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)

Cut-throat academia leads to ‘natural selection of bad science’, claims study – The Guardian (Hannah Devlin September 2016)0

Posted by Admin in on September 23, 2016
 

Scientists incentivised to publish surprising results frequently in major journals, despite risk that such findings are likely to be wrong, suggests research.

Getting stuff right is normally regarded as science’s central aim. But a new analysis has raised the existential spectre that universities, laboratory chiefs and academic journals are contributing to the “natural selection of bad science”.

To thrive in the cut-throat world of academia, scientists are incentivised to publish surprising findings frequently, the study suggests – despite the risk that such findings are “most likely to be wrong”…

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Ask The Chefs: What Is The Future Of Peer Review? – The Scholarly Kitchen (Ann Michael September 2016)0

Posted by Admin in on September 21, 2016
 

After the successful its successful debut last year, Peer Review Week is back — and it’s next week!

In the spirit of participation, we’ve asked the Chefs: What is the future of peer review?

Kent Anderson: If you take mainstream scientists and editors seriously, you could reasonably believe that the future of peer review will manifest as incremental improvements on current and past peer review approaches. If you take critics of peer review seriously, you could reasonably believe that the future of peer review will be a radical revision of current and past peer review approaches. If you take the gloomy forecasts of peer review workload seriously, you could reasonably believe that peer review — either incrementally improved or radically revised — is doomed to fail in the mid-term. So, what’s the future of peer review? I think it will represent all three forces proportionally — a vast and resilient center based on current practices enhanced by incremental improvements; a small and loud set of critics driving introspection and some embroidery around the edges; and a continued search for qualified reviewers and for reward systems that keep reviewers engaged…

Read the full discussion piece

Review Articles: The Black-Market of Scientific Currency (Papers: Lee W. Cohnstaedt, Jesse Poland 2016)0

Posted by Admin in on September 19, 2016
 

Citations are the scientific currency that quantifies the success of an individual or journal. Impact factor, H-factor, and other derivatives of citation number determine an author’s prestige in addition to a possible monetary value when journal articles are examined for job promotion, recognition awards, and grants. Similarly, journals that are more highly cited are viewed as more competitive and to have a broader readership. The correlation states, the more highly cited a paper or journal, the greater the importance and advancement of the research field. However, these assumptions are flawed because review papers are more commonly cited than original manuscripts in all…

Cohnstaedt LW, Poland J (2016) Review Articles: The Black-Market of Scientific Currency. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aesa/saw061
Open access: http://aesa.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/09/07/aesa.saw061.full

Seven Things Every Scholarly Publisher Should Know about Researchers – The Scholarly Kitchen (Alice Meadows and Karin Wulf August 2016)0

Posted by Admin in on September 12, 2016
 

Earlier this year we wrote about the “Seven Things Every Researcher Should Know about Scholarly Publishing”, one of several recent posts seeking to improve understanding of scholarly communications among all stakeholders. These included Charlie Rapple’s post on “Three Things Scholarly Publishers Should Know about Researchers” and an Ask the Chefs forum focused on misconceptions about scholarly publishing.

The start of a new academic year in the northern hemisphere seemed like a good time for us to return to this theme, but from the opposite perspective as our original post, asking this time what scholarly publishers should know about the researchers they serve. We’ve highlighted the same seven themes: ecosystem, scholarly hygiene, business models, peer review, metrics, tools, and licenses and copyright. It was interesting to note which of them smoothly translate from the perspective of researchers versus publishers and vice versa. Mostly we found that sticking with the same themes helped to highlight connections and commonalities.

Many who work in scholarly publishing have little or no research experience themselves; even fewer do so in the field in which they publish. In an Ask the Chefs forum debating the value of research experience for publishers by asking whether publishers benefit from an advanced degree, views on the topic were mixed. Publishing is its own business, requiring a specific set of skills and knowledge, as are other fields in scholarly communication, most significantly libraries. So, while an advanced degree in the discipline you’re publishing in can be helpful in some ways, it may not be necessary, and is often not as important as other types of experience. However, just as researchers need an understanding of how scholarly publishing works, it is also essential that scholarly publishers understand researchers and their research – what they do, and when, why and how they do it…

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0