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)

Citation Cartel Or Editor Gone Rogue? – Scholarly Kitchen (Phil Davis | March 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on July 10, 2017
 

How much can a single editor distort the citation record? Ivan Oransky at Retraction Watch has been tracking the fallout of Artemi Cerdà, the recently departed Editor-in-Chief of Land Degradation & Development (LDD) and editorial board member of several journals in the geophysical sciences.

The allegation? Setting up a citation cartel.

The European Geosciences Union (EGU) undertook a detailed investigation of Cerdà along with several other EGU editors to determine the extent of the damage.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

(China) Fake peer review, forged authors, fake funding: Everything’s wrong with brain cancer paper – Retraction Watch (Victoria Stern | July 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on July 10, 2017
 

The paper had everything: Fake peer review, forged authors, even a fake funder.

In other words, it had nothing.

A 2015 paper is the latest retraction stemming from an investigation into fake peer review by Springer, which has now netted more than a hundred papers.

Read the rest of this news story

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

0