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

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Updated AGU Ethics Policy Available for Member Comment – EOS (Billy M. Williams | March 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on April 26, 2017

Proposed new language identifies harassment as a form of scientific misconduct.

When the American Geophysical Union (AGU) charged a panel last June with reviewing the organization’s ethics policy and practices, then AGU President Margaret Leinen asked the team to focus on harassment and work climate issues in the Earth and space sciences. Now AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics has completed its charge and is seeking feedback from AGU members on updates it is recommending to AGU’s Scientific Integrity and Professional Ethics Policy.

National research integrity codes often explicitly exclude matters such as harassment, but as recent cases have highlighted harassment can often be a big part of research integrity cases and its effects can be the most toxic.

The current policy is silent on the important issue of harassment and other types of negative behavior such as discrimination and bullying. With the updates, AGU would extend the ethics policy to members in general, rather than only to volunteers and to participants during meetings, as it currently applies.
“Member feedback during AGU town halls made it clear that we needed to update our ethics policy so that it better fosters a culture of diversity and inclusion,” said Eric Davidson, who became AGU President in January. “AGU believes the Earth and space science community should be a safe and welcoming environment for individuals of all backgrounds. We’re now taking a strong stance by addressing this topic of harassment directly in the AGU Ethics policy.”

Read the rest of this discussion piece
Access the new AGU Scientific Integrity and Professional Ethics policy

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) first China seminar0

Posted by Admin in on April 25, 2017

AHRECS was pleased to be invited to contribute to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) first China seminar held in Beijing in March. COPE is an impressively collegial international body that provides advice to editors and publishers on publication ethics and, in particular, how to handle research and publication misconduct. Its website is the best starting point for original material on publication ethics. Mark Israel was invited to present as part of the panel on authorship (copies of Mark’s presentation in English and Chinese are available on the COPE website). A report on the seminar can be found at:

COPE are also looking for nominations to its Executive Committee. They are especially seeking candidates from Mainland Europe, Scandinavia and South America (Michael Wise and Ginny Barbour, both from Australia and ‘friends’ of AHRECS, are already on the Committee), and from the social sciences/humanities areas. The closing date for applications is: 28 April 2017.

While in Beijing, Mark also participated in a seminar on research ethics for SAGE Publications which was hosted by Academic China. He would love to be invited back to China!

What Surveys Tell Us about Scientific Frauds – Laboratory Journal ()0

Posted by Admin in on April 25, 2017

How common is scientific misconduct? To answer this long-standing and crucial question, different approaches have been employed, and they have produced a corresponding variety of estimates. In U.S. government investigations, scientific fraud is documented in about 1 every 100,000 researchers or 1 every 10,000 according to a different counting. Paper retractions from the PubMed library due to misconduct have a frequency of 0.02 %, which led to speculations that between 0.02 and 0.2 % of papers in the literature are fraudulent.

Eight out of 800 papers submitted to The Journal of Cell Biology had digital images that had been improperly manipulated, suggesting a 1 % frequency. Finally, routine data audits conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration between 1977 and 1990 found deficiencies and flaws in 10–20 % of studies, and led to 2 % of clinical investigators being judged guilty of serious scientific misconduct.

All the above estimates are calculated on the number of frauds that have been discovered and have reached the public domain. This significantly underestimates the real frequency of misconduct, because data fabrication and falsification are rarely reported by whistleblowers (see below), and are very hard to detect in the data. Even when detected, misconduct is hard to prove, because the accused scientists could claim to have committed an innocent mistake. Distinguishing intentional bias from error is obviously difficult, particularly when the falsification has been subtle, or the original data destroyed. In many cases, therefore, only researchers know if they or their colleagues have willfully distorted their data. Many surveys have asked scientists directly about their behavior, but they have used different methods and asked different questions, so their results have been deemed inconclusive and/or difficult to compare.

Fanelli D (2010) What surveys tell us about scientific frauds. BIOforum 14:16-17

Read the rest of this magazine article

Honesty, Accountability and Trust: Fostering Research Integrity in Canada (Guidance: Council of Canadian Academies – Expert panel included Daniele Fanelli | 2010)0

Posted by Admin in on April 25, 2017

The membership of the expert panel included:
Paul Davenport, O.C., Chair
Wesley Cragg
Martha Crago
Daniele Fanelli
Jean-Marc Fleury
Lisa M. Given
Ronald Heslegrave
Brian C. Martinson
Kathryn O’Hara
B. Mario Pinto, FRSC
R. Kerry Rowe, FRSC, FCAE
Clive Seligman
Daniel W. Smith, FRSC, FCAE
Michèle Stanton-Jean, O.Q.

Academic research is a core driver of modern society. It plays a major role in economic competitiveness, environmental protection, and the health and safety of Canadians. The proper conduct of research is critical to its credibility, the public’s trust in its outcomes, and the integrity of the published record. A common understanding of research integrity would be valuable to granting agencies, research institutions, individual researchers, students, and all those interested in research results.

Industry Canada asked the Council of Canadian Academies to conduct an assessment examining the key research integrity principles, procedural mechanisms, and appropriate practices for their application across research disciplines and institutions in Canada.

Read the rest of this guidance