مُجَلةُ الْعُلومُ الْقَانُونِيَّةِ وَالسَّياسِيَّةِ

ETHICS AND GOALS OF THE ;

Journal of LAW and Political Sciences

مُجَلةٌ عِلمِيَّةٌ أَكَادِيمِيَّةٌ عَالْمِيَّةٌ مُحَكَمَةٌ

 

See the ethics and principles of the Journal of Law and Political Sciences

(click here)

ETHICS AND PRINCIPLES OF The JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLITICAL SCIENCES

Introduction
The first issue of the Journal was published in 2011.. It is an academic scientific journal issued by the Faculty of Law Aalborg Academy of Sciences – Denmark. It enjoys scientific, financial and administrative independence. The Journal specializes in publishing high-quality academic research.
The Journal does not aim for profit, but rather its goal is to spread the knowledge of law and political sciences, uses a variety of distinctive philosophical and methodological approaches to study a wide range of topics.
The editorial board of the Journal met with the advisory body and laid down the ethics adopted by the Journal. Given this complexity, it is especially important for researchers to think through the possible effects, intended and unintended, of research projects. Such thinking involves consulting one’s conscience, colleagues both inside and outside the researcher’s most immediate circle. These principles are intended to apply to Law and Political science researchers and Law and Political scientists serving as journal editors as they conduct their research related activities. Researchers should engage the principles in the design, implementation, and dissemination of their research projects, and journal editors should be careful to not impose conditions for publication that require Law and Political science researchers to violate these principles.

The Journal’s ethics, law and political science in determining the responsibility of states to protect the rights of researchers, and the editorial board and the journal relied on special international conventions to protect researchers’ rights. Among these agreements are the following:
1- WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT)* (adopted in Geneva on December 20, 1996)
2- Universal Copyright Convention as revised at Paris on 24 July 1971, with Appendix Declaration relating to Article XVII and Resolution concerning Article XI 1971.
3- Patent Cooperation Convention – Washington 1970 – PCT Consortium. Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Done at Washington on June 19, 1970, amended on September 28, 1979,modified on February 3, 1984, and on October 3, 2001

4- Arab Convention for the Protection of Copyright1981.

After informing the editorial board and the journal’s advisory board of the ethics of well-known scientific journals in the world, And scientific studies on the ethics of scientific research it has adopted many principles from these journals. We have added to our journal what is compatible with the Journal of Law and Political Science1: Ethical Journal of Law and Political Science includes three parts::
Part One – Responsibility;

Part two – Obligations of the Researcher

Part Three -. Research

PART ONE – ETHICS RESPONSIBILITY;

 

1-ADOPTING AN INTERNATIONAL ETHICS RESPONSIBILITY

The “Journal of Law and Political Sciences” is committed to the international ethics defined by international law in international agreements that specify the obligations of states researchers and publishing houses in ensuring the protection of the ethics of scientific journals in protecting researchers, scientific research and publishers. Countries are bound by the following ethics:
a) Responsibility Each Contracting State undertakes to provide for the adequate and effective protection of the rights of authors and other copyright proprietors in literary, scientific and artistic works, including research2
b) Compilations researcher , in any form, which by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual creations, are protected as such. This protection does not extend to the data or the material itself and is without prejudice to any copyright subsisting in the data or material contained in the compilation3
c) Published Research of nationals of any Contracting State and research first published in that State shall enjoy in each other Contracting State the same protection as that other State accords to research of its nationals first published in its own territory, as well as the protection specially granted by this Convention4.

