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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesResearch results

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process “Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked:” A confession from John Ioannidis (Author interview by Retraction Watch)0

Posted by Admin in on March 17, 2016
 

“John Ioannidis is perhaps best known for a 2005 paper “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” One of the most highly cited researchers in the world, Ioannidis, a professor at Stanford, has built a career in the field of meta-research. Earlier this month, he published a heartfelt and provocative essay in the the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology titled “Evidence-Based Medicine Has Been Hijacked: A Report to David Sackett.” In it, he carries on a conversation begun in 2004 with Sackett, who died last May and was widely considered the father of evidence-based medicine. We asked Ioannidis to expand on his comments in the essay, including why he believes he is a “failure.”

Click here to read the interview by Retraction Watch

Essentials of Thinking Ethically in Qualitative Research (Qualitative Essentials) (Books: Will C. van den Hoonaard and Deborah K van den Hoonaard 2013)0

Posted by Admin in on March 15, 2016
 

About: Ethical dimensions of qualitative research are constantly emerging and shifting. This volume identifies relevant ethical principles that can guide novice researchers through the research process with the necessary wisdom and insight to shape a project in sound, meaningful, and thoughtful ways. Well known for their work in this area, the van den Hoonaards outline the domains on which ethics most often impinge. They address key ethical issues arising in different qualitative traditions and contexts. The volume concludes with guidance on how to navigate formal ethics reviews. Many key examples and other resources help the student engage the complicated literature on this topic.

van den Hoonaard, Will C, and van den Hoonaard, D K (2013) Essentials of Thinking Ethically in Qualitative Research (Qualitative Essentials). Left Coast Press, ISBN: 978-1-61132-204-0/978-1-61132-205-7/978-1-61132-714-4
Review: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/19/4/reviews/2.html
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Thinking-Ethically-Qualitative-Research/dp/1611322057

Ready to geek out on retraction data? Read this new preprint – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky 2015)0

Posted by Admin in on March 9, 2016
 

Excerpt: There’s a new paper about retractions, and it’s chock-full of the kind of data that we love to geek out on. Enjoy.

The new paper, “A Multi-dimensional Investigation of the Effects of Publication Retraction on Scholarly Impact,” appears on the preprint server arXiv — meaning it has yet to be peer-reviewed — and is co-authored by Xin Shuai and five other employees of Thomson Reuters. Highlights from their dataset:

* Medical or biological related research fields tend to have the highest retraction rates.

* Retracted papers are cited more often – a median of eight times – than the average article (a median of once).

* The median time from publication to retraction is two years.

* About half of all retractions are due to misconduct, including plagiarism.

* Retracted papers, and their authors, are cited less often after retraction.

* Institutions involved in retractions tend to be cited more often, but “the reputation of those institutions that sponsored the scholars who were accused of scientific misconduct did not seem to be tarnished at all.”

* Authors of papers retracted for fabrication or falsification see the largest dip in citations, with the “decrease is even more pronounced when the retraction cases are exposed to the public by media.”

* [R]etraction rate in one topic hardly affects its future popularity.

8 March 2016 – Ready to geek out on retraction data? Read this new preprint

About Retraction Watch
We launched Retraction Watch in August 2010, and although we didn’t predict this, it’s been a struggle to even keep up with retractions as they happen. While we occasionally dip into history in our “Best Of” series, realistically we don’t want to fall even further behind. If we ever have the resources to grow the site, this will be one of our priorities.

Research subjects’ voices: the missing element in research ethics (Papers: Rebecca Dresser 2015)0

Posted by Admin in on March 4, 2016
 

Excerpt: “The laws, regulations and ethical guidelines governing human subject research were largely created by professionals. Researchers, physicians, philosophers and lawyers have been the primary advisers in legislative and regulatory proceedings on human research rules. Individuals appointed to governmental and other groups developing and applying research ethics standards are almost always professionals. Although members of the general public are sometimes included in research ethics deliberations, they play a minor role. Strikingly, the people who actually know what it is like to be a research subject are rarely part of these activities. Few people with direct experience as research subjects have been involved in the creation and application of human research rules and guidelines. I believe that their lack of involvement has lessened the effectiveness and ethical value of those rules and guidelines. This is because professionals addressing research ethics and oversight have experiences and interests that differ from those of research participants. Professionals conducting research have perspectives related to their research roles, perspectives that can shape their perceptions and judgements. What one writer has called “researcher ethnocentrism” can prevent investigators from seeing ethical problems with the design and conduct of human studies”

Dresser R (2015) Research subjects’ voices: the missing element in research ethics. Anaesth Intensive Care 43(3), 289-432.
Publisher: http://www.aaic.net.au/Issue/?V=43&I=3&T=CNTX

0