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)

US court issues injunction against OMICS to stop “deceptive practices” – Retraction Watch (Andrew P. Han | November 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on November 27, 2017
 

A US government agency has won an initial court ruling against OMICS, which the government says will help stop the academic publisher’s deceptive business practices.

Today, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it won a preliminary injunction in September in its lawsuit against Srinubabu Gedela, CEO of OMICS Group and other companies.

The lawsuit, filed in August 2016, accused the defendants — which include Gedela and OMICS Group, iMedPub, and Conference Series — of deceptive business practices related to journal publishing and scientific conferences. The FTC alleged the defendants used the names of prominent researchers to draw conference attendees, even though the researchers had not agreed to participate; misled readers about whether articles had been peer reviewed; failed to provide authors with transparent information about publishing fees prior to submission; and presented misleading “impact factors” for journals.

Read the rest of this news story
Read the short Inside Higher Ed Quick Take 
FTC Charges Academic Journal Publisher OMICS Group Deceived Researchers

Towards a more transparent and collaborative review process – Crosstalk (Milka Kostic | September 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on November 25, 2017
 

Transparency in peer review is the theme of Peer Review Week 2017, which starts today. Cell Press is taking part in this week’s activities by highlighting some of the things we’ve been doing to increase the transparency in peer review for our authors, reviewers, and readers.

Peer review is collaboration. Although the traditional peer review process may seem rigid and linear—with authors submitting a paper, editors inviting reviewers, reviewers submitting the comments, and editors making a decision—in practice, Cell Press editors often engage in extensive discussions with reviewers after we’ve received all the comments. This helps us understand better where reviewers are coming from, and formulate the most appropriate course of revisions for the authors. Reviewer cross-consultation has been an informal feature of our approach to peer review for some time now.

Several years ago, we decided to start experimenting with making the collaborative peer review more structured and systematic. The first round of innovation in this area took place in 2014, and we’ve continued to build from those early results, which indicated that making the peer review process more collaborative has benefits and values for everyone involved in and, ultimately, the published science.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

(India) UGC Drafts New Policy To Check Plagiarism In Academic Research – NDTV (Anisha Singh | September 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on November 25, 2017
 

The University Grants Commission (UGC) has released the Draft UGC (Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2017. As the name suggests, the aim of the draft is to create academic awareness about responsible conduct of research and prevention of misconduct including plagiarism in academic writing.

NEW DELHI: The University Grants Commission (UGC) has released the Draft UGC (Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2017. As the name suggests, the aim of the draft is to create academic awareness about responsible conduct of research and prevention of misconduct including plagiarism in academic writing. The draft also seeks to establish institutional mechanism for promotion of academic integrity and develop systems to detect and prevent plagiarism.

The draft directs every Higher Education Institute to instruct students, faculty, and staff about proper attribution, seeking permission of the author wherever necessary, acknowledgement of source compatible with the needs and specificities of disciplines and in accordance with rules and regulations governing the source.

Read the rest of this news story

Is predatory scientific publishing “becoming an organized industry”? – Physics Today (Steven T. Corneliussen | September 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on November 20, 2017
 

A pending Federal Trade Commission lawsuit illuminates an information-age peril for science: predatory journals that destructively exploit the author-pays method of open access. Media reports began appearing several years ago about such publications’ deceptive and unethical practices. Recently Bloomberg Businessweek, Nature, and a few others have brought predatory journals back into the spotlight—this time with new dimensions.

The FTC lawsuit confronts the organization called OMICS and two allied enterprises, all led by Srinubabu Gedela of Hyderabad, India. OMICS boasts that it has “700+ leading-edge peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates [sic] with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members.” The lawsuit cites a statute against “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” in leveling allegations involving author fees, peer review, manuscript withdrawal, editors’ stature, editorial board membership, and journal scholarly standing.

Inside Higher Ed reported last year that Jeffrey Beall—originator of the phrase predatory journals—considers OMICS “the worst of the worst.” But the problem extends beyond Gedela and OMICS. That’s why Inside Higher Ed also quoted FTC staff attorney Ioana Rusu calling the lawsuit “a line in the sand” for other alleged offenders.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0