Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Is Scientific Communication Fit for Purpose? – Scholarly Kitchen (November 2021)

Posted by Dr Gary Allen in Research Integrity on November 9, 2021
Keywords: Good practice, Institutional responsibilities, Journal, Publication ethics, Research results

The Linked Original Item was Posted On November 1, 2021

A hand writing words related to knowledge on the inside of a window.

Science is a process. We tack towards discovery, towards truth, because the process encourages curiosity, critical thinking, experimentation, correction, and, at least in recent years, competition. When it runs properly, the process as a whole, over the course of time, is trustworthy. To be sure, individual scientists misbehave and scientific works are riddled with problems, but the process seeks truth.

This interesting Scholarly Kitchen piece reflects on how our needs from science and research outputs are changing, what is driving questionable behaviour and the vital importance of public trust.  In our experience, trust is hard to build, is easy to lose and almost impossible to regain.  Our approach needs to change.   We need to stop incentivising bad behaviour and recognise positive behaviour.  We need systems that safeguard the sanctity of the scholarly record, not protect the reputation of institutions.  We have included links to 21 related items.

Tacking towards truth through iteration and error correction is a workable model when scientists are talking only to one another. But in today’s environment, openness brings individual scientific works far more readily into the public discourse. And public discourse is intensely politicized, with science serving in turn as an enemy, a scapegoat, a virtue signal, or a vector for misinformation. I believe our sector is overdue for a conversation about whether our model for scientific scholarly communication is fit for today’s environment, or whether it is increasingly leading to an erosion of public trust in science.

Openness
In earlier eras, the distinction between scientific communication with peers and public communication of science was greater. Over the past two decades, one of the underlying rationales of the open access movement has been that the general public should have ready and free access to the scientific record. As we begin to better understand the second-order consequences of openness, we must grapple more systematically with how they can be addressed.

Is Scientific Communication Trustworthy?
Openness and politicization together have enabled public trust in science to erode. The scholarly communication sector must not ignore this situation.

Related Reading

Strengthening the incentives for responsible research practices in Australian health and medical research funding (Papers: Joanna Diong, et al | July 2021)

(Australia) Strengthening the incentives for responsible research practices in Australian health and medical research funding (Papers: Joanna Diong, et al | August 2021)

(Pakistan) The rising menace of scholarly black-market Challenges and solutions for improving research in low-and middle-income countries – JPMA Editorial (Aamir Raoof Memon, Farooq Azam Rathore | June 2021

Can We Re-engineer Scholarly Journal Publishing? An Interview with Richard Wynne, Rescognito – Scholarly Kitchen (Alice Meadows & Tim Vines | March 2021)

(Russia) Unethical Practices in Research and Publishing: Evidence from Russia – Scholarly Kitchen (Anna Abalkina | February 2021)

(Brazil, et al) Improper publishing incentives in science put under microscope around the world – Chemistry World (Dalmeet Singh Chawla | October 2020)

Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk – Nature (Niels Mejlgaard, et al | October 2020)

(South Arica) The Unintended Consequences of Using Direct Incentives to Drive the Complex Task of Research Dissemination (Papers: Evelyn Muthama & Sioux McKenna | August 2020)

Hong Kong Principles

Five better ways to assess science – Nature Index (Benjamin Plackett | August 2020)

The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity (Papers: David Moher, et al | July 2020)

(China) China bans cash rewards for publishing papers – Nature (Smriti Mallapaty | February 2020)

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

Research integrity is much more than misconduct – Nature (C. K. Gunsalus | June 2019)

“Our current approaches are not working:” Time to make misconduct investigation reports public, says integrity expert – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | June 2019)

To move research from quantity to quality, go beyond good intentions – Nature ( Alan Finkel | February 2019)

Seven Costs of the Money Chase: How Academia’s Focus on Funding Influences Scientific Progress – APS (James McKeen | September 2017)

Metrics, recognition, and rewards: it’s time to incentivise the behaviours that are good for research and researchers – LSE Impact Blog (Rebecca Lawrence | November 2017)

Predatory Publishing as a Rational Response to Poorly Governed Academic Incentives – Scholarly Kitchen (David Crott | February 2017)

Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition (Papers: Marc Edwards and Roy Siddhartha 2016)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Links

Complaints against Research Ethics Monthly

Request a Takedown

Submission Guidelines

About the Research Ethics Monthly

About subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

A diverse group discussing a topic

Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in