We submitted an application to our HREC (Human Research Ethics Committee) and received their approval to conduct the study. In our application, we submitted a base questionnaire with some of the questions we were interested in asking. However, we want to conduct a study with semi-structured interviews following a grounded theory approach. That is, as we interview participants, we want to adapt our questions to explore emerging topics. For context, we are in Europe. However, I’d be surprised to find that there’s much deviation across the globe.

  1. How does the ethical approval work in semi/un-structured studies in which you don’t know about all the questions you might ask in advance?
  2. How much freedom do we have to deviate from the original questionnaire?
  3. Should we constantly keep the HREC in the loop after each interview?

I have submitted a paper and got a R&R. After the submission, I have learned new method techniques for my research and I found those very compelling.
Now, I would like to use them and I was wondering whether I could change the method section of the reviewed paper and re-submit the changed paper with the new method?
It would still be the same research question, the same dataset and theoretical framework (with minor adjustments). Of course, I would explain in detail that the newly discovered method would suit very well to the same dataset used before, would present the results better and thus, improve the paper a lot. However, the reviewers haven’t criticized the used method or suggested a new method approach for my paper.

So,

  • Is such a change in the method section after the first peer review round possible?
  • Is such a change acceptable and okay for the journal editors and the reviewer?

First of all, my apologies if this is not the proper community for this question, but I did not found any other one closely linked.

I am doing a research on the features of all the tools of a certain software field (e.g. all the graphic design software packages). I’ve started to analyze dozens of them, in order to obtain conclusions. However, some of them are deprecated, other ones are hard to test due to their licenses, etc.

I decided to obtain conclusions not for “all the tools”, but for “the most relevant tools”. But I do not know how to determine, through a proven method, which a “relevant software tool” is.

I’ve been collecting about 10 parameters of each one of the software tools. Among them:

- Number of users,
- Number of mentions in papers,
- Number of case studies made,
- Type of license (open, freeware, paid),
- Date of last update, ...

This is an important hurdle in my research, since I can develop my own method to give relevance to software tools (which would not be the target of my research), or I can try to find if anybody has already developed a method to perform this, weighting all of these parameters, in order to determine the relevance of a software tool. I can also choose the 5-6 tools which I like the most but IMHO it’s not proper of a research work.

Any tip to find this method is welcome. I’ve been searching in some citation tools (IEEExplore, Google Scholar, …), using some keywords like “software relevance”, “relevance methods”, etc., with no success.

Thank you very much in advance.

A third co-author C of a study in 2016 available on-line (under subscription) want to re-use the data (included in the figures or tables) of this paper with for others co-authors (A, B, D, E). Co-authors C and A are in conflict.These data will be presented and analyzed in a different manner to support its own and new data set in a paper that Co-author C want to submit as unique author. Co-author C will only use the published data (and not the raw data) of the study of 2010. Some raw data are available on-line (under subscription). However, co-author C only collected but not processed an insignificant part these data. After asking the editor permission that co-author C have (he is limited to re-use only 3 tables or figures), do co-author C has the right to publish part of theses data in a new paper as a unique author? these data are considered to represent (30%) of the data set for the new paper. Does the co-author C has the right to re-use the data without permission of the others co-authors (A, B, D, E)? The same may be also applied to the raw data already published as supporting data? IS the co-author C allowed to include in “material and method ” or in “results” section some brief sentences describing how he gets the some of these data and these previous results in its new paper as unique author?
The PI request to include all the co-authors (A, B, D, E) for the new publication of co-author C. Co-author C is not agreed as most of the co-authors (A, B, D, E) did not participate in the elaboration, analyze and writing task of the new paper.

A third co-author C of a study in 2016 available on-line (under subscription) want to re-use the data (included in the figures or tables) of this paper with for others co-authors (A, B, D, E). Co-authors C and A are in conflict.These data will be presented and analyzed in a different manner to support its own and new data set in a paper that Co-author C want to submit as unique author. Co-author C will only use the published data (and not the raw data) of the study of 2010. Some raw data are available on-line (under subscription). However, co-author C only collected but not processed an insignificant part these data. After asking the editor permission that co-author C have (he is limited to re-use only 3 tables or figures), do co-author C has the right to publish part of theses data in a new paper as a unique author? these data are considered to represent (30%) of the data set for the new paper. Does the co-author C has the right to re-use the data without permission of the others co-authors (A, B, D, E)? The same may be also applied to the raw data already published as supporting data? IS the co-author C allowed to include in “material and method ” or in “results” section some brief sentences describing how he gets the some of these data and these previous results in its new paper as unique author?
The PI request to include all the co-authors (A, B, D, E) for the new publication of co-author C. Co-author C is not agreed as most of the co-authors (A, B, D, E) did not participate in the elaboration, analyze and writing task of the new paper.