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)

Unsettling Research Ethics: A Collaborative Conference Report (Resources: Natalie JK Baloy et al 2016)0

Posted by Admin in on October 10, 2016
 

An Invitational Conference
February 25-26, 2016
Collaborative Conference Report
June 30, 2016

The UC Center for Collaborative Research for an Equitable California (CCREC) is a multi-campus research initiative that links inter/trans-disciplinary university researchers, community organizations, and policy makers in equity-oriented, collaborative, community-based research projects. These projects aim to achieve creative solutions to the interrelated challenges in the economy, employment, education, environment, food systems, housing, and public health. CCREC seeds, incubates, and supports ethically informed collaborative research for justice, and it prepares a new generation of engaged scholars and community leaders who seek to make truth matter in the public sphere. CCREC also builds institutional capacity for collaborative community-based research methodologies. At the same time, CCREC undertakes critical analyses of these very modes of research and the complex ethical questions they raise for university collaborations with aggrieved communities specifically and for social science research more broadly.

Executive summary

The University of California Center for Collaborative Research for an Equitable California (CCREC) hosted the Unsettling Research Ethics invitational conference in February 2016. Designed to disrupt formalized approaches to research ethics, the conference facilitated critical dialogue among social scientists, ethics specialists, community-based and collaborative researchers, and community leaders. This dialogue was graphically visualized and documented in real time by a graphic facilitator, Julie Gieseke of Map the Mind, thereby providing materials used in the knowledge production of the conference itself and reworked for this report.

The Unsettling Research Ethics conference and report presents a distinctive framework for grappling with the ethics of research, surfacing ethical tensions and dilemmas through the domains of knowledge, relationality, and space and time. This framework aims to deepen ethical praxis and professional formation for researchers and collaborators. Included in this report are learning tools like innovative cases, games, heat maps, and other materials designed for deep engagement with fraught ethical matters…

Baloy, Natalie JK, Sheeva Sabati, and Ronald David Glass (Editors). Unsettling Research Ethics: A Collaborative Conference Report. Santa Cruz, CA: UC Center for Collaborative Research for an Equitable California. June 30, 2016. https://ccrec.ucsc.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/2016.06.30%20Unsettling%20Research%20Ethics%20Report_LOW%20Res.pdf

Publish and be cited! Impact Factors, Open Access, and the plight of peer review – OUP Blog (Catherine Cotton September)0

Posted by Admin in on October 8, 2016
 

This coming week (19-25 September) is Peer Review Week 2016, an international initiative that celebrates the essential and often undervalued activity of academic peer review. Launched last year by Sense about Science, ORCID, ScienceOpen and Wiley, Peer Review Week follows in the wake of two open letters from the academic community on the issue of peer review recognition. The first was from early career researchers in the UK to the Higher Education Funding Council for England in July, and the second from Australian academics to the Australian Research Council two years later.

Now in its second year, Peer Review Week is focusing on the issue of Peer Review recognition, its current coordinating committee including additional organisations such as AAAS, COPE, eLife, and the Royal Society and the Federation of European Microbiological Societies (FEMS). This focus stems from the fact that while perceived as important, peer review is often regarded as a secondary activity to publication by decision makers across the Higher Education and funding sectors. This is something that David Colquhoun, Professor of Pharmacology at the UK’s University College London, firmly attributed to the ‘publish or perish’ culture imposed by “research funders and senior people in universities” some years ago.

It’s a view echoed in the preliminary findings of one of two new surveys on peer review, the first released by FEMS as part of this week’s activities, which reveals that, at least among the global microbiology community, authors subject to peer review perceive greater professional development benefits from the process than do the people carrying out the reviews. And what lies at the heart of this – and is clear from Colquhoun’s comments – is the influence of Eugene Garfield’s infamous journal “Impact Factor”. For in practice it is not so much publications, as citations, that are held in such high regard. Indeed without citations, says Nature blog’s Richard van Noorden, a publication may be regarded as “practically useless”.

Read the rest of this news story

Robot-Written Peer Reviews – Inside Higher Ed (Jack Grove September 2016)0

Posted by Admin in on September 27, 2016
 

Computer-generated gobbledygook can pass for the real thing with many faculty members, study finds.

Soulless computer algorithms are already churning out weather bulletins, sports reports, rap lyrics and even passable Chinese poetry.

But it seems machines have now taken another step toward replacing human enterprise by generating their own reviews of serious academic journal papers that are able to impress even experienced academics.

Using automatic text generation software, computer scientists at Italy’s University of Trieste created a series of fake peer reviews of genuine journal papers and asked academics of different levels of seniority to say whether they agreed with their recommendations to accept for publication or not.

Read the full news story

 

Handbook of Best Practices in Peer Review Published (Guidance)0

Posted by Admin in on September 25, 2016
 

Outlines High Standards in Peer Review for Scholarly Monographs

June 8, 2016 (New York, NY, and Washington, DC)—The Association of American University Presses (AAUP) today released Best Practices for Peer Review, an AAUP Handbook. The handbook articulates a set of practices that comprise a rigorous process of peer review for scholarly monographs. “Best Practices for Peer Review” will serve as a core resource for the AAUP community, providing a guide for new editors in the field and new scholarly publishing programs, as well as a reference point for scholars, authors, and universities.

Read and download Best Practices for Peer Review

The handbook was drafted through a two-year consensus-building process by the 2014-15 and 2015-16 AAUP Acquisitions Editorial Committees, chaired by Mary Francis (2014-15, University of Michigan Press) and Mick Gusinde-Duffy (2015-16, University of Georgia Press). AAUP thanks both the committees for their dedication and hard work, as well as all those individuals who contributed their expertise to the Handbook’s development.

More about the handbook

0