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

ResourcesResearcher responsibilities

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

(China, Australia) Journals have retracted or flagged more than 40 papers from China that appear to have used organ transplants from executed prisoners – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | April 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on May 29, 2020
 

Journals have retracted 30 papers, and added expressions of concern to 13 more, because the research likely involved organs from executed prisoners in China.

The issue surfaced as early as 2016, and two of the retractions occurred in 2017, but all of the other retractions, and all of the expressions of concern, happened after a February 2019 paper by Wendy Rogers of Macquarie University, in Sydney, Australia, and colleagues calling for the retraction of more than 400 papers

reporting research based on use of organs from executed prisoners, and an international summit to develop future policy for handling Chinese transplant research.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Waste in covid-19 research (Editorial – Paul P Glasziou, et al | May 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on May 26, 2020
 

A deluge of poor quality research is sabotaging an effective evidence based response

The medical research world is responding to the covid-19 pandemic at breathtaking speed. There has been a maelstrom of global research, with mixed consequences. Positives include the greater provision of open access to covid-19 studies, some increased collaboration, expedited governance and ethics approvals of new clinical studies, and wider use of preprints. But many problems have become evident. Before the pandemic, it was estimated that up to 85% of research was wasted because of poor questions, poor study design, inefficiency of regulation and conduct, and non or poor reporting of results.1 Many of these problems are amplified in covid-19 research, with time pressures and inadequate research infrastructure contributing.

A fabulous editorial piece by Paul P Glasziou, et al about all the …noise/junk… being rushed to publication about COVID-19.  An important read.   We have included links to 21 related reads.  Who is hurt by this questionable behaviour?  Us as we wait tensely for a cure.

Trials
An extraordinary number of covid-19 trials have been registered since the pandemic started. The National Library of Medicine registry ClinicalTrials.gov lists 1087 covid-19 studies, and though some will provide useful information, many are too small and poorly designed to be helpful, merely adding to the covid-19 noise. Of the 145 registered trials of hydroxychloroquine, for example, 32 have a planned sample size of ≤100, 10 have no control group, and 12 are comparative but non-randomised. Outcome measures vary widely, and only 50 seem to be multicentre. Strikingly, only one provides a protocol, and even limited registry details reveal unjustified outcome switching.2
.

The imbalance in trial topics is worrying, in particular the paucity of trials on non-drug interventions. Despite non-drug interventions being the mainstay of current mitigation,3 we could find just two trials of masks on ClinicalTrials.gov and none examining social distancing, quarantine effect or adherence, hand hygiene, or other non-drug interventions. Covid-19 research funding mirrors this woeful imbalance. A search of Covid-19 Research Project Tracker, a live database of funded covid-19 projects, found almost no primary research of the effects of non-drug interventions on transmissibility, compared with hundreds of drug intervention projects worth at least $74m (£60m; €67m).

Glasziou, P. P., Sanders, S. & Hoffmann, T. (2020) Waste in covid-19 research. BMJ 2020; 369 :m1847
Publisher: https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1847

Plagiarism detection: Perils and pitfalls (Editorial: Amitav Banerjee | October 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on May 24, 2020
 

Few years ago, we got an alert from a whistleblower in South Africa as follows, “I read the article Surgical repair of giant inguinoscrotal hernia containing the urinary bladder, published in your journal with great interest.[1] I came across another article, which discusses similar issues.[2] Unfortunately, the authors of the first paper have plagiarized the article extensively (229 words, 25%) from the latter article. The source has not been acknowledged in the published paper. It is unfair to publish such an article in your esteemed journal. I wish that the editors will consider this as an offense as this will compromise the quality of the journal as well as put a question on its credibility.”

A sensible prompt for the investigation of alleged plagiarism. We have included links to eleven related items.

This whistleblowing evoked mixed feelings in us. First, we were happy to know that our journal, which was not very old, was being read in another part of the globe. We were also pleased with the word “esteemed” to describe our journal. On the downside, we were greatly perturbed at the allegation of plagiarism and really concerned about the future credibility of our journal.
.

We went about investigating the allegation. For ease of narration, let us call the alleged source,[2] paper A, and the alleged plagiarism,[1] paper B. Imagine our surprise when we found that paper A was authored by one of the reviewers of paper B. We replied to the whistleblower, “We have examined the matter. It would interest you to know that one of the referees of the paper was Dr. Panagiotakis himself, the lead author of the paper from which you say the paper published by us has been plagiarized. He approved the paper after minor corrections. We are attaching the screenshot from the reviewer’s panel of the journal system to indicate the date of review by him. There are likely to be common technical terms in both the papers which will inflate the similarity percentage by the plagiarism software. In such cases, we should use our judgment and grant benefit of doubt to the authors.”
.

Banerjee A. Plagiarism detection: Perils and pitfalls. Med J DY Patil Vidyapeeth [serial online] 2019 [cited 2020 Apr 7];12:481-2. Available from: http://www.mjdrdypv.org/text.asp?2019/12/6/481/269415

(US) JetBlue’s Founder Helped Fund A Stanford Study That Said The Coronavirus Wasn’t That Deadly – Buzzfeed News (Stephanie M. Lee | May 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on May 22, 2020
 

A Stanford whistleblower complaint alleges that the controversial John Ioannidis study failed to disclose important financial ties and ignored scientists’ concerns that their antibody test was inaccurate.

A highly influential coronavirus antibody study was funded in part by David Neeleman, the JetBlue Airways founder and a vocal proponent of the idea that the pandemic isn’t deadly enough to justify continued lockdowns.

That’s according to a complaint from an anonymous whistleblower, filed with Stanford University last week and obtained by BuzzFeed News, about the study conducted by the famous scientist John Ioannidis and others. The complaint cites dozens of emails, including exchanges with the airline executive while the study was being conducted.

The study — released as a non-peer-reviewed paper, or preprint, on April 17 — made headlines around the world with a dramatic finding: Based on antibodies in thousands of Silicon Valley residents’ blood samples, the number of coronavirus infections was up to 85 times higher than believed. This true infection count was so high that it would drive down the virus’s local fatality rate to 0.12%–0.2% — far closer to the known death rate for the flu.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0