Friday afternoon’s funny – All too familiar
Obviously, these tiles are not especially respectful of our researcher colleagues, but they are too familiar for anyone who has served on a research ethics committee or supported a committee.
Obviously, these tiles are not especially respectful of our researcher colleagues, but they are too familiar for anyone who has served on a research ethics committee or supported a committee.
Abstract Objective To systematically map the scholarly literature on predatory conferences and describe the present state of research and the
We have written before about the serious damage that can be done when a retracted research output is cited. Researchers should strive to avoid citing work that has been retracted. Institutions should encourage their researchers to avoid this using their professional development strategies and guidance material. This bot can help researchers to look out for the citation of retracted work. The bot could also be able to help institutions identify if researchers are citing compromised work.
Abstract We here propose the implementation of a simple and effective method to enhance the quality of basic and preclinical
Abstract Researchers sometimes engage in various forms of dishonesty and unethical behavior, which has led to regulatory efforts to ensure
It is a problem we hear far too often. Junior researchers alegging that their good ideas, theories and tools have been stolen by supervisors, reviewers or by their peers. We are also often asked by HDR candidates and early career researchers how to protect their creations. This useful piece that appeared in Nature discusses some strategies to protect your precious creations. In our experience, protecting your IP can be especially difficult in some disciplines and with qualitative work.
Excellent peer reviews are so essential to science and scientific publishing, but it’s not always easy to find guidance and material to assist you to write high-quality reviews. This post offers some excellent advice to help you find your practice when it comes to the writing of a review. This is a recommended read for researchers of all career stages, but especially for HDR candidates and early career researchers. We have included a long list of related items.
Abstract Background Research misconduct is often defined as fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. Its occurrence is associated with individual, institutional, national