Key points 1,280 spam emails were received during a 5-year period starting with the first conference attendance—no emails were received
More safeguards and stronger journal policies are needed to curb the problem, say authors of analysis on publication trends. The
This piece raises a contentious question, is the COPE logo being used by unscrupulous publishers to give them an unwarranted veneer of being reputable? It uses some current poor behaviour to characterise named titles as being questionable. We are proud supporters and members of COPE. Nevertheless, Peter has raised an important point. Does COPE have a responsibility to police where and how their name is used?
Historically, there’s been a tendency to lock for review and publisher processes far from view. This Times Higher Education please suggests if if we take a more radical open approach then it could be easier to identify questionable publishes and add actors. It is an idea that has merit, is worthy of serious consideration and can help reputable publishers to highlight their quality.
Research arrangements in an institution tend to celebrate and reward our successes. That is what receives recognition and promotion. The outputs of the successful work are what tends to be published. Failure is a central part of science. Our professional development and resource material need to recognise this. Research toils on a problem, testing and discarding, unhelpful theories and processes are valuable research and should be treated as such.
As natural language processing has improved artificial intelligence tools have the promise of assisting with the production of research outputs. They are still however not perfect and researchers should be wary about their use. Research institutions should provide guidance about the use of AI in the conduct and reporting of research. A related issue is the degree to which a researcher is responsible if AI breaches an institutional, national or international standard. This piece published in Nature takes a dive into the issues.
This piece offers an interesting reflection on how attitudes to authorship has changed in the last five decades from single author to multi author research outputs. This is an interesting discussion given the degree to which we have seen ghost/guest authorship increase. Documents such as the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, and the associated Authorship good practice guide, as well as the international guidance provided by COPE and ICMJE, provide guidance on who should be included as an author on an output, rather than merely being acknowledged. A deceased colleague was important for the development of an idea, would be acknowledged not credited as a co-author. The same would be true of a head of a centre or a person who secured funding for a project. Padding a list of co-authors who do not meet the authorship criteria is a breach of responsible conduct. We’ve included links to eight related items.
This piece looks at the commentary from the Retraction Watch team on the sorry state of research outputs from Alzheimer’s work. It is concerning the bad run of research misconduct cases from the Alzheimer’s field.
