ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)
Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search into
Filter by Categories
Research integrity
Filter by Categories
Human Research Ethics
AHRECS / Resources / Research Integrity

Research Integrity

Sort list by:


Philosophers clash over race science paper – Times Higher Education (Jack Grove | February 2020)

Published/Released on February 04, 2020 | Posted by Admin on February 25, 2020 | Keywords: , , ,

Furore over Oxford doctoral student’s journal article reignites debate over the limits of free speech

Academics have clashed over a journal paper that explores the idea that intelligence might be linked to race. [colored_box]Mark Alfano, who holds academic posts at Sydney’s More

Furore over Oxford doctoral student’s journal article reignites debate over the limits of free speech

Academics have clashed over a journal paper that explores the idea that intelligence might be linked to race. [colored_box]Mark Alfano, who holds academic posts at Sydney’s Macquarie University and Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, launched a petition last month that calls for the leadership of the journal Philosophical Psychology to resign, apologise or retract an article written by Nathan Cofnas, a doctoral student at the University of Oxford. . The paper, published in December, considers how society might need to respond differently if, “in a very short time”, science concludes that some races are more intelligent than others. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Is research integrity training a waste of time? – Nature (Gemma Conroy | February 2020)

Published/Released on February 12, 2020 | Posted by Admin on February 24, 2020 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Building good research practices begins before entering the lab.

More training and clear guidelines are favoured as fixes for bad research practices, but a new study suggests that these efforts are wasted if researchers are inherently dishonest. [colored_box]The study published... More

Building good research practices begins before entering the lab.

More training and clear guidelines are favoured as fixes for bad research practices, but a new study suggests that these efforts are wasted if researchers are inherently dishonest. [colored_box]The study published in BMC Medical Ethics revealed that childhood education and personality traits have a greater influence on how researchers conduct their work than formal training in research integrity. . The authors write that while it is possible to teach professional scientists the rules of rigorous research, “it might be far too late to imbue them with integrity that they do not already have.” . Institutions around the world are grappling with how to best tackle the problem of research misconduct. . But even after two decades of mandated training in responsible conduct for researchers funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation in the US, “the evidence on effectiveness of these trainings in changing behavior of researchers remains inconsistent and weak”, according to the paper. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Honesty in authorship. Who’s on first? – Hindawi (Eva Amsen | January 2020)

Published/Released on January 30, 2020 | Posted by Admin on February 23, 2020 | Keywords: , , ,

Research is a collaborative effort, and that collaboration extends to being honest and open about who gets an author credit.

Having your name on a published paper helps strengthen your academic record and improves your chances of securing funding for future projects. But... More

Research is a collaborative effort, and that collaboration extends to being honest and open about who gets an author credit.

Having your name on a published paper helps strengthen your academic record and improves your chances of securing funding for future projects. But when you are preparing a manuscript for submission, it’s important to be honest about the contributions of every possible author on the paper, to make sure that everyone involved gets the credit they deserve. This post introduces some of the guidelines and criteria that authors and journals can refer to when deciding who earned a place on the author list. It also touches on some tricky situations, such as equal contributors or very long author lists. Identifying author contribution The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has prepared criteria that each author on a paper should meet. Several journals refer to these criteria in their own policies, particularly in the biomedical sciences.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(US) US biomedical agency has investigated hundreds claims of inappropriate conduct this year – Nature (Nidhi Subbaraman | December 2019)

Published/Released on December 13, 2019 | Posted by Admin on February 22, 2020 | Keywords: , , , ,

The director of the US National Institutes of Health says the agency will begin revising its policies on harassment next year.

Nearly 40% of women trainees polled by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) between January and March 2019 reported being sexually harassed... More

The director of the US National Institutes of Health says the agency will begin revising its policies on harassment next year.

Nearly 40% of women trainees polled by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) between January and March 2019 reported being sexually harassed at work. [colored_box]Those are the results of a staff survey delivered to NIH director Francis Collins and a panel of his advisers on 12 December. It identified young women, people from sexual and gender minorities and those with disabilities as those most vulnerable to harassment. . The elite panel also reviewed a long-awaited report commissioned by the NIH that charged the agency to work rapidly stop sexual harassment in science labs. But agency watchers who have pressed the NIH to act for more than a year were left without a clear timeline for changes. . “It’s no longer time to consider — it’s time to act,” says Scout, deputy director of the US National LGBT Cancer Network and a member of the Working Group on Changing the Culture to End Sexual Harassment, which prepared the report. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


The Intellectual and Moral Decline in Academic Research – James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal (Edward Archer | January 2020)

Published/Released on January 29, 2020 | Posted by Admin on February 20, 2020 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

For most of the past century, the United States was the pre-eminent nation in science and technology. The evidence for that is beyond dispute: Since 1901, American researchers have won more Nobel prizes in medicine, chemistry, and physics than any other nation. Given our history of discovery, innovation, and... More

For most of the past century, the United States was the pre-eminent nation in science and technology. The evidence for that is beyond dispute: Since 1901, American researchers have won more Nobel prizes in medicine, chemistry, and physics than any other nation. Given our history of discovery, innovation, and success, it is not surprising that across the political landscape Americans consider the funding of scientific research to be both a source of pride and a worthy investment. [colored_box]Nevertheless, in his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned that the pursuit of government grants would have a corrupting influence on the scientific community. He feared that while American universities were “historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery,” the pursuit of taxpayer monies would become “a substitute for intellectual curiosity” and lead to “domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment…and the power of money.” . Eisenhower’s fears were well-founded and prescient. . My experiences at four research universities and as a National Institutes of Health (NIH) research fellow taught me that the relentless pursuit of taxpayer funding has eliminated curiosity, basic competence, and scientific integrity in many fields. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Defining predatory journals and responding to the threat they pose: a modified Delphi consensus process (Papers: Samantha Cukier, et al | February 2020)

Published/Released on February 09, 2020 | Posted by Admin on February 18, 2020 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract Objective To conduct a Delphi survey informing a consensus definition of predatory journals and publishers. Design This is a modified three-round Delphi survey delivered online for the first two rounds and in-person for the third round. Questions encompassed three themes: (1) predatory... More

Abstract Objective To conduct a Delphi survey informing a consensus definition of predatory journals and publishers. Design This is a modified three-round Delphi survey delivered online for the first two rounds and in-person for the third round. Questions encompassed three themes: (1) predatory journal definition; (2) educational outreach and policy initiatives on predatory publishing; and (3) developing technological solutions to stop submissions to predatory journals and other low-quality journals. Participants [colored_box]Through snowball and purposive sampling of targeted experts, we identified 45 noted experts in predatory journals and journalology. The international group included funders, academics and representatives of academic institutions, librarians and information scientists, policy makers, journal editors, publishers, researchers involved in studying predatory journals and legitimate journals, and patient partners. In addition, 198 authors of articles discussing predatory journals were invited to participate in round 1. . Results A total of 115 individuals (107 in round 1 and 45 in rounds 2 and 3) completed the survey on predatory journals and publishