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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesNews

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Why scientists need to do more about research fraud – The Guardian (Richard P Grant | January 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on February 14, 2018
 

Scientific misconduct is more than just an academic problem – it has repercussions for real people

About 10 years ago, in my lab rat days, I moved to a large structural biology lab. As a cell biologist I had a different skillset to my new colleagues, and my new boss asked to me tackle a problem that had been eluding the rest of the lab. This was to replicate the result of an experiment performed by our cell-biological collaborators across the road.

A great story and, while often said, bears repeating

I approached the challenge with the enthusiasm of a new starter. I was soon able to show results proving I had the system up and running, with positive and negative controls all doing the right thing.
.
But trying it for real, I just as quickly got stuck. I repeated the experiment countless times over the coming months, varying this and that parameter and trying different cell lines and farting around with different sequences, and never once managed to achieve the intended result.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Eighty-two cases of offspring named as co-authors – University World News (Aimee Chung | January 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on February 11, 2018
 

Some 82 cases of professors listing their secondary school offspring as co-authors in academic papers have been unearthed by an investigation by South Korea’s ministry of education.

The discovery has prompted referrals to ethics committees at 29 universities – including some of the country’s top institutions – where the practice stretching back 10 years was uncovered.

It could lead to disciplinary action in some cases, under Korea’s strict research misconduct laws which cover author attribution of research papers.

Read the rest of this news story

When publishers mess up, why do authors pay the price? – Retraction Watch (Victoria Stern | December 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on February 10, 2018
 

Springer has retracted two papers, which appeared online earlier this year in different journals, after discovering both were published by mistake.

Probably the most compelling example of why there’s a need for a more nuanced categorisation of retractions. At the very least it should be made clear when an error is the fault of the publisher.

A spokesperson at Springer explained that the retractions are “due to a human error.”
.

According to one of the retraction notices, published in Archive for Mathematical Logic, the paper had not yet undergone peer review and the author plans to resubmit his paper to the journal. The other retraction notice, published in Arabian Journal of Geosciences, simply states that an “error in the submission system” is to blame. Unfortunately, in both cases the authors now have a retraction on their record, seemingly through no fault of their own.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Forgot to make your article open access? It’ll cost you (with a correction) – Retraction Watch (Alison Abritis | December 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on January 28, 2018
 

Title: Industrial antifoam agents impair ethanol fermentation and induce stress responses in yeast cells

This highlights why researchers need to think about open access prior to submitting a paper AND journals need better nomenclature for describing different kinds of retraction.

What Caught Our Attention: When authors decide they want to make their articles freely available after they’ve already been published, how should publishers indicate the change, if at all? Recently, Ross Mounce (@rmounce) thought it was odd a Springer journal issued a formal correction notice when the authors wanted to make their paper freely available, and we can’t say we disagree. As he posted on Twitter:
.

“Formal correction issued just to indicate article has changed to hybridOA. Strange precedent. Can’t see need for correction statement myself if online-only journal.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0