintain integrity and funding independence, the organization would charge reasonable certification fees to developers but be financially self-sustaining.

Establishing robust certification and review processes with ongoing monitoring requirements helps ensure chatbots are not just ethically designed at their launch, but also remain accountable to responsible practices as new situations emerge over time. It fosters greater transparency that gives users confidence chatbots they interact with will respect human values and not cause unintended harms. While not a perfect solution, independent review and certification can play an important role in validating chatbot trustworthiness and adherence to an established ethics standard.

Having chatbots undergo independent audits by expert reviewers against an agreed ethics framework, producing formal reports, and participating in a certification program administered by an impartial oversight body would substantiate that chatbot systems are operating ethically. It provides objective assurance to users and gives developers incentive to properly consider societal impacts. Regular recertification also ensures continued responsible development. When combined with other risk mitigation strategies, independent review and certification can promote safe, fair and transparent adoption of chatbot technologies.