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
What was that say
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Preprint advocates must also fight for research integrity – Nature (Gowri Gopalakrishna | September 2021)

Posted by Dr Gary Allen in Research Integrity on October 1, 2021
Keywords: Institutional responsibilities, Publication ethics, Research integrity, Research results, Researcher responsibilities

The Linked Original Item was Posted On September 13, 2021

Cloud architecture platform. Internet infrastructure concept. Abstract technology background.

Efforts to share research with the public must include mechanisms to prevent harm resulting from low-quality work.

I started my career as an infectious-disease epidemiologist at the Singapore Ministry of Health. Soon I was fighting the first coronavirus epidemic, that of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). That was in 2003, a world before biomedical preprints. In the middle of the current pandemic, I am thinking about preprints and research integrity. My professional expertise has come full circle.

This Nature story makes an excellent point.  Those of us who are fans of preprint servers have important obligations.  We support the role of preprinting because of the democratisation of science, the speed of knowledge transfer and the immediacy of open peer review.  But it only works if we can trust the honesty of the players.  One idea is treating a researcher more harshly in they go the preprint route knowing their work is falsified, fabricated or plagiarised.

I co-designed the Netherlands’ National Survey on Research Integrity (NSRI), one of the world’s largest on the topic. In July, we reported in a preprint that about 8% of researchers admitted committing misconduct, a higher figure than was found by previous studies. About one in two researchers admitted to frequently engaging in questionable research practices, including underplaying a study’s flaws and limitations. These findings have implications for the avalanche of preprints being deposited in public repositories.

The case for releasing preprints is clear: results from scientific studies are made more quickly and more broadly available. Overall, greater sharing and transparency boosts trustworthiness and collaboration. But efforts to promote preprints without simultaneously implementing firm measures to ensure that the research is of high quality put the cart before the horse.

Preprint advocates must also fight for research integrity
Efforts to share research with the public must include mechanisms to prevent harm resulting from low-quality work.

Related Reading

(Australia) ‘Devastating career event’: scientists caught out by change to Australian Research Council fine print – The Guardian (Donna Lum | August 2021)

How Science Moved Beyond Peer Review During The Pandemic – FiveThirtyEight (Maggie Koerth | July 2021)

Imposters and Impersonators in Preprints: How do we trust authors in Open Science? – Scholarly Kitchen (Leslie D. Mcintosh | March 2021)

(EU) How pandemic-driven preprints are driving open scrutiny of research – Horizon (Rex Merrifield | April 2021)

Pivotal Year for Preprints – Inside Higher Ed (Lilah Burke | January 2021)

Changes in the Scientific Information Environment During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Importance of Scientific Situational Awareness in Responding to the Infodemic – Mary Ann Liebert, Inc (John K. Iskander | December 2020)

Shepherding preprints through a pandemic (Paper – Feature: Theodora Bloom | )

Preprints Involving Medical Research—Do the Benefits Outweigh the Challenges? (Papers (Editorial): Annette Flanagin, et al | November 2020)

How a torrent of COVID science changed research publishing — in seven charts – Nature (Holly Else | December 2020)

Journalism, Preprint Servers, and the Truth: Allocating Accountability – Scholarly Kitchen (Rick Anderson | December 2020)

Preprinting a pandemic: the role of preprints in the COVID-19 pandemic (Pre-Print Papers: Nicholas Fraser, et al | May 2020)

Disseminating Scientific Results in the Age of Rapid Communication – EOS (Shobha Kondragunta, et al | October 2020)

Preprints and Citations: Should Non-Peer Reviewed Material Be Included in Article References? – Scholarly Kitchen (David Crotty | March 2018)

Ask The Chefs: Where Does Open Access Go From Here? – Scholarly Kitchen (Ann Michael | October 2017)

What Is “Open Science”? (And Why Some Researchers Want It) – Futurism (Elizabeth Gilbert, Katie Corker | June 2017)

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