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)

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

Politics Moves Fast. Peer Review Moves Slow. What’s A Political Scientist To Do? – FiveThirtyEight (Maggie Koerth-Baker | December 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on January 23, 2018

Politics has a funny way of turning arcane academic debates into something much messier. We’re living in a time when so much in the news cycle feels absurdly urgent and partisan forces are likely to pounce on any piece of empirical data they can find, either to champion it or tear it apart, depending on whether they like the result. That has major implications for many of the ways knowledge enters the public sphere — including how academics publicize their research.

A conundrum for political scientists. An excellent discussion piece that shows in politics the impact of dodgy research can have on community opinion.

That process has long been dominated by peer review, which is when academic journals put their submissions in front of a panel of researchers to vet the work before publication. But the flaws and limitations of peer review have become more apparent over the past decade or so, and researchers are increasingly publishing their work before other scientists have had a chance to critique it. That’s a shift that matters a lot to scientists, and the public stakes of the debate go way up when the research subject is the 2016 election. There’s a risk, scientists told me, that preliminary research results could end up shaping the very things that research is trying to understand.
Take, for instance, two studies that hit the press in late September. One was a survey of nonvoters in Wisconsin that seemed to show that the election could have swung President Trump’s way because of voter ID laws that kept people from the polls. The other was an analysis of junk news shared on Twitter that offered evidence of misinformation being targeted at people living in swing states in a way that implied a strategic effort. Neither had gone through peer review before receiving largely uncritical write-ups in major publications like The New York Times and The Washington Post. Both contained the sort of everyday flaws that the peer review process is designed to catch — flaws that undermined the reliability of the results.

Read the rest of this discussion piece