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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesJournal

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

More detailed guidance on the inclusion/exclusion of retracted articles in systematic reviews is needed (Papers: July 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on August 20, 2019
 

A forced retraction will generally (but not always) point to something seriously wrong with a research output/project, so it is essential they don’t result in a distortion of knowledge and practice. This recent journal paper suggests a sensible approach.

There are currently no clear guidelines on how to proceed when a retracted article is selected in the systematic review process. The Cochrane handbook provides information only on how to identify retracted articles within the scientific literature, instead of clear guidance and criteria for inclusion in the systematic review or not [1]. Other guidelines for conducting systematic reviews do not address this topic [2,3]. Common sense would indicate the exclusion from a systematic review of a study that was retracted because of faked or unreliable data [4].
.

Faggion, C. M., Jr. “More detailed guidance on the inclusion/exclusion of retracted articles in systematic reviews is needed.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.07.006
Publisher: https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(19)30573-6/abstract

Journals retract more than a dozen studies from China that may have used executed prisoners’ organs – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | August 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on August 15, 2019
 

In the past month, PLOS ONE and Transplantation have retracted fifteen studies by authors in China because of suspicions that the authors may have used organs from executed prisoners.

All of the original studies — seven in Transplantation, and eight in PLOS ONE — were published between 2008 and 2014. Two involved kidney transplants, and the rest involved liver transplants. Two other journals, the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology and Kidney International, have recently issued expressions of concern for the same reason.

In an editorial explaining the seven retractions from its journal, the editors of Transplantation write:

Read the rest of this discussion piece

AMWA–EMWA–ISMPP joint position statement on predatory publishing (Papers: American Medical Writers Association, et al | July 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on August 12, 2019
 

The American Medical Writers Association (AMWA), the European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) and the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) recognize the challenges to scientific publishing being posed by predatory journals and their publishers, which employ practices undermining the quality, integrity and reliability of published scientific research. This joint position statement complements several other sets of guidelines that have helped define the characteristics of a predatory journal1–

American Medical Writers Association, European Medical Writers Association & International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (2019) AMWA–EMWA–ISMPP joint position statement on predatory publishing,Current Medical Research and Opinion,35:9, 1657-1658,10.1080/03007995.2019.1646535
Publisher (Open Access): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03007995.2019.1646535

Fudged research results erode people’s trust in experts – The Conversation (Gavin Moodie | July 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on August 11, 2019
 

Reports of research misconduct have been prominent recently and probably reflect wider problems of relying on dated integrity protections.

The recent reports are from Retraction Watch, which is a blog that reports on the withdrawal of articles by academic journals. The site’s database reports that journals have withdrawn a total of 247 papers with an Australian author going back to the 1980s.

This compares with 324 papers withdrawn with Canadian authors, 582 from the UK and 24 from New Zealand. Australian retractions are 1.2% of all retractions reported on the site, a fraction of Australia’s 4% share of all research publications.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0