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)

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

 

How to Boost Racial, Ethnic and Gender Diversity in Clinical Research (Report – Syneos: September 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on October 6, 2019
 

Why All Stakeholders Must OWN The Mission
Healthcare transformations take time—and the time lag has consequences.

While this item and the accompanying report are decidedly US-centric, the issues are fundamental and global.  AHRECS Consultant Nik Zeps will be part of a panel discussion at the clinical oncology meeting in Adelaide in November 2019 debating this for the Cancer Council Victoria.

It has been 25 years since Congress passed the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act requiring federally funded clinical research programs to prioritize inclusion of women and minorities. Since then, both the NIH and the Food and Drug Administration have mounted numerous initiatives, including regulatory guidance aimed at shoring up the law’s intent.
,

Despite parallel efforts by biopharmaceutical innovators, the demographics of clinical trials today still do not reflect the racial, ethnic or gender diversity of target patient populations around the world. This is true for trial subjects, of whom an estimated 83 percent are white. And it’s true for the race/ethnicity/gender representation of investigators at many trial sites as well.

As advanced health systems around the world enter an era of genomic and precision medicine, lack of diversity across the clinical research landscape is a daunting obstacle.

Access this discussion piece and report

Peer Review (NHMRC An Australian Code (2018) good practice guide | August 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on September 30, 2019
 

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

Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. Peer review 1

3. Responsibilities of institutions 2
3.1 Support peer review 2
3.2 Provide training for researchers 2

4. Responsibilities of researchers 2
4.1 Participate in peer review 2
4.2 Conduct peer review responsibly 2
…v4.2.1 Respect confidentiality 3
..4.2.2 Disclose interests and manage conflicts of interest 3
4.3 Avoid interference in the peer review process 3
4.4 Mentor trainees in peer review 4
4.5 Engage in relevant training
4 5. Breaches of the Code 4

Additional Resources 4

Access the good practice guide

0