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)

(China) Nearly 500 researchers guilty of misconduct, says Chinese gov’t investigation (Alison McCook | August 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on August 12, 2017

Four hundred eighty-six authors have been found guilty of misconduct by the Chinese government, the fall-out from a sweep of retractions by one journal earlier this year.

In April, Tumor Biology retracted 107 papers that had been accepted based on faked reviews. Since many of the authors were based in China, the country’s Ministry of Science and Technology (MST) launched an investigation. On Friday, the news outlet Xinhua reported the results of the government’s investigation:

“Of the 521 authors implicated, 11 were deemed innocent with 24 still under investigation. Among the remaining authors, 486 authors were found guilty of misconduct at various levels. A total of 102 were found to be mainly responsible, 70 secondarily responsible and 314 did not participate in fraud, said He Defang, a ministry official in charge of rule enforcement.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Questionable research practices among italian research psychologists (Papers: Franca Agnoli | March 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on August 6, 2017


The findings of this work, which point to similar phenomena and apparent causes of research integrity breaches internationally, suggest where greater attention is required to address research integrity problems.

A survey in the United States revealed that an alarmingly large percentage of university psychologists admitted having used questionable research practices that can contaminate the research literature with false positive and biased findings. We conducted a replication of this study among Italian research psychologists to investigate whether these findings generalize to other countries. All the original materials were translated into Italian, and members of the Italian Association of Psychology were invited to participate via an online survey. The percentages of Italian psychologists who admitted to having used ten questionable research practices were similar to the results obtained in the United States although there were small but significant differences in self-admission rates for some QRPs. Nearly all researchers (88%) admitted using at least one of the practices, and researchers generally considered a practice possibly defensible if they admitted using it, but Italian researchers were much less likely than US researchers to consider a practice defensible. Participants’ estimates of the percentage of researchers who have used these practices were greater than the self-admission rates, and participants estimated that researchers would be unlikely to admit it. In written responses, participants argued that some of these practices are not questionable and they have used some practices because reviewers and journals demand it. The similarity of results obtained in the United States, this study, and a related study conducted in Germany suggest that adoption of these practices is an international phenomenon and is likely due to systemic features of the international research and publication processes.

Agnoli F, Wicherts JM, Veldkamp CLS, Albiero P, Cubelli R (2017) Questionable research practices among italian research psychologists. PLoS ONE 12(3): e0172792.
Publisher (open access – including the data):

Pay-to-view blacklist of predatory journals set to launch – Nature (Andrew Silver | May 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on August 2, 2017

The blacklist is dead; long live the blacklist. Five months after a widely read blog listing possible ‘predatory’ scholarly journals and publishers was shut down, another index of untrustworthy titles is appearing — although this version will be available only to paying subscribers.

Scholarly-services firm Cabell’s International in Beaumont, Texas, says that on 15 June it will launch its own list of predatory journals: those that deceive their authors or readers, for example by charging fees to publish papers without conducting peer review. The firm described its work on 31 May, at the annual meeting of the Society for Scholarly Publishing in Boston, Massachusetts.

The previous, now-defunct, list was run by academic librarian Jeffrey Beall of the University of Colorado Denver. Since 2010, he had tracked what he called “potential, possible or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers” and journals on his blog, attracting huge attention and some legal threats from publishers unhappy at their inclusion. But in January this year, Beall deleted the site, without saying why. Cached copies have been posted elsewhere online.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Contributor Roles (Guidance | Casrai | October 2015)0

Posted by Admin in on July 26, 2017

“A high-level classification of the diverse roles performed in the work leading to a published research output in the sciences. Its purpose to provide transparency in contributions to scholarly published work, to enable improved systems of attribution, credit, and accountability.”

Contributor Roles/Conceptualization
Contributor Roles/Data curation
Contributor Roles/Formal analysis
Contributor Roles/Funding acquisition
Contributor Roles/Investigation
Contributor Roles/Methodology
Contributor Roles/Project administration
Contributor Roles/Resources
Contributor Roles/Software
Contributor Roles/Supervision
Contributor Roles/Validation
Contributor Roles/Visualization
Contributor Roles/Writing – original draft
Contributor Roles/Writing – review & editing

Access this guidance resource

In our experience a collegiate chat when planning a research output, to discuss roles followed by a friendly CYA email to confirm the discussion, can help avoid disputes between collaborators. At which point Gary would often launch into the metaphor of research collaborations being like a marriage, but the rest of us will save you from that.