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)

(JAP) Japanese stem cell fraud leads to a new retraction – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | January 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on February 23, 2019
 

Last March, we reported on the retraction of a 2017 paper in Stem Cell Reports by Kohei Yamamizu and colleagues for widespread fabrication of figures. Turns out the problems were at least five years older than that.

Yamamizu had received a pink slip from his institution, the Center for iPS Cell Research and Application (CiRA), which had put the blame for the misconduct squarely on his shoulders. (The director of the institute, Nobel winner Shinya Yamanaka, also took some of the blame in a public statement in which he said he bore “a strong responsibility for not having prevented research misconduct at our institute.”)

Yamamizu has a new retraction, but this time’s a bit different. Here’s the notice for the paper, “Protein Kinase A Determines Timing of Early Differentiation through Epigenetic Regulation with G9,” which appeared in Cell Stem Cell in June 2012 (Yamanaka was not a co-author on either study).  Although the statement acknowledges the internal investigation, it doesn’t mention misconduct or name Yamamizu:

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Oft-quoted paper on spread of fake news turns out to be…fake news – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | January 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on February 20, 2019
 

The authors of an much-ballyhooed 2017 paper about the spread of fake news on social media have retracted their article after finding that they’d botched their analysis.

Sometimes the irony of a forced retraction is too delicious to ignore. The story is also a painful reminder of why researchers need to triple check the data and analysis, then check it again. The career damage retractions, even self retractions, is too serious to risk.

The paper, “Limited individual attention and online virality of low-quality information,” presented an argument for why bogus facts seem to gain so much traction on sites such as Facebook. According to the researchers — — from Shanghai Institute of Technology, Indiana University and Yahoo — the key was in the sheer volume of bad information, which swamps the brain’s ability to discern the real from the merely plausible or even the downright ridiculous, competing with limited attention spans and time.
.

As they reported:
.

Our main finding is that survival of the fittest is far from a foregone conclusion where information is concerned.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Paper submitted for publication without consent or knowledge of co-authors (COPE Case Study)0

Posted by Admin in on February 16, 2019
 

An article was submitted by corresponding author (CA) on 19 December 2011. After several revisions the article was accepted for publication on 23 March 2012. The article was published online 8 May 2012.

At the time of submission, CA was a PhD student at a research centre (X).

On 21 November 2012, co-author A (also head of the research group) contacted the publisher and editor-in-chief of journal A with a request to retract the published article claiming the following:

Read the rest of this case study
Also  available as an audio file

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

 

 

0