
The STM Integrity Hub
The STM Integrity Hub is a robust, direct response to safeguard the integrity of science. Through a combination of shared
The STM Integrity Hub is a robust, direct response to safeguard the integrity of science. Through a combination of shared
This report from the US highlights a couple of important research integrity points: 1. If you cheat and are found out as committing research misconduct, people will doubt you in the future, irrespective of how important your claimed findings may be – perhaps especially if they are important. 2. Misconduct can sour any important line of inquiry. These points may not change the mind of someone intending to cheat, but it is matter that should be discussed in your institutions collaborative research guidelines.
Traditionally, academic publishers have covered their costs with subscription fees and paywalls. For some, the amount of profit some have been making might be regarded as profane. The drive towards open access for publicly funded research is disrupting this paradigm. Some publishers have introduced Article Processing Charge (APC) where the author pays a charge for their article to be published. The publisher makes their money by the APCs they receive. Very quickly, it was pointed out that the APC system benefitted rich countries, and punished poorer countries. Rather than making scholarly publishing more democratic and open it created a class system that benefitted more wealthy countries and served to silence the voices of researchers without the same wealth. Some publishers acted promptly to introduce concessions and supports for researchers from poor countries. This had a couple of obvious problems, middle income countries maybe more affluent than the poor but still be unable to afford the APC fees. The same is probably true of poorer institutions in affluent countries. Jurisdictions like France have responded to this challenge by directing that papers are published with Diamond Open Access publishers where there are no subscriptions or APC fees and their costs are covered by grants or philanthropic contributions. Such an approach, would be genuinely open and egalitarian.
Authorship disputes can frequently happen. Without care, they can easily escalate into something toxic and career damaging. The points made in this piece aren’t new. We have shared similar pieces earlier. But we felt the points made were sensible and were shared in a very succinct manner. We suggest that your institution include this item in its research integrity further reading library. Even if your institution provides guidance materials for collaborate research, there is something said for multiple voices making the same point.
Abstract Peer review of manuscripts is labour-intensive and time-consuming. Individual reviewers often feel themselves overburdened with the amount of reviewing
The pandemic highlighted how science can serve society and deliver needed outcomes fast. Sadly, it also highlighted the flaws that see charlatans, cheats and kooks publish nonsense and junk. This one-hour panel discussion reflects on matters such as questionable publishers, paper mills, research misconduct, retractions and public trust. It also looked at the role of journalists in maintaining public trust. This is another item, which probably isn’t right for your institution’s research integrity library, but it could be a useful prompt for internal discussion about policy settings, research culture and responsible research.
A fascinating discussion about the upward trend in the number of retracted articles in a year. This is a really interesting discussion about academic publishing, articles, misconduct and retractions. This is probably not an item to include in your institution’s research integrity resource library. But it might be a useful starting point for discussions within research integrity teams and with Research Integrity Advisers. What is at stake here is the intregity of the scientific record.
The capability of ChatGPT has the potential to disrupt scientific writing, education and research in general. If the producer’s claims are accurate, this system could be a huge relief for publisher, research institutions and research funding bodies. There are some who are dubious about the claimed accuracy of the detector. This Times Higher Education piece discusses claims and the concerns in the education sector about ChatGPT.