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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesCollaborative research

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Trump’s science adviser on research ethics, immigration and presidential tweets – Science (Sara Reardon | April 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on May 18, 2019
 

Five months into the job, Kelvin Droegemeier tells Nature what it’s like to work with the US president.

When meteorologist Kelvin Droegemeier was sworn in as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in February, he inherited an office that had been without a leader for two years — and became the top science adviser to President Donald Trump.

Trump’s push to cut government spending on research, and his policies on issues such as immigration, have caused controversy in science. Nature spoke to Droegemeier in mid-April — two months into his tenure — about these policies, his plans and what it’s like to work with the president. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

The number of OSTP staff dropped precipitously during Trump’s first two years in office. What is the situation now?

The lights were definitely on, and there was a lot of work actually getting done. We have people cycle through. Some of them are on detail for a year, so there’s kind of a constant refresh. I have brought additional people on board in some of the areas that I’m going to be working on a little bit more.

Read the rest of this interview

Australian Mental Health Consumer and Carer Perspectives on Ethics in Adult Mental Health Research (Papers: Alyssa R. Morse, et al | April 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on May 5, 2019
 

Abstract
Barriers to research arise when national ethical guidelines governing the inclusion of consumers in mental health research are implemented at the local level. Equivalent guidelines for research involving carers are not available. A social science investigation of Australian mental health consumer and carer perspectives on research ethics procedures was conducted in two interlinked stages: (a) a discussion forum with consumers, carers, and lived-experience researchers and (b) in-depth interviews with consumers and carers. Data collection and analysis drew strongly on methodological features of grounded theory. Privacy, confidentiality, and stigmatizing ethics procedures were key issues for consumer and carer participants. Recommendations for research practice include the following: considering the impact of information sharing on participants’ relationships and adopting individual-focused approaches to managing research risks.

Keywords:
caregiver; carer involvement; consumer involvement; mental health; research ethics; service user

Morse, A. R., Forbes, O., Jones, B. A., Gulliver, A., & Banfield, M. (2019). Australian Mental Health Consumer and Carer Perspectives on Ethics in Adult Mental Health Research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619844396
Publisher: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1556264619844396

RePAIR consensus guidelines: Responsibilities of Publishers, Agencies, Institutions, and Researchers in protecting the integrity of the research record (Papers: Collaborative Working Group from the conference “Keeping the Pool Clean… | December 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on April 14, 2019
 

Abstract
The progression of research and scholarly inquiry does not occur in isolation and is wholly dependent on accurate reporting of methods and results, and successful replication of prior work. Without mechanisms to correct the literature, much time and money is wasted on research based on a crumbling foundation. These guidelines serve to outline the respective responsibilities of researchers, institutions, agencies, and publishers or editors in maintaining the integrity of the research record. Delineating these complementary roles and proposing solutions for common barriers provide a foundation for best practices.

Keywords
Research integrity, Retractions, Researchers, Publishers, Editors, Agencies, Institutions, Research misconduct, International, Communication

Research Integrity and Peer Review – RePAIR consensus guidelines: Responsibilities of Publishers, Agencies, Institutions, and Researchers in protecting the integrity of the research record. Research Integrity and Peer Review 2018, 3:15
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0055-1
Publisher (Open Access): https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-018-0055-1

Paper submitted for publication without consent or knowledge of co-authors (COPE Case Study)0

Posted by Admin in on February 16, 2019
 

An article was submitted by corresponding author (CA) on 19 December 2011. After several revisions the article was accepted for publication on 23 March 2012. The article was published online 8 May 2012.

At the time of submission, CA was a PhD student at a research centre (X).

On 21 November 2012, co-author A (also head of the research group) contacted the publisher and editor-in-chief of journal A with a request to retract the published article claiming the following:

Read the rest of this case study
Also  available as an audio file

0