ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
What was that say
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Authorship

A cartoon image of a zombie reaching towards with the heading, "ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE".

Zombie Plagiarism in Philosophy – Dailynous (Justin Weinberg | November 2023)

Retractions occur for several reasons, some related to research misconduct (such as plagiarism, fabrication and falsification).  The continued citation of retracted work is a significant and severe concern.  The fact that this is occurring means the body of scientific knowledge is being compromised and polluted.  Steps must be taken before we cite work, to ensure it has not been retracted.  This item, published in November 2023, looks at this problem in philosophy.  

Read More
Man and Machine Robot Hand Handshake as Tech Concept 3D Render

AI and Peer Review: Enemies or Allies? – Inside Higher Ed (Lauren Coffey | October 2023)

It is not hard to see the signs of peer review in trouble.  It is struggling with a crippling workload as the number of new papers for the review grows at an exponential rate.  There are also indications that a lack of diversity among reviewers seriously undermines the process.  Even though artificial intelligence tools offer a tempting solution, their bloopers and hallucinations are troubling.   To date, most of the conversation about peer review and artificial intelligence has related to detecting the undisclosed use of AI tools in preparing outputs, but with much less said about its use in the conduct of peer reviews.  This thought-provoking piece, published by Inside Higher Ed in October 2023, looks at whether AI can be helpful if it is used to support the work of peer reviewers.  

Read More
Chat bot Robot Online Chatting Communication Business Internet Technology Concept.

Chefs Panel Discusses AI, Integrity and Open Content in Frankfurt – The Scholarly Kitchen (Todd A Carpenter | October 2023)

A well-informed, thoughtful and useful discussion about AI and scientific publishing: this is a very useful read for all stakeholders in the scientific publishing space. Research institutions should have guidance material on this topic. This item can be usefully linked to from your guidance material. AHRECS would be delighted to deliver a short online presentation to your institution on this matter.  Contact us at enquiry@ahrecs.com to discuss.

Read More
word PLAGIARISM in white background

Plagiarism by academics is serious. Any excuses had better be good – Times Higher Education (August 2023)

The national approach to research integrity in many jurisdictions classifies plagiarism as a serious breach of responsible research standards. As such, a person who appears to have committed plagiarism has committed research misconduct and should be held accountable.  Nevertheless, this Times Higher Education story, published in August 2023, discusses how research institutions can tie themselves in knots by downplaying plagiarism by staff and treating such behaviour in a very different way in which they treat plagiarism by students.  

Read More
A work cloud around the concept of artificial intelligence.

How ChatGPT and other AI tools could disrupt scientific publishing – Nature (Gemma Conroy | October 2023)

This interesting piece, published by Nature in October 2023, reflects on why we should be cautious about the use of ChatGPT, LLMs and other artificial intelligence systems in scientific writing. It also reflects on the emerging future prospects for academic publishing.  As we have noted before, research funding bodies, publications, institutions and learned societies should provide guidance on the responsible use of such systems in research writing. This should be thoughtful, nuanced and centred on practice, rather than absolute rules to always be followed.  This landscape is complicated further because it does not appear that there is a reliable way to detect if an artificial intelligence system has been used in the writing of an output.

Read More

Related Links

Compiled here are links, downloads and other resources relating to research integrity and human research ethics. more…

Resources Menu

Four hands solving a jigsaw against the sun blazing out of a cloudy sky

Research Integrity

Human Research Ethics

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in