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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us


Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Does psychology have a conflict-of-interest problem? – Nature (Tom Chivers | July 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on August 5, 2019

Some star psychologists don’t disclose in research papers the large sums they earn for talking about their work. Is that a concern?

Generation Z has made Jean Twenge a lot of money. As a psychologist at San Diego State University in California, she studies people born after the mid-1990s, the YouTube-obsessed group that spends much of its time on Instagram, Snapchat and other social-media platforms. Thanks to smartphones and sharing apps, Generation Z has grown up to be more narcissistic, anxious and depressed than older cohorts, she argues. Twenge calls them the ‘iGen’ generation, a name she says she coined. And in 2010, she started a business, iGen Consulting, “to advise companies and organizations on generational differences based on her expertise and research on the topic”.

Twenge has “spoken at several large corporations including PepsiCo, McGraw-Hill, nGenera, Nielsen Media, and Bain Consulting”, one of her websites notes. She delivers anything from 20-minute briefings to half-day workshops, and is also available to speak to parents’ groups, non-profit organizations and educational establishments. In e-mail exchanges, she declined to say how much she earns from her advisory work, but fees for star psychologists can easily reach tens of thousands of dollars for a single speech, and possibly much more, several experts told Nature.

Twenge’s academic papers don’t mention her paid speeches and consulting. Yet that stands in stark contrast to the conflict-of-interest (COI) guidelines issued by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), an influential organization whose standards have been widely adopted by many medical and some psychology journals. Those guidelines say that such ‘personal fees’ should be declared as potential COIs in research papers because readers should be made aware of any financial interests that they might perceive as potentially influencing the findings.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Why India is striking back against predatory journals – Nature (Bhushan Patwardhan | July 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on August 2, 2019

Our foe is determined and adaptable, says Bhushan Patwardhan. A list of credible titles is the latest salvo in the fight against shoddy scholarship.

According to 2015 estimates, more than 8,000 predatory journals churn out more than 400,000 items a year, and India — which has also seen a spurt in high-quality scientific publications — contributes more than one-third of the articles in predatory publications.

Last month, India launched its latest salvo against the ‘pay and publish trash’ culture that sustains predatory journals. Over several months, more than 30 organizations representing universities and academic disciplines have vetted journals to release a reference list of respectable titles. Predators sabotaged our last attempt. We hope this better-curated list will help to cut off the supply of manuscripts to the unscrupulous operators that profit financially by undercutting academic quality.

Fending off the attack of trash science will be a long battle. Predatory journals have severely compromised scientific scholarship. They collect fees, but do not perform peer review or other promised services. My country’s experience so far shows both what makes an academic enterprise vulnerable to predatory publishers, and the coordinated efforts necessary to thwart them.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Journals’ Plagiarism Detectors May Flag Papers in Error – The Scientist (Diana Kwon | June 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on August 1, 2019

One recent case, in which a scientist claims his submitted manuscript was rejected despite a lack of actual plagiarism, highlights the limitations of automated tools.

If the researcher’s claims are true, this case points to an uncomfortable situation: Institutional research misconduct approaches need to be more robust and not rely solely on automated detection tools.

Last week, Jean-François Bonnefon, a behavioral scientist at the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, tweeted that a scientific manuscript he submitted to a journal had been rejected by a bot. The program had flagged his paper for plagiarism, highlighting the methods, references, and authors’ affiliations. “It would have taken 2 [minutes] for a human to realize the bot was acting up,” Bonnefon wrote in one of his tweets. “But there is obviously no human in the loop here.”

In a massive Twitter thread that followed, several other academics noted having similar experiences.

“I found [Bonnefon’s] experience quite disconcerting,” Bernd Pulverer, chief editor of The EMBO Journal, writes in an email to The Scientist. “Despite all the AI hype, we are miles from automating such a process.” Plagiarism is a complex issue, he adds, and although tools to identify text duplication are an invaluable resource for routine screening, they should not be used in lieu of a human reviewer.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Retracted papers die hard: Diederik Stapel and the enduring influence of flawed science (Papers – preprint: Luis Morís Fernández Miguel Vadillo | June 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on July 31, 2019

Self-correction is a defining feature of science. However, science’s ability to correct itself is far from optimal as shown, for instance, by the persistent influence of papers that have been retracted due to faulty methods or research misconduct. In this study, we track citations to the retracted work of Diederik Stapel. These citations provide a powerful indicative of the enduring influence of flawed science, as the (admittedly fabricated) data reported in these retracted papers provide no evidence for or against any hypothesis and this case of fraud was widely known due to the extensive media coverage of the scandal. Our data show that Stapel’s papers are still cited in a favorable way within and without the psychological literature. To ameliorate this problem, we propose that papers should be screened during the review process to monitor citations to retracted papers.

Citation, Retraction, Self-correction, Stapel

Morís Fernández, L., & Vadillo, M. A. (2019, June 19). Retracted papers die hard: Diederik Stapel and the enduring influence of flawed science.
(Pre-print CC)