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

Medical science faces the post-truth era (Papers: Sebastian Heinrich | April 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on May 13, 2020
 

Abstract

Purpose of review
Science and its public perception are compromised by scientific fraud and predatory journals, and also by the general erosion of the meaning of truth in the so-called post-truth era. These developments have significant influence on scientific medicine and their impact on the public discourse. The purpose of this article is to show how fake science, and also the uncritical dissemination of compromised results in public and social media, threatens scientific medicine.

Recent findings

There are very real and serious consequences that can arise from the publication of junk science.  It also can undermine public confidence in research.  Institutions and academic bodies must stamp out publication in questionable publishers. We have included links to 15 related reads.

As social media rises to the preferred source of information of ever larger parts of the modern societies, the dissemination of falsified scientific results within the communities is almost unstoppable. With growing numbers of predatory journals and repetitive cases of fake science, the risk of publication of false results increases. Due to the underlying mechanisms of the post-truth era and social media, these compromised results find their way to the public discourse and continue to be disseminated even when they were, beyond all doubt, proven to be a lie. In medical sciences, dissemination of falsified results directly threats health and life of patients.
.

Summary
In the post-truth era, publication of false results in predatory journals and by fraudulent authors become even more dangerous for the health and life of patients, as their dissemination via new social media is nearly unstoppable and in the public perception truth is losing its meaning. The scientific community has implemented specific counter-measures to minimize the chances of false results being published. However, it is even more important that every participant in the scientific process assumes the responsibility according to his or her role. An orientation towards the values that have constituted and formed science is helpful in fulfilling this responsibility.
.

Keywords
fake science, loss of meaning of scientific truth, post-truth era, scientific fraud, value-based responsibility
.

Heinrich S. (2020) Medical science faces the post-truth era: a plea for the grassroot values of science. Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology. 2020 Apr; 33(2):198-202. DOI: 10.1097/aco.0000000000000833.
Publisher: https://journals.lww.com/co-anesthesiology/Citation/2020/04000/Medical_science_faces_the_post_truth_era__a_plea.12.aspx

No raw data, no science: another possible source of the reproducibility crisis (Papers: Tsuyoshi Miyakawa | February 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on May 11, 2020
 

Abstract
A reproducibility crisis is a situation where many scientific studies cannot be reproduced. Inappropriate practices of science, such as HARKing, p-hacking, and selective reporting of positive results, have been suggested as causes of irreproducibility. In this editorial, I propose that a lack of raw data or data fabrication is another possible cause of irreproducibility.

As an Editor-in-Chief of Molecular Brain, I have handled 180 manuscripts since early 2017 and have made 41 editorial decisions categorized as “Revise before review,” requesting that the authors provide raw data. Surprisingly, among those 41 manuscripts, 21 were withdrawn without providing raw data, indicating that requiring raw data drove away more than half of the manuscripts. I rejected 19 out of the remaining 20 manuscripts because of insufficient raw data. Thus, more than 97% of the 41 manuscripts did not present the raw data supporting their results when requested by an editor, suggesting a possibility that the raw data did not exist from the beginning, at least in some portions of these cases.

Considering that any scientific study should be based on raw data, and that data storage space should no longer be a challenge, journals, in principle, should try to have their authors publicize raw data in a public database or journal site upon the publication of the paper to increase reproducibility of the published results and to increase public trust in science.

Keywords
Raw data, Data fabrication, Open data, Open science, Misconduct, Reproducibility

Miyakawa, T. (2020) No raw data, no science: another possible source of the reproducibility crisis. Molecular Brain 13(24)
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13041-020-0552-2
Publisher (Open Access):  https://molecularbrain.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13041-020-0552-2

(India) ‘Self-Plagiarism, Text Recycling Not Acceptable’: UGC – NDTV (Anisha Kumari | April 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on May 8, 2020
 

In a notice now available on UGC website, the Commission says that reproduction of one’s own previously published work without citation is not acceptable.

New Delhi: In a bid to check self-plagiarism in the academia, University Grants Commission (UGC) has released guidelines and will be issuing parameters to evaluate instances of text recycling/self-plagiarism soon.

Hopefully, the new guideline for India will recognise where in a work the recycled text appears.  We have included links to 10 related items.

In a notice now available on UGC website, the Commission says that reproduction of one’s own previously published work without citation is not acceptable.
.

“Reproduction, in part or whole, of one’s own previously published work without adequate citation and proper acknowledgement and claiming the most recent work as new and original for any academic advantage amounts to ‘text-recycling’ (also known as ‘self-plagiarism’) and is not acceptable,” reads the UGC notice.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

The ethics of authorship and preparation of research publications – World Aquaculture Society (Carole R. Engle | April 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on May 7, 2020
 

Graduate students around the world are commonly required to take classes on research ethics that include content related to the ethics of authorship. Scientific journals have established formal policies on the ethics of authorship that are often readily accessible to authors on journal websites.

1 BACKGROUND

Part of a journal editor’s responsibility relates to ethical issues associated with the articles published in the journal. While the majority of authors who submit articles to the Journal of the World Aquaculture Society (JWAS) adhere routinely to high ethical standards of authorship, there always are a few exceptions. In some cases, the behavior in question appears unintentional, caused by either a lack of understanding of the issues involved or students and young scientists who lack understanding of publishing ethics. In other cases, however, the unethical behavior is deliberate. Whether deliberate or unintentional, however, the consequences for research misconduct from unethical behavior are intolerable and can be severe. This editorial is written to provide clarity about what constitutes ethical and unethical practices related to publishing in scientific journals and to encourage authors to adhere to them when submitting to JWAS.

Quite useful but is it terribly original (the irony)?  We’ve included links to 22 related reads.

Graduate students around the world are commonly required to take classes on research ethics that include content related to the ethics of authorship. Scientific journals have established formal policies on the ethics of authorship that are often readily accessible to authors on journal websites. In attempting to avoid ethical problems, the manuscript submission process of many journals requires the submitting author to check boxes in response to a series of statements that attest to adherence to key ethical considerations. Authors of articles with decisions to accept must also sign a copyright agreement, a legally binding agreement with the publisher designed to clarify publishing rights and prevent ethical mishaps. Given the stated precautions, it is frankly difficult as an editor to understand why there continues to be so many instances of unethical behavior on the part of authors who submit manuscripts to scientific journals.
.

The issue of the pressures today on young scientists to focus on the number of articles published and not necessarily the quality is a longstanding topic (Arlinghaus, 2014; Siegel & Baveye, 2010). There is no question that systems which evaluate research scientists exclusively on the number of articles published fuel the competition to publish as many articles as possible, regardless of how small a contribution an individual article makes to the scientific literature (Engle, 2018). Ultimately, however, each scientist is responsible for his/her own actions in response to such existing pressures, and each scientist must personally reflect on whether his/her actions are right or wrong and whether they violate ethical standards. Unethical behavior by research scientists is a form of misconduct that can lead to serious consequences that may include termination of employment. The following issues describe several types of unethical behaviors related to publishing. The final section provides guidelines designed to consistently adhere to high ethical standards when publishing scientific articles.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0