Good Scientific Practice and Ethics in Sports and Exercise Science: A Brief and Comprehensive Hands-on Appraisal for Sports Research
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Historical Milestones of Ethical and Scientific Misconduct in Research
2. Codes of Conduct in Sport Research
3. Differences between Drug and Exercise Trials
3.1. Blinding
3.2. “Placebo” (or Sham Intervention)
3.3. Randomization and Allocation Concealment
4. Key Elements of an Ethical Approval in Exercise Science
5. Study Design and Analysis Models
6. Limitations
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Liquin, E.G.; Metz, S.E.; Lombrozo, T. Science demands explanation, religion tolerates mystery. Cognition 2020, 204, 104398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weisz, G. The emergence of medical specialization in the nineteenth century. Bull. Hist. Med. 2003, 77, 536–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Casadevall, A.; Fang, F.C. (A)HISTORICAL science. Infect. Immun. 2015, 83, 4460–4464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- West, J. Research ethics in sport and exercise science. In Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity; Iphofen, R., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1091–1107. ISBN 978-3-030-16758-5. [Google Scholar]
- Reilly, P.R. Eugenics and involuntary sterilization: 1907–2015. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet. 2015, 16, 351–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grodin, M.A.; Miller, E.L.; Kelly, J.I. The nazi physicians as leaders in eugenics and “euthanasia”: Lessons for today. Am. J. Public Health 2018, 108, 53–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Offit, P.A. The cutter incident, 50 years later. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005, 352, 1411–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargesson, N. Thalidomide-induced teratogenesis: History and mechanisms. Birth Defects Res. Part C Embryo Today Rev. 2015, 105, 140–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moreno, J.D.; Schmidt, U.; Joffe, S. The nuremberg code 70 years later. JAMA 2017, 318, 795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Medical Association. Declaration of helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013, 310, 2191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sims, J.M. A brief review of the belmont report: Dimens. Crit. Care Nurs. 2010, 29, 173–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schachman, H.K. From “publish or perish” to “patent and prosper”. J. Biol. Chem. 2006, 281, 6889–6903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Yessis, M. Sportsmedicine cold war? Phys. Sportsmed. 1981, 9, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Catlin, D.H.; Murray, T.H. Performance-enhancing drugs, fair competition, and Olympic sport. JAMA 1996, 276, 231–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nikolopoulos, D.D.; Spiliopoulou, C.; Theocharis, S.E. Doping and musculoskeletal system: Short-term and long-lasting effects of doping agents: Doping and musculoskeletal system. Fundam. Clin. Pharmacol. 2011, 25, 535–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ljungqvist, A. Half a century of challenges. Bioanalysis 2012, 4, 1531–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Otte, A.; Maier-Lenz, H.; Dierckx, R.A. Good clinical practice: Historical background and key aspects. Nucl. Med. Commun. 2005, 26, 563–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kimmelman, J.; Weijer, C.; Meslin, E.M. Helsinki discords: FDA, ethics, and international drug trials. Lancet 2009, 373, 13–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horbach, S.P.J.M.; Breit, E.; Halffman, W.; Mamelund, S.-E. On the willingness to report and the consequences of reporting research misconduct: The role of power relations. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2020, 26, 1595–1623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kruk, J. Good scientific practice and ethical principles in scientific research and higher education. Cent. Eur. J. Sport Sci. Med. 2013, 1, 25–29. [Google Scholar]
- Caldwell, A.R.; Vigotsky, A.D.; Tenan, M.S.; Radel, R.; Mellor, D.T.; Kreutzer, A.; Lahart, I.M.; Mills, J.P.; Boisgontier, M.P. Consortium for Transparency in Exercise Science (COTES) collaborators moving sport and exercise science forward: A call for the adoption of more transparent research practices. Sport. Med. Auckl. NZ 2020, 50, 449–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Navalta, J.W.; Stone, W.J.; Lyons, T.S. Ethical issues relating to scientific discovery in exercise science. Int. J. Exerc. Sci. 2019, 12, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Vina, J.; Sanchis-Gomar, F.; Martinez-Bello, V.; Gomez-Cabrera, M. Exercise acts as a drug; the pharmacological benefits of exercise: Exercise acts as a drug. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2012, 167, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garatachea, N.; Pareja-Galeano, H.; Sanchis-Gomar, F.; Santos-Lozano, A.; Fiuza-Luces, C.; Morán, M.; Emanuele, E.; Joyner, M.J.; Lucia, A. Exercise attenuates the major hallmarks of aging. Rejuven. Res. 2015, 18, 57–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- American Sociological Association. American Sociological Association Code of Ethics; American Sociological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Bench, S.; Day, T.; Metcalfe, A. Randomised controlled trials: An introduction for nurse researchers. Nurse Res. 2013, 20, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cartwright, N. What are randomised controlled trials good for? Philos. Stud. 2010, 147, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hecksteden, A.; Faude, O.; Meyer, T.; Donath, L. How to construct, conduct and analyze an exercise training study? Front. Physiol. 2018, 9, 1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beedie, C.J. Placebo effects in competitive sport: Qualitative data. J. Sport. Sci. Med. 2007, 6, 21–28. [Google Scholar]
