It is a problem we hear far too often. Junior researchers alegging that their good ideas, theories and tools have been stolen by supervisors, reviewers or by their peers. We are also often asked by HDR candidates and early career researchers how to protect their creations. This useful piece that appeared in Nature discusses some strategies to protect your precious creations. In our experience, protecting your IP can be especially difficult in some disciplines and with qualitative work.
How often do cancer researchers make their data and code available and what factors are associated with sharing? – (Papers: Daniel G Hamilton et al. | November 2022)
Abstract Background Various stakeholders are calling for increased availability of data and code from cancer research. However, it is unclear
(Middle East) Awareness and knowledge of manuscript writing and research integrity: A cross sectional survey among graduate students – (Papers: Karem Alzoubi | November 2022)
Abstract Graduate students face a variety of barriers when writing manuscripts. The major barrier is inadequate writing experience and training.
(Norway) Norway jails researcher who let Iranians use microscope – Times Higher Education (Ben Upton | November 2022)
This piece highlights important points for researchers who collaborate with researchers from other countries (including overseas international students). Be aware of the defence export controls in your country, including the degree to which they include access to technology and the sharing of research methods. You also need to be aware if your collaborators are from a country prescribed by your country’s export controls. If you aren’t, as reported in this story, you may find yourself in a legal pickle and in prison.
(Canada) Evaluating prospective study registration and result reporting of trials conducted in Canada from 2009-2019 (Preprint Paper: Mohsen Alayche et al. | September 2022)
Abstract Background Adherence to study registration and reporting best practices are vital to foster evidence-based medicine. Poor adherence to these
Research can create reams of information and documents that need to be retained. Often this will be for years and for some projects a decade or more. In these days where space is precious there may be a temptation to store them outside of a research institution, perhaps even at home. Good practice probably isn’t to use the boxed documents as your bed. In most cases the regulator, institution, monitor or even a solicitor can compel the provision or at least inspection of the stored documents. Institutions will need to know what documents are being stored offsite and be able to easily access them. This humorous Don Mayne cartoon depicts what you are risking if you use the stored documents as furniture.
As natural language processing has improved artificial intelligence tools have the promise of assisting with the production of research outputs. They are still however not perfect and researchers should be wary about their use. Research institutions should provide guidance about the use of AI in the conduct and reporting of research. A related issue is the degree to which a researcher is responsible if AI breaches an institutional, national or international standard. This piece published in Nature takes a dive into the issues.
This piece offers an interesting reflection on how attitudes to authorship has changed in the last five decades from single author to multi author research outputs. This is an interesting discussion given the degree to which we have seen ghost/guest authorship increase. Documents such as the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, and the associated Authorship good practice guide, as well as the international guidance provided by COPE and ICMJE, provide guidance on who should be included as an author on an output, rather than merely being acknowledged. A deceased colleague was important for the development of an idea, would be acknowledged not credited as a co-author. The same would be true of a head of a centre or a person who secured funding for a project. Padding a list of co-authors who do not meet the authorship criteria is a breach of responsible conduct. We’ve included links to eight related items.