  1. ) Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 11(1)(ii), 11bis(1)(i) and (ii), 11ter(1)(ii),
    14(1)(ii) and 14bis(1) of the Berne Convention, Researcher of Article shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing any communication to the public of their works, by wire or journal website, including the making available to the public of their research in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them5.
  2. ) Any Contracting ‘State which, under its domestic law, requires as a condition of copyright, compliance with formalities such as deposit, registration, notice, notarial certificates, payment of fees or manufacture or publication in that Contracting State, shall regard these requirements as satisfied with respect to all works protected in accordance with this Convention and first published outside its territory and the author of which is not one of its nationals, if from the time of the first publication all the copies of the work published with the authority of the author or other copyright proprietor bear the symbol © accompanied by the name of the copyright proprietor and the year of first publication placed in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of claim of copyright6.
  3. ) Contracting State may, in their national legislation, provide for limitations of or exceptions to the rights granted to researcher of his research works under this Treaty in certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the researcher7.
  4. ) Obligations concerning Technological Measures Contracting States shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by researcher in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law8.
  5. ) Obligations concerning Rights Management Information (1) Contracting Parties shall provide adequate and effective legal remedies against any person knowingly performing any of the following acts knowing, or with respect to civil remedies having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement of any right covered by this Treaty or the Berne Convention: (i) to remove or alter any electronic rights management information without authority; page 5/9 (ii) to distribute, import for distribution, broadcast or
    communicate to the public, without authority, works or copies of works knowing that electronic rights management information has been removed or altered without authority. (2) As used in this Article, “rights management information” means information which identifies the research, the researcher of the research the owner of any right in his research , or information about the terms and conditions of use of the work, and any numbers or codes that represent such information, when any of these items of information is attached to a copy of a research or appears in connection with the communication of a work to the public9.
  6. ) The rights shall include the basic rights ensuring the researcher’s economic interests, including the exclusive- right to authorize repro-duction by any means, public performance and broadcasting. The provisions of this Article shall extend to research protected under this Convention either in their original form or in any form recognizably derived from the original.
    j) Provisions on Enforcement of Rights (1) Contracting stats undertake to adopt, in accordance with their legal systems, the measures necessary to ensure the application of this Treaty. (2)
    Contracting states shall ensure that enforcement procedures are available under their law so as to permit effective action against any act of infringement of rights covered by this Treaty, including expeditious remedies to prevent infringements and remedies which constitute a deterrent to further infringements10.
  7. ) The duration of protection of a research shall be governed, in accordance with the provisions, by the law of the Contracting State in which protection is claimed. The term of protection for works protected under this Convention shall not be less than the life of the author and twenty- five years after his death. However, any Contracting State which, on the effective date of this Convention in that State, has limited this term for certain classes of works to a period computed from the first publication of the work, shall be entitled to maintain these exceptions and to extend them to other classes of works. For all these classes the term of protection shall not be less than twenty-five years from the date of first publication11.

2- MAINTAIN CONFIDENTIALITY

  1. Journal Law and Political scientists must  make a good faith effort to anticipate the ways in which research participants could be harmed by breaches of confidentiality, to anticipate the ways in which confidentiality can be breached, and to design their research projects accordingly. For example, some projects may require the researcher to adopt the higher standard of ensuring anonymity, which means not collecting identifying information, including audio and video recordings. Other projects may require researchers to destroy certain identifying information after data collection and analysis. Threats to confidentiality can come in many forms, including carelessness, data sharing, cybersecurity failures, freedom of information)  requests, subpoenas, and mandatory reporting. Researchers should discuss the steps they took to protect participant confidentiality or anonymity in scholarly publications and presentations of their work.
    b) Assurances of confidentiality or anonymity are essential to informed consent; they therefore comprise a core ethical commitment. The researcher should clearly explain to research participants the meaning and implications of confidentiality (or anonymity) and how she will ensure the confidentiality (or anonymity) of the participant’s identity. It may not be possible to grant some participants’ desires to be recognized in the research if doing so would compromise the identities of other participants who prefer confidentiality.
    c) The researcher is obliged to respect assurances given to participants. The researcher should not retroactively change the commitment to confidentiality; doing so would not only break the promise to the participant and the general obligation to confidentiality (or anonymity), but also could hinder the work of future scholars. If identities are revealed despite commitments to confidentiality or anonymity, research participants and their associates may fear exposure to harm or risk, and may be less inclined to participate in future research.
    d) The researcher bears sole responsibility and accountability for the decision to share materials derived from research participants (if permitted in the informed consent process); accountability for this decision does not reside with editors, reviewers, or any other party.
    Even if an editor requires data sharing as a condition of publication, this does not release the researcher from the ethical obligation to protect the confidentiality of their participants. In this case, the researcher must continue to decline, and if need be, pursue publication in another venue. When deciding not to share materials derived from research participants, researchers should be prepared to justify their decision to journal editors, reviewers, and in oral and written reports of their research findings.
  2. e) law and Political scientists who feel they are being pressured by reviewers, editors, other scholars, or other parties to engage in practices that are disrespectful or potentially harmful to participants should Contact the judiciary.

