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)

One in 25 papers contains inappropriately duplicated images, screen finds – Retraction Watch (Cat Ferguson April 2016)0

Posted by Admin in on April 22, 2016
 

Excerpt: Elisabeth Bik, a microbiologist at Stanford, has for years been a behind-the-scenes force in scientific integrity, anonymously submitting reports on plagiarism and image duplication to journal editors. Now, she’s ready to come out of the shadows.

With the help of two editors at microbiology journals, she has conducted a massive study looking for image duplication and manipulation in 20,621 published papers. Bik and co-authors Arturo Casadevall and Ferric Fang (a board member of our parent organization) found 782 instances of inappropriate image duplication, including 196 published papers containing “duplicated figures with alteration.” The study is being released as a pre-print on bioArxiv.

An example the paper uses of “duplication with alteration” is this Western blot where a band has been duplicated:

Click here to read more

Stakeholders Acting Together On the ­ethical impact assessment of ­Research and Innovation (SATORI 2015)0

Posted by Admin in on April 20, 2016
 

“SATORI aims to develop a common European framework for ethical assessment of research and innovation

SATORI is a platform for the consolidation and advancement of ethical assessment in research and innovation. The 4-year project aims to develop a common framework of ethical principles and practical approaches so as to strengthen shared understandings among actors involved in the design and implementation of research ethics.

To achieve this aim, the project will gather private and public stakeholders from Europe and beyond in an intensive 4-year process of research and dialogue. Ultimately, the project seeks to establish a permanent platform around the framework to secure ongoing learning and attunement among stakeholders in ethical assessment.”

Click here to go to the SATORI web site

Pharmacology journal pulls paper because third party “compromised” peer review – Retraction Watch (Dalmeet Singh Chawla April 2016)0

Posted by Admin in on April 19, 2016
 

We don’t usually report retractions of papers where one of the authors are not based in Australia or New Zealand but we felt that this case provided a useful precautionary tale for research integrity and the use of third party service providers.

“The British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (BCP) has retracted a 2015 paper about treating heart failure after deciding its peer review process had been compromised.

This paper is one of the many we’ve noticed lately that have been felled by the actions of a “third party” — in this case, a manuscript editing company called EditPub.

The newly retracted paper, “rhBNP therapy can improve clinical outcomes and reduce in-hospital mortality compared with dobutamine in heart failure patients: a meta-analysis,” has not yet been cited, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science.”

Read the full post here

Visual Methodologies: Special research ethics edition (Papers)0

Posted by Admin in on April 18, 2016
 

“This special issue on ethical issues in visual research arose from our collective observation that there is an urgent need for researchers to share and reflect upon stories about the ethical challenges they are facing in their research, including how they have navigated the formal procedural ethics review process and how they have identified and responded to ethical challenges in their research practice. Our approach in this special issue has been to call for tales from the field that raise new questions and highlight concerns within the context of real and ongoing research rather than attempt to derive solutions to ethical problems in an abstract or decontextualized way. The overall collection is therefore one that highlights the importance of good descriptive self-reflexive accounts of ethical and methodological issues, especially in terms of what is useful for other visual researchers and also for members of research ethics boards or committees (REB/REC).”

Click here to access this edition.

In this edition:

Editorial: Visual methods and ethics: Stories from the field
Susan M. Cox, Marilys Guillemin, Jenny Waycott, Deborah Warr
1-3

Re/formulating Ethical Issues for Visual Research Methods
Jenny Waycott, Marilys Guillemin, Deborah Joy Warr, Susan Cox, Sarah Drew, Catherine Howell
4-15

Ethical issues in the use of video observations with people with advanced dementia and their caregivers in nursing home environments
Gloria Puurveen, Alison Phinney, Susan Cox, Barbara Purvest
16-26

Adding the agentic capacities of visual materials to visual research ethics
Kim McLeod, Marilys Guillemin
27-42

Visual Embodiment of Psychosis: Ethical Concerns in Performing Difficult Experiences
Katherine Mary Boydell, Carmela Solimine, Siona Siona
43-52

Beneficence and contemporary art: when aesthetic judgment meets ethical judgment
Barbara Ruth Bolt
53-66

Making the visual invisible: exploring creative forms of dissemination that respect anonymity but retain impact
Dawn Mannay
67-76

Poor places, powerful people? Co-producing cultural counter-representations of place.
Ellie Byrne, Eva Elliott, Gareth Williams
77-85

Digital Ethnographic Techniques in Domestic Spaces: Notes on Methods and Ethics
Bjorn Nansen, Jenny Kennedy, Michael Arnold, Martin Gibbs, Rowan Wilken
86-97

Digital storytelling, image-making and self-representation: Building digital literacy as an ethical response for supporting Aboriginal young peoples’ digital identities
Fran Edmonds, Michelle Evans, Scott McQuire, Richard Chenhall

0