ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesPublication ethics

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Supervision and HDR candidate research outputs (Resource material: Griffith University | June 2018) UPDATED 14/02/190

Posted by Admin in on February 13, 2019

[This resource paper has been updated to reflect: the release of the Australian Code (2018); the release of the Griffith University Responsible Conduct of Research policy; changes to the NHMRC and Griffith University websites; and refreshing some of the links. Full disclaimer AHRECS senior consultant Dr Gary Allen co-authored this document.].

Griffith University has produced a resource paper for HDR supervisors about HDR candidate research outputs titled Planning for success and avoiding pitfalls. This work is licensed under an Attribution CC BY Version 4.0 International licence. You are free to use this work as long as you reference as follows: This document based upon a resource created at Griffith University.

The resource paper (principally produced by Dr Gary Allen) includes the following sections:

1.0 Defining authorship
2.0 Advantages of co-authorship
3.0 National and Griffith University policy frameworks
4.0 International guidelines
5.0 Who can/should be listed as authors for a candidate’s research outputs?
6.0 Order of authorship
7.0 Publication Plan
8.0 Publication Ethics
9.0 Conflicts of Interest
10.0 Selecting a Publisher
11.0 Collegiate discussion but prudent practice
12.0 Sources of advice
13.0 Specialist Workshops
A list of tips
Links to further resources
It includes recommended further reading



25% researchers worldwide unaware, confused what is plagiarism: Survey – Business Standard (Press Trust of India | November 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on February 3, 2019

Majority reported that reusing text from their own previously published study is not plagiarism, irrespective of whether the study is cited

Findings like this suggest that research integrity professional development activities and resources should include tips and guidance on plagiarism and self-plagiarism

At least 25 per cent of researchers worldwide have a poor understanding of and ethics, according to a new

The report titled “Perspectives on Academic Publishing: Global Report 2018″ provides insights into various aspects of research publication such as challenges authors face in manuscript preparation, communicating with journals and responding to peer reviewer comments.

Over 7000 researchers from India, Republic of Korea, Japan, and were interviewed for the conducted by Editage, a global firm.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Mentors help authors say “no” to predatory journals – Elsevier Connect (Marilynn Larkin | November 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on February 2, 2019

Senior researchers can be role models, sharing their wisdom and experience in navigating a changing publishing landscape

While Elsevier Connect is not without a perceived conflict of interest in making this point, we agree. We also believe the role of mentor and mentoree should be viewed broadly, so it isn’t just supervisor and HDR candidate it is also experienced researchers and early career researchers in a project team, co-authors working on a research output and within a research centre. It also includes the role of a collegiate network of Research Integrity Advisers and the too-often-unsung role of research librarians.

The proliferation of predatory journals has become increasingly problematic, prompting collaborations among scientific publishers, universities, government bodies and nonprofits to raise awareness about their threat to the integrity of science. However, senior researchers also have a role to play, working one-on-one with students, colleagues and collaborators to promote the value of publishing in reputable journals that provide rigorous processes and can enhance a career over the long term.

“I get about 20 emails every day from predatory journals and organizers of questionable conferences,” says Dr. Dimiter Avtanski, Director of  the Endocrine Research Laboratory at Friedman Diabetes Institute at Lenox Hill Hospital, Northwell Health. Dr. Avtanski, a member of Elsevier’s Advisory Board, says he can tell very quickly by looking at the website whether a journal or conference is legitimate and worth considering. Red flags include spelling and grammatical errors, hyperbolic claims and false impact factors.

But he is aware that less experienced researchers may not take this step. Propelled by the pressure to publish, he says, “some feel desperate. It’s a systemic problem. Without constantly publishing papers, staying in this field is impossible. Predatory journals take advantage of that.”

Read the rest of this discussion piece

A colleague included plagiarized material in your grant proposal. Are you liable? – Retraction Watch (Richard Goldstein | December 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on January 29, 2019

Last month, a judge recommended that a former University of Kansas Medical Center professor be banned from Federal U.S. funding for two years. The ban came after an investigation showed that the researcher, Rakesh Srivastava, had submitted a grant application that was heavily plagiarized from someone else’s. But there’s far more to the case, as Richard Goldstein –who represented the scientist in Bois v. HHS, the first case to overturn a funding ban by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI), and who has written about another case for us — argues in this guest post. 

Picture this scenario: You submit an NIH grant proposal.  Unbeknownst to you, it contains material plagiarized from another scientist.  Are you liable for research misconduct?

“The answer is clearly yes.”  That’s according to a recent decision by Administrative Law Judge Keith Sickendick, of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in a case involving a former University of Kansas Medical Center professor.

Read the rest of this discussion piece