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

ResourcesPeer review

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Authorship, Publication, and Peer Review (Guidance: QUT | 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on March 14, 2018
 

Authorship & Publication and Journal Peer Review are training programs produced by the QUT Library and the Office of Research Ethics and Integrity. You can view and download many of the course materials on this site.

This is quite simply amongst the best institutional online professional development material we’ve seen about research integrity. What we really liked was the use of researcher experience and reflection, which reinforces the message research integrity must be integral to research practice, not separate to the design/conduct/reporting of quality research. Our hearty huzzah! to everyone involved.

Access this resource page

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

0