3-SOCIAL INFLUENCES

Law and Political science researchers conducting studies on Law and political processes should consider the broader social impacts of the research process as well as the impact on the experience of individuals directly engaged by the research. In general, political science researchers should not compromise the integrity of Law and political processes for research purposes without the consent of individuals that are directly engaged by the research process.
a) There are some cases in which research that produces impacts on Law and political
processes without consent of individuals directly engaged by the research might be
appropriate. Relevant considerations include when the research presents minimal risk of
negatively affecting individual experience or impacting Law and political outcomes, when researchers are studying powerful actors or institutions, or when deception or misrepresentation is otherwise justifiable.
b) Studies of interventions by third parties do not usually invoke this principle on impact.
Researchers who partner with third parties – for example with government, electoral commissions, or political parties to learn about their interventions – should understand,
however, that partnerships do not obviate all ethical considerations. In particular, researchers should consider the broader social impacts of the research process when deciding whether to engage in the partnership. Researchers should be transparent with the partner about the researcher’s objectives and likely risks and benefits arising from the research partnerships.
c) This principle is not intended to discourage any form of Law and political engagement by Law and political scientists in their non research activities or private lives. (See guidance for further discussion of this principle and its scope and application.)
d) In publications and presentations, researchers should report likely impacts on the experiences of participants, any impacts on broader Law and political processes, and whether and from whom they sought consent.

4-RESEARCHERS’ INDEPENDENCE

  1. ) Research that intervenes in law and political processes often requires special consideration.In such instances, the researcher’s obligations to respect autonomy and avoid harm often will extend beyond what might be required by regulatory review bodies. The potential harm, though diffuse, may be significant enough that the research cannot be conducted ethically.
    b) Minimal Risks. The assessment of risks should take account of the broader law and political setting in which work is conducted. For instance, some law and political science research includes direct interventions in law and political processes. In democratic systems with widespread protections of political rights, such petition signing likely entails minimal risk of However, in authoritarian systems, petition signers may plausibly be viewed as unwelcome critics of the government and might be targeted for reprisal. In such cases, risk of harm may be more than minimal. Inviting citizens to voice their positions anonymously, in which the researcher does not record any name or other identifying information, may return the research to minimal risk of harm. An example of a study in which consent is not sought(and plausibly cannot be sought) but plausibly involves minimal risk, is one in which researchers place Facebook ads reproducing campaign advertising.
    c) Researchers who seek to carry out research that intervenes in law and political process should respect the autonomy of and minimize harms to participants and other people directly
    engaged by the research process. Individuals who are directly engaged by the research8 processes include individuals from whom researchers, or their teams, gather data or who are
    subject to interventions implemented by researchers or their teams.
  2. ) In some instances, interventions implemented for research purposes might have plausible adverse effects on individuals that are not engaged by a research process. In such cases,
    researchers should consider whether consent of such indirectly affected parties is also needed or not, particularly if there are foreseeable adverse impacts for vulnerable populations.
  3.  Researchers should describe likely impacts and carefully assess competing claims and explain their decisions in publications and presentations of the research.
  4. ) In some cases, researchers work with third parties to learn about the effects of interventions implemented by these parties, for instance to understand the effects of election observers or anti-corruption campaigns led by civil society organizations. Such partnerships can generate valuable learning. However, third-party collaborations do not transfer all ethical responsibility to the third party. Partnerships should not be formed merely to function as vehicles to avoid the responsibilities attendant to ethical research: for instance, organizations created and funded by researchers to implement interventions that facilitate research would not be considered partnerships for this purpose. Broader social impacts are also a consideration that researchers should take into account when forming partnerships. For instance, partnering with a government agency to prevent corruption may be justifiable, even if the intervention produces foreseeable harms for some, such as prosecution of corrupt officials. Partnering with government to study torture techniques likely would not be. Researchers advising partners around interventions should be transparent around the purposes of research and likely risks
    and benefits arising from the research partnerships. Finally, in scholarly publications and presentations of their research, researchers should disclose the nature of collaborative relationships, including their role and contribution at each stage of the project as well as the nature of funding and/or privileged access granted by the third party to the researcher.
  5. Regardless of whether they satisfy the criteria stated in this principle and its guidance, researchers should be open about their design; their use of consent or deception; the individual, social, law and political impact; and their efforts to prevent, minimize, or address
    any harm. Researchers should identify and discuss these issues in scholarly publications and presentations of their work and public discussions of their research.

