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)

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 Surprisingly, among those 41 manuscripts, 21 were withdrawn without providing raw data, indicating that requiring raw data drove away more than half of the manuscripts.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

Testing of Support Tools for Plagiarism Detection (Papers: Tomáš Foltýnek, et al | February 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on May 6, 2020
 

Abstract
There is a general belief that software must be able to easily do things that humans find difficult. Since finding sources for plagiarism in a text is not an easy task, there is a wide-spread expectation that it must be simple for software to determine if a text is plagiarized or not. Software cannot determine plagiarism, but it can work as a support tool for identifying some text similarity that may constitute plagiarism. But how well do the various systems work? This paper reports on a collaborative test of 15 web-based text-matching systems that can be used when plagiarism is suspected. It was conducted by researchers from seven countries using test material in eight different languages, evaluating the effectiveness of the systems on single-source and multi-source documents. A usability examination was also performed. The sobering results show that although some systems can indeed help identify some plagiarized content, they clearly do not find all plagiarism and at times also identify non-plagiarized material as problematic.

Keywords
text-matching software, software testing, plagiarism, plagiarism detection tools, usability testing

Foltýnek, T., Dlabolová, D., Anohina-Naumeca, A., Razı, S., Kravjar, J., Kamzola, L., Guerrero-Dib, J., Çelik, O. & Weber-Wulff}, D. (2020) Testing of Support Tools for Plagiarism Detection. arXiv
Publisher (Open Access): https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.04279.pdf

0