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)

Promoting Responsible Conduct of Research: A Canadian Perspective (Papers: Susan Zimmerman & Karen Wallace | 2013)0

Posted by Admin in on July 8, 2017
 

Abstract
This article compares the current Canadian and American approaches to governing the responsible conduct of research. The Canadian Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research acts on behalf of Canada’s three federal research agencies to implement their Framework on Responsible Conduct of Research. It operates not on the basis of regulatory authority, like its U.S. counterpart, the Office of Research Integrity, but rather on the basis of making compliance a condition of eligibility for funding. Both offices are dedicated to promoting good research practices and to enforcing good standards of research practice.

Keywords: allegations of misconduct in research, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP), institutional investigations, Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (PRCR), research integrity, Research Integrity Officers (RIO), responsible allegation, Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research, responsible conduct of research (RCR), Tri-Agency Research Integrity Policy, U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI)

Zimmerman SV and Wallace K (2013) Promoting Responsible Conduct of Research: A Canadian Perspective. Accountability in Research. 20(5-6)
Publisher: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08989621.2013.822261

From predator to mutualist, or: What if predatory journals published reviews? – NeuroVojo (Zen Faulkes | April 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on July 7, 2017
 

This deceptively simple idea could easily expose junk publishers (of any ilk) but perhaps more importantly provide readers with further insight into whether a paper represents a breakthrough.

Earlier this week, I argued that we could kill predatory junk journals with a single stroke if regular scientific journals would publish the text of the pre-publication reviews along with the paper. This way, junk journals couldn’t hide behind the claim that they are peer-reviewed.
.
I argued that junk journals wouldn’t want to take the time and effort to create reviews in any way. But a couple of people on Twitter responded that the junk journals could (and apparently sometimes do) ask for reviews, but ignore them.
.
This makes things interesting.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Research Integrity: Case Studies – ORI Resource0

Posted by Admin in on July 5, 2017
 

Follow the story of Dr. Thompson’s laboratory. Experience the issues that arise from being in a small lab through the eyes of a new principal investigator (PI), a postdoctoral fellow, and a graduate student. These case study videos address topics such as mentoring relationships, authorship, publication, data integrity, and potential research misconduct.

Eleven short video case studies explore research integrity topics in a fictional but very relatable laboratory. Even though the setting is a health sciences laboratory the topics are very relevant to collaborative research in other disciplines. The videos are followed by trigger questions for further reflection/discussion.

Biased Peer Review or Flawed Methodology? (2:52)
Choosing the Right Lab (2:52)
Reproducibility or Luck? The Struggle to Get Results (3:46)
Data Cherry Picking (2:57)
The Misuse of Placeholders (2:14)
To Proceed or Not to Proceed Without Raw Data? (4:07)
Crossing the Line into Misconduct (3:45)
I Wrote It, Why Re-Write It? (2:12)
When Authorship Gets Personal (2:33)
How Impact Factors Impact You (1:57)
You Suspect Research Misconduct. Now What? (1:57)

 

View  the  videos on the US ORI  web site

 

How to critically evaluate a manuscript: 12 questions you should always ask yourself – Publons (Tom Culley | April 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on June 30, 2017
 

It’s finally happened: you have received your first invitation to peer review. You accept, pick up your red pen, and shuffle gleefully in your chair. This is your much anticipated contribution to the scientific community. But then the panic sets in: what does peer review really mean, and what should you look out for while reading the manuscript?

Your review can be challenging for new academics. Your role is to help maintain the quality and integrity of published research and, in turn, protect the public from flawed and misleading findings. This may feel like a daunting task given the admissions of fraudulent research practices, surge in retractions and the reproducibility crisis facing science today – but fighting against these problems is not only vital for scholarly communication, it will also improve your own skills as a researcher.

Your peer review contributions will help you understand what editors are looking for, and you’ll become a better writer and a more successful published author in the process. You’ll keep abreast of research in your field, learn new and best-practice methods, and start examining your own research from that critical vantage point.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0