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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesResearch integrity

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Transparent Attribution of Contributions to Research: Aligning Guidelines to Real-Life Practices (Papers: Valerie Matarese and Karen Shashok | April 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on August 28, 2019
 

Abstract

Research studies, especially in the sciences, may benefit from substantial non-author support without which they could not be completed or published. The term “contributorship” was coined in 1997 to recognize all contributions to a research study, but its implementation (mostly in biomedical reports) has been limited to the inclusion of an “Author Contributions” statement that omits other contributions. To standardize the reporting of contributions across disciplines, irrespective of whether a given contribution merits authorship or acknowledgment, the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) was launched in 2014. Our assessment, however, shows that in practice, CRediT is a detailed authorship classification that risks denying appropriate credit for persons who contribute as non-authors. To illustrate the shortcomings in CRediT and suggest improvements, in this article we review key concepts of authorship and contributorship and examine the range of non-author contributions that may (or may not) be acknowledged. We then briefly describe different types of editorial support provided by (non-author) translators, authors’ editors and writers, and explain why it is not always acknowledged. Finally, we propose two new CRediT taxa and revisions to three existing taxa regarding both technical and editorial support, as a small but important step to make credit attribution more transparent, accurate and open. View Full-Text

Keywords: accountability; acknowledgment; author; authors’ editor; contributor; CRediT; editing; ethics; translation; writing

Matarese, V., Shashok, K. (2019) Transparent Attribution of Contributions to Research: Aligning Guidelines to Real-Life Practices. Publications 7 (24)
Publisher (Open Access): https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/2/24#metrics

(Japan) Former university president up to ten retractions – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | April 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on August 24, 2019
 

The former president of Tohoku University in Japan has just had a tenth paper retracted, because it duplicated one of his earlier works.

One of the most recent retractions by materials scientist Akihisa Inoue, late last month, was of a paper in Materials Transactions that had duplicated a now-retracted paper and was subject to an expression of concern in 2012:

This article had been acknowledged by the Editorial Committee of Materials Transactions as the secondary publication from the previously published paper, because the contents were almost identical. Recently, the original paper was retracted. Unreferred reproduction from another paper which was not pointed out in the announcement has also been found. Therefore, this article is improper as a scientific paper, and it is retracted with the primary author’s agreement. The authors are required to pay more careful attention to contributing papers.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Doing the right thing: Psychology researchers retract paper three days after learning of coding error – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | August 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on August 21, 2019
 

The news you’ve made a critical error in the analysis of a project’s data can be devastating.  Particularly given the career harming consequences that can be associated with retractions.  So, like Retraction Watch, we congratulate this psychology team for their prompt and responsible actions.

We always hesitate to call retraction statements “models” of anything, but this one comes pretty close to being a paragon.
.

Psychology researchers in Germany and Scotland have retracted their 2018 paper in Acta Psychologica after learning of a coding error in their work that proved fatal to the results. That much is routine. Remarkable in this case is how the authors lay out what happened next.
.

The study, “Auditory (dis-)fluency triggers sequential processing adjustments:”
.

investigated as to whether the challenge to understand speech signals in normal-hearing subjects would also lead to sequential processing adjustments if the processing fluency of the respective auditory signals changes from trial to trial. To that end, we used spoken number words (one to nine) that were either presented with high (clean speech) or low perceptual fluency (i.e., vocoded speech as used in cochlear implants-Experiment 1; speech embedded in multi-speaker babble noise as typically found in bars-Experiment 2). Participants had to judge the spoken number words as smaller or larger than five. Results show that the fluency effect (performance difference between high and low perceptual fluency) in both experiments was smaller following disfluent words. Thus, if it’s hard to understand, you try harder.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

More detailed guidance on the inclusion/exclusion of retracted articles in systematic reviews is needed (Papers: July 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on August 20, 2019
 

A forced retraction will generally (but not always) point to something seriously wrong with a research output/project, so it is essential they don’t result in a distortion of knowledge and practice. This recent journal paper suggests a sensible approach.

There are currently no clear guidelines on how to proceed when a retracted article is selected in the systematic review process. The Cochrane handbook provides information only on how to identify retracted articles within the scientific literature, instead of clear guidance and criteria for inclusion in the systematic review or not [1]. Other guidelines for conducting systematic reviews do not address this topic [2,3]. Common sense would indicate the exclusion from a systematic review of a study that was retracted because of faked or unreliable data [4].
.

Faggion, C. M., Jr. “More detailed guidance on the inclusion/exclusion of retracted articles in systematic reviews is needed.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.07.006
Publisher: https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(19)30573-6/abstract

0