Standing on Giants’ Shoulders : Posing Questions for Impactful Contributions and Minding “Scientific Littering”

In this special issue titled “Veteran Refections,” renowned social justice scholars assess the current state of justice research and provide valuable guidance to the younger generation of researchers. Their responses unveil a rich tapestry of diverse perspectives, with a recurring theme emphasizing the urgent need to apply scientifc knowledge to real-world contexts and expand theoretical frameworks to address evolving societal challenges. These collective refections hold immense value for justice scholars, ofering indispensable guidance on making impactful contributions to the feld. They emphasize the importance of embracing interdisciplinary approaches, engaging wider audiences, and fostering an authentic curiosity in research. As the feld of social justice research evolves, these profound insights will undoubtedly play a pivotal role in shaping its trajectory and advancing the wellbeing of individuals and communities. Inspired by the veteran responses, we, as Editors-in-Chief of SJR, share our refections on the vital aspect of scientifc work—contribution. We introduce the concept of “scientifc littering,” enumerating ten categories of non-contribution. Highlighting the pivotal role of research questions, we challenge the notion of novelty as the sole component of contribution. Ultimately, we assert that understanding and acknowledging contribution as the foundation of scientifc progress, while honoring the legacy of giants in our feld, foster impactful research and pave the way for groundbreaking discoveries in social justice research.Bronze Open Access</p

A Review of Resource Theories and Their Implications for Understanding Consumer Behavior

The shift to consumer-centric marketing accentuates the need for a more comprehensive understanding of consumer desires, including how consumers manage their resources to satisfy these desires. However, the complexity of the resource concept combined with a fragmented research stream thus far provides a limited understanding of consumer resources and their effect on consumer well-being. The purpose of this article is to encourage continued research into consumer resources, including resource exchange, to gain a more complete understanding of the concept and to facilitate the development of a unified theory of consumer resources. To accomplish our objective, resource theories proposed in different disciplines (economics, management/marketing, psychology, and social psychology) are summarized and used to provide research direction into a wide variety of consumer behavior issues related to consumer resource management and resource exchange behavior

How to fairly allocate scarce medical resources: ethical argumentation under scrutiny by health professionals and lay people

BACKGROUND: Societies are facing medical resource scarcities, inter alia due to increased life expectancy and limited health budgets and also due to temporal or continuous physical shortages of resources like donor organs. This makes it challenging to meet the medical needs of all. Ethicists provide normative guidance for how to fairly allocate scarce medical resources, but legitimate decisions require additionally information regarding what the general public considers to be fair. The purpose of this study was to explore how lay people, general practitioners, medical students and other health professionals evaluate the fairness of ten allocation principles for scarce medical resources: 'sickest first', 'waiting list', 'prognosis', 'behaviour' (i.e., those who engage in risky behaviour should not be prioritized), 'instrumental value' (e.g., health care workers should be favoured during epidemics), 'combination of criteria' (i.e., a sequence of the 'youngest first', 'prognosis', and 'lottery' principles), 'reciprocity' (i.e., those who provided services to the society in the past should be rewarded), 'youngest first', 'lottery', and 'monetary contribution'. METHODS 1,267 respondents to an online questionnaire were confronted with hypothetical situations of scarcity regarding (i) donor organs, (ii) hospital beds during an epidemic, and (iii) joint replacements. Nine allocation principles were evaluated in terms of fairness for each type of scarcity along 7-point Likert scales. The relationship between demographic factors (gender, age, religiosity, political orientation, and health status) and fairness evaluations was modelled with logistic regression. RESULTS Medical background was a major predictor of fairness evaluations. While general practitioners showed different response patterns for all three allocation situations, the responses by lay people were very similar. Lay people rated 'sickest first' and 'waiting list' on top of all allocation principles-e.g., for donor organs 83.8% (95% CI: [81.2%-86.2%]) rated 'sickest first' as fair ('fair' is represented by scale points 5-7), and 69.5% [66.2%-72.4%] rated 'waiting list' as fair. The corresponding results for general practitioners: 'prognosis' 79.7% [74.2%-84.9%], 'combination of criteria' 72.6% [66.4%-78.5%], and 'sickest first' 74.5% [68.6%-80.1%); these were the highest-rated allocation principles for donor organs allocation. Interestingly, only 44.3% [37.7%-50.9%] of the general practitioners rated 'instrumental value' as fair for the allocation of hospital beds during a flu epidemic. The fairness evaluations by general practitioners obtained for joint replacements: 'sickest first' 84.0% [78.8%-88.6%], 'combination of criteria' 65.6% [59.2%-71.8%], and 'prognosis' 63.7% [57.1%-70.0%]. 'Lottery', 'reciprocity', 'instrumental value', and 'monetary contribution' were considered very unfair allocation principles by both groups. Medical students' ratings were similar to those of general practitioners, and the ratings by other health professionals resembled those of lay people. CONCLUSIONS Results are partly at odds with current conclusions proposed by some ethicists. A number of ethicists reject 'sickest first' and 'waiting list' as morally unjustifiable allocation principles, whereas those allocation principles received the highest fairness endorsements by lay people and to some extent also by health professionals. Decision makers are advised to consider whether or not to give ethicists, health professionals, and the general public an equal voice when attempting to arrive at maximally endorsed allocations of scarce medical resources

Odds ratios (95% CIs) of allocation principles by explanatory variables such as medical background, gender, age, religion, political orientation, and health state in binary logistic regression model.

<p>Odds ratios (95% CIs) of allocation principles by explanatory variables such as medical background, gender, age, religion, political orientation, and health state in binary logistic regression model.</p

Three hypothetical situations of scarce medical resource allocation, and their respective nine allocation principle alternatives.

<p>Three hypothetical situations of scarce medical resource allocation, and their respective nine allocation principle alternatives.</p

Allocation principles.

<p>Allocation principles.</p

Study sample.

<p>Top row: three different sources of respondents; bottom row: self-declared medical background.</p