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

Authorship (NHMRC An Australian Code (2018) good practice guide | June 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on September 29, 2019
 

A guide supporting the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research

Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. Authorship criteria 1
2.1 What is a significant intellectual or scholarly contribution? 1
2.2 What does it mean to be accountable for the research output? 2

3. Responsibilities of institutions 2
… 3.1 Design and promote institutional policies 2
3.2 Provide training for researchers 3

4. Responsibilities of researchers 3
4.1 Ensure appropriate and fair attribution of authorship 3
4.2 Formalise authorship arrangements 4
4.3 Acknowledge contributions other than authorship 4
4.4 Be accountable for the research output 4
4.5 Approve research output 5
4.6 Engage in relevant training 5

5. Resolution of disputes 5

6. Breaches of the Code 6

7. Definitions 6

Additional resources 6

Access the good practice guide

Copyright the Card Game – Australian Edition (a game produced by Creative Commons Australia and the Australian Libraries Copyright Committee, in partnership with the Australian Digital Alliance | April 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on September 28, 2019
 

Copyright The Card Game – Australian Edition is an adaptation of Copyright The Card Game v3.0 by Chris Morrison and Jane Secker. This Edition and the original game are licensed for reuse under the terms of a Creative Common Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0.

This Edition was adapted for Australia and Australian copyright law by Nerida Quatermass, Kate Makowiecka, Lisa Conti Phillipps, Elliott Bledsoe and Jessica Coates. It is proudly produced by Creative Commons Australia and the Australian Libraries Copyright Committee, in partnership with the Australian Digital Alliance.

Resources

You can download the cards as a PDF with or without bleeds:

Access the rest of the game materials and instructions

Peer Review Week – the Podcast and the Videos! – Scholarly Kitchen (Alice Meadows | September 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on September 28, 2019
 

September 16-20th 2019 was Peer Review week.  The lovely folk at Scholarly Kitchen have posted a short video and community resources.  We have included links to a further 25 useful items.

We’re delighted to end this year’s Peer Review Week celebrations by sharing some great community resources that you can use all year round! The Peer Review Week channel on YouTube features short videos by researchers, editors, publishers, and others on the theme of quality in peer review, and there’s also a 60 second podcast on Peer Review Week by Sense about Science Director, Tracey Brown, OBE. Until next year … enjoy!

Access  the video and resources

How to Be A Good Peer Reviewer – Scholarly Kitchen (Jasmine Wallace | September 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on September 25, 2019
 

In my experience, the streamlined process of peer review is complicated when reviewers with good intentions do bad things. A reviewer who does bad things displays behaviors that slow down or lessen the effectiveness of peer review. A good peer reviewer displays efficient behaviors and adds value to the process. The good thing about a reviewer who does bad things is that they can change. There are quite a few ways to shift bad behaviors and habits of reviewers to become not just good, but great peer reviewers.

Mind the Time

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Seriously, good reviewers do not keep a fellow peer waiting longer than needed to receive their review. Keep in mind that your review is holding their work from progressing. Some people have been working for years to get their research “peer review” ready. Their blood, sweat, and tears have gone into the work you’ve been asked to evaluate.

When you get the initial invitation to review, make note of the deadline. Pull out your calendar and check to see if you can realistically return a fair and sound assessment of the work in the allotted time. If the deadline is not reasonable, don’t be afraid to ask for an extension.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0