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 Misconduct

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

(UK) Questionable activities of UK company Celixir, by Patricia Murray – ForBetterScience (Leonid Schneider | July 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on May 15, 2020
 

Patricia Murray uncovers the business secrets of the Nobelist Martin Evans and his partner Ajan Reginald. It seems the magic iMP cells used to treat patients in Greece were drawn from the blood of patients in Swansea, for the purpose of a secret PhD thesis. There is no serious science behind it, only serious investor money and a fraudulent patent.

Troubling story from the UK highlights that academic superstars can sometimes are not above seriously questionable activity.  An institution’s governance arrangements must never exclude someone just because of what benefits their reputation/performance confers to the host institution.

This guest post by Dr Patricia Murray, Professor of Cellular and Molecular Physiology at the University of Liverpool, UK, follows a previous article on my site regarding the business activities of the regenerative medicine company Celixir, owned by Sir Martin Evans, winner of the Nobel Prize of 2007 and former President of the University of Cardiff, and the struck-off dentist Ajan Reginald. Much of the contents in that story must be credited to Dr Murray, who is also an activist for medical ethics and research integrity in regenerative medicine and played a key role in uncovering the extent of the trachea transplant scandal in the UK in the aftermath of the Paolo Macchiarini affair, which recently made main news in the UK (here and here).
.

Murray’s activities led to a parliamentary investigations into the role of UCL and their professors, primarily Martin Birchall, in two deadly trachea transplants (here and here) and into the attitude of the journal The Lancet. Three clinical trials were permanently suspended or terminated following Murray’s advocacy for patient safety, it is likely that related trials at UCL and elsewhere in UK were also postponed indefinitely because of that. There were retaliations: UCL’s business partners, the trachea transplant company Videregen, deployed lawyers against Murray and her colleague (read here and here), without any success though.
.

In my view, Professor Murray is a true hero and the bravest scientist I ever had the honour to know. And yet she doesn’t even have a Twitter account.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Friday afternoon’s funny – Investigating research misconduct0

Posted by Admin in on May 15, 2020
 

Cartoon by Don Mayne www.researchcartoons.com
Full-size image for printing (right mouse click and save file)

Even though we’re fans of Sherlock, solving research misconduct cases rarely require the renowned detective’s skill and the findings are rarely celebrated.  But they should be publicly reported.

(India) ‘Self-Plagiarism, Text Recycling Not Acceptable’: UGC – NDTV (Anisha Kumari | April 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on May 8, 2020
 

In a notice now available on UGC website, the Commission says that reproduction of one’s own previously published work without citation is not acceptable.

New Delhi: In a bid to check self-plagiarism in the academia, University Grants Commission (UGC) has released guidelines and will be issuing parameters to evaluate instances of text recycling/self-plagiarism soon.

Hopefully, the new guideline for India will recognise where in a work the recycled text appears.  We have included links to 10 related items.

In a notice now available on UGC website, the Commission says that reproduction of one’s own previously published work without citation is not acceptable.
.

“Reproduction, in part or whole, of one’s own previously published work without adequate citation and proper acknowledgement and claiming the most recent work as new and original for any academic advantage amounts to ‘text-recycling’ (also known as ‘self-plagiarism’) and is not acceptable,” reads the UGC notice.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Testing of Support Tools for Plagiarism Detection (Papers: Tomáš Foltýnek, et al | February 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on May 6, 2020
 

Abstract
There is a general belief that software must be able to easily do things that humans find difficult. Since finding sources for plagiarism in a text is not an easy task, there is a wide-spread expectation that it must be simple for software to determine if a text is plagiarized or not. Software cannot determine plagiarism, but it can work as a support tool for identifying some text similarity that may constitute plagiarism. But how well do the various systems work? This paper reports on a collaborative test of 15 web-based text-matching systems that can be used when plagiarism is suspected. It was conducted by researchers from seven countries using test material in eight different languages, evaluating the effectiveness of the systems on single-source and multi-source documents. A usability examination was also performed. The sobering results show that although some systems can indeed help identify some plagiarized content, they clearly do not find all plagiarism and at times also identify non-plagiarized material as problematic.

Keywords
text-matching software, software testing, plagiarism, plagiarism detection tools, usability testing

Foltýnek, T., Dlabolová, D., Anohina-Naumeca, A., Razı, S., Kravjar, J., Kamzola, L., Guerrero-Dib, J., Çelik, O. & Weber-Wulff}, D. (2020) Testing of Support Tools for Plagiarism Detection. arXiv
Publisher (Open Access): https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.04279.pdf

0