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)

Work of renowned UK psychologist Hans Eysenck ruled ‘unsafe’ – The Guardian (Sarah Boseley | October 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on October 14, 2019
 

Eysenck’s ‘cancer-prone’ personality theory had come under criticism for decades

The work of one of the most famous and influential British psychologists of all time, Hans Eysenck, is under a cloud following an investigation by King’s College London, which has found 26 of his published papers “unsafe”.

King’s says the results and conclusions of the papers “were not considered scientifically rigorous” by its committee of inquiry. Prof Sir Robert Lechler, the provost at King’s, has contacted the editors of the 11 journals where the papers appeared, recommending they should be retracted.

Eysenck, who died in 1997, published prolifically and wrote many well-known books, holding controversial views on a number of subjects, including race and IQ. The investigation centred on research that claimed personality played a bigger part in people’s chances of dying from cancer or heart disease than smoking.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

When CVs Are Too Good to Be True – Inside Higher Ed (Colleen Flaherty | October 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on October 9, 2019
 

Faculty search committees take note: academic dishonesty extends to CVs, according to a new study.

When we think about academic misconduct, we tend to think about misrepresentation of research findings or plagiarism. But a new study says that misrepresentation of academic achievements on CVs is a problem requiring attention, too.

For their experiment, the researchers collected each and every curriculum vitae submitted for all faculty positions at a large, purposely unnamed research university over the course of a year. Then they let the CVs sit for 18 to 30 months to allow any pending articles to mature into publications that they could verify.

To make the data set manageable, the researchers eventually analyzed 10 percent of the sample for accuracy. Of the 180 CVs reviewed, 141, or 78 percent, claimed to have at least one publication. But 79 of those 141 applicants (56 percent) had at least one publication on their CV that was unverifiable or inaccurate in a self-promoting way, such as misrepresenting authorship order.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

(Australia) Materials scientist will soon be up to 30 retractions – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | October 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on October 8, 2019
 

A researcher at Swinburne University of Technology in Australia will soon add three more retractions to his burgeoning count, making 30.

Ali Nazari has lost 27 papers from several journals, as we’ve reported over the past few months. According to an upcoming notice obtained by Retraction Watch, the International Journal of Material Research (IJMR) will be retracting three more:

These papers published in IJMR have significant overlap in terms of identical content and wording with papers published by Ali Nazari et al. in other journals; strikingly the same micrographs and numerical data were used in different papers, albeit discussing different materials (additives).

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Two-thirds of researchers report ‘pressure to cite’ in Nature poll – Nature (Dalmeet Singh Chawla | October 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on October 7, 2019
 

Readers say they have been asked to reference seemingly superfluous studies after peer review.

An online poll answered by more than 4,300 Nature readers suggests that most researchers have felt pressured by peer reviewers to cite studies in their papers that seem unnecessary.

Readers were asked, ‘Have you ever felt pressured by peer reviewers to cite seemingly superfluous studies in your work?’, to which 66% responded ‘yes’ and 34% said ‘no’ (see ‘Coercive citation?’).

The poll accompanied a news story last month, which revealed that the Dutch publisher Elsevier had found a small proportion of academics reviewing papers for its journals were exploiting the review process by asking authors to reference the reviewers’ own papers in exchange for a positive report.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0