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

ResourcesResearch integrity

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

What Research Institutions Can Do to Foster Research Integrity (Papers: Lex Bouter | January 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on April 20, 2020
 

Abstract

A great open access reference when talking about research integrity and informing responsible practice.  We have included links to 38 other related reads.

In many countries attention for fostering research integrity started with a misconduct case that got a lot of media exposure. But there is an emerging consensus that questionable research practices are more harmful due to their high prevalence. QRPs have in common that they can help to make study results more exciting, more positive and more statistically significant. That makes them tempting to engage in. Research institutions have the duty to empower their research staff to steer away from QRPs and to explain how they realize that in a Research Integrity Promotion Plan. Avoiding perverse incentives in assessing researchers for career advancement is an important element in that plan. Research institutions, funding agencies and journals should make their research integrity policies as evidence-based as possible. The dilemmas and distractions researchers face are real and universal. We owe it to society to collaborate and to do our utmost best to prevent QRPs and to foster research integrity.

Bouter, L. (2020) What Research Institutions Can Do to Foster Research Integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00178-5
Publisher (Open Access): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-020-00178-5

(Australia) Thousands of researchers in Australia appear on editorial boards of ‘predatory’ journals – Nature Index (Dalmeet Singh Chawla | April 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on April 19, 2020
 

One in four said they were not aware of their names being used.

More than 3,700 researchers based at Australian institutions — roughly 7% of the country’s academic community — as of mid-2019 appeared on the editorial boards of journals that are potentially predatory.

Given the toxic effects of junk science these numbers are troubling.  What we find especially troubling is the three quarters who were aware their names are being used to prop up questionable publishers.  We have included links to 40 related items.

That’s the finding of a new study, which examined how often researchers affiliated with Australian universities are listed on the editorial boards of journals with ‘questionable’ reputations.
.

Conducted by Michael Downes, an independent researcher in Queensland, Australia, the study looked at the 1,165 “potential predatory publishers” identified by librarian Jeffrey Beall on his widely read but controversial blog. The blog was discontinued in 2017, but the list remains online.
.

According to Downes, one-third of these publishers have disappeared, haven’t thrived, or have become inactive since 2017. In addition to those that remain active, Downes identified 162 journals that he classified as potentially predatory.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Digital magic, or the dark arts of the 21st century – how can journals and peer reviewers detect manuscripts and publications from paper mills? (Papers: Jennifer A. Byrne & Jana Christopher | February 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on April 19, 2020
 

Abstract
In recent years, it has been proposed that unrealistic requirements for academics and medical doctors to publish in scientific journals, combined with monetary publication rewards, have led to forms of contract cheating offered by organizations known as paper mills. Paper mills are alleged to offer products ranging from research data through to ghostwritten fraudulent or fabricated manuscripts and submission services. While paper mill operations remain poorly understood, it seems likely that paper mills need to balance product quantity and quality, such that they produce or contribute to large numbers of manuscripts that will be accepted for publication. Producing manuscripts at scale may be facilitated by the use of manuscript templates, which could give rise to shared features such as textual and organizational similarities, the description of highly generic study hypotheses and experimental approaches, digital images that show evidence of manipulation and/or reuse, and/or errors affecting verifiable experimental reagents. Based on these features, we propose practical steps that editors, journal staff, and peer reviewers can take to recognize and respond to research manuscripts and publications that may have been produced with undeclared assistance from paper mills.

Byrne, J.A. and Christopher, J. (2020), Digital magic, or the dark arts of the 21st century—how can journals and peer reviewers detect manuscripts and publications from paper mills?. FEBS Lett, 594: 583-589. doi:10.1002/1873-3468.13747
Publisher (Open Access): https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1002%2F1873-3468.13747

(US) Highly cited researcher banned from journal board for citation abuse – Nature (Richard Van Noorden | February 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on April 19, 2020
 

Investigation finds that biophysicist Kuo-Chen Chou repeatedly suggested dozens of citations be added to papers

A US-based biophysicist who is one of the world’s most highly cited researchers has been removed from the editorial board of one journal and barred as a reviewer for another, after repeatedly manipulating the peer-review process to amass citations to his own work.

On 29 January, three editors at the Journal of Theoretical Biology (JTB) announced in an editorial that the journal had investigated and barred an unnamed editor from the board for “scientific misconduct of the highest order”.

The journal’s publisher, Elsevier, confirmed to Nature that the barred editor is Kuo-Chen Chou, who founded and runs an organization that he calls the Gordon Life Science Institute, in Boston, Massachusetts. According to the editorial, Chou asked authors of dozens of papers he was editing to cite a long list of his publications — sometimes more than 50 — and suggested that they change the titles of their papers to mention an algorithm he had developed.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0