SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 是一本国际多学科期刊，致力于探索与科学和工程相关的伦理问题，涵盖专业教育、研究和实践以及技术创新和研究成果对社会的影响。而该期刊的重点是科学欢迎来自包括社会科学和人文科学在内的广泛学科的贡献。感兴趣的领域包括但不限于新兴技术的伦理学、研究伦理学、计算机伦理学、能源伦理学、动物和人类学科伦理学、科学和工程伦理学教育、设计伦理学、生物医学伦理学、技术价值观和创新。我们欢迎从国际角度处理这些问题的贡献，特别是来自在这些讨论中代表性不足的国家的贡献。

Science and Engineering Ethics is an international multidisciplinary journal dedicated to exploring ethical issues related to science and engineering. The journal covers professional education, research and practice, as well as the societal impacts of technological innovations and research outcomes. We welcome contributions from a wide range of disciplines, including social sciences and humanities, with a particular focus on the ethics of emerging technologies, research ethics, computer ethics, energy ethics, ethics in animal and human sciences, science and engineering ethics education, design ethics, biomedical ethics, and the values and innovations in technology. The journal encourages contributions that address these issues from an international perspective, especially from countries that are underrepresented in these discussions.

《Science and Engineering Ethics》是一本国际多学科期刊，专注于探讨与科学和工程相关的伦理问题。期刊涵盖专业教育、研究与实践，以及技术创新和研究成果对社会的影响。我们欢迎来自包括社会科学和人文科学在内的广泛学科的贡献，特别关注新兴技术的伦理学、研究伦理学、计算机伦理学、能源伦理学、动物和人类学科伦理学、科学与工程伦理学教育、设计伦理学、生物医学伦理学、技术价值观和创新等领域。期刊鼓励从国际视角探讨这些问题，尤其是来自在这些讨论中代表性不足国家的贡献。

Science and Engineering Ethics

Scholars in science and technology studies (STS) have recently been called upon to advise governments on the design of procedures for public engagement. Any such instrumental function should be carried out consistently with STS's interpretive and normative obligations as a social science discipline. This article illustrates how such threefold integration can be achieved by reviewing current US participatory politics against a 70-year backdrop of tacit constitutional developments in governing science and technology. Two broad cycles of constitutional adjustment are discerned: the first enlarging the scope of state action as well as public participation, with liberalized rules of access and sympathetic judicial review; the second cutting back on the role of the state, fostering the rise of an academic-industrial complex for technology transfer, and privatizing value debates through increasing delegation to professional ethicists. New rules for public engagement in the United Sates should take account of these historical developments and seek to counteract some of the anti-democratic tendencies observable in recent decades.

Sheila Jasanoff

Science and engineering ethics

Sci Eng Ethics

Constitutional moments in governing science and technology.

治理科学与技术的宪法时刻。

Abstract Engineers make decisions with global impacts and empathy can motivate ethical reasoning and behavior that is sensitive to the needs and perspectives of stakeholders across the globe. Microethics and macroethics offer two frames of reference for engineering ethics education, but different dimensions of empathy play distinct roles in micro- and macroethics. Microethics emphasizes individual responsibility and interpersonal relationships whereas macroethics emphasizes societal obligations and impacts. While empathy can support ethical reasoning and behavior for each, in this paper I argue that affective empathy plays a primary (but not exclusive) role in microethics whereas cognitive empathy plays a primary role in macroethics. Gilligan’s and Kohlberg’s theories of moral development are used to further depict how affective empathy aligns with care (depicted as an interpersonal phenomenon) and how cognitive empathy aligns with justice (depicted as a systems-focused phenomenon), thus positioning these ethical principles as playing primary (but again, not exclusive) roles in micro- and macro-ethics, respectively. Building on these ideas, this study generates a framework that describes and visualizes how empathy manifests across six frames of reference, each of which are increasingly macro-ethical in nature: self, team, operators, participants, bystanders, and future generations. The paper describes how proxy stakeholders can be identified, developed, and leveraged to empathize with stakeholder groups. Taken together, the manuscript seeks to clarify the role of empathy in engineering ethics and can enable engineering students to better empathize with the range of stakeholders impacted by engineering decisions, ranging from one’s self to stakeholders across the globe. The intrapersonal understandings and motivations that students generate by empathizing across six frames of reference can facilitate ethical reasoning processes and behaviors that are more inclusive and comprehensive.

