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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesData management

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Whitepaper: Practical challenges for researchers in data sharing (David Stuart, et al | September 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on March 4, 2019
 

Whitepaper, survey data and infographic on figshare.com

In one of the largest surveys of researchers about research data (with over 7,700 respondents), Springer Nature finds widespread data sharing associated with published works and a desire from researchers that their data are discoverable.

Foreword

We are in the midst of progress, and potentially exciting change, for open science and open access to research data. The world’s funders are increasingly mandating good data practice, including data management plans and data sharing, and recognising the need for global collaboration on infrastructure and best practice. Across the research community, momentum is gathering in policy, strategy and working groups to achieve a future where research data are widely Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR).

Open science should be about opening up all areas of research. Open access to research data can help speed the pace of discovery and deliver more value for funded research by enabling reuse and reducing duplication. The evidence is there that open data and good data management makes research studies more productive, more likely to be cited and unlocks innovation for the good of society including unexpected new discoveries and economic benefit…

Stuart, D., Grace Baynes, S., Hrynaszkiewicz, I., Allin, K., Penny, D., Lucraft, M & Astell, M. (2018) Whitepaper: Practical challenges for researchers in data sharing. Springer nature
Figshare: https://figshare.com/articles/Whitepaper_Practical_challenges_for_researchers_in_data_sharing/5975011/1
Publisher (Includes media release): https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/open-data/practical-challenges-white-paper

Move clinical trial data sharing from an option to an imperative – STAT (Rebecca Li | February 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on February 28, 2019
 

Data from clinical trials have long been locked away, some in this principal investigator’s computer bank, some in that pharmaceutical company’s cloud. For years we have been talking about opening up those vaults and freeing these data. The key has finally turned: Data sharing is becoming the new reality.

From Jan. 1, 2019, onward, the world’s leading medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, and thousands more require authors to disclose whether and how they plan to share deidentified raw data from individual participants in their clinical trials. What’s more, researchers wishing to publish in these journals must declare their data-sharing plans in a public registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov.

It’s a radical departure from where we’ve been. In my former life conducting trials as a scientist in industry and for the National Institutes of Health, when I’d log onto ClinicalTrials.gov to register a new trial, I didn’t have to give a second thought to if or how I’d be sharing data from the trial. Now all researchers need to think about that from the very beginning, even before the first trial participant is enrolled.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Oft-quoted paper on spread of fake news turns out to be…fake news – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | January 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on February 20, 2019
 

The authors of an much-ballyhooed 2017 paper about the spread of fake news on social media have retracted their article after finding that they’d botched their analysis.

Sometimes the irony of a forced retraction is too delicious to ignore. The story is also a painful reminder of why researchers need to triple check the data and analysis, then check it again. The career damage retractions, even self retractions, is too serious to risk.

The paper, “Limited individual attention and online virality of low-quality information,” presented an argument for why bogus facts seem to gain so much traction on sites such as Facebook. According to the researchers — — from Shanghai Institute of Technology, Indiana University and Yahoo — the key was in the sheer volume of bad information, which swamps the brain’s ability to discern the real from the merely plausible or even the downright ridiculous, competing with limited attention spans and time.
.

As they reported:
.

Our main finding is that survival of the fittest is far from a foregone conclusion where information is concerned.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

An Australian university cleared a cancer researcher of misconduct. He’s now retracted six papers – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky – January 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on January 19, 2019
 

Khachigian’s research is a long and winding tale.

One place to start would be in October 2009, when a paper co-authored by Khachigian — whose work at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) has been funded by millions of dollars in funding from the Australian government, and has led to clinical trials, although more on that later — was retracted from Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications. The “corresponding author published the paper without the full consent or acknowledgement of all the researchers and would like to apologize for this error,” according to that notice.

Three more papers, all from the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC), were retracted the following July, saying only that “This article has been withdrawn by the authors,” as was typical for the JBC for many years.

Read more of this news item