ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)
Generic filters
Filter by Keywords
Research ethics committees
Research integrity

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesResearch Misconduct

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

(China) Academic misconduct standards to be tightened – China Daily Global (Li Yan | October 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on January 2, 2020

China has strengthened its fight against academic misconduct by publishing new standards defining plagiarism, fabrication, falsification and other violations of research integrity. Experts believe the clarity will make it easier to discipline researchers who violate the rules.

The document, issued by the Ministry of Science and Technology, has been adopted by 20 government agencies ranging from China’s Supreme People’s Court to the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Depending on the severity of the offense, punishments can range from canceling a project’s funding to revoking the offender’s titles and permanently banning them from promotion or other research positions. Institutes that connive with or shield violators will also be punished with budget cuts or judicial action.

Read the rest of this news item

A reviewer stole a manuscript and published it himself. But you wouldn’t know it from this retraction notice – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | February 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on December 30, 2019

Fish off someone else’s peer review!

So writes (in somewhat different words) Mina Mehregan, a mechanical engineer at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad in Iran. Mehregan and a colleague recently discovered that they’d been victimized by a group of unscrupulous reviewers who used the pretext of a long turnaround time to publish a hijacked version of their manuscript in another journal.

In a guest editorial for the Journal of Korean Medical Science — which wasn’t involved in the heist — Mehregan began by noting the toll that protracted peer review can take on authors:

Read the rest of this discussion piece

(US) This Researcher Exploited Prisoners, Children, and the Elderly. Why Does Penn Honor Him? – The Chronicle of Higher Education (Alexander Kafka, | November 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on December 29, 2019

Albert M. Kligman was a larger-than-life dermatologist and entrepreneur instrumental in inventions that brought riches to him and his university. He also performed torturous experiments.

Over the last 12 years we have shared a few pieces about egregious ethical breaches, but we aren’t sure what stunned us most, what was done to those vulnerable Americans or that the track record of the lead researcher is still being celebrated.

“An outstanding clinician, researcher, and educator.” “A visionary leader” who led “an extraordinary life.” That’s how the University of Pennsylvania describes Albert M. Kligman on a fund-raising page for a lectureship in his name. He is also honored by not one but two chaired professorships.

What the university calls his “pioneering work with Retin-A” was estimated by a student turned critic of Kligman, Bernard Ackerman, as generating in the “many tens of millions.” Kligman himself once described to a television interviewer the sales of the acne medicine as an “explosion …a very considerable sum of money that comes to our department in the form of royalties. We are swimming in cash.”

Read the rest of this discussion piece

(Europe) Psychology researcher committed misconduct, says university – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | December 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on December 24, 2019

A Dutch university has found a former psychology researcher at the institution guilty of misconduct for several offenses, including lack of ethics approval for some of her studies and fabricating results in grant applications.

In a Nov. 11, 2019, report, officials at the University of Leiden stated that the researcher, whom it does not identify, violated academic integrity in the following ways:

(1) research with blood samples taken from test subjects without the approval of the Medical Ethical Committee (METC), (2) negligence in listing co-authors, (3) data manipulation, and (4) submitting grant applications with incorrect (incomplete and manipulated) research data. 

Read the rest of this discussion piece