Justin L Hess

Empathy’s Role in Engineering Ethics: Empathizing with One’s Self to Others Across the Globe

工程伦理中同理心的作用：从自我到全球他人的同理心

The use of the open publishing is expected to be the dominant model in the future. However, along with the use of this model, predatory journals are increasingly appearing. In the current study, the awareness of researchers in Jordan about predatory journals and the strategies utilized to avoid them was investigated. The study included 558 researchers from Jordan. A total of 34.0% of the participants reported a high ability to identify predatory journals, while 27.0% reported a low ability to identify predatory journals. Most participants (64.0%) apply "Think. Check. Submit." strategy to avoid predatory journals. However, 11.9% of the sample reported being a victim of a predatory journal. Multinomial regression analysis showed gender, number of publications, using Beall's list of predatory journals, and applying "Think. Check. Submit." strategy were predictors of the high ability to identify predatory journals. Participants reported using databases such as Scopus, Clarivate, membership in the publishing ethics committee, and DOAJ to validate the journal before publication. Finally, most participants (88.4%) agreed to attend a training module on how to identify predatory journals. In conclusion, Jordanian researchers use valid strategies to avoid predatory journals. Implementing a training module may enhance researchers' ability to identify predatory journals.

Omar F. Khabour

Karem H. Alzoubi

Wesal M. Aldarabseh

Awareness of Jordanian Researchers About Predatory Journals: A Need for Training

约旦研究人员对掠夺性期刊的认识：培训的必要性

Abstract This paper is a study of the decisions that researchers take during the execution of a research plan: their researcher discretion. Flexible research methods are generally seen as undesirable, and many methodologists urge to eliminate these so-called ‘researcher degrees of freedom’ from the research practice. However, what this looks like in practice is unclear. Based on twelve months of ethnographic fieldwork in two end-of-life research groups in which we observed research practice, conducted interviews, and collected documents, we explore when researchers are required to make decisions, and what these decisions entail. An abductive analysis of this data showed that researchers are constantly required to further interpret research plans, indicating that there is no clear division between planning and plan execution. This discretion emerges either when a research protocol is underdetermined or overdetermined, in which case they need to operationalise or adapt the plans respectively. In addition, we found that many of these instances of researcher discretion are exercised implicitly. Within the research groups it was occasionally not clear which topic merited an active decision, or which action could retroactively be categorised as one. Our ethnographic study of research practice suggests that researcher discretion is an integral and inevitable aspect of research practice, as many elements of a research protocol will either need to be further operationalised or adapted during its execution. Moreover, it may be difficult for researchers to identify their own discretion, limiting their effectivity in transparency.

Tom van Drimmelen

M. Nienke Slagboom

Ria Reis

Lex M. Bouter

Jenny T. van der Steen

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions: An Ethnographic Study of Researcher Discretion in Practice

决策、决策、决策：一项关于研究者在实践中自由裁量权的民族志研究

We describe the ongoing citations to biomedical articles affected by scientific misconduct, and characterize the papers that cite these affected articles. The citations to 102 articles named in official findings of scientific misconduct during the period of 1993 and 2001 were identified through the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science database. Using a stratified random sampling strategy, we performed a content analysis of 603 of the 5,393 citing papers to identify indications of awareness that the cited articles affected by scientific misconduct had validity issues, and to examine how the citing papers referred to the affected articles. Fewer than 5% of citing papers indicated any awareness that the cited article was retracted or named in a finding of misconduct. We also tested the hypothesis that affected articles would have fewer citations than a comparison sample; this was not supported. Most articles affected by misconduct were published in basic science journals, and we found little cause for concern that such articles may have affected clinical equipoise or clinical care.

Anne Victoria Neale

Rhonda K. Dailey

Judith Abrams

Analysis of Citations to Biomedical Articles Affected by Scientific Misconduct

Abstract In this paper, we suggest that personalized LLMs trained on information written by or otherwise pertaining to an individual could serve as artificial moral advisors (AMAs) that account for the dynamic nature of personal morality. These LLM-based AMAs would harness users’ past and present data to infer and make explicit their sometimes-shifting values and preferences, thereby fostering self-knowledge. Further, these systems may also assist in processes of self-creation, by helping users reflect on the kind of person they want to be and the actions and goals necessary for so becoming. The feasibility of LLMs providing such personalized moral insights remains uncertain pending further technical development. Nevertheless, we argue that this approach addresses limitations in existing AMA proposals reliant on either predetermined values or introspective self-knowledge.

Alberto Giubilini

Sebastian Porsdam Mann

Cristina Voinea

Brian Earp

Julian Savulescu

Know Thyself, Improve Thyself: Personalized LLMs for Self-Knowledge and Moral Enhancement

认识自我，提升自我：个性化大型语言模型用于自我认知与道德提升

Abstract We address an open problem in the philosophy of artificial intelligence (AI): how to justify the epistemic attitudes we have towards the trustworthiness of AI systems. The problem is important, as providing reasons to believe that AI systems are worthy of trust is key to appropriately rely on these systems in human-AI interactions. In our approach, we consider the trustworthiness of an AI as a time-relative, composite property of the system with two distinct facets. One is the actual trustworthiness of the AI and the other is the perceived trustworthiness of the system as assessed by its users while interacting with it. We show that credences, namely, beliefs we hold with a degree of confidence, are the appropriate attitude for capturing the facets of the trustworthiness of an AI over time. Then, we introduce a reliabilistic account providing justification to the credences in the trustworthiness of AI, which we derive from Tang’s probabilistic theory of justified credence. Our account stipulates that a credence in the trustworthiness of an AI system is justified if and only if it is caused by an assessment process that tends to result in a high proportion of credences for which the actual and perceived trustworthiness of the AI are calibrated. This approach informs research on the ethics of AI and human-AI interactions by providing actionable recommendations on how to measure the reliability of the process through which users perceive the trustworthiness of the system, investigating its calibration to the actual levels of trustworthiness of the AI as well as users’ appropriate reliance on the system.

Abbreviation	Sci Eng Ethics
Journal Impact	2.89
Quartiles(Global)	MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES(Q2)

ISSN	1353-3452, 1471-5546
h-index	74
Top Journals	Yes

Publication Information	Publisher: Springer Netherlands，Publishing cycle: Quarterly，Journal Type: journal，Open Access Journals: No
Basic data	Year of publication: 1995，Proportion of original research papers: 95.24%，Self Citation Rate:3.70%， Gold OA Rate: 64.46%
Average review cycle	网友分享经验：>12周，或约稿
Average recruitment ratio	网友分享经验：容易

Science and Engineering Ethics

Journal Citation Format

A journal article with 1 author

A journal article with 2 authors

A journal article with 3 authors

A journal article with 5 or more authors

Books Citation Format

Thesis Citation Format

Web sites Citation Format

Patent Citation Format

Staying up late manually editing references? ivySCI automatically matches journals and helps you generate references with a single click.

Share Submission Experience

Constitutional moments in governing science and technology.

Empathy’s Role in Engineering Ethics: Empathizing with One’s Self to Others Across the Globe

Awareness of Jordanian Researchers About Predatory Journals: A Need for Training

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions: An Ethnographic Study of Researcher Discretion in Practice

Analysis of Citations to Biomedical Articles Affected by Scientific Misconduct

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions: An Ethnographic Study of Researcher Discretion in Practice

Awareness of Jordanian Researchers About Predatory Journals: A Need for Training

Empathy’s Role in Engineering Ethics: Empathizing with One’s Self to Others Across the Globe

Know Thyself, Improve Thyself: Personalized LLMs for Self-Knowledge and Moral Enhancement

Justifying Our Credences in the Trustworthiness of AI Systems: A Reliabilistic Approach