5-UNDERSTAND THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS THAT APPLY
TO RESEARCHERS

Law and Political scientists should be aware of relevant laws and regulations as they apply to both the research process and any activities associated with the research. This includes laws and regulations regarding prospective review and permitting as well as laws and regulations related to the activities of the research project. When a research project is conducted in more than one jurisdiction, or when a scholar is based in one jurisdiction and conducts research in another, the researcher should be aware of relevant laws and regulations in each setting.

  1. ) Law and political Researchers should acknowledge whether their research related activities complied with relevant laws and regulations, and provide a reasoned justification for any deviations in scholarly publications and presentations. Researchers conducting research in settings that require regulatory review should explain whether they sought and received regulatory approval for their studies in scholarly publications and presentations of their research. Additionally, researchers conducting research in settings that have local review or permitting requirements should explain whether they complied with these requirements in scholarly publications and presentations of their research.
  2. ) Law and Political scientists should be aware of local and national laws and regulations regarding the activities of the research project. Political science researchers who think that laws and regulations are inappropriate should be prepared to provide reasoned justification as to why they did not comply with the law. In general, justifications for breaking the law should be based on ethical considerations rather than convenience. When possible, researchers should anticipate the ways in which laws might threaten the protection of human subjects and plan
    For example, adhering to the law could result in harm to research subjects or
    assistants, or members of their communities; or, employing a virtual private network to protect data is illegal in the research setting. In the same way, researchers should be conscious of risks that may arise for subjects or assistants if research procedures do not comply with local laws.
    Law and Political scientists should generally comply with local review or permitting requirements. When researchers think that local review requirements are inappropriate, they
    should be prepared to provide reasoned justification as to why they did not comply with local approval processes.
  3. ) Researchers should understand that compliance with the law and approval by a review or permitting body is not always sufficient for ethical research. The requirements for ethical research may go beyond what the law, Individual researchers and the Association should: promote learning within campus communities and across universities about the actual ethical dilemmas involved in social science research with human research participants; Researchers should be sensitive to contextual and cultural differences. Research that seems harmless in one context may be harmful or traumatizing in another. Locally-sensitive prospective review
    (formal or informal) can help avoid unanticipated harms or problems.
  4. ) Researchers should be aware that in some cases prospective review or regulatory bodies, journal editors, or other parties might require researchers to engage in practices that are disrespectful or potentially harmful to their participants or otherwise unethical.
  5. Develop a better understanding of law and political science research, and the way in which the regulatory criteria and the values of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, should apply to law political science research; e.g. the way in which respect for persons should apply to research on corruption, or the way in which beneficence should apply to research on publicf) Encourage researchers to share their experiences in working with IRBs and other review and permitting bodies in an effort to improve those processes, promote community capacity building and human participants protections,

6 -COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

The responsibility to promote ethical research goes beyond the individual researcher or research team.
1- Mentors, advisors, dissertation committee members, and instructors should help students and subordinates identify and address ethical issues related to research;

2- Graduate programs in law and political science should include ethics instruction in their formal and informal graduate curricula;

3- Editors and reviewers should encourage researchers to be open about the ethical decisions they made in conducting their research; encourage research on research ethics; and provide editorial expressions of concern or solicit independent commentaries when publishing ethically troubling research;

4- Journals, departments, and associations should incorporate ethical commitments into their mission, bylaws, instruction, practices, and procedures.

Part Two- Research

1- The Journal is accredited by Clarivate Analytics . . The editorial board of the journal abides by all the conditions and guidelines set by Clarivate Analytics in publishing research in this journal.
2-Academic research in Law and political sciences: Journal is published only by academic Scientific foundations should be adopted in the writing of modern scientific research and rely on readily accessible scientific sources. The Research must include the academic work of the researcher, the title and abstract of the examination, and an introduction includes the importance of research and the problem of research and research methodology.
The research is divided into topics, demands and branches, or by numbers of letters or numbers. Theresearch must include footnotes that include quotes from sources. At the end of the research, a list of the sources from which ideas and opinions were transferred should be made.
The journal publishes only legal and political research. Research is published in all branches of law, international, constitutional, administrative, civil, criminal, criminology, labor law, philosophy of law and internal and international political science. Research should provide new knowledge that can be use Journal does not publish quoted and returned research, examination will be subject to the screening program;

1-PUBLISHED TERMS IN THE JOURNAL:

Specifications of research published in the Journal:

