ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)
Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search into
Filter by Categories
Research ethics committees
Research integrity

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesFraud

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

South Africa has spent millions of dollars subsidizing articles in scam academic journals – Quartz (Sarah Wild | September 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on September 30, 2017
 

The South African government spent between 100 million rand ($7.7 million) and 300 million rand ($23 million) over a 10-year period in subsidies for articles published in predatory journals, according to a South African Journal of Science study.

Internationally, the academic world has seen a spike in the number of predatory journals.

These journals lure academics—often junior researchers—into paying to publish their findings in journals that have little to no peer review, are not recognized within their fields, and are a racket to make money out of open-access publishing.

Read the rest of this discussion piece
Also see ‘Dodgy’ articles in academic journals threatens integrity of South African science…
Also see The extent of South African authored articles in predatory journals…

 

Why Beall’s blacklist of predatory journals died – University World News (Paul Basken | September 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on September 25, 2017
 

Interesting back story to the end of the Beall’s list, but see Mark and Gary’s recent post in the Research Ethics Monthly as to why we probably shouldn’t have been relying upon it to make sound decisions.

Nine months after a dogged academic librarian quietly closed his carefully tended list shaming more than a thousand scientific journals as unscrupulous, the Beall’s List Murder Mystery remains unsolved.
.
[This is an article from The Chronicle of Higher Education, America’s leading higher education publication. It is presented here under an agreement with University World News.] .

.
Why, after toiling so hard for five years – and creating a resource cherished by scientists wary of exploitative publishers – did the University of Colorado at Denver’s Jeffrey Beall abruptly give it all up? Who, or what, forced his hand?
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

(China) Hospital Director Accused of Plagiarizing Students’ Work – Sixth Tone (Fan Yiying | August 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on September 23, 2017
 

Prominent oncologist thanked the two students whose theses he is suspected of copying for their ‘help and support’ in his research.

A hospital director in eastern China has been accused of plagiarizing his students’ papers for his own doctoral dissertation, Beijing-based newspaper China Youth Daily reported Thursday.

Cai Jianchun, a prominent oncologist, holds the titles of director of Xiamen University-affiliated Zhongshan Hospital and executive vice president of the university’s medical school. He is also a recipient of the country’s highest medical research award for significant contributions to the medical field, for which he now receives a special grant from the State Council, China’s cabinet.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Two in 100 clinical trials in eight major journals likely contain inaccurate data: Study – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | June 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on September 22, 2017
 

A sweeping analysis of more than 5,000 papers in eight leading medical journals has found compelling evidence of suspect data in roughly 2% of randomized controlled clinical trials in those journals.

This is not the first time such an observation has been made and it probably won’t be the last. Distorted evidence is a cause for concern when it leads to poor (or even dangerous decision making), but we’re left wondering if we need to try to gather such observations into an omnibus and footnoted a single item in the Resource Library. What do you think? Drop us a line (gary.allen@ahrecs.com) and let us know what you think. This report does highlight the importance for clinical decision making of being well-read on a topic rather than relying on a small sample of articles supporting a treatment.

Although the analysis, by John Carlisle, an anesthetist in the United Kingdom, could not determine whether the concerning data were tainted by misconduct or sloppiness, it suggests that editors of the journals have some investigating to do. Of the 98 studies identified by the method, only 16 have already been retracted. [See update at end.] .
.
The types of studies analyzed — randomized controlled clinical trials — are considered the gold standard of medical evidence, and tend to be the basis for drug approvals and changes in clinical practice. Carlisle, according to an 
editorial by John Loadsman and Tim McCulloch accompanying the new study published today in Anesthesia,

.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0