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

Oops!… I Did It Again. When to correct or retract? – Science Integrity Digest (Elisabeth Bik | January 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on February 27, 2020
 

How many image duplications in a paper would be acceptable? If the paper has two identical photos that represent different experiments, and the authors’ reply is: ‘Oops, we uploaded the wrong photo’, that would be acceptable. Mistakes happen, and the authors can correct the error by sending in an erratum with the correct photo(s). But should editors be equally forgiving in the case of two cases of “Oops, we made a mistake”, or other, more complicated scenarios?

An interesting piece about image manipulation, ‘errors’, corrections, retractions and misconduct proceedings

Let’s take a look at different types and numbers of duplications. As I explained in two previous blog posts (here and here), there are three categories of image duplications.
.

  • Category I duplications: simple, identical duplications.
  • Category II duplications: duplications involving shift, rotation, or a flip.
  • Category III duplications: parts within the same panel are duplicated or parts from other panels are duplicated into another panel.
    .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

CRediT Check – Should we welcome tools to differentiate the contributions made to academic papers? – LSE Blog (Elizabeth Gadd | January 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on February 26, 2020
 

Elsevier is the latest in a lengthening list of publishers to announce their adoption for 1,200 journals of the CASRAI Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT). Authors of papers in these journals will be required to define their contributions in relation to a predefined taxonomy of 14 roles. In this post, Elizabeth Gadd weighs the pros and cons of defining contributorship in a more prescriptive fashion and asks whether there is a risk of incentivising new kinds of competitive behaviour and forms of evaluation that doesn’t benefit researchers.

Getting named on a journal article is the ultimate prize for an aspiring academic. Not only do they get the paper on their CV (which can literally be money in the bank), but once named, all the subsequent citations accrue to each co-author equally, no matter what their contribution.

Also see CRediT
https://casrai.org/credit/

.
We have included links to 15 useful items.

Original tweet by Ali Chamkha, retweeted with comment by Damien Debecker. 3 January 2020
.

However, as this tweet demonstrates, getting named on a journal article is not the same as having a) done the lion’s share of the research and/or b) actually writing the journal article. And there is a lot of frustration about false credit claims. Gift authorshipghost authorshippurchased authorship, and wrangles about author order abound. To address these problems there is some helpful guidance from organisations like the International Council of Medical Journal Editors, the British Sociological Association and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) about what constitutes an author. Perhaps most significantly, in 2014 we saw the launch of CASRAI’s Contributor Role Taxonomy, CRediT.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Philosophers clash over race science paper – Times Higher Education (Jack Grove | February 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on February 25, 2020
 

Furore over Oxford doctoral student’s journal article reignites debate over the limits of free speech

Academics have clashed over a journal paper that explores the idea that intelligence might be linked to race.

Australian component. This is a timely exposé of how poor debate has become via Twitter.  We aren’t thinking about a country’s commander-in-tweet at the moment.  Honest.

Mark Alfano, who holds academic posts at Sydney’s Macquarie University and Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, launched a petition last month that calls for the leadership of the journal Philosophical Psychology to resign, apologise or retract an article written by Nathan Cofnas, a doctoral student at the University of Oxford.
.

The paper, published in December, considers how society might need to respond differently if, “in a very short time”, science concludes that some races are more intelligent than others.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

(US) US biomedical agency has investigated hundreds claims of inappropriate conduct this year – Nature (Nidhi Subbaraman | December 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on February 22, 2020
 

The director of the US National Institutes of Health says the agency will begin revising its policies on harassment next year.

Nearly 40% of women trainees polled by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) between January and March 2019 reported being sexually harassed at work.

NIH is to be commended for this plan.  We need other funding bodies and institutions to make similar moves.  Sexual harassment in research is unacceptable, should be considered research misconduct and we shouldn’t be lauding the achievements of harassers.

Those are the results of a staff survey delivered to NIH director Francis Collins and a panel of his advisers on 12 December. It identified young women, people from sexual and gender minorities and those with disabilities as those most vulnerable to harassment.
.

The elite panel also reviewed a long-awaited report commissioned by the NIH that charged the agency to work rapidly stop sexual harassment in science labs. But agency watchers who have pressed the NIH to act for more than a year were left without a clear timeline for changes.
.

“It’s no longer time to consider — it’s time to act,” says Scout, deputy director of the US National LGBT Cancer Network and a member of the Working Group on Changing the Culture to End Sexual Harassment, which prepared the report.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0