  1. 1- The research aims to solve a Law, political or social problem. The research should
    determine what problem it is solving.
  2. Subject of research in the Law and political:
  3. Researcher must uses scientific sources, or documents depends referred to in accordance with the scientific bases used in scientific research;
  4. The research includes an abstract of no more than 150 words.
  5. The research includes keyword.
  6. The introduction shall include the importance of research and the research problem. The introduction shall not exceed two pages.
  7. The research referred on two experts, to ensure compliance with the terms of the researcher scientific research;
  8. Written in the footnote in the bottom of the page and printed electronically.
  9. The researcher shall have a PhD in law, or political science or Islamic law.
  10. Research written in English,.
  11. k) The researcher is responsible for the views expressed in his research.
  12. Research is sent by e-mail to the head of the editorial board.
  13. At the end of the research conclusion includes the pleadings and recommendations.
  14. List of sources by alphabet at the end of research.
  15. The research may not be published in another journal, or in a bookG

    2-GENERAL PRINCIPLE

  16. The journal bears the international number ISSN: P 2222-7288 and E2518-5551.
    b) The journal publishes research under the criteria that it adheres to well-known and globally approved scientific sources, sources which all global universities abide by. We operate by the international standard of ethics that is globally followed by all prominent journals of this field. Our journal works voraciously to protect the research of our applicants as well as the applicants themselves. For research to be published in our journal, it first has to be reviewed by a committee of experts which ensures that the sanctity of human rights, the rights of the author himself, civil rights, anti-racism conventions, respect for social classes, women, children, freedom of speech, etc
    c) These principles describe the standards of conduct and reflexive openness that are expected of law and political science researchers. In some cases, researchers may have good reasons
    to deviate from these principles (for example, when the principles conflict with each other). In such cases, researchers should acknowledge and justify deviations in scholarly publications and presentations of their work.
    d) When designing and conducting research, Law and political scientists should be aware of power differentials between researcher and researched, and the ways in which such power differentials can affect the voluntariness of consent and the evaluation of risk and benefit.
  17. e) When conducting research with low-power or vulnerable participants and communities,
    researchers should be especially careful to respect their autonomy, protect them from harm, and treat them fairly.
  18. f) The journal publishes scientific research as well as research that is derived from interviews, statistics, and other measures for data collecting and questionnaires.
    g) When conducting research with powerful parties, including some public officials, other actors, institutions, and corporations, covert or deceptive research with more than minimal harm may sometimes be ethically permissible.
  19. h) The journal vets the CV (biography) of those who wish to publish in The journal to verify whether that author operates from a globally recognized scientific institution.
    i) The journal protect the rights of all authors and individuals that work with us after their works are reviewed by several specialized committees.
  20. j) The research that we publish is subjected to a scientific committee to review it and to ensure its credibility by several experts, and we can only publish said research after it gets accepted after a thorough evaluation by the committee of editors as well as the scientific
  21. k) The most prominent goal of our journal is to publish research that deals with humanities, specifically law, political, philosophical, economic, political science, human rights, and civil rights works.
  22. l) We only publish research after a written promise to not publish it elsewhere from the
    author is signed. We respect copyright laws as well.
  23. m) The committee of editors boasts a diverse workforce of several professors of several
    majors, from several countries.
  24. n) The scientific committee consists of university deans and college deans from severalo) The journal is continuously supervised by the editors’ committee which is made up of the deans of the colleges. The journal is also supervised by the scientific body that consists of university presidents and is subject to the directions of the scientific body at Aalborg Academy of Sciences.


3- RESEARCH INCLUDED LAW AND SOCIAL ISSUES RELATED TO
SOCIETY

Researchers designing and conducting research critical of institutions and corporations should be aware that they might still need permission from individuals with whom researchers are interacting,  Research in the form of critical inquiry, that is, the analysis of social structures or activities, public policies, or other social phenomena, requires an adjustment in the assessment of consent…. …Where social sciences or humanities researchers seek knowledge that critiques or challenges the policies and practices of institutions, governments, interest groups or corporations, researchers do not need to seek the organization’s permission to proceed with the proposed research. Institutional approval were required, it is unlikely that research could be conducted effectively on such matters as institutional sexual abuse or government’s silencing of dissident scientists” ,some research, involving critical assessments of public, political or corporate institutions and associated public figures, for example, may be legitimately critical and/or opposed to the welfare of those individuals in a position of power, and may cause them some harm. There may be a compelling public interest in this research” Five-Consent

 

PART THREE- OBLIGATIONS OF THE RESEARCHER

1-SCIENTIFIC INTERACTION IN RESEARCH:

Law and Political science researchers should generally seek informed consent from individuals who are directly engaged by the research process, especially if research involves more than minimal risk of harm or if it is plausible to expect that engaged individuals would withhold consent if consent were sought.