- Karanicolas, P.J.; Farrokhyar, F.; Bhandari, M. Practical tips for surgical research: Blinding: Who, what, when, why, how? Can. J. Surg. J. Can. Chir. 2010, 53, 345–348. [Google Scholar]
- Forbes, D. Blinding: An essential component in decreasing risk of bias in experimental designs. Evid. Based Nurs. 2013, 16, 70–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boutron, I.; Guittet, L.; Estellat, C.; Moher, D.; Hróbjartsson, A.; Ravaud, P. Reporting methods of blinding in randomized trials assessing nonpharmacological treatments. PLoS Med. 2007, 4, e61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schulz, K.F.; Grimes, D.A. Blinding in randomised trials: Hiding who got what. Lancet 2002, 359, 696–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boutron, I.; Estellat, C.; Guittet, L.; Dechartres, A.; Sackett, D.L.; Hróbjartsson, A.; Ravaud, P. Methods of blinding in reports of randomized controlled trials assessing pharmacologic treatments: A systematic review. PLoS Med. 2006, 3, e425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Devereaux, P.J. Physician interpretations and textbook definitions of blinding terminology in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2001, 285, 2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Armijo-Olivo, S.; Fuentes, J.; da Costa, B.R.; Saltaji, H.; Ha, C.; Cummings, G.G. Blinding in physical therapy trials and its association with treatment effects: A Meta-epidemiological study. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2017, 96, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haahr, M.T.; Hróbjartsson, A. Who is blinded in randomized clinical trials? A study of 200 trials and a survey of authors. Clin. Trials 2006, 3, 360–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eston, R.G. Stages in the development of a research project: Putting the idea together. Br. J. Sport. Med. 2000, 34, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Helmhout, P.H.; Staal, J.B.; Maher, C.G.; Petersen, T.; Rainville, J.; Shaw, W.S. Exercise therapy and low back pain: Insights and proposals to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of clinical trials. Spine 2008, 33, 1782–1788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kamper, S.J. Blinding: Linking evidence to practice. J. Orthop. Sport. Phys. Ther. 2018, 48, 825–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schulz, K.F. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1995, 273, 408–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; LaValley, M.; Latham, N.K. Do unblinded assessors bias muscle strength outcomes in randomized controlled trials of progressive resistance strength training in older adults? Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2011, 90, 190–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hróbjartsson, A.; Emanuelsson, F.; Skou Thomsen, A.S.; Hilden, J.; Brorson, S. Bias due to lack of patient blinding in clinical trials. A systematic review of trials randomizing patients to blind and nonblind sub-studies. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2014, 43, 1272–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- de Morton, N.A. The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: A demographic study. Aust. J. Physiother. 2009, 55, 129–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- The CONSORT Group; Schulz, K.F.; Altman, D.G.; Moher, D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010, 8, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Devereaux, P.J.; Choi, P.T.-L.; El-Dika, S.; Bhandari, M.; Montori, V.M.; Schünemann, H.J.; Garg, A.X.; Busse, J.W.; Heels-Ansdell, D.; Ghali, W.A.; et al. An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2004, 57, 1232–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fergusson, D. Turning a blind eye: The success of blinding reported in a random sample of randomised, placebo controlled trials. BMJ 2004, 328, 432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kolahi, J.; Bang, H.; Park, J. Towards a proposal for assessment of blinding success in clinical trials: Up-to-date review. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 2009, 37, 477–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boutron, I.; Tubach, F.; Giraudeau, B.; Ravaud, P. Blinding was judged more difficult to achieve and maintain in nonpharmacologic than pharmacologic trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2004, 57, 543–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, Y.-K.; Chu, C.-H.; Wang, C.-C.; Wang, Y.-C.; Song, T.-F.; Tsai, C.-L.; Etnier, J.L. Dose–response relation between exercise duration and cognition. Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc. 2015, 47, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Smart, N.A.; Waldron, M.; Ismail, H.; Giallauria, F.; Vigorito, C.; Cornelissen, V.; Dieberg, G. Validation of a new tool for the assessment of study quality and reporting in exercise training studies: TESTEX. Int. J. Evid. Based Healthc. 