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)

Ethical relationships, ethical research in Aboriginal contexts: Perspectives from central Australia0

Posted by Admin in on November 18, 2018
 

Learning Communities International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts
Special issue: Ethical relationships, ethical research in Aboriginal contexts: Perspectives from central Australia

Number 23 – November 2018

CONTENTS
Introduction to Special Issue: Being here matters …2
Barry Judd

Editorial….12
Al Strangeways

“You helped us and now we’re going to all help you”: What we learned about how to do research together …16
Lisa Hall, Linda Anderson, Fiona Gibson, Mona Kantawara, Barbara Martin and Yamurna Oldfield

Ngapartji ngapartji ninti and koorliny karnya quoppa katitjin (Respectful and ethical research in central Australia and the south west) …32
Jennie Buchanan, Len Collard and Dave Palmer

Researching together: Reflections on ethical research in remote Aboriginal communities …52
Tessa Benveniste and Lorraine King

The dancing trope of cross-cultural language education policy…64
Janine Oldfield and Vincent Forrester

Different monsters: Traversing the uneasy dialectic of institutional and relational ethics …76
Al Strangeways and Lisa Papatraianou

Research for social impact and the contra-ethic of national frameworks…92
Judith Lovell Altyerre

NOW: Arrernte dreams for national reconstruction in the 21st century …106
Joel Liddle Perrurle and Barry Judd

The making of Monstrous Breaches: An ethical global visual narrative…116
Judith Lovell and Kathleen Kemarre Wallace

Read  the special edition

When it comes to retracting papers by the world’s most prolific scientific fraudsters, journals have room for improvement – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | September 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on November 18, 2018
 

Journals have retracted all but 19 of the 313 tainted papers linked to three of the most notorious fraudsters in science, with only stragglers left in the literature. But editors and publishers have been less diligent when it comes to delivering optimal retraction notices for the affected articles.

This Retraction Watch piece outlines why delays in retracting a compromised research output is a concern.

That’s the verdict of a new analysis in the journal Anaesthesia, which found that 15% of retraction notices for the affected papers fail fully to meet standards from the Committee for Publication Ethics (COPE). Many lacked appropriate language and requisite watermarks stating that the articles had been removed, and some have vanished from the literature.
.

The article was written by U. M. McHugh, of University Hospital in Galway, Ireland, and Steven Yentis, a consultant anaesthetist at Chelsea & Westminster Hospital in London. Yentis was editor of Anaesthesia during the three scandals and had a first-hand view of two of the investigations. He also is the editor who unleashed anesthetist and self-trained statistician John Carlisle on the Fujii papers to see how likely the Japanese researcher’s data were to be valid (answer: not very likely).
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Have retraction notices improved over time? – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | August 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on November 14, 2018
 

Evelyne Decullier & Hervé Maisonneuve have been studying retractions for a long time. They’ve looked at how long retractions take to show up in PubMed, and five years ago they published a paper on the quality of retraction notices — and how well they were disseminated — in 2008. Now, they’ve repeated that analysis for papers retracted in 2016, and in a new paper in BMC Research Notes, conclude that “management of retraction has improved.” We asked them some questions — one of which, about an Elsevier policy, as noted below, led to a re-examination of the conclusions — about their findings:

Retraction Watch (RW): Why do you think it’s important for journals to provide a reason for retraction?

Evelyne Decullier & Hervé Maisonneuve (ED and HM): Correcting the literature is key for ensuring the quality of data and that the scientific method is respected. Readers should at least be able to differentiate retractions for honest errors from retractions for fraud or plagiarism.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Research ethics, informed consent and the disempowerment of First Nation peoples (Papers: Juan M Tauri | 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on November 14, 2018
 

Abstract
Recently, Indigenous commentators have begun to analyse the way in which institutional Research Ethics Boards (REBs) engage with Indigenous researchers and participants, respond to Indigenous peoples’ concerns with academic research activities, and scrutinise the ethics proposals of Indigenous scholars. Of particular concern for Indigenous commentators is that the work of REBs often results in the marginalisation of Indigenous approaches to knowledge construction and dissemination, especially in relation to the vexed issue of informed consent. Based on analysis of the results of research with Indigenous researchers and research participants, this paper argues that institutionalised REBs’ preference for ‘universal’ and ‘individualised’ approaches for determining ethical research conduct marginalises Indigenous approaches to ethical research conduct. The paper concludes by calling for a decolonisation of REB processes through recognition of the validity of communal processes for attaining the informed consent of Indigenous research participants.

Keywords First Nations, research ethics boards, informed consent, decolonisation

Tauri, J. M. (2018). Research ethics, informed consent and the disempowerment of First Nation peoples. Research Ethics, 14(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117739935
Publisher (Open Access): https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1747016117739935

0