  1. Researchers should ensure that consent is informed and voluntary; they should not use
    coercion or undue influence to secure consent. Researchers should be especially careful to
    respect participants’ autonomy when conducting research with low-power or vulnerable
    participants and communities.
  2. Researchers should seek continuing consent in research settings where risks of harm change during a study.
  3. Observation of public behavior does not usually directly engage subjects and so does not
    invoke this principle of consent.
  4. There are some cases in which it might be appropriate for researchers to alter or forgo the
    consent process. Relevant considerations include when the research is minimal risk, when
    seeking consent increases the risks for participants, when the research design requires the
    use of deception or misrepresentation, or when researchers are studying powerful actors and institutions. In each case, researchers should use their best judgment, and explain and justify their decisions in publications and presentations.
  5. In publications and presentations, researchers should disclose from whom they sought
    consent, why consent from these parties was meaningful and sufficient, and whether and
    how consent was documented. If consent was not obtained, researchers should explain that


1-THE RESEARCHER IS COMMITTED TO THE FOLLOWING:

  1. The researcher must correct the global number of authors ORCiD ID, and do not publish any research without obtaining this number. Research is subject to the scientific citation system. It is not permissible to publish research in which the citation is more than 15%.
    b. Law and Political science researchers should respect autonomy, consider the wellbeing of participants and other people affected by their research, and be open about the ethical issues they face and the decisions they make when conducting their research.
    c. Law and Political science researchers have an individual responsibility to consider the ethics of their research related activities and cannot outsource ethical reflection to review boards, other institutional bodies, or regulatory agencies. Researcher name and affiliation (and contact information when appropriate) the general purpose of the research.

an explanation of what participation entails potential risks to participants
h. potential benefits to participants and others (or clarification that none are expected) whether and how identities and data will be protected  sources of financial support for the research (this is essential for participants to assess risk in some settings, including conflict zones or polarized political settings) any other information relevant to the study, setting, or context Relevant considerations when assessing appropriateness of forgoing consent processes

2- RESEARCHERS MUST DISCLOSE THEIR RELEVANT RESEARCH
ACTIVITIES TO THE PARTICIPANTS DIRECTLY

 

  1. Costs of consent. In some situations—for example when studies involve everyday public
    message displays, via radio or billboards—seeking consent might be impracticable or might
    generate intrusions for participants without substantially enhancing autonomy. In such cases,
    researchers should disclose their research related activities to directly engaged participants
    whenever possible. In other cases, documenting consent, or even informing participants,
    might increase the risk of harm to participants. These considerations might6 provide grounds
    for altering or forgoing the consent process altogether in cases where there is no more than
    minimal risk of harm.
  2. The researcher depends on following the international standards for academic scientific
  3. Researchers must work on the following:
  • The purpose of the research, expected duration and procedures.
    • Participants’ rights to decline to participate and to withdraw from the research once it has
    started, as well as the anticipated consequences of doing so.
    • Reasonably foreseeable factors that may influence their willingness to participate, such as potential risks, discomfort or adverse effects.
  • Any prospective research benefits.
  • Limits of confidentiality, such as data coding, disposal, sharing and archiving, and when
    confidentiality must be broken.
  • Incentives for participation.
  • Who participants can contact with questions


3-THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE RESEARCHERS AND THE
EDITORIAL BOARD IS DETERMINED BY THE FOLLOWING:

Respect the independence of researchers: Law and Political science researchers should
carefully consider any use of deception and the ways in which deception can conflict with
participant autonomy.

  1. Relevant considerations for researchers contemplating the use of deception include whether deception is necessary for the integrity of the research, whether the research involves more than minimal risk of harm, whether it is possible to expect that engaged individuals would withhold consent if fully informed consent were sought, whether debriefing of subjects is possible, and the relations of power between subject and researcher.
    b) In publications and presentations, researchers should disclose if deception was used, explain that decision, and describe steps taken to respect participant autonomy.

