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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesGood practice

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Implementing the Tri-Council Policy on Ethical Research Involving Indigenous Peoples in Canada: So, How’s That Going in Mi’kma’ki? (Carla Moore | April 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on May 22, 2018

The 2010 edition of the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans introduced a new chapter, titled “Research Involving the First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples of Canada.” The goal of our study was to explore how this chapter is being implemented in research involving Mi’kmaw communities in Nova Scotia. Qualitative data from four groups—health researchers, research ethics board representatives, financial services administrators, and Mi’kmaw community health directors—revealed that while the chapter is useful in navigating this ethical space, there is room for improvement. The challenges they encountered were not insurmountable; with political will from the academy and with guidance from Indigenous community health and research leaders solutions to these barriers can be achieved.

Moore, C. , Castleden, H. E. , Tirone, S. , Martin, D. (2017). Implementing the Tri-Council Policy on Ethical Research Involving Indigenous Peoples in Canada: So, How’s That Going in Mi’kma’ki?. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 8(2) . Retrieved from: DOI: 10.18584/iipj.2017.8.2.4
Publisher (Open Access):

What factors do scientists perceive as promoting or hindering scientific data reuse? – LSE Impact Blog (Renata Gonçalves Curty, et al | March 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on May 17, 2018

Increased calls for data sharing have formed part of many governments’ agendas to boost innovation and scientific development. Data openness for reuse also resonates with the recognised need for more transparent, reproducible science. But what are scientists’ perceptions about data reuse? Renata Gonçalves Curty, Kevin Crowston, Alison Specht, Bruce W. Grant and Elizabeth D. Dalton make use of existing survey data to analyse the attitudes and norms affecting scientists’ data reuse. Perceived efficiency, efficacy, and trustworthiness are key; as is whether scientists believe data reuse is beneficial for scientific development, or perceive certain pressures contrary to the reuse of data. Looking ahead, synthesis centres can be important for supporting data-driven interdisciplinary collaborations, and leveraging new scientific discoveries based on pre-existing data.

There can be real societal benefits from data sharing, which is among the reasons why many research funding bodies require (or at least encourage) funded researchers to share their data. But it is not without its research ethics and research integrity challenges. The idea of sharing can be a source of disquiet for some researchers. Understanding why, and supporting practice in this area would increase the amount of data that is shared. We have gathered here a list of resource items about data sharing.

“If I have seen further, it was by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” This quote, attributed to Sir Isaac Newton, expresses the cumulative and synergistic nature of the growth of science. Intellectual progress and major scientific achievements are built upon the contributions of previous thinkers and discoveries. Thus the scientific enterprise thrives upon openness and collaboration.
The unrestricted sharing of research outputs is increasingly seen as critical for scientific progress. The calls for data sharing in particular, aligned with investment in infrastructures for housing research data, have been part of many governments’ agendas to boost innovation and scientific development, while optimising resources. The ability of researchers to access and build upon previous knowledge has thus evolved from elementary access to final published manuscripts and research reports, to the capability of accessing different outputs produced throughout the research lifecycle, including digital data files.
There have been a number of promising developments in funding bodies’ policies promoting and requesting compliance with data sharing requirements to ensure preservation and access to scientific data for further reuse. In the US, the Data Observation Network for Earth (DataONE), supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), is committed to broadening education on data-related issues (e.g. data documentation, data citation), as well as to provide standards/guidelines and sustainable cyberinfrastructure to secure openness, persistence, robustness, findability, and accessibility to environmental science data

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Science isn’t broken, but we can do better: here’s how – The Conversation (Alan Finkel | April 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on May 16, 2018

Every time a scandal breaks in one of the thousands of places where research is conducted across the world, we see headlines to the effect that “science is broken”.

But if it’s “broken” today, then when do we suggest it was better?

Point me to the period in human history where we had more brilliant people or better technologies for doing science than we do today. Explain to me how something “broken” so spectacularly delivers the goods. Convince me I ought to downplay the stunning achievement of – say – the detection of gravitational waves.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Want to tell if a paper has been retracted? Good luck – Retraction Watch (Alison McCook | March 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on May 14, 2018

Nowadays, there are many ways to access a paper — on the publisher’s website, on MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and other outlets. So when the publisher retracts a paper, do these outlets consistently mark it as such? And if they don’t, what’s the impact? Researchers Caitlin Bakker and Amy Riegelman at the University of Minnesota surveyed more than one hundred retractions in mental health research to try to get at some answers, and published their findings in the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. We spoke to Bakker about the potential harm to patients when clinicians don’t receive consistent notifications about retracted data.

This Retraction Watch interview and the paper it links to are a handy discussion on a common question we are often asked.

Retraction Watch: You note: “Of the 144 articles studied, only 10 were represented as being retracted across all resources through which they were available. There was no platform that consistently met or failed to meet all of [the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)’s] guidelines.” Can you say more about these findings, and the challenges they may pose?
Caitlin Bakker: An individual could choose a number of different platforms through which to access an article, depending on their discipline, institutional affiliations and associated subscriptions, and personal preferences. None of the platforms we studied met all of COPE’s guidelines for the articles within our sample. Platforms failing to identify retractions is problematic considering expectations of scholars and organizations like Cochrane, which is considered by many to be the gold standard in systematic reviews and other knowledge synthesis activities. Specifically C48 in Handbook 6.4.10 declares it mandatory for Cochrane review authors to “[e]xamine relevant retraction statements and errata for information” and specifically to potentially exclude flawed studies. They advise: “Care should be taken to ensure that this information is retrieved in all database searches by downloading the appropriate fields, together with the citation data.” Our research reveals that this advice could be problematic because unfortunately databases do not always identify retracted articles in the appropriate fields.

Read the rest of this interviiew

Page 1 of 10712345...102030...Last »