ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesPeer review

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

How Do We Move Towards Better Peer Review? – The Wiley Network (Elizabeth Moylan | September 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on December 8, 2018
 

Elizabeth Moylan, Publisher at Wiley, talks to Michael Willis, Senior Manager in Wiley’s Content Review team, about the work he and colleagues have undertaken to explore what better peer review looks like.

The ability to identify a quality research output is an essential skill academics, professionals and researchers hone as their experience grows. Similary editors need to quickly refine their ability to recognise quality in peer review. But can you define its characteristics beyond pretty broad principles? Describing what makes for a high quality peer review doesn’t only make the work of editors and publishers easier, it provides helpful prompts for early career researchers who want to refine their peer review and other academic writing skills. Which is why this interview is such a helpful read.

Q. What inspired you to define a set of standards for ‘better peer review’ ?

A. The starting point was a question thrown out by a Wiley colleague: ‘is there a gold standard of peer review?’ That got us thinking about what good peer review looks like. I guess we all have our preconceptions of what good peer review looks like – it should be timely, ethical and fair – but we felt we needed to articulate the details more usefully and also  help journals to improve in measurable, specific ways.

This in turn led to a project to define essential areas of best practice for peer review. We thought about different characteristics of the peer review process, and then we described the ways in which each of these might be manifested. Taking integrity as an example, and pertinent to the theme of this year’s Peer Review Week, a journal might achieve greater integrity in its processes by working towards greater geographical and gender diversity in its reviewer pool.

You can read more about our project in this blog post which we wrote soon after the project launched.

Q. How did you go about researching some of the issues in peer review?

A. Having defined our scope, we then published a survey seeking the views of editors, reviewers, authors, readers and the general public, asking them to share examples of good practice in peer review. We received 40 case studies which we grouped under the headings of integrity, ethics, fairness, usefulness and timeliness.

Read the rest of this interview

Friday arvo funny: Peer review0

Posted by Admin in on December 7, 2018
 

Permanent link to this comic: https://xkcd.com/2025/
Image URL (for hotlinking/embedding): https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/peer_review.png

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.
This means you’re free to copy and share these comics (but not to sell them). More details.

What if we could scan for image duplication the way we check for plagiarism? – Retraction Watch (Alison McCook | April 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on November 28, 2018
 

Paul Brookes is a biologist with a passion for sleuthing out fraud. Although he studies mitochondria at the University of Rochester, he also secretly ran a science-fraud.org, a site for people to post their concerns about papers. Following legal threats, he revealed he was the author and shut the site in 2013 — but didn’t stop the fight. Recently, he’s co-authored a paper that’s slightly outside his day job: Partnering with computer scientist Daniel Acunaat Syracuse University and computational biologist Konrad Kording at the University of Pennsylvania, they developed a software to help detect duplicated images. If it works, it would provide a much needed service to the research community, which has been clamoring for some version of this for years. So how did this paper — also described by Nature News — come about?

Image manipulation is one of the more common reasons for forced retractions/research misconduct so such a tool would be welcome for institutions/publishers/peer reviewers.

Retraction Watch: Dr. Brookes, you study mitochondria. What brought you to co-author a paper about software to detect duplications?

.
Paul Brookes: I had authored a paper on the relationship between levels of internet publicity (blogs etc.) and actions taken against problematic papers in the biosciences – retractions, corrections, etc.  As such, I was sitting on a large database (500+ papers) with documented image problems. Konrad and Daniel approached me by email, to request this set of examples, to act as a training set for their machine learning algorithm.
.

Read the rest of this interview

New COPE guidelines on publication process manipulation: why they matter – BMC (Jigisha Patel | November 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on November 27, 2018
 

Abstract
Manipulation of the publication process is a relatively new form of misconduct affecting the publishing industry. This editorial describes what it is, why it is difficult for individual journal editors and publishers to handle and the background to the development of the new COPE guidelines on how to manage publication process manipulation.

These new guidelines represent an important first step towards encouraging openness and collaboration between publishers to address this phenomenon.

10 years ago, a retraction of an article was a rare thing. We know that the rate of journal retractions has been rising [1]. It has been argued that the increasing number of journals and the ‘pressure to publish’ have been the driving unethical practices such as data falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism [2]. There have been calls to address this by changing the way research success is measured, for example, by changing the way journal and article quality is measured and rewarded [3] in the hope that, by removing the pressure, unethical practices might decline.

Read the rest of this discussion piece