ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesAuthorship

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

(Australian case) A researcher with 30 retractions and counting: The whistleblower speaks – Retraction Watch (Artemisia Stricta | October 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on October 24, 2019
 

Retraction Watch readers who have been following our coverage of retractions by Ali Nazari may have noticed that an anonymous whistleblower was the person who flagged the issues for journals and publishers. That whistleblower uses the pseudonym Artemisia Stricta, and we’re pleased to present a guest post written by him or her.

Something is seriously out of place with the roughly 200 publications by Ali Nazari, a scientist at Swinburne University who studies structural materials. Some of these problems have been known by journals and publishers for years — some since 2012 — yet their response has been mixed. Some have retracted papers. Some have decided not to, so far. And others have been mum.

The issues are serious enough to call into question the reliability of Nazari’s entire body of work. During 2010-2012, around 30 of Nazari’s papers duplicated images from Li et al. 2004, reporting that the materials had been produced by his group. The images, whose scale, orientation, brightness and contrast has been changed from the originals, reportedly represented materials different from those in Li et al.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

(Taiwan) Draft amendment would make hiring thesis ghostwriter ethical misconduct – Taipei Times (Chien Hui-ju | September 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on October 16, 2019
 

If proposed new regulations are approved, researchers who have papers ghostwritten would need to return their government funding, because the draft would classify the practice as misconduct, Minister of Science and Technology Chen Liang-gee (陳良基) said on Monday last week.

The ministry last month proposed draft amendments to its Guidelines for Handling and Investigating Research Misconduct (學術倫理案件處理及審議要點), which governs researchers’ applications to the ministry for project funding or academic awards.

Having a paper ghostwritten is a breach of research ethics and investigations would be able to go back 10 years, the draft says.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

When CVs Are Too Good to Be True – Inside Higher Ed (Colleen Flaherty | October 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on October 9, 2019
 

Faculty search committees take note: academic dishonesty extends to CVs, according to a new study.

When we think about academic misconduct, we tend to think about misrepresentation of research findings or plagiarism. But a new study says that misrepresentation of academic achievements on CVs is a problem requiring attention, too.

For their experiment, the researchers collected each and every curriculum vitae submitted for all faculty positions at a large, purposely unnamed research university over the course of a year. Then they let the CVs sit for 18 to 30 months to allow any pending articles to mature into publications that they could verify.

To make the data set manageable, the researchers eventually analyzed 10 percent of the sample for accuracy. Of the 180 CVs reviewed, 141, or 78 percent, claimed to have at least one publication. But 79 of those 141 applicants (56 percent) had at least one publication on their CV that was unverifiable or inaccurate in a self-promoting way, such as misrepresenting authorship order.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Authorship (NHMRC An Australian Code (2018) good practice guide | June 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on September 29, 2019
 

A guide supporting the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research

Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. Authorship criteria 1
2.1 What is a significant intellectual or scholarly contribution? 1
2.2 What does it mean to be accountable for the research output? 2

3. Responsibilities of institutions 2
… 3.1 Design and promote institutional policies 2
3.2 Provide training for researchers 3

4. Responsibilities of researchers 3
4.1 Ensure appropriate and fair attribution of authorship 3
4.2 Formalise authorship arrangements 4
4.3 Acknowledge contributions other than authorship 4
4.4 Be accountable for the research output 4
4.5 Approve research output 5
4.6 Engage in relevant training 5

5. Resolution of disputes 5

6. Breaches of the Code 6

7. Definitions 6

Additional resources 6

Access the good practice guide

0