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

ResourcesPublication ethics

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

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

Single-molecule magnet controversy highlights transparency problems with U.K. research integrity system – C&EN (Mark Peplow | November 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on January 26, 2019

Universities’ reluctance to reveal details of such cases could undermine public trust in research, experts say

For Conrad A. P. Goodwin, June 6, 2017, was a pretty harrowing day. The organometallic chemist, then at the University of Manchester, had just finished his Ph.D. on a high. Earlier that year he had synthesized an organometallic complex called dysprosocenium that could be switched from one stable magnetic state to another. Single-molecule magnets (SMMs) like this might eventually be used in extremely-high-density memory devices, but researchers had previously been able to make SMMs that only operated at ultracold temperatures. Crucially, Goodwin’s molecule could retain its designated magnetic state at up to 60 K—the highest temperature yet for any SMM. By the end of May, Nature had accepted a paper about the work from Goodwin and his colleagues, subject to revisions.

Then, on that fateful June day—months before Goodwin’s report actually published—a paper appeared in Angewandte Chemie describing exactly the same molecule, made in exactly the same way. Goodwin and his colleagues had been scooped. To make matters worse, the team behind the Angewandte paper was led by Richard A. Layfield, a professor whose office was just down the hall from Goodwin’s supervisor, David P. Mills.

“We’d put so much work into it,” recalls Goodwin, who now works at Los Alamos National Laboratory. “The synthetic methodology was brand new, so we thought we were on to something cool. Then, suddenly, the novelty was gone.”

Read the rest of this discussion piece

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