ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Peer review

A line of cubes with letters spelling out the word, "RESPECT", amongst a scattering of cubes.

Offensive or Inclusive Language in Scientific Communication? – Scholarly Kitchen (Richard De Grijs | March 2022)

Indignant complaints that a policy or approach is guilty of “wokeness” have always been mystifying to us.  None of us has an inviolate right to treat others with disrespect.  Over recent decades the ranks of science have (too slowly) expanded to include a variety of races/cultures, sexes/gender identities, ages and people who live with a disability.  And the readership of our work has definitely expanded.  People do have a reasonable expectation to be treated with respect and to be included in scientific discussions, rather than excluded because of who they are.  Times have changed folks, we all need to change as well.  If you disagree, we will need to agree to disagree.  

Read More
Peer review and scientific process graphic.

Is anonymity or transparency the best solution to bias in peer review? – Times Higher Education (Kim Eggleton | March 2022)

Data clearly demonstrates that bias (implicit or overt) besets peer review. It can be seen in the bias evident in the relative publication across underrepresented cohorts found in groups such as gender, race, geographic location, institutional affiliation and career stage.  Anonymity in the peer review process or the transparency of the process have been presented as solutions, but are they mutually exclusive solutions?  This Times Higher Education piece dives into the issues.  We have included links to 11 related items.

Read More
Criticism Word Cloud Concept in red caps with great terms such as opinion, blame, critique and more.

There are four schools of thought on reforming peer review – can they co-exist? – London School of Economics Blog (Ludo Waltman, et al | March 2022)

The failings of the current approach to peer review are well known (e.g. the lack of regional and gender diversity).  It stands at the cornerstone of quality research, but its biases are having damaging impacts on the scientific record. This blog post discusses four different approaches (and objectives) for re-engineering peer review.  It also explores whether the four different models could operate together.

Read More
Artistically stressed Australian flag

(Australia) Bill to remove ministerial veto of ARC grants rejected – ResearchProfessional News (Jenny Sinclair | March 2022)

If you were hoping common sense or faith in the scientific and peer review process would win out, sorry not so much, welcome to the farce of modern Australian politics.  The very idea that politicians can decide whether it is politically palatable or expedient to overturn a decision by an impartial peer review process is offensive and outrageous.  The implications are that academic freedom only extends as far as politicians are prepared to let it.  The repost from the Senate committee is ominous and alarming.   Having rejected the very idea that politicians shouldn’t be able to overturn peer review outcomes, their response is that a peek Australian research funding body needs to be reviewed.  

Read More
A devil politician at a lectern with Australian flags beside them.

(Australia) Don’t axe Australia’s research grant veto powers: Senate panel – Times Higher Education (John Ross | March 2022)

If you were told there is a modern country that permits politicians to override the scientific decisions made by peer review processes, perhaps you would think we were talking about a tinpot dictatorship or a country overwhelmed by ideological extremism.  In fact, you would be both wrong and correct, we are referring to Australia.  It is disgusting that a politician can decide on the basis of whim or ideology to overturn the impartial scientific judgments of the peer review process.

Read More

Related Links

Compiled here are links, downloads and other resources relating to research integrity and human research ethics. more…

Resources Menu

Four hands solving a jigsaw against the sun blazing out of a cloudy sky

Research Integrity

Human Research Ethics

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in