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)

Text recycling: acceptable or misconduct? (Papers: Stephanie Harriman and Jigisha Patel | 2014)0

Posted by Admin in on October 10, 2018

Text recycling, also referred to as self-plagiarism, is the reproduction of an author’s own text from a previous publication in a new publication. Opinions on the acceptability of this practice vary, with some viewing it as acceptable and efficient, and others as misleading and unacceptable. In light of the lack of consensus, journal editors often have difficulty deciding how to act upon the discovery of text recycling. In response to these difficulties, we have created a set of guidelines for journal editors on how to deal with text recycling. In this editorial, we discuss some of the challenges of developing these guidelines, and how authors can avoid undisclosed text recycling.

The guidelines can be found here:

Keywords: Text recycling, Self-plagiarism, Publication ethics, Transparency, Guidelines

Harriman, S., & Patel, J. (2014). Text recycling: acceptable or misconduct? BMC Medicine, 12, 148.
Publisher (Open Access):

Access the great resource paper it refers to

What does it mean to “take responsibility for” a paper? – Scientist Sees Squirrel (Stephen Heard | July 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on October 8, 2018

 I spend a lot of time talking with students and colleagues about what authorship means, and about what criteria one might use for assigning it.  That’s partly because the nature of authorship is both complex and (especially for early-career scientists) critically important.  It’s also because my research has evolved in ways that mean I rarely write a single-authored paper any more.  In fact, I rarely write a 2- or 3-authored paper any more.

A useful discussion about an expression (Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work) that is oft used, but is it understood? A useful read for HDR candidates and early career researchers. We have included links to a swag of articles reflecting on authorship.

There’s nothing unusual about me (in this respect); the lengths of author lists have been increasing in almost every field.  In some fields, they’ve reached startling proportions, with author lists surpassing 5,000.  It’s not universally agreed exactly what contributions merit authorship, or what responsibilities coauthors bear.  However, one thing we often hear – and I’m pretty sure, one thing I’ve said – is that each coauthor should be willing to take responsibility for the entire paper.  Take, for example, the recommendations on coauthorship from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors:
The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:

  • Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
  • Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
  • Final approval of the version to be published; AND
  • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Guide to Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Code0

Posted by Admin in on October 8, 2018

The Guide to Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018 (the Investigation Guide) forms a critical part of Australia’s framework for research integrity, established by the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018 (the 2018 Code).

The Investigation Guide assists institutions to manage, investigate and resolve complaints about potential breaches of the 2018 Code by outlining a preferred model that can be implemented by institutions engaged in research, regardless of the size or type.

Developed jointly by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council and Universities Australia, the Investigation Guide has broad applicability across all research disciplines.

The Investigation Guide should be read alongside the 2018 Code.

Additional resources

The Investigation Guide is one of the supplementary guides that will support the 2018 Code.  For further information please refer to the following webpage about the release of the 2018 Code.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

The Evolution and Critical Role of Peer Review in Academic Publishing – The Wiley Network (Marilyn Pollett | September 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on October 6, 2018

Did you know that the number of peer-reviewed journals has steadily grown by 3.5% per year for over the past three centuries? In fact, a rigorous peer review process is considered to be an indication of a journal’s quality, and most journals rely on peer review to ensure that only the best research gets accepted for publication. This often results in journals having high rejection rates, for example, as high as 90% in the case of many Wiley journals.

Peer review is considered the pillar that upholds the credibility and integrity of the scientific record. However, in its conventional form, peer review has drawn some criticism for issues like lack of transparency and inconsistency in output. To address these issues, several innovations in peer review have been introduced (new models, reviewer recognition, and more). Let’s take a look at the evolution of peer review and how industry experts see it shaping up in the future.

Challenges associated with peer review

Despite its merits, peer review has some limitations that threaten to weaken the entire scholarly publishing system:

Read the rest of this discussion piece