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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesInstitutional responsibilities

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Hydroxychloroquine-COVID-19 study did not meet publishing society’s “expected standard” – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | April 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on April 15, 2020

The paper that appears to have triggered the Trump administration’s obsession with hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for infection with the novel coronavirus has received a statement of concern from the society that publishes the journal in which the work appeared.

We suspect that sadly, the commander in tweet doesn’t read Retraction Watch.

The April 3, 2020, notice, from the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, states that the March 20 article, “Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of Covid-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial

does not meet the [International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy’s] expected standard, especially relating to the lack of better explanations of the inclusion criteria and the triage of patients to ensure patient safety.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

The Mess That Is Science Publishing – The James G. Center for Academic Renewal (John Staddon | January 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on April 15, 2020

The rumored proposal will require free, immediate access to all reports of government-funded scientific research. The rumor is credible enough that an association of 210 academic and research libraries has written to the president in support of the idea. The research-publication system is a mess, and open access would be one small step toward a fix.

But first, a little history. When scientific publishing began, scientists were few, many were amateurs, being a scientist was not a career, and publishing costs—copyediting, printing, distribution—were high. In 1800, only about thirty scientific and medical journals existed; by 1900, the number had grown to 700. Now, there are estimated to be more than twenty thousand. And they cost! Not the $100 or so per annum you can expect to pay for People magazine or Scientific American, but sometimes thousands of dollars. Although the most prestigious science journals, the weeklies Science (published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science) and Nature (published by Macmillan) cost less than $100, more obscure journals can cost much, much more. The Taylor & Francis Journal of Co-ordination Chemistry (just what is that, one wonders?), for 24 issues, costs $18,041 per year. That is an institutional rate. Many Elsevier journals do not even advertise rates for individuals and their website makes it pretty clear that the institutional rate often involves negotiation.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Insights into Publication Ethics: An interview with Professor Michael V. Dougherty – Brill (December 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on April 14, 2020

In cooperation with its community of authors, editors, and peer reviewers, Brill safeguards the quality and integrity of its publications. We recently corresponded with Michael V. Dougherty, Professor of Philosophy at Ohio Dominican University and publication ethics expert, as part of our ongoing effort to deepen our understanding of publication ethics and of some of the most pressing challenges faced by the publishing community today.

This great discussion is a recommended read for ECRs and indeed all researchers.

Please tell us about your interest in publication ethics, the professional path that led you to becoming a leading voice on these matters, and the current direction of your work.

While writing a book on medieval ethics in 2009, I noticed the verbatim identity between a well-regarded journal article and portions of an older, somewhat obscure Finnish dissertation by a different author. I was in a bind: citing the article would commend fraudulent work to readers, but ignoring it would make my book appear unengaged with the relevant published research. I decided that I had a professional obligation to seek a retraction. Since then, with several colleagues, I have been requesting retractions for plagiarizing books and articles in philosophy and related disciplines. These requests have generated dozens of retractions, and some have been covered by the journalists at Retraction Watch. I have come to understand that this kind of work is unusual, so I wrote a book on post-publication responses to academic plagiarism in humanities disciplines. Right now, I am finishing a book on disguised forms of plagiarism. Some varieties of plagiarism are extremely subtle, so I am setting forth a typology with case studies that I hope will be useful to researchers, editors, and publishers.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

(UK) Data From A Top Geneticist’s Lab Was Flagged To A Major UK University. It Didn’t Launch A Formal Investigation Until A Decade Later – Buzzfeed (Peter Aldhous | January 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on April 14, 2020

An email obtained by BuzzFeed News shows that University College London was aware of allegations of falsified data in research by geneticist David Latchman’s lab a decade before it launched a formal investigation.

“Data or it didn’t happen” is a mantra of academic science. But when Anastasis Stephanou, who led a research group at University College London studying the biology of heart disease, was asked for the data behind a 2006 paper whose results were being called into question, he was unable to provide it.

The allegations in this story from the UK are profoundly troubling.

The incident, described in a 2007 email obtained by BuzzFeed News, shows that some UCL officials were aware of concerns about data fraud in research overseen by leading geneticist David Latchman, in whose lab Stephanou worked, more than a decade before launching a formal investigation.

The email adds to concerns that UCL dragged its feet in investigating data falsification in Latchman’s lab and ultimately failed to hold anyone to account.

Read the rest of this discussion piece