4-DECEPTION IS OF SEVERAL TYPES, INCLUDING:

  1. Identity deception: Deception about who you are (a researcher in political science) or with whom you are working.
  2. Activity deception: Deception about what you are doing (e.g. research for social science) or the situation confronting research participants.
  3. Motivation deception: Deception about the reasons for the research or the use to which the research or data will be put.
  4. Misinformation: Providing false information about the state of the world—e.g., by providing unreliable or inaccurate information about political candidates.7
    Deception can be an act of commission or an act of omission. That is, researchers can deceive research participants by providing false information or by providing information or formulations intended to mislead participants (whether or not the information is literally true). Not telling participants that they are in a research study – commonly termed “covert research” – is a form of deception.

Concerns with deception extend beyond participants to deception of others involved in research, including research staff and research partners. In the case of research partnerships, researchers should ensure that partners are not deceived regarding the purposes of research and the questions
that can be addressed with the research. If researchers engage in deception, they may compromise the autonomy of research participants. However, in some research designs, blinding of participants or research staff is required for research
integrity.

 

5-RULES FOR PROTECTING THE INDEPENDENCE OF RESEARCHERS IN THE EVENT OF DECEPTION

When studying legal and political sciences, researchers should consider alternative ways of
respecting participant autonomy. This might include:

  • seeking alternative forms of consent, assent, or review (for example asking a small sample of
    representative participants to assess the study, or asking for consent retroactively and allowing
    participants to withdraw their data if they so choose);
  • debriefing participants at the conclusion of the study

When justifying their use of deception, researchers should discuss the basis on which they anticipated no more than minimal harm, and how they addressed these and other relevant concerns. If a study involves more than minimal harm, use of deception requires exceptional justification. For more
guidance.

4- LAW AND POLITICAL RESEARCHERS MUST CONTAIN THE
HARM CAUSED BY TRAUMA

a- Researchers should generally avoid harm when possible, minimize harm when avoidance is not
possible, and not conduct research when harm is excessive.

  1. When assessing possible harms, researchers should not limit their concern to physical and
    psychological risks to the participant. Researchers should also recognize social and economic harms;
    harms to other parties affected by the research, and harms to research assistants and staff.

5-ADDRESSING POTENTIAL HARM: IT REQUIRES RESEARCHERS IN
LAW AND POLITICAL SCIENCES TO FIX POTENTIAL HARM AS FOLLOWS:

  • Social and economic harms;
  • Harms to others as well as to direct participants that are caused by the research process; and harms to others as well as to direct participants that are caused by the dissemination of research findings, e.g., a breach of confidentiality that reveals the identity of a dissident or her associates who were not studied; these considerations of harm are irrespective of participants’ behavior, i.e. Whether it is immoral or criminal. Importantly, a researcher’s obligation to protect participants from harm sometimes extends beyond what might be required by an IRB or other regulatory bodies. Law and Political scientists recognize that there may be exceptions to this general principle, but exceptions require strong justification. For example, when the subject of study causes severe harm to other people and when the study promises to stop, reverse, or reduce these harms, the researcher’s obligations to the person may be outweighed by competing obligations to prevent harm to others. Researchers should identify and justify potential and realized harms in scholarly publications and presentations of their work.

 

6-LAW AND POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCHERS SHOULD
ANTICIPATE AND PROTECT INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANTS FROM
TRAUMA STEMMING FROM PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH.

  1. Researchers should avoid traumatization and re-traumatization when possible, minimize
    traumatization and re-traumatization when avoidance is not possible, and not conduct research when the potential for traumatization or re-traumatization is excessive.
  2. Researchers should not intentionally induce traumatization Andre-traumatization, and should
    not expose participants to traumatization or re traumatization without participants’ informed consent.


