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)

UK universities compliance with the Concordat to Support Research Integrity: findings from cross-sectional time-series – PeerJ (Elizabeth Wager | July 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on October 12, 2019
 

ABSTRACT
Background
The Concordat to Support Research Integrity published in 2012 recom- mends that UK research institutions should provide a named point of contact to receive concerns about research integrity (RI). The Concordat also requires institutions to publish annual RI statements.

Objective

6 years after the publication of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity, about half of UK universities are not complying with all its recommendations.

To see whether contact information for a staff member responsible for RI was readily available from UK university websites and to see how many universities published annual RI statements.
.

Methods
UK university websites were searched in mid-2012, mid-2014 and mid-2018. The availability of contact details for RI inquiries, other information about RI and, specifically, an annual RI statement, was recorded.

Result
The proportion of UK universities publishing an email address for RI inquiries rose from 23% in 2012 (31/134) to 55% in 2018. The same proportion (55%) published at least one annual RI statement in 2018, but only three provided statements for all years from 2012/13. There was great variation in the titles used for the staff member with responsibility for RI which made searching difficult.

Conclusion
Over 6 years after the publication of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity, nearly half of UK universities are not complying with all its recommendations and do not provide contact details for a staff member with responsibility for RI or an annual statement.

Subjects
Ethical Issues, Legal Issues, Science and Medical Education, Science Policy

Keywords
Researchintegrity,Misconduct,Universities,UK

Read the rest of this discussion piece

 

(Australia) Materials scientist will soon be up to 30 retractions – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | October 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on October 8, 2019
 

A researcher at Swinburne University of Technology in Australia will soon add three more retractions to his burgeoning count, making 30.

Ali Nazari has lost 27 papers from several journals, as we’ve reported over the past few months. According to an upcoming notice obtained by Retraction Watch, the International Journal of Material Research (IJMR) will be retracting three more:

These papers published in IJMR have significant overlap in terms of identical content and wording with papers published by Ali Nazari et al. in other journals; strikingly the same micrographs and numerical data were used in different papers, albeit discussing different materials (additives).

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Two-thirds of researchers report ‘pressure to cite’ in Nature poll – Nature (Dalmeet Singh Chawla | October 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on October 7, 2019
 

Readers say they have been asked to reference seemingly superfluous studies after peer review.

An online poll answered by more than 4,300 Nature readers suggests that most researchers have felt pressured by peer reviewers to cite studies in their papers that seem unnecessary.

Readers were asked, ‘Have you ever felt pressured by peer reviewers to cite seemingly superfluous studies in your work?’, to which 66% responded ‘yes’ and 34% said ‘no’ (see ‘Coercive citation?’).

The poll accompanied a news story last month, which revealed that the Dutch publisher Elsevier had found a small proportion of academics reviewing papers for its journals were exploiting the review process by asking authors to reference the reviewers’ own papers in exchange for a positive report.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Fighting Citation Pollution — The Challenge of Detecting Fraudulent Journals in Works Cited – Scholarly Kitchen ( Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe and Michael Clarke | September 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on October 7, 2019
 

As citations to articles in fraudulent journals increasingly appear in article manuscripts, vexing reviewers and editors alike, the scholarly communications community needs to develop an automated shared service to assess works cited efficiently and ensure that authors are not inadvertently polluting the scholarly record.

The scale of the number of questionable publishers is startling (just thinking about 10,000 fraudulent publishers can be overwhelming).  The HYDRA idea discussed in this Scholarly Kitchen piece has a lot going for it.  We are planning a Research Ethics Monthly piece reflecting on the issues.

CrossRef’s recent decision to rescind the membership of OMICS brings the issue of citation pollution into sharp relief. The decision comes in the wake of $50 million fine levied against the publisher by the US Federal Trade Commission in a summary judgement earlier this year. Now CrossRef is freezing OMICS out of its ecosystem. While DOIs already deposited will remain active, OMICS will no longer be able to deposit DOIs via CrossRef.
.

CrossRef is not the only organization to grapple with this issue. The Scientist reported in May on growing concerns among researchers about papers from fraudulent publishers finding their way into PubMed via PubMedCentral. Once in PubMed, the papers appear just like any other paper and can easily be found and cited by researchers.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

 

0