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)

Searchable Retraction Watch database0

Posted by Admin in on October 15, 2017
 

A handy tool for vetting sources before referencing them

“And now, a sneak peek at something we know a lot of readers have been eagerly awaiting (as have we!): Our retraction database, being built with the generous support of the MacArthur and Arnold Foundations. It’s still a work in progress; we have a lot more retractions to enter, and we’ll be fixing bugs and adding functionality, but go to retractiondatabase.org for a taste. You can search by country, author, DOI, reason for retraction, journal, and many more criteria. As always, we welcome your feedback.”

Access the database

20 years of retractions in China: More of them, and more misconduct – Retraction Watch (Alison McCook | September 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on October 14, 2017
 

After reviewing nearly 20 years of retractions from researchers based in China, researchers came up with some somewhat unsurprising (yet still disheartening) findings: The number of retractions has increased (from zero in 1997 to more than 150 in 2016), and approximately 75% were due to some kind of misconduct. (You can read more details in the paper, published this month in Science and Engineering Ethics.) We spoke with first author Lei Lei, based in the School of Foreign Languages at Huazhong University of Science and Technology, about what he thinks can be done to improve research integrity in his country.

Retraction Watch: With “Lack of Improvement” right in the title (“Lack of Improvement in Scientific Integrity: An Analysis of WoS Retractions by Chinese Researchers (1997-2016)”), you sound disappointed with your findings.  What findings did you expect — or at least hope — to find, and what are your reactions to the results you did uncover?

Lei Lei: Before we began to work on the project, we had occasionally heard of news reports on the retraction of articles by Chinese researchers. It seemed that the issue occurred more often than before.  Since my team has been working on several projects with bibliometric methods, I thought we could investigate this issue with the methods. Thus, the results we found from the study provided scientific evidence to our hypothesis, though I was disappointed, as you mentioned, with the findings.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Evidence based medicine manifesto for better healthcare – The BMJ (Carl Heneghan et al | June 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on October 11, 2017
 

A response to systematic bias, wastage, error, and fraud in research underpinning patient care

Another item bemoaning the impact of poor research on clinical practice but it also points to an initiative to address this.

Informed decision making requires clinicians and patients to identify and integrate relevant evidence. But with the questionable integrity of much of today’s evidence, the lack of research answering questions that matter to patients, and the lack of evidence to inform shared decision how are they expected to do this?
.
Too many research studies are poorly designed or executed. Too much of the resulting research evidence is withheld or disseminated piecemeal.1 As the volume of clinical research activity has grown2 the quality of evidence has often worsened,3 which has compromised the ability of all health professionals to provide affordable, effective, high value care for patients.”
.

Read the rest of this editorial and listen to a 41 minute discussion

Who is Actually Harmed by Predatory Publishers? (Papers: Martin Paul Eve and Ernesto Priego | 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on October 9, 2017
 

Abstract: ‘Predatory publishing’ refers to conditions under which gold open access academic publishers claim to conduct peer review and charge for their publishing services but do not, in fact, actually perform such reviews. Most prominently exposed in recent years by Jeffrey Beall, the phenomenon garners much media attention. In this article, we acknowledge that such practices are deceptive but then examine, across a variety of stakeholder groups, what the harm is from such actions to each group of actors. We find that established publishers have a strong motivation to hype claims of predation as damaging to the scholarly and scientific endeavour while noting that, in fact, systems of peer review are themselves already acknowledged as deeply flawed.

Keywords: Open Access, Scholarly Communications, Predatory Publishing, Evaluative Cultures, Academia

Eve PM & Priego E (2017) Who is Actually Harmed by Predatory Publishers? Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society. 15(2)
Publisher (Open access): http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/867/1042

This thought-provoking open access paper explores an important question that is often not carefully considered: Who is actually harmed by predatory publishers? The answer to that question then inevitably prompts a reflection on why those harms occur and perhaps provides a frame for discussions about publication ethics with HDR candidates and other early career researchers. See the August 2017 post in the Research Ethics Monthly blog by Israel and Allen (https://ahrecs.com/research-integrity/world-hijacked-clone-zombie-publishing-shouldnt-publish) about identifying where not to publish.

0