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)

Chem journal yanks paper because authors had stolen it as peer reviewers – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | February 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on June 5, 2019

The UK’s Royal Society of Chemistry has retracted a 2017 paper in one of its journals after learning that the authors stole the article from other researchers during peer review.

The offending article, “Typical and interstratified arrangements in Zn/Al layered double hydroxides: an experimental and theoretical approach,” appeared in CrystalEngComm, and was written by Priyadarshi Roy Chowdhury and Krishna G. Bhattacharyya, of Gauhati University in Jalukbari.

Well, that’s not really true, is it? The retraction notice lays out the transgression in detail:

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Rein in the four horsemen of irreproducibility – Nature ( Dorothy Bishop | April 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on June 1, 2019

Dorothy Bishop describes how threats to reproducibility, recognized but unaddressed for decades, might finally be brought under control.

More than four decades into my scientific career, I find myself an outlier among academics of similar age and seniority: I strongly identify with the movement to make the practice of science more robust. It’s not that my contemporaries are unconcerned about doing science well; it’s just that many of them don’t seem to recognize that there are serious problems with current practices. By contrast, I think that, in two decades, we will look back on the past 60 years — particularly in biomedical science — and marvel at how much time and money has been wasted on flawed research.

How can that be? We know how to formulate and test hypotheses in controlled experiments. We can account for unwanted variation with statistical techniques. We appreciate the need to replicate observations.

Yet many researchers persist in working in a way almost guaranteed not to deliver meaningful results. They ride with what I refer to as the four horsemen of the reproducibility apocalypse: publication bias, low statistical power, P-value hacking and HARKing (hypothesizing after results are known). My generation and the one before us have done little to rein these in.

Read the rest of this discussion piece


Friday afternoon’s funny – Data Food Chain0

Posted by Admin in on May 31, 2019

Cartoon by Don Mayne

To extend the metaphor into unsavoury territory one can only imagine the images for data archiver, the output publisher/editor, peer reviewers and readers.  And an auditor… Ewww On that pleasant note, have a great weekend!

Ask The Chefs: AI and Scholarly Communications – Scholarly Kitchen (Ann Michael | April 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on May 19, 2019

No one will dispute that AI (Artificial Intelligence) needs to “eat” data, preferably in massive quantities, to develop. The better the data quality, the better the result. When thinking about the potential applications of AI in scholarly communications as related to research artifacts, how will that work? How might AI be trained on high quality, vetted information? How are the benefits and costs distributed?

The ‘chefs’ at Scholarly Kitchen reflect on the role artificial intelligence could play in scholarly communications.  #SpoilerAlert, two things we need first are good and reliable data and steps to ensure deep biases in the current academic processes aren’t enshrined (and made invisible) in the inscrutable black box of code. We have included some links to a collection of related items.

This month we asked the Chefs: Where does scholarly communication and academic outputs fit in to the world of AI development?

Judy Luther: In scholarly communications there is an expanding body of openly available content from preprint servers, such as arXiv and bioRxiv, and Open Access journals and books. In addition, there is a growing variety of formats that include datasets and code, open peer review, media, and other elements of the scholarly research cycle. This volume of content provides a rich resource to be mined for all stakeholders as well as a broader audience.

Read the rest of this discussion piece