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)

Designing integrated research integrity training: authorship, publication, and peer review (Papers: Mark Hooper, et al)0

Posted by Admin in on March 14, 2018


This paper describes the experience of an academic institution, the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), developing training courses about research integrity practices in authorship, publication, and Journal Peer Review. The importance of providing research integrity training in these areas is now widely accepted; however, it remains an open question how best to conduct this training. For this reason, it is vital for institutions, journals, and peak bodies to share learnings.

We describe how we have collaborated across our institution to develop training that supports QUT’s principles and which is in line with insights from contemporary research on best practices in learning design, universal design, and faculty involvement. We also discuss how we have refined these courses iteratively over time, and consider potential mechanisms for evaluating the effectiveness of the courses more formally.

Hooper, M., Barbour V., Walsh A.., Bradbury, S. and Jacobs J. (2018) Designing integrated research integrity training: authorship, publication, and peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review (2018) 3:2
Publisher (Open Access):

Authorship, Publication, and Peer Review (Guidance: QUT | 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on March 14, 2018

Authorship & Publication and Journal Peer Review are training programs produced by the QUT Library and the Office of Research Ethics and Integrity. You can view and download many of the course materials on this site.

This is quite simply amongst the best institutional online professional development material we’ve seen about research integrity. What we really liked was the use of researcher experience and reflection, which reinforces the message research integrity must be integral to research practice, not separate to the design/conduct/reporting of quality research. Our hearty huzzah! to everyone involved.

Access this resource page

Top 10 Retractions of 2017 – The Scientist (Retraction Watch | December 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on March 12, 2018

Making the list: a journal breaks a retraction record, Nobel laureates Do the Right Thing, and Seinfeld characters write a paper 

When it comes to retractions, we at Retraction Watch always have a lot to say. Especially after spending much of 2017 building our retraction database, which now holds just shy of 16,000 entries—more than 1,000 from 2017 alone. That’s an increase from the 650 total retractions counted by MEDLINE in 2016.

We are big fans of Retraction Watch and this story reflects on the most notable retraction stories from 2017. A discussion of such cases are research integrity workshops can be a useful opportunity to talk about missteps and what they can do to academic careers and promising lines of enquiry.

Of course, scientific misconduct involves more than just retractions. This year, we reported on the loss of a frequently cited (but controversial) resource that deemed some journals “predatory,” the ongoing saga between a Harvard graduate student and his mentor that resulted in a forced psychiatric exam and a restraining order, and a university’s decision to pay a researcher found guilty of misconduct $100,000 to leave.
There are also the stories about decisions not to retract—such as when more than a dozen editorial board members resigned from Scientific Reports after the journal decided to correct, not retract, a paper accused of plagiarism. (The journal eventually decided to add an editor’s note to the story and form a committee to review it.)
But there were also plenty of retractions that caught our notice this year. Here are our picks of the 10 most notable retractons of 2017, in no particular order.


Read the rest of this discussion piece

HEC software shows its director’s paper 88pc plagiarised – The News (Waseem Abbasi | December 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on March 10, 2018

ISLAMABAD: Fighting plagiarism is one of the major functions of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) but the commission’s own Executive Director has allegedly stole over 80 percent of his co-authored research paper from another publication.

As Homer Simpson would say, “DOH!” Reminds us of Greiner setting up ICAC and then having to resign as a result of their investigation.

As per the documents available with The News, the Curriculum Vitae (CV) of current Executive Director of Higher Education Commission (HEC) Dr Arshad Ali mentions a co-authored research paper which is over 88 percent plagiarised when tested with the official software of the commission.
According to HEC Act and rules, the Executive Director is the second most important official of the commission being the principal accounting officer of the body that manages about Rs90 billion budget annually. He acts as head of HEC Secretariat and also as the Secretary of the Commission’s governing body which makes policies on improving quality of education and fighting plagiarism. In an expression of its resolve against academic-theft, the commission has placed about 21 black-listed faculty members and researchers on its website along with its detailed anti-plagiarism policy.

Read the rest of this discussion piece