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)

Top 10 Retractions of 2017 – The Scientist (Retraction Watch | December 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on March 12, 2018
 

Making the list: a journal breaks a retraction record, Nobel laureates Do the Right Thing, and Seinfeld characters write a paper 

When it comes to retractions, we at Retraction Watch always have a lot to say. Especially after spending much of 2017 building our retraction database, which now holds just shy of 16,000 entries—more than 1,000 from 2017 alone. That’s an increase from the 650 total retractions counted by MEDLINE in 2016.

We are big fans of Retraction Watch and this story reflects on the most notable retraction stories from 2017. A discussion of such cases are research integrity workshops can be a useful opportunity to talk about missteps and what they can do to academic careers and promising lines of enquiry.

Of course, scientific misconduct involves more than just retractions. This year, we reported on the loss of a frequently cited (but controversial) resource that deemed some journals “predatory,” the ongoing saga between a Harvard graduate student and his mentor that resulted in a forced psychiatric exam and a restraining order, and a university’s decision to pay a researcher found guilty of misconduct $100,000 to leave.
.
There are also the stories about decisions not to retract—such as when more than a dozen editorial board members resigned from Scientific Reports after the journal decided to correct, not retract, a paper accused of plagiarism. (The journal eventually decided to add an editor’s note to the story and form a committee to review it.)
.
But there were also plenty of retractions that caught our notice this year. Here are our picks of the 10 most notable retractons of 2017, in no particular order.

.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Let’s End Reviewer Fraud – Publons (January 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on March 9, 2018
 

With a neutron star collision, the discovery of new planets, and the first gene therapy treatment approved in the United States, last year’s advancements in science and research offer a promising outlook for 2018.

But with retractions and fake reviews back in the spotlight, 2018 is also looking like it will be fraught with challenges.

On the 21st of December, the team at Retraction Watch reported Elsevier journals had retracted 13 research papers and will soon be retracting 13 more. The papers, most of which were published between 2014 and 2017, and share one corresponding author, were subject to “peer-review manipulation” and “unexplained authorship irregularities.”

Read the rest of this discussion piece

The Ethics of Predatory Journals (Papers: Alexander McLeod | 2016)0

Posted by Admin in on March 2, 2018
 

Abstract

Predatory journals operate as vanity presses, typically charging large submission or publication fees and requiring little peer review. The consequences of such journals are wide reaching, affecting the integrity of the legitimate journals they attempt to imitate, the reputations of the departments, colleges, and universities of their contributors, the actions of accreditation bodies, the reputations of their authors, and perhaps even the generosity of academic benefactors. Using a stakeholder analysis, our study of predatory journals suggests that most stakeholders gain little in the short run from such publishing and only the editors or owners of these journals benefit in the long run. We also discuss counter-measures that academic and administrative faculty can employ to thwart predatory publishing.

McLeod A, Savage A & Simkin MG (2016) The Ethics of Predatory Journals. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3419-9
Publisher: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10551-016-3419-9

Understanding the complexities of retractions (Amy Riegelman and Caitlin Bakker | January 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on February 19, 2018
 

Recommended resources

Reasons for retracted publications range from honest errors made by authors or publishers to research misconduct (e.g., falsified data, fraudulent peer review). A retraction represents a status change of a publication in the scholarly literature. Other examples of status changes include correction or erratum. A retraction could be initiated by many parties, including authors, institutions, or journal editors. The U.S. National Library of Medicine annually reports on the number of retracted publications indexed within PubMed. While the overall rate of retractions is still very small, retractions have increased considerably in the last decade from 97 retracted articles in 2006 to 664 in 2016.1

Quite simply an excellent resource that we urge institutions to include in you research integrity resource library and all ECRs to read/keep for ongoing reference.

As librarians help users navigate research platforms and maintain awareness of publication status changes, it is important to understand both the publishing and discovery landscape. Guidelines exist to help publishers and platforms identify retractions, but a recent study found inconsistent representations of retractions across various platforms.2 Another consideration is when scholars export citations or full-text articles out of various discovery platforms to personal libraries (e.g., Mendeley, DropBox).
.
Philip Davis studied retracted articles residing in personal libraries and nonpublisher websites. Among the findings, Mendeley libraries contained many retracted articles, and Davis concluded that this decentralized access without automated status updates “may come with the cost of promoting incorrect, invalid, or untrustworthy science.”3
.

RIEGELMAN, Amy; BAKKER, Caitlin. Understanding the complexities of retractions: Recommended resources.College & Research Libraries News, [S.l.], v. 79, n. 1, p. 38. ISSN 2150-6698. Available at: <https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/16865/18491>. doi:https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.79.1.38.
Publisher (Open Access): https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/16865/18491

0