ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)
Search
Generic filters
Exact text matches only
Search into
Filter by Categories
Research integrity
Filter by Categories
Human Research Ethics

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesNews

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Lost in translation: Authors blame a language error for wrong diagnosis – Retraction Watch (Alison McCook | July 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on July 11, 2017
 

A patient’s “unusual” brain cyst excited several researchers in China so much they published a paper about it in a major journal. Soon a reader identified a glaring mistake: the authors had described the cause of the cyst incorrectly.

A month after the paper appeared online in November 2016, the reader — a neurologist — published a letter in the journal, pointing out the incorrect diagnosis. In their response, the authors acknowledged the mistake but said it had occurred not because they had misdiagnosed the patient, but because the diagnosis had been mistranslated from Chinese to English.

The editors of Neurology retracted the paper because of the error and published a new version with the correct diagnosis on the same day, June 6.

Read the rest of this news story

Citation Cartel Or Editor Gone Rogue? – Scholarly Kitchen (Phil Davis | March 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on July 10, 2017
 

How much can a single editor distort the citation record? Ivan Oransky at Retraction Watch has been tracking the fallout of Artemi Cerdà, the recently departed Editor-in-Chief of Land Degradation & Development (LDD) and editorial board member of several journals in the geophysical sciences.

The allegation? Setting up a citation cartel.

The European Geosciences Union (EGU) undertook a detailed investigation of Cerdà along with several other EGU editors to determine the extent of the damage.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

(China) Fake peer review, forged authors, fake funding: Everything’s wrong with brain cancer paper – Retraction Watch (Victoria Stern | July 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on July 10, 2017
 

The paper had everything: Fake peer review, forged authors, even a fake funder.

In other words, it had nothing.

A 2015 paper is the latest retraction stemming from an investigation into fake peer review by Springer, which has now netted more than a hundred papers.

Read the rest of this news story

From predator to mutualist, or: What if predatory journals published reviews? – NeuroVojo (Zen Faulkes | April 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on July 7, 2017
 

This deceptively simple idea could easily expose junk publishers (of any ilk) but perhaps more importantly provide readers with further insight into whether a paper represents a breakthrough.

Earlier this week, I argued that we could kill predatory junk journals with a single stroke if regular scientific journals would publish the text of the pre-publication reviews along with the paper. This way, junk journals couldn’t hide behind the claim that they are peer-reviewed.
.
I argued that junk journals wouldn’t want to take the time and effort to create reviews in any way. But a couple of people on Twitter responded that the junk journals could (and apparently sometimes do) ask for reviews, but ignore them.
.
This makes things interesting.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0