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)

Bruce Murdoch: Former University of Queensland professor given suspended sentence for fraud – Courier Mail (Melanie Petrinec 2016)0

Posted by Admin in on April 1, 2016
 

“A FORMER University of Queensland professor who faked a breakthrough study on Parkinson’s disease giving sufferers false hope has been given a two-year suspended sentence for a string of fraud-related charges. Professor Bruce Murdoch falsified a research paper, which was published in the high-profile European Journal of Neurology, between 2011 and 2014. He pleaded guilty to 17 fraud-related charges and was sentenced in the Brisbane Magistrates Court on Thursday morning.”

Melanie Petrinec. Bruce Murdoch: Former University of Queensland professor given suspended sentence for fraud. Courier Mail, 31 March 2016,
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/crime-and-justice/bruce-murdoch-former-university-of-queensland-professor-given-suspended-sentence-for-fraud/news-story/25b07fcce3a8210f48a260a0d7d230eb

This latest development has also been reported by Retraction Watch – Neuroscientist pleads guilty in court to fraud, gets two-year suspended sentence.

And was reported in the Brisbane Times on 5 April 2016 – http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/sci-tech/australian-neuroscientist-bruce-murdoch-nearly-went-to-jail-for-making-up-data-20160404-gnydf6.html

Denmark and Sweden take another look at how they investigate scientific misconduct – ScienceNordic (Catherine Jex 2016)0

Posted by Admin in on March 31, 2016
 

“A series of scandals in Nordic science in recent years has forced Denmark and Sweden to rethink how they investigate allegations of research misconduct–often referred to as academic fraud.

In November last year, the Swedish Ministry of Education and Research launched an inquiry into how other countries are handling academic fraud, and to assess the role of the independent board of reviewers who currently investigate such allegations.

Simultaneously with the launch of the Swedish inquiry, the Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science published 12 recommendations to improve the handling of such allegations in Denmark–first by refining their definition on what actually constitutes scientific misconduct.”

Catherine Jex. Denmark and Sweden take another look at how they investigate scientific misconduct. ScienceNordic, 27 March 2016,
http://sciencenordic.com/denmark-and-sweden-take-another-look-how-they-investigate-scientific-misconduct

A New Zealand retraction has been added to Retraction Watch – 28 March 20160

Posted by Admin in on March 29, 2016
 

“A journal has retracted a paper on a controversial course of treatment used to stunt the growth of disabled children, at the request of the human research ethics committee at the University of Waikato in New Zealand.

The paper described the so-called Ashley Treatmentexplored last week in the New York Times — in which disabled children receive hormones and procedures to keep them small and diminish the effects of puberty, making it easier for them to be cared for. The retracted paper analyzed the use of the treatment in a girl named Charley who was born in New Zealand with a brain injury, whose case has attracted the attention of The Washington Post and People magazine, among other outlets.

28 March 2016 – Ethics committee asks journal to retract paper about controversial growth-stunting treatment

About Retraction Watch
We launched Retraction Watch in August 2010, and although we didn’t predict this, it’s been a struggle to even keep up with retractions as they happen. While we occasionally dip into history in our “Best Of” series, realistically we don’t want to fall even further behind. If we ever have the resources to grow the site, this will be one of our priorities.

What happens before a retraction? A behind-the-scenes look from COPE – Interview by Retraction Watch (2016)0

Posted by Admin in on March 23, 2016
 

“Ever wonder how editors figure out whether a paper should be corrected, retracted, or left as-is? For a window into that crucial decision-making process, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) publishes a number of anonymized cases per year, in which they weigh in on a dilemma faced by a journal editor. The organization has weighed in on more than 500 such situations since 1997. We spoke with Charon Pierson, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners and the Secretary of the Trustee Board and Council at COPE to find out more information about these cases – including the one that affected her most.”

Click here to read the full interview

0