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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesResearch Misconduct

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Plagiarism and Ethics for Medical and Scientific Researchers (Shitalkumar Sagari 2014)0

Posted by Admin in on May 2, 2016

Excerpt: It is the responsibility of educators at medical institutions and departments to teach their students about writing ethics and best practices. The principle of good medical writing or scientific writing is a clear, brief, exact, and it should be honest presentation of the scientific ideas.


Plagiarism is a serious form of scientific misconduct that results from “the failure to attribute words, ideas, or findings to their true authors” Specifically, the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) defines plagiarism as “the use of others’ published and unpublished ideas or words without attribution or permission, and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing source”

Sagari S (2014) Plagiarism and Ethics for Medical and Scientific Researchers. Journal of Dental Problems Solutions 1(1): 004-005. DOI: 10.17352/2394-8418.000002
Publisher (Open access):

Research Integrity and Peer Review0

Posted by Admin in on April 26, 2016

The new journal, Research Integrity and Peer Review, will be launched by the well-respected publisher BioMed Central on Tuesday 3rd May.

Research Integrity and Peer Review is an international, open access, peer reviewed journal that encompasses all aspects of integrity in research publication, including peer review, study reporting, and research and publication ethics. Particular consideration is given to submissions that address current controversies and limitations in the field and offer potential solutions.

As well as an editorial by Editors-in-Chief Elizabeth Wager, Iveta Simera, Stephanie Harriman and Maria Kowalczuk, the launch issue will include two papers focusing on research reporting:

  • Aaron Bernstein and colleague’s CORE Reference, a manual and resource website for reporting interventional clinical studies and
  • Thomas Barbor and colleague’s new guideline for reporting of two critical determinants of health, sex and gender in research studies.

In addition, there is a review of conflict of interest disclosure in biomedical research by Associate Editor Adam Dunn and colleagues, while Harm Nijveen and Paul van der Vet’s article reports on the propagation of errors in citation networks, a study involving the entire citation network of a widely cited paper published in, and later retracted from, the journal Nature.

The Chair of the Editorial Board has invited members of the AHRECS community to submit papers.

Want a favorable peer review? Buy one – The Watchdogs (Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus April 2016)0

Posted by Admin in on April 24, 2016

Excerpt: What do Henry Kissinger and Martin Scorsese have in common? Fun fact: Both evidently review scientific manuscripts for money.

OK, maybe that’s not quite true. In fact, it’s not at all true. But headshots of both men appear in the bios of two purported reviewers (one of which has a woman’s name, sorry, Martin!) for a company called EditPub that sells various scientific services, including peer reviews.

The EditPub site (which seemed on Thursday to be no longer up and running), is almost entirely in Chinese, but its homepage bills it as a “service center for scientific research.” Its existence came to light earlier this month after the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology retracted a 2015 article by a group from Dalian University in China. According to the journal, EditPub had “compromised” the peer review process in a way that the journal has so far refused to make public.

Click here to read the full article

Click here to read the Retraction Watch story about the recent retraction

 Our thanks to Dalmeet Singh Chawla for alerting us about this article

One in 25 papers contains inappropriately duplicated images, screen finds – Retraction Watch (Cat Ferguson April 2016)0

Posted by Admin in on April 22, 2016

Excerpt: Elisabeth Bik, a microbiologist at Stanford, has for years been a behind-the-scenes force in scientific integrity, anonymously submitting reports on plagiarism and image duplication to journal editors. Now, she’s ready to come out of the shadows.

With the help of two editors at microbiology journals, she has conducted a massive study looking for image duplication and manipulation in 20,621 published papers. Bik and co-authors Arturo Casadevall and Ferric Fang (a board member of our parent organization) found 782 instances of inappropriate image duplication, including 196 published papers containing “duplicated figures with alteration.” The study is being released as a pre-print on bioArxiv.

An example the paper uses of “duplication with alteration” is this Western blot where a band has been duplicated:

Click here to read more