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)

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.

The price of deceiving your future employees (Papers: Mark Israel et al 2016)0

Posted by Admin in on March 3, 2016
 

Excerpt “Those of us who grew up reading Mark Twain will remember the story of The Prince and the Pauper. In Twain’s book, the future English King Edward VI swaps places with a poor boy in order to move unrecognised among his future subjects. The book has spawned a variety of different versions. The latest enactment may be in a New Zealand university.

According to the New Zealand Herald, the preferred candidate for the position of vice-chancellor at Lincoln University interviewed 20 staff while posing as a visiting academic preparing a report. During the interviews, the newspaper claims that Prof. Robin Pollard collected data about concerns academics had about the university, only revealing his identity by email after the interviews had been completed. The project did not seek ethics review from either the visiting professor’s home university in the United Kingdom or Lincoln University but may have been approved by Lincoln University’s Council. Ethics review is mandatory for all research conducted on university students or staff in New Zealand. University codes of ethics deem them vulnerable or exploitable persons given the conflict of interest and unequal power relations.

If it is true that Prof. Pollard conducted research in this way, such a scheme must have seemed attractive to the incoming university boss. Academic leaders may find themselves isolated in the top position and there are significant advantages in opening up multiple lines of communication with your colleagues throughout an organisation. Academics who might not divulge their thoughts to senior management might reveal their views to a visiting academic making the use of deception seductively attractive in these circumstances.”

Israel, M, Poata Smith, B & Tolich, M (2016) The price of deceiving your future employees. Tertiary Update: Weekly News from The New Zealand Tertiary Education Union – Te Hautū Kahurangi O Aotearoa 2 March http://teu.ac.nz/2016/03/the-price-of-deceiving/

Another Australian retraction has been added to Retraction Watch – 5 Feb 20160

Posted by Admin in on February 6, 2016
 

“An investigation at the University of New South Wales in Australia has led to a fifth retraction for a cancer researcher long accused of misconduct, due to “unresolvable concerns” with some images.

As we reported in December, UNSW cleared Levon Khachigian of misconduct, concluding that his previous issues stemmed from “genuine error or honest oversight.” Now, Circulation Research is retracting one of his papers after an investigation commissioned by UNSW was unable to find electronic records for two similar images from a 2009 paper, nor records of the images in original lab books.”

05 February 2016 – Investigation prompts 5th retraction for cancer researcher for “unresolvable concerns”

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.

When ghosts plagiarise – ABC News (Brian Martin 2008)0

Posted by Admin in on January 14, 2016
 

“Plagiarism is commonly seen as a grievous scholarly sin – as a form of cheating. Most attention is focused on students. Some universities have adopted text-matching software such as Turnitin to detect and deter plagiarism. Students have little recourse when caught out.

But when a prominent figure is accused of plagiarism, the dynamics can be rather different. Julie Bishop, former minister of education and now deputy leader of the opposition, is listed as the author of a chapter in a new book edited by Peter van Onselen titled Liberals and Power. Passages in the chapter were taken, without acknowledgement, from a speech by New Zealand businessman Roger Kerr.

Bishop’s chief of staff Murray Hansen generously took responsibility. He said he had written Bishop’s chapter and had committed the plagiarism. But if Hansen wrote the chapter, why was Bishop listed as the author?”

Brian Martin. When ghosts plagiarise. ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), 31 October 2008, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/31/2406376.htm On the plagiarism by the ghostwriter for politican Julie Bishop.

0