2015, 13, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bang, H.; Flaherty, S.P.; Kolahi, J.; Park, J. Blinding assessment in clinical trials: A review of statistical methods and a proposal of blinding assessment protocol. Clin. Res. Regul. Aff. 2010, 27, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schulz, K.F.; Chalmers, I.; Altman, D.G. The landscape and lexicon of blinding in randomized trials. Ann. Intern. Med. 2002, 136, 254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Webster, R.K.; Bishop, F.; Collins, G.S.; Evers, A.W.M.; Hoffmann, T.; Knottnerus, J.A.; Lamb, S.E.; Macdonald, H.; Madigan, C.; Napadow, V.; et al. Measuring the success of blinding in placebo-controlled trials: Should we be so quick to dismiss it? J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2021, 135, 176–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Enck, P.; Klosterhalfen, S. Placebos and the placebo effect in drug trials. Handb. Exp. Pharmacol. 2019, 260, 399–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hróbjartsson, A.; Gøtzsche, P.C. Is the placebo powerless? An analysis of clinical trials comparing placebo with no treatment. N. Engl. J. Med. 2001, 344, 1594–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beedie, C.; Foad, A.; Hurst, P. Capitalizing on the placebo component of treatments. Curr. Sport. Med. Rep. 2015, 14, 284–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Maddocks, M.; Kerry, R.; Turner, A.; Howick, J. Problematic placebos in physical therapy trials: Placebos in physical therapy trials. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2016, 22, 598–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hróbjartsson, A.; Gøtzsche, P.C. Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2010, 1, 1–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beedie, C.J.; Foad, A.J. The placebo effect in sports performance: A brief review. Sport. Med. 2009, 39, 313–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beedie, C.; Benedetti, F.; Barbiani, D.; Camerone, E.; Cohen, E.; Coleman, D.; Davis, A.; Elsworth-Edelsten, C.; Flowers, E.; Foad, A.; et al. Consensus statement on placebo effects in sports and exercise: The need for conceptual clarity, methodological rigour, and the elucidation of neurobiological mechanisms. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2018, 18, 1383–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bérdi, M.; Köteles, F.; Szabó, A.; Bárdos, G. Placebo effects in sport and exercise: A meta-analysis. Eur. J. Ment. Health 2011, 6, 196–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lindheimer, J.B.; O’Connor, P.J.; Dishman, R.K. Quantifying the placebo effect in psychological outcomes of exercise training: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Sport. Med. 2015, 45, 693–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hróbjartsson, A. What are the main methodological problems in the estimation of placebo effects? J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2002, 55, 430–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Niemansburg, S.L.; van Delden, J.J.M.; Dhert, W.J.A.; Bredenoord, A.L. Reconsidering the ethics of sham interventions in an era of emerging technologies. Surgery 2015, 157, 801–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moher, D.; Hopewell, S.; Schulz, K.F.; Montori, V.; Gotzsche, P.C.; Devereaux, P.J.; Elbourne, D.; Egger, M.; Altman, D.G. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010, 340, c869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Armitage, P. The role of randomization in clinical trials. Stat. Med. 1982, 1, 345–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kramer, M.S. Scientific CHALLENGES IN THE APPLICATION OF RANDOMIZED TRIALS. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1984, 252, 2739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warburton, D.E.; Taunton, J.; Bredin, S.S.; Isserow, S. The risk-benefit paradox of exercise. Br. Columbia Med. J. 2016, 58, 210–218. Available online: https://bcmj.org/articles/risk-benefit-paradox-exercise (accessed on 11 October 2021).
- Harriss, D.J.; MacSween, A.; Atkinson, G. Ethical standards in sport and exercise science research: 2020 update. Int. J. Sport. Med. 2019, 40, 813–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stewart, R.J.; Reider, B. The ethics of sports medicine research. Clin. Sport. Med. 2016, 35, 303–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- West, J.; Bill, K.; Martin, L. What constitutes research ethics in sport and exercise science? Res. Ethics 2010, 6, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fleming, S. Social research in sport (and beyond): Notes on exceptions to informed consent. Res. Ethics 2013, 9, 32–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ato, M.; López, J.J.; Benavente, A. A classification system for research designs in psychology. An. Psicol. 2013, 29, 1038–1059. [Google Scholar]
- Montero, I.; León, O.G. A guide for naming research studies in Psychology. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2007, 7, 847–862. [Google Scholar]
- Harriss, D.; Macsween, A.; Atkinson, G. Standards for ethics in sport and exercise science research: 2018 update. Int. J. Sport. Med. 2017, 38, 1126–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Williams, C.A.; Cobb, M.; Rowland, T.; Winter, E. The BASES expert statement on ethics and participation in research of young people. Sport Exerc. Sci. 2011, 29, 12–13. Available online: https://www.bases.org.uk/imgs/ethics_and_participation_in_research_of_young_people625.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2022).
