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)

Identity Theft in the Academic World Leads to Junk Science (Papers: Mehdi Dadkhah, et al | 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on March 8, 2017

In recent years, identity theft has been growing in the academic world. Cybercriminals create fake profiles for prominent scientists in attempts to manipulate the review and publishing process. Without permission, some fraudulent journals use the names of standout researchers on their editorial boards in the effort to look legitimate. This opinion piece, highlights some of the usual types of identity theft and their role in spreading junk science. Some general guidelines that editors and researchers can use against such attacks are presented.

Junk science, Identity theft, Fake peer review, Academic misconduct

Dadkhah M, Lagzian M & Borchardt G(2017) Identity Theft in the Academic World Leads to Junk Science. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9867-x

Research Integrity in Greater China: Surveying Regulations, Perceptions and Knowledge of Research Integrity from a Hong Kong Perspective (Sara R Jordan and Phillip W Gray | 2013)0

Posted by Admin in on March 4, 2017

In their 2010 article ‘Research Integrity in China: Problems and Prospects’, Zeng and Resnik challenge others to engage in empirical research on research integrity in China. Here we respond to that call in three ways: first, we provide updates to their analysis of regulations and allegations of scientific misconduct; second, we report on two surveys conducted in Hong Kong that provide empirical backing to describe ways in which problems and prospects that Zeng and Resnik identify are being explored; and third, we continue the discussion started by Zeng and Resnik, pointing to ways in which China’s high-profile participation in international academic research presents concerns about research integrity. According to our research, based upon searches of both English and Chinese language literature and policies, and two surveys conducted in Hong Kong, academic faculty and research post-graduate students in Hong Kong are aware of and have a positive attitude towards responsible conduct of research. Although Hong Kong is but one small part of China, we present this research as a response to concerns Zeng and Resnik introduce and as a call for a continued conversation.
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

KEYWORDS: China; Education; Ethics; Hong Kong; Research Integrity; Research Misconduct; Responsible Conduct of Research

Jordan SR and Gray PW, (2013) Research Integrity in Greater China: Surveying Regulations, Perceptions and Knowledge of Research Integrity from a Hong Kong Perspective. Developing World Bioethics. 13, 3

Dear Peer Reviewer: Could you also replicate the experiments? Thanks – Retraction Watch (Dalmeet Singh Chawla | January 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on March 3, 2017

The answer to this question? Predictably “Umm no” and good luck finding anyone with the time to be a peer reviewer

As if peer reviewers weren’t overburdened enough, imagine if journals asked them to also independently replicate the experiments they were reviewing? True, replication is a big problem — and always has been. At the November 2016 SpotOn conference in London, UK historian Noah Moxham of the University of St Andrews in Scotland mentioned that, in the past, some peer reviewers did replicate experiments. We asked him to expand on the phenomenon here.
Retraction Watch: During what periods in history did peer reviewers repeat experiments? And how common was the practice?
Noah Moxham:
Not tremendously! It was quite common at the Royal Academy of Sciences (after the 1789 Revolution, the Institut de France) in Paris from about the mid-eighteenth century. It was mostly used to evaluate the work of outsiders — meaning, non-Academy members. There were also exercises in systematic replication between the Royal Society of London and the Oxford Philosophical Society in the early 1680s, when magnetic experiments and chemical analysis of minerals would be carried out in one location and details of the experiment (together with the raw material, where necessary) were sent to be tried at the other. But it’s difficult to call that peer review because it wasn’t explicitly tied to any kind of publishing or gatekeeping protocol.

Read the rest of this interview

Researchers Failed To Tell Testosterone Trial Patients They Were Anemic – Shots Health News from NPR (Richard Harris | February | 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on March 2, 2017

There’s a lesson about one of the testosterone studies released this week that has nothing to do with testosterone: The study on how testosterone affects anemia was designed with an ethical lapse that nobody noticed until the study was complete.

That’s surprising because it was designed and carried out by a couple of dozen of well-regarded scientists. Their protocols were reviewed by 12 university institutional review boards, whose job is to evaluate the ethics of an experiment. It was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the trial was overseen by a watchdog data safety and monitoring board.

But all of those safety features fell short this time.

Read the rest of this discussion piece