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

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


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.

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: <>. doi:
Publisher (Open Access):

A Common Standard for Conflict of Interest Disclosure (Guidance: Center for Science in the Public Interest | 2008)0

Posted by Admin in on February 18, 2018

Merrill Goozner, Arthur Caplan, Jonathan Moreno, Barnett S. Kramer, Thomas F. Babor, Wendy Cowles Husser

The reporting of conflicts of interest in science and medicine in the scientific literature1 has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. Failures to disclose conflicts of interest have become front page news, and a major embarrassment to publishers, editors, and professional societies.2

These failures to disclose relevant relationships have stemmed in part from a lack of uniform definitions for conflicts of interest and confusion about what needs to be reported. Academic investigators operate under varying institutional rules, and many are unable to accurately describe their institutions’ policies.3 Science and biomedical journals have a range of disclosure policies with differences in definitions of conflicts of interest, reporting requirements, and promises to publish.4

In the face of heightened scrutiny, several publishers have moved in the past several years to implement stricter conflict-of-interest disclosure and publication rules. 5 6 7 Organizations are paying greater attention to conflict-of-interest disclosure in the context of redefining the rules of engagement between academic investigators and private industry.8 The need for common standards in defining conflicts of interest has never been greater.

Access  the resource