- Cumming, G. The new statistics: Why and how. Psychol. Sci. 2014, 25, 7–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ratan, S.; Anand, T.; Ratan, J. Formulation of research question—Stepwise approach. J. Indian Assoc. Pediatr. Surg. 2019, 24, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banerjee, A.; Chitnis, U.; Jadhav, S.; Bhawalkar, J.; Chaudhury, S. Hypothesis testing, type I and type II errors. Ind. Psychiatry J. 2009, 18, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Major, D.H.; Røe, Y.; Grotle, M.; Jessup, R.L.; Farmer, C.; Småstuen, M.C.; Buchbinder, R. Content reporting of exercise interventions in rotator cuff disease trials: Results from application of the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT). BMJ Open Sport Exerc. Med. 2019, 5, e000656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Amrhein, V.; Greenland, S.; McShane, B. Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature 2019, 567, 305–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lin, M.; Lucas, H.C.; Shmueli, G. Research commentary—Too big to fail: Large samples and the p-value problem. Inf. Syst. Res. 2013, 24, 906–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lohse, K.R.; Sainani, K.L.; Taylor, J.A.; Butson, M.L.; Knight, E.J.; Vickers, A.J. Systematic review of the use of “magnitude-based inference” in sports science and medicine. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0235318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sainani, K.L. The problem with “magnitude-based inference”. Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc. 2018, 50, 2166–2176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hopkins, S.; Dettori, J.R.; Chapman, J.R. Parametric and nonparametric tests in spine research: Why do they matter? Glob. Spine J. 2018, 8, 652–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bhalerao, S.; Parab, S. Choosing statistical test. Int. J. Ayurveda Res. 2010, 1, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Nayak, B.K.; Hazra, A. How to choose the right statistical test? Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2011, 59, 85–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Greenland, S.; Senn, S.J.; Rothman, K.J.; Carlin, J.B.; Poole, C.; Goodman, S.N.; Altman, D.G. Statistical tests, p values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2016, 31, 337–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vickers, A.J. Analysis of variance is easily misapplied in the analysis of randomized trials: A critique and discussion of alternative statistical approaches. Psychosom. Med. 2005, 67, 652–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agresti, A. An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007; Volume 394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vickers, A.J.; Altman, D.G. Analysing controlled trials with baseline and follow up measurements. BMJ 2001, 323, 1123–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rothman, K.J. Curbing type I and type II errors. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2010, 25, 223–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jaeger, T.F. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. J. Mem. Lang. 2008, 59, 434–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Whom Does It Protect? | What Are the Topics? | Regulating Declarations, Codes and Guidelines |
---|---|---|
Research Subject (Humans incl. vulnerable populations, animals, environment) | Anonymity, confidentiality, privacy Informed consent Remuneration Safety and Security Sexual Harassment Gender Identity Human rights Children’s rights Disability rights Animal rights Anti-Doping | WMA Declaration of Helsinki WHO Research Guidelines ASA Code of Ethics APA Ethical Principles NRC Guide BASES Expert Statements UNICEF procedure for ethical standards IOC Medical Code and Consensus Statements WMA Statement on animal use in biomedical research WADA Anti-Doping Code |
Research Process | Research questions Study design Data collection Data analysis Result interpretation Result sharing Placebo Randomised Controlled Trials Sample Size Blinding | EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines (CONSORT, etc.) ISA Guidelines UK MRC Guidelines UKRIO Code of Practice MRC Good research practice Montreal Statement on Research Integrity Singapore Statement on Research Integrity EURODAT Guidelines |
Researcher (Individuals, Institutions) | Conflicts of Interest Bias Plagiarism Authorship Fraud Governance Transparency Anti-Betting Anti-corruption | University Ethics Codes and Guidelines IOC Charta IOC and IPC Ethics Code AAAS Brussels Declaration |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Arora, N.K.; Roehrken, G.; Crumbach, S.; Phatak, A.; Labott, B.K.; Nicklas, A.; Wicker, P.; Donath, L. Good Scientific Practice and Ethics in Sports and Exercise Science: A Brief and Comprehensive Hands-on Appraisal for Sports Research. Sports 2023, 11, 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports11020047
Arora NK, Roehrken G, Crumbach S, Phatak A, Labott BK, Nicklas A, Wicker P, Donath L. Good Scientific Practice and Ethics in Sports and Exercise Science: A Brief and Comprehensive Hands-on Appraisal for Sports Research. Sports. 2023; 11(2):47. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports11020047
Chicago/Turabian StyleArora, Nitin Kumar, Golo Roehrken, Sarah Crumbach, Ashwin Phatak, Berit K. Labott, André Nicklas, Pamela Wicker, and Lars Donath. 2023. "Good Scientific Practice and Ethics in Sports and Exercise Science: A Brief and Comprehensive Hands-on Appraisal for Sports Research" Sports 11, no. 2: 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports11020047