ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)
Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search into
Filter by Categories
Research ethics committees
Research integrity

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesPublication ethics

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Open Access: A Look Back – Scholarly Kitchen (David Crotty | October 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on January 22, 2019
 

Open Access Week 2018 has begun, and as happens each year, I’m never quite sure how The Scholarly Kitchen should (or shouldn’t) participate. This blog has long (unfairly, in my opinion) been cast as “the enemy” of open access (OA). The reality is, as with most things OA, more complex once you get past the sloganeering.

To me, the questions have never been about the concept behind OA (more availability of high quality information is a good thing for the world), but rather the implementation. We’ve been stuck in something of a loop for the last decade, knowing that OA is a good idea, but never getting past flawed ways to put it into action (author-pays Gold OA, which merely shifts the point of inequity from the reader to the author; Green OA which, if efficiently implemented threatens to destroy the subscription journals upon which it relies; and an insistence on one-size-fits-all policies).

Today’s OA world seems split between those who are actively experimenting with new models, looking for something better, and those determined to force change upon academic culture and business practices to fit the models already in hand.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Cribbing from Kribbe: UK criminology prof loses four papers for plagiarism – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | January 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on January 13, 2019
 

This item may seem of only very specific interest (relating as it does to criminological research in the UK), but we’ve decided to post it in the library because it relates to plagiarism after a colleague has left academia and it was caught some years after the fact.

A professor of criminology at Middlesex University London has had four papers retracted because at least three of them cribbed significantly from a PhD thesis written by someone named Kribbe.
.
Three of the four retractions for the professor, Anthony Amatrudo, appear in International Journal of Law in Context. One of the notices reads:
.

It has been brought to our attention that the above article (Amatrudo, D. (2012)) reuses sections of Hans Kribbe, Corporate Personality: A Political Theory of Association (2003) without permission or acknowledgement and has therefore been retracted. The author acknowledges this with regret.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Blowback Against a Hoax – Inside Higher Ed (Colleen Flaherty | January 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on January 11, 2019
 

Author of a recent academic scam faces disciplinary action by Portland State, for failing to alert his research review board before hoodwinking journal editors with outrageous articles. Many say he’s guilty of bad form, but did he commit misconduct?

There may be value in a covert study such as this, but it has to be argued before the research ethics committee on grounds of merit and justification for covert research. You can’t just say we are going ahead without the research ethics review because there is no way they would approve. You don’t only go to the research ethics committee with studies that they will approve. You need to test your views and argue your case.
.
How would your institution’s research ethics committee approach a proposed project like this and what would your institution do about the failure to seek ethics approval? We agree with Ivan Oransky’s comments at the end get of this news item.

A hoax revealing that academic journals had accepted fake papers on topics from canine “rape culture” in dog parks to “fat bodybuilding” to an adaption of Mein Kampf met with applause and scorn in the fall. Fans of the project tended to agree with the hoaxers that critical studies scholars will validate anything aligned with their politics. Critics said that the researchers acted in bad faith, wasting editors’ and reviewers’ time and very publicly besmirching academe in the process: the story was covered by nearly every major news outlet.
.
Now the controversy has flared up again, with news that one of the project’s authors faces disciplinary action at his home institution. Peter Boghossian, an assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University and the only one of three researchers on the project to hold a full-time academic position, was found by his institutional review board to have committed research misconduct. Specifically, he failed to secure its approval before proceeding with research on human subjects — in this case, the journal editors and reviewers he was tricking with his absurd but seemingly well-researched papers. Some seven of 20 were published in gender studies and other journals. Seven were rejected. Others were pending before the spoof was uncovered.
.
“An IRB protocol application should have been submitted to the Office of Research Integrity,” reads a determination letter from Portland state’s IRB dated last month. “University policy requires that all research involving human subjects conducted by faculty, other employees and students [on campus] must have prior review and approval by the IRB.”
.

Read the rest of this news item

Even potential participants of a research integrity conference commit plagiarism, organizers learn – Retraction Watch (Lex Bouter | January 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on January 11, 2019
 

One would hope that researchers submitting abstracts for a meeting on research integrity would be less likely to commit research misconduct. But if the experience of the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity is any indication, that may not be the case. Here, the co-organizers of the conference — Lex Bouter, Daniel Barr, and Mai Har Sham — explain.

We’re not sure that offering the same paper to different conferences is remotely unusual or viewed adversely in many disciplines, at least not in those where abstracts are not published. There is another lesson for those disciplines – make sure you know the rules of the game that you are playing

Recently the 430 abstracts submitted for the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI) were peer reviewed. After an alarming report of apparent plagiarism from one of the 30 reviewers, text similarity checking was conducted on all the abstracts received using Turnitin. This identified 12 suspected cases of plagiarism and 18 suspected cases of self-plagiarism. Abstracts with a Turnitin Similarity Index above 30% (ranging from 37% to 94%) were further assessed and labelled as potential self-plagiarism if overlapping texts had at least one author in common.
.

We did not investigate the 18 cases of suspected self-plagiarism further, but decided to exclude them from oral presentation and to consider them as eligible for poster presentation only. In the call for abstracts we did not say that submissions should contain work that had not been presented or published before. Furthermore, the abstract form did not allow for references to earlier presentations or publications. For future conferences we will explicitly ask whether the work is novel and to provide references to earlier presentations or publications. We do not believe that novelty is an absolute condition for eligibility as there may be good reasons to present important work to different audiences or to present important work that has recently been published but might have escaped being noticed.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0