The following article offers a set of recommendations that are considered relevant for designing and executing experiences with Virtual Reality (VR) technology. It presents a brief review of the history and evolution of VR, along with the physiological issues related to its use. Additionally, typical practices in VR, used by both academia and industry are discussed and contrasted. These were further analysed from an ethical perspective, guided by legal and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) frameworks, to understand their motivation and goals, and the rights and responsibilities related to the exposure of research participants and final consumers to VR. Our results showed that there is a significant disparity between practices in academia and industry, and for industry specifically, there can be breaches of user protection regulations and poor ethical practices. The differences found are mainly in regards to the type of content presented, the overall setup of VR experiences, and the amount of information provided to participants or consumers respectively. To contribute to this issue, this study highlights some ethical aspects and also offers practical considerations that aim, not only to have more appropriate practices with VR in public spaces but also to motivate a discussion and reflection to ease the adoption of this technology in the consumer market.

Authorship ethics is a central topic of discussion in research ethics fora. There are various guidelines for authorship (i.e., naming and order). It is not easy to decide the authorship in the presence of varying authorship guidelines. This paper gives an overview of research on authorship practices and issues. It presents a review of 16 empirical research papers published between 2014 - 2020. The objective is to learn how various research disciplines handle authorship. What are the authorship practices in various research disciplines, and what are the issues associated with these practices © 2021 IEEE.

There are some overlaps between external validity and research ethics. For example, how to handle raw data so that they can be processed by some algorithms and methods while making sure the handling is not misconducted. Or, to what extent the data should be shared to allow the readers to replicate the experiments while keeping sensitive data credential. To understand those problems, this work firstly presents several alternative methods, then uses a combined systematic process to analyse several cases. We can see that one problem often has more than one solution and they should be carefully considered to select a suitable one if any. The combined process is working well and should be considered to engage when analysing research ethical problems.