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)

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

Copyright the Card Game – Australian Edition (a game produced by Creative Commons Australia and the Australian Libraries Copyright Committee, in partnership with the Australian Digital Alliance | April 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on September 28, 2019
 

Copyright The Card Game – Australian Edition is an adaptation of Copyright The Card Game v3.0 by Chris Morrison and Jane Secker. This Edition and the original game are licensed for reuse under the terms of a Creative Common Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0.

This Edition was adapted for Australia and Australian copyright law by Nerida Quatermass, Kate Makowiecka, Lisa Conti Phillipps, Elliott Bledsoe and Jessica Coates. It is proudly produced by Creative Commons Australia and the Australian Libraries Copyright Committee, in partnership with the Australian Digital Alliance.

Resources

You can download the cards as a PDF with or without bleeds:

Access the rest of the game materials and instructions

How often do authors with retractions for misconduct continue to publish? – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | May 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on September 8, 2019
 

How does retraction change publishing behavior? Mark Bolland and Andrew Grey, who were two members of a team whose work led to dozens of retractions for Yoshihiro Sato, now third on the Retraction Watch leaderboard, joined forces with Vyoma Mistry to find out. We asked Bolland to answer several questions about the new University of Auckland team’s paper, which appeared in Accountability in Research.

Retraction Watch (RW): You “undertook a survey of publication rates, for authors with multiple retractions in the biomedical literature, to determine whether they changed after authors’ first retractions.” What did you find?

Mark Bolland (MB): We wondered whether people continue to publish after they have had more than one of their papers retracted. We identified 100 authors with more than one first-author retraction from the Retraction Watch database (the top 10 from the Retraction watch leaderboard, 40 with at least 10 retractions, and 50 with 2-5 retractions). 82 authors were associated with a retraction in which scientific misconduct was listed as a reason for retraction in the Retraction Watch database.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Transparent Attribution of Contributions to Research: Aligning Guidelines to Real-Life Practices (Papers: Valerie Matarese and Karen Shashok | April 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on August 28, 2019
 

Abstract

Research studies, especially in the sciences, may benefit from substantial non-author support without which they could not be completed or published. The term “contributorship” was coined in 1997 to recognize all contributions to a research study, but its implementation (mostly in biomedical reports) has been limited to the inclusion of an “Author Contributions” statement that omits other contributions. To standardize the reporting of contributions across disciplines, irrespective of whether a given contribution merits authorship or acknowledgment, the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) was launched in 2014. Our assessment, however, shows that in practice, CRediT is a detailed authorship classification that risks denying appropriate credit for persons who contribute as non-authors. To illustrate the shortcomings in CRediT and suggest improvements, in this article we review key concepts of authorship and contributorship and examine the range of non-author contributions that may (or may not) be acknowledged. We then briefly describe different types of editorial support provided by (non-author) translators, authors’ editors and writers, and explain why it is not always acknowledged. Finally, we propose two new CRediT taxa and revisions to three existing taxa regarding both technical and editorial support, as a small but important step to make credit attribution more transparent, accurate and open. View Full-Text

Keywords: accountability; acknowledgment; author; authors’ editor; contributor; CRediT; editing; ethics; translation; writing

Matarese, V., Shashok, K. (2019) Transparent Attribution of Contributions to Research: Aligning Guidelines to Real-Life Practices. Publications 7 (24)
Publisher (Open Access): https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/2/24#metrics

0