7-FACING TRAUMA WHEN RESEARCHING LAW AND POLITICAL
PROBLEMS

Legal and political research is one of the most important topics of interest to society: Research
may generate painful emotional or psychological responses from participants, as they are exposed to or asked to discuss sensitive topics. In some instances, the research study itself could cause trauma. In other cases (“re-traumatization”), the research may ask participants to recall past injuries, such as human rights abuses. Trauma may be more1likely when research involves war or sexual violence, but trauma may emerge in a wide range of research settings. Political scientists should understand that not all research that asks participants to recollect past events – even traumatic ones – necessarily deepens trauma. Consenting participants may judge that their narration of past events is beneficial to themselves or others even though doing so may be painful or traumatic. When designing a study, the researcher has an obligation to reasonably and realistically anticipate the potential for trauma and re- traumatization. In scholarly publications and presentations of their work, researchers should disclose how they assessed and managed the risk of trauma to participants. Specifically, they should report the prospective steps they took to identify and manage the risk of trauma (for example, excluding certain participants, avoiding some themes, and renewing consent); report whether participants actually experienced trauma; and describe the steps they took to address trauma if and when it occurred. Law and Political scientists who reasonably anticipate that participation in research might cause
traumatization or re-traumatization have three additional obligations:
a) during the conduct of research, researchers should regularly renew consent by asking
participants whether they wish to continue (particularly if signs of distress emerge);

  1. b) researchers should identify local resources to which participants might feasibly turn to help
    them address resulting trauma and re-traumatization; and
  2. c) researchers should report in scholarly publications and presentations of their work how they
    minimized the risk of trauma When identifying resources to which participants might feasibly turn for help, researchers should be aware that, in some research settings, the de jure existence of a resource may not guarantee its de facto availability. Those engaging in research that is possibly traumatizing (or re-traumatizing) should have appropriate training in how to conduct such research ethically.

8-CONFIDENTIALITY
law and Political science researchers should generally keep the identities of research participants
confidential; when circumstances require, researchers should adopt the higher standard of ensuring anonymity.
a. Researchers should clearly communicate assurances of confidentiality or anonymity to the
participant during the consent process.

  1. In some cases, it might be appropriate for researchers to not promise confidentiality (for example, research on powerful elites or oral histories in which the participants prefer to be identified). In these cases, researchers should clearly communicate the lack of confidentiality to the participants, and acknowledge and justify their decisions in scholarly publications and presentations of their work.
  2. Even when researchers have not promised confidentiality or anonymity, they should assess
    possible risks and harms to participants and bystanders when deciding whether or not to identify
    participants and their responses in scholarly publications and presentations of their work.
    d. When confidentiality or anonymity is promised, the researcher must remain attentive to these
    guarantees. If research materials are shared, researchers should ensure that the material is

sufficiently redacted so that even well-informed parties cannot infer the identity of any person to
whom specific statements or information can be attributed. In cases where the risks to participants
are particularly high, researchers should decline to share any material. The researcher bears ultimate responsibility if they decide to share materials and cannot transfer accountability for this decision to editors, reviewers, or any other party.

  1. Researchers who determine that it would be unethical to share materials derived from human
    subjects should be prepared to justify their decision to journal editors, to reviewers, and in oral and
    written reports of their research finding

 

Reference

 

1https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/et/current

https://www.springer.com/journal/10551

 

https://www.forskningsetikk.no/en/guidelines/social-sciences-humanities-law-and-theology/guidelines-for-research-

ethics-in-the-social-sciences-humanities-law-and-theology/

 

https://books.google.jo/books?hl=en&lr=&id=4Qtuv0CBuKkC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=Research+Ethics&ots=U7EuYeoJv9

&sig=kXboYBEZdUTRTnTHnEcXdKXK8So&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Research%20Ethics&f=false

https://www.bmj.com/content/321/7264/824.short

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Five+principles+for+research+ethics&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15265161.2010.519233

2 Article 2-Universal Copyright Convention as revised at Paris on 24 July 1971, with Appendix Declaration relating to

Article XVII and Resolution concerning Article XI 1971. See the article 1 of Arab Convention for the Protection of

Copyright1981

3 Article 5 WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT)* (adopted in Geneva on December 20, 1996)

4 Article 2-Universal Copyright Convention as revised at Paris on 24 July 1971, with Appendix Declaration relating to

Article XVII and Resolution concerning Article XI 1971

5 Article 8 WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT)* (adopted in Geneva on December 20, 1996)

6 Article 3 Universal Copyright Convention as revised at Paris on 24 July 1971, with Appendix Declaration relating to

Article XVII and Resolution concerning Article XI 1971

7 Article 10 WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT)* (adopted in Geneva on December 20, 1996)

8 Article 10 WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT)* (adopted in Geneva on December 20, 1996)

9 Article 12 WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT)* (adopted in Geneva on December 20, 1996)

10 Article 14 WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT)* (adopted in Geneva on December 20, 1996)

11 Article 4 Universal Copyright Convention as revised at Paris on 24 July 1971, with Appendix Declaration relating to

Article XVII and Resolution concerning Article XI 1971