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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesResearcher responsibilities

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

We Need to Talk About Authorship Abuse – Inside Higher Ed (A. Susan Jurow and Jordan Jurow | September 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on September 24, 2019
 

The academic community must move beyond compliance with standards and toward the cultivation of a greater sense of ethical responsibility, argue A. Susan Jurow and Jordan Jurow.

Abuse of authorship is increasingly common in higher education. For example, too many academics are either listing the names of people on papers who have not contributed to those papers or they are not including the names of those who have.

As a result, authorship has become a false signifier of intellectual productivity and authority. And if we allow such authorship abuse to continue unabated, we are abdicating our responsibilities as scholars, furthering distrust in educational institutions and delegitimizing our ability to make knowledge claims that can enable us to effect change.

Simply put, an author is a person who has contributed real and identifiable intellectual labor to earn their position on a paper. Giving credit to those who do not deserve it — or, equally problematic, not crediting those who have done work — compromises the trustworthiness of our research and our honor as scholars. The perversion of authorship is being reproduced through unreflective practice, apprenticeship into inappropriate practices and, at times, outright dishonesty, facilitated by the growing use of problematic metrics of scholarship.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Checklists to Detect Potential Predatory Biomedical Journals: A Systematic Review (Papers: Samantha Cukier, et al | Preprint September 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on September 23, 2019
 

Abstract

Background:
We believe there is a large number of checklists to help authors detect predatory journals. It is uncertain whether these checklists contain similar content.

Purpose:
Perform a systematic review to identify checklists to detect potential predatory journals and to examine their content and measurement properties.

Data Sources:
MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science and Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (January 2012 to November 2018), university library websites (January 2019), YouTube (January 2019).

Study Selection:
Original checklists used to detect potential predatory journals published in English, French or Portuguese, with instructions in point form, bullet form, tabular format or listed items, not including lists or guidance on recognizing “legitimate” or “trustworthy” journals.

Data Extraction:
Pairs of reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed checklist quality and a third reviewer resolved conflicts.

Data Synthesis:
Of 1528 records screened, 93 met our inclusion criteria. The majority of included checklists were in English (n = 90, 97%), could be completed in fewer than five minutes (n = 68, 73%), had an average of 11 items, which were not weighted (n = 91, 98%), did not include qualitative guidance (n = 78, 84%) or quantitative guidance (n = 91, 98%), were not evidence-based (n = 90, 97%) and covered a mean of four (of six) thematic categories. Only three met our criteria for being evidence-based.

Limitations:
Limited languages and years of publication, searching other media.

Conclusions:
There is a plethora of published checklists that may overwhelm authors looking to efficiently guard against publishing in predatory journals. The similarity in checklists could lead to the creation of evidence-based tools serving authors from all disciplines.

Cukier, S., Helal, L., Rice, D.B., Pupkaite, J., Ahmadzai, N., Wilson, M., Skidmore, B., Lalu, M., Moher, D. (Preprint 2019) Checklists to Detect Potential Predatory Biomedical Journals: A Systematic Review. medRxiv. 19005728; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/19005728
Publisher: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/19005728v1

The Publishing Trap (A game by UK Copyright Literacy | October 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on September 22, 2019
 

Introduction
The Publishing Trap is a board game from the UK Copyright Literacy team that allows participants to explore the impact of scholarly communications choices and discuss the role of open access in research by following the lives of four researchers – from doctoral research to their academic legacies. It is a full functioning, prototype game first developed in 2016 when it won a runner’s up prize at the LILAC Lagadothon. However, the game has evolved considerably since then.

A great research outputs/academic career game, produced by UK Copyright Literacy that is an engaging and informative alternative to ‘chalk and talk’ workshops.

Aim of the Game
The Publishing Trap is a game about research dissemination and scholarly communication in Higher Education. The game follows the academic career of four characters who at each stage in their career, from PhD submission, through to Professorship, are presented with a series of scenarios about which they have to make choices. The characters make decisions about how to disseminate their research at conferences, in academic journals and in monographs or textbooks. Ultimately the game helps researchers to understand how money, intellectual property rights, and both open and closed publishing models affect the dissemination and impact of their research. Through playing the game in teams, players get to discuss the impact of each character’s choices. The game ends at the end of the character’s life, when players sees the consequences of the choices they have made in terms of money, knowledge and impact.
.

The Audience
The Publishing Trap is aimed at early career researchers and academics, as well as anyone who has a vested interested in understanding how access to information works and how the whole scholarly communication system in higher education operates. Although it is not intended to promote any particular ideological position, it should be valuable to staff who are advocating for a greater acceptance of open access publishing models and trying to encourage academic staff to make informed choices when they sign publishing contracts and submit their work to the institutional repository.
.

Access the game’s web site

Australia ‘There is a problem’: Australia’s top scientist Alan Finkel pushes to eradicate bad science – The Conversation (Alan Finkel | September 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on September 22, 2019
 

Australia’s Chief Scientist Alan Finkel outlines some excellent ideas to replace some of the perverse incentives that undermine academic research, with strategies that will promote within an institution a successful research culture.  AHRECS would be delighted to assist your institution with the design and delivery of responsible research professional development activities for your research staff. Send an email to enquiry@ahrecs.com to discuss.

In the main, Australia produces high-quality research that is rigorous and reproducible, and makes a significant contribution towards scientific progress. But that doesn’t mean we can’t do it better.
.

In the case of the research sector here and abroad, we need to acknowledge that as good as the research system is, there is a problem.
.

There are a significant number of papers that are of poor quality, and should never have made it through to publication. In considering why this might be the case, I have found myself reflecting on the role of incentives in the research system.
.

Because incentives matter, as we have seen through the findings of the Royal Commission into the banking sector led by Kenneth Hayne.
.

The commission shone a light on how the sector incentivises its employees. And there are some incentives in the research community that, in my view, need to be looked at.
.

We may be inadvertently encouraging poor behaviour. And to ensure research remains high-quality and trustworthy, we need to get the incentives right.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0