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)

Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2018)0

Posted by Admin in on September 23, 2018

The Australian Code is the Australian national reference for research integrity. The document was issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council and Universities Australia.

The Australian Code discusses eight core principles, 13 institutional responsibilities and 16 research responsibilities. At launch it was complemented by the Guide to Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Code, 2018 (the Investigation Guide). Two more guides are expected by the end   of 2018, with the remaining guides expected early 2019.

The eight-page 2018 version is a significant change from the 2007 version (which was 39 pages). It represents a movement away from detailed strict standards on research integrity matters to general principles that must inform institutional policies, processes and resources.

Little White Lies in Healthcare Publishing – Scholarly Kitchen (Phaedra Cress | July 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on September 21, 2018

Most Americans lie one to two times daily according to an article in the Journal of Language and Social Psychology. Yet, we are “truth biased” to believe that the majority of messages we interact with are honest versus dishonest. This chips away at our lie-detecting skills and in a field (or an entire era?) fraught with transparency issues, it can be incredibly detrimental.

This discussion piece is recommended reading for anyone responsible for research integrity professional development and systems at their institution. It’s time to unpack white lies and be more alert to the damage they cause. We have included a slew of related items.

What’s the difference between telling someone they look great in those jeans versus I didn’t really read that entire manuscript, but I came “close enough” to provide peer review comments for it? Was that employee fired or laid off, and how can recruiters tell the difference on their LinkedIn profile? Subtle nuances tell the real story but can be hard to discern just like the various shades of grey.
Nearly all of us have engaged in some form of writing, editing, or research during our professional careers, especially those who’ve built their careers in publishing. We endeavor to hold ourselves to the highest standards in all that we do, in both our work and personal lives, including our Instagram stories.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Guest Post: What a new Publons Report on Peer Review Says About Diversity, and More – Scholarly Kitchen (Tom Culley, et al | September 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on September 17, 2018

Editor’s Note: This third installment of posts for Peer Review Week is a guest post from Tom Culley and the team at Publons.

For centuries academic journals have brought modern research from around the globe into regularly published pages for consumption. At the heart of this system is peer review — the process we rely on to ensure the quality and integrity of scholarly communication. But as the research market grows exponentially the peer review system is feeling the strain.

Last week (10-15 September 2018) was peer review week and the theme was diversity in peer review.  This item refers to work that highlights we aren’t there yet. In addition to including links to a few other items from last week, we’ve linked to a few other items about this essential component of quality research.

How do we know this? Publons Global State of Peer Review Report brings a new level of transparency to the state of peer review, revealing the numbers behind who’s doing it, how well they’re doing it, and how efficient the process really is. The timing is right, as the community comes together to celebrate the fourth installment of Peer Review Week, focusing on the theme of Diversity and Inclusion in Peer Review.
Released on September 7th, the report combines novel results of a global survey alongside data from PublonsScholarOne, and Web of Science. For the survey, Publons reached out to researchers via the Publons database of over 400,000 reviewers, and 1 million authors indexed in Web of Science. Of the more than 11,000 researchers who completed the survey, 69% were working at a university or college, 69% were men, and over 35% had 15 years or more experience writing and reviewing scholarly articles. The majority of reviewers came from Europe (37% — including the UK) and 13% worked in the areas of Clinical Medicine or Engineering respectively.*

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Opening up peer review – Science (Editorial – August 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on September 17, 2018

A transparent process to publish referees’ reports could benefit science, but not all researchers want their assessments made available.

When Nature asks experts to review manuscripts for possible publication, we promise that the reports they send back will be kept confidential. But should we? This week we publish a Comment article that comes with a provocative challenge: more journal editors should commit to publishing peer-review reports. Doing so, the authors argue, benefits science. It puts published work in useful context and helps junior scientists to understand how review works.

Nature and the Nature research journals have long welcomed suggestions to make peer review work better for the communities we serve. In 2016, Nature Communications started to publish referee reports — with names removed — as long as the authors of the papers agreed.

The reaction has been instructive. For one, it demonstrated that authors in specific fields of the life sciences are more likely to welcome such openness. Take-up from those in other disciplines, including many in the physical sciences, has been much slower. In fact, Nature Communications lost several reliable reviewers in chemistry when the referees were told their unsigned reviews would be made public if the author opted for it. They resented not having a say in the process, and felt that their reports would have little value outside the small intended audience.

Read the rest of this discussion piece