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)

Optimizing the Nation’s Investment in Academic Research (Books: National Academies Press | 2016)0

Posted by Admin in on March 30, 2018
 

Research universities are critical contributors to our national research enterprise. They are the principal source of a world-class labor force and fundamental discoveries that enhance our lives and the lives of others around the world. These institutions help to create an educated citizenry capable of making informed and crucial choices as participants in a democratic society. However many are concerned that the unintended cumulative effect of federal regulations undercuts the productivity of the research enterprise and diminishes the return on the federal investment in research.

Optimizing the Nation’s Investment in Academic Research reviews the regulatory framework as it currently exists, considers specific regulations that have placed undue and often unanticipated burdens on the research enterprise, and reassesses the process by which these regulations are created, reviewed, and retired. This review is critical to strengthen the partnership between the federal government and research institutions, to maximize the creation of new knowledge and products, to provide for the effective training and education of the next generation of scholars and workers, and to optimize the return on the federal investment in research for the benefit of the American people.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation’s Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
Publisher: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/21824/optimizing-the-nations-investment-in-academic-research-a-new-regulatory

Authorship and Team Science – JAMA Network (Editorial | Phil Fontanarosa, et al | December 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on January 29, 2018
 

The complexity, scope, and scale of scientific research have expanded substantially. During the past several decades, there has been increasing prevalence of large, international, multicenter clinical trials; multidisciplinary investigations involving interventional studies or observational research; and studies that combine large data sets (“big data”) from multiple cohorts or research consortia and use sophisticated analytic methods, such as in some studies involving genomic research or machine learning. This trend toward increasingly collaborative research involving multiple investigators and research groups has been referred to as group science, ensemble science, or more commonly, team science.1 How authors and nonauthor collaborators can be identified in publications to ensure appropriate credit and recognition of team science is evolving, can be challenging, and is of great importance to the scientific community and individual investigators.

This editorial is a reliable and useful example for grappling with the issues associated with very large collaborations. It is a recommended inclusion in institutional research integrity resource libraries and has been added as essential reading in the AHRECS Resource Library

Team science has real and potential advantages, including the ability to bring expertise and experience from numerous investigators or disciplines to address an important research topic from multiple perspectives and the ability to collect or combine data from various sites or cohorts to generate large data sets to address scientific questions efficiently and effectively. Team science is likely to increase with the growth of research networks and consortia and the continued emergence of big data and data sharing.2
.
Team science also creates potential challenges, including identifying the optimal group of investigators to address the study questions of interest; rigorously addressing issues of heterogeneity in attempts to combine data or data sets; ensuring engagement, appropriate participation, and supervision of all members of the scientific team; reaching agreement and consensus regarding presentation and interpretation of study findings; and appropriately recognizing the contributions of individual members of the research team in scientific publication.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

When authors go MIA, the article may follow – Retraction Watch (Alison Abritis | November 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on January 22, 2018
 

Title: IRF9 inhibits human acute myeloid leukemia through the SIRT1-p53 signaling pathway

This item provides an opportunity for us to note the importance of maintaining good communication with editors and more generally, continuing accessibility may be a mark of good research practice.

What Caught Our Attention: When authors fail to respond to editors’ requests for information, it isn’t hard to imagine that the submitted manuscript will lose its publishing appeal. In this case, the journal and publisher withdrew the article after “repeated attempts” to contact the authors were unsuccessful.

The notice doesn’t say why the journal needed to get in touch with the authors; of course, some authors may cease correspondence for a variety of reasons, but there is usually some backstory. Since the authors disappeared, the withdrawn article has, as well.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

(COPE) Core practices0

Posted by Admin in on December 18, 2017
 

“COPE’s role is to assist editors of scholarly journals and publishers/owners – as well as other parties, such as institutions and funders, albeit less directly – in their endeavor to preserve and promote the integrity of the scholarly record through policies and practices that reflect the current best principles of transparency, as well as integrity. COPE’s new recommendations are intended to reflect these aims, in a practical way. COPE have therefore reviewed the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Editors and have consolidated them into one, much shorter, document entitled “Core Practices”. [Available to download as an A4 poster.]

The core practices page includes links to COPE resources.

COPE’s Core Practices should be considered alongside specific national and international codes of conduct for research and is not intended to replace them.

Background to why the Code of Conduct for Journal Editors has been replaced with the Core Practices...”

Allegations of misconduct
Authorship and contributorship
Complaints and appeals
Conflicts of interest/Competing interests
Data and reproducibility
Ethical oversight
Intellectual property
Journal management
Peer review processes
Post-publication discussions and corrections

Access the full statement of the COPE core practices 

0