← Về thư mục
📄 / / academic-research-skills / deep-research / references / ethics_checklist.md

Research Ethics Checklist — AI-Assisted Research

Purpose

Comprehensive ethics checklist for AI-assisted academic research. Used by the ethics_review_agent.

1. AI Disclosure

Mandatory Disclosure Elements

Disclosure Statement Template

AI Disclosure: This research was conducted with assistance from [AI Tool Name]
(version/date). AI was used for [specific tasks]. All findings were verified
against cited sources by [human role]. The research team maintains full
responsibility for the accuracy and interpretation of all content.

Where to Place Disclosure

2. Attribution Integrity

Citation Ethics

AI-Specific Attribution Risks

Risk Description Mitigation
Hallucinated references AI generates plausible but non-existent citations Verify every reference against database
Merged citations AI combines details from multiple sources Cross-check each citation element
Incorrect authors AI assigns wrong authors to works Verify author names against actual publications
Wrong year AI uses incorrect publication year Cross-check against database records
Ghost citations References listed but never cited in text Audit reference list against in-text citations

3. Dual-Use Assessment

Screen on concrete specifics, never on subject matter. A sensitive, political, or institution-critical topic is not a dual-use trigger. Public-interest research — documenting institutional abuses, exposing surveillance practices, holding power to account — is expected to address harmful subject matter and must not be flagged for the topic alone. A finding triggers dual-use only when the work itself supplies specific operational detail that materially lowers the barrier to harm. Studying surveillance is fine; shipping a step-by-step deployment recipe is the trigger.

Screening Questions

Each asks whether the content of this work, not its topic, supplies the specific: 1. Does the work provide concrete operational detail that would let a reader carry out harm against individuals or communities (beyond describing that the harm exists)? 2. Does it disclose a specific, currently-exploitable vulnerability together with enough detail to exploit it (vs. naming that vulnerabilities exist)? 3. Does it provide a usable method to build surveillance or control mechanisms (vs. analyzing or critiquing them)? 4. Does it contain weaponizable specifics — a recipe, design, or procedure — rather than discussion of weaponization risk? 5. Does it supply a concrete means to discriminate against a group (vs. documenting that discrimination occurs)?

If the answer rests on the topic being sensitive rather than on specific enabling detail in the text, the level is None.

Risk Levels and Responses

This assessment is advisory — it routes to a Responsible Use Statement and never to a hard block. (Hard blocks are reserved for integrity violations; see agents/ethics_review_agent.md Blocking Conditions.) Escalation rests on concrete enabling specifics, not subject matter.

Level Action Required
None No additional action
Low Brief note in limitations
Moderate Responsible Use statement in report
High Prominent warning + limited distribution recommendation
Critical Responsible Use statement + recommend institutional ethics review before publication (advisory — does not auto-block; a human, not the agent, adjudicates a Critical flag)

Responsible Use Statement Template

Responsible Use: This research is intended for [stated purpose]. The authors
acknowledge that findings related to [sensitive area] could potentially be
applied in ways not intended by this research. Users of this research are
urged to consider the ethical implications of their applications and to
prioritize [specific ethical principle].

4. Fair Representation

Balanced Treatment Checklist

Sensitive Topics

Representation Audit Questions

  1. Whose voices are centered? Whose are missing?
  2. Are communities described on their own terms?
  3. Is there implicit bias in the framing?
  4. Would the subjects/communities recognize themselves in this description?

5. Data Ethics

Data Source Ethics

Privacy Protection

AI-Specific Data Concerns

6. Conflict of Interest

Types to Assess

Disclosure Requirement

Any identified conflict must be disclosed in the report, with an assessment of whether it could have influenced the findings.

7. Reproducibility Ethics

Documentation Requirements

Reproducibility Statement Template

Reproducibility: The search strategy, inclusion criteria, and analytical
methods used in this research are documented in [section/appendix]. The
AI-assisted components used [specific prompts/parameters]. Researchers
wishing to replicate or extend this work should note [relevant limitations
or conditions].

8. Human Subjects Ethics

8.1 Human Subjects Determination

8.2 IRB Review Levels

Review Level Applicable Conditions Review Timeline
Exempt Review Public data, de-identified data, anonymous surveys (no sensitive topics) 1-2 weeks
Expedited Review Minimal risk, non-vulnerable populations, general surveys/interviews 2-4 weeks
Full Board Review Greater than minimal risk, vulnerable populations, sensitive topics, deception 4-8 weeks

8.4 Data De-identification

8.5 Vulnerable Population Protection

Population Additional Protective Measures
Minors Legal guardian consent + age-appropriate assent form
Persons with disabilities Assess consent capacity, provide accessible consent procedures
Students (researcher is a teacher) Avoid power dynamics affecting voluntariness, use third-party recruitment
Indigenous peoples Community consultation and consent, respect OCAP principles
Economically disadvantaged Compensation must not constitute undue inducement
Incarcerated persons Additional IRB review, ensure non-coercive participation

For detailed IRB decision tree and Taiwan-specific process: see references/irb_decision_tree.md

Quick Audit Checklist (Pre-Delivery Self-Check)

Before delivery, confirm ALL items (this is a self-check, not a veto):