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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us


Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Supervision and HDR candidate research outputs (Resource material: Griffith University | June 2018) UPDATED 14/02/190

Posted by Admin in on February 13, 2019

[This resource paper has been updated to reflect: the release of the Australian Code (2018); the release of the Griffith University Responsible Conduct of Research policy; changes to the NHMRC and Griffith University websites; and refreshing some of the links. Full disclaimer AHRECS senior consultant Dr Gary Allen co-authored this document.].

Griffith University has produced a resource paper for HDR supervisors about HDR candidate research outputs titled Planning for success and avoiding pitfalls. This work is licensed under an Attribution CC BY Version 4.0 International licence. You are free to use this work as long as you reference as follows: This document based upon a resource created at Griffith University.

The resource paper (principally produced by Dr Gary Allen) includes the following sections:

1.0 Defining authorship
2.0 Advantages of co-authorship
3.0 National and Griffith University policy frameworks
4.0 International guidelines
5.0 Who can/should be listed as authors for a candidate’s research outputs?
6.0 Order of authorship
7.0 Publication Plan
8.0 Publication Ethics
9.0 Conflicts of Interest
10.0 Selecting a Publisher
11.0 Collegiate discussion but prudent practice
12.0 Sources of advice
13.0 Specialist Workshops
A list of tips
Links to further resources
It includes recommended further reading



Mentors help authors say “no” to predatory journals – Elsevier Connect (Marilynn Larkin | November 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on February 2, 2019

Senior researchers can be role models, sharing their wisdom and experience in navigating a changing publishing landscape

While Elsevier Connect is not without a perceived conflict of interest in making this point, we agree. We also believe the role of mentor and mentoree should be viewed broadly, so it isn’t just supervisor and HDR candidate it is also experienced researchers and early career researchers in a project team, co-authors working on a research output and within a research centre. It also includes the role of a collegiate network of Research Integrity Advisers and the too-often-unsung role of research librarians.

The proliferation of predatory journals has become increasingly problematic, prompting collaborations among scientific publishers, universities, government bodies and nonprofits to raise awareness about their threat to the integrity of science. However, senior researchers also have a role to play, working one-on-one with students, colleagues and collaborators to promote the value of publishing in reputable journals that provide rigorous processes and can enhance a career over the long term.

“I get about 20 emails every day from predatory journals and organizers of questionable conferences,” says Dr. Dimiter Avtanski, Director of  the Endocrine Research Laboratory at Friedman Diabetes Institute at Lenox Hill Hospital, Northwell Health. Dr. Avtanski, a member of Elsevier’s Advisory Board, says he can tell very quickly by looking at the website whether a journal or conference is legitimate and worth considering. Red flags include spelling and grammatical errors, hyperbolic claims and false impact factors.

But he is aware that less experienced researchers may not take this step. Propelled by the pressure to publish, he says, “some feel desperate. It’s a systemic problem. Without constantly publishing papers, staying in this field is impossible. Predatory journals take advantage of that.”

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Research ethics now a strategic priority for doctoral schools – University World News ( Brendan O’Malley | January 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on January 21, 2019

Research ethics and integrity has become one of the top strategic priorities in doctoral education in Europe, according to a landscape report published by the European University Association’s Council for Doctoral Education (EUA-CDE), commissioned to examine progress in the reform or professionalisation of doctoral education and the strategic priorities ahead for the sector.

The report of the survey says this is one aspect that points to the increasing relevance of doctoral education for the implementation of research policies within universities.

“In particular, the importance attributed to research ethics and integrity is remarkable: several years ago, this topic rarely showed up in the debates and publications in this area. It shows how important the issue of research ethics and integrity has become for universities in a very short time.”

Read the rest of this news story

Is it time for a new classification system for scientific misconduct? – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | December 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on January 1, 2019

Are current classification systems for research misconduct adequate? Toshio Kuroki — special advisor to the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and professor emeritus at the University of Tokyo and Gifu University — thinks the answer is no. In a new paper in Accountability in Research, Kuroki — who has published on research misconduct before — suggests a new classification system. We asked him a few questions about his proposal. The answers are lightly edited for clarity.

Retraction Watch (RW): Why did you feel that a new classification of misconduct was necessary?

Toshio Kuroki (TK): The STAP affair, starring Haruko Obokata, was my inspiration to become a “misconductologist.” In 2016, I published a book in Japanese on research misconduct for the general public.

Read the rest of this discussion piece