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)

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

Ready to geek out on retraction data? Read this new preprint – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky 2015)0

Posted by Admin in on March 9, 2016
 

Excerpt: There’s a new paper about retractions, and it’s chock-full of the kind of data that we love to geek out on. Enjoy.

The new paper, “A Multi-dimensional Investigation of the Effects of Publication Retraction on Scholarly Impact,” appears on the preprint server arXiv — meaning it has yet to be peer-reviewed — and is co-authored by Xin Shuai and five other employees of Thomson Reuters. Highlights from their dataset:

* Medical or biological related research fields tend to have the highest retraction rates.

* Retracted papers are cited more often – a median of eight times – than the average article (a median of once).

* The median time from publication to retraction is two years.

* About half of all retractions are due to misconduct, including plagiarism.

* Retracted papers, and their authors, are cited less often after retraction.

* Institutions involved in retractions tend to be cited more often, but “the reputation of those institutions that sponsored the scholars who were accused of scientific misconduct did not seem to be tarnished at all.”

* Authors of papers retracted for fabrication or falsification see the largest dip in citations, with the “decrease is even more pronounced when the retraction cases are exposed to the public by media.”

* [R]etraction rate in one topic hardly affects its future popularity.

8 March 2016 – Ready to geek out on retraction data? Read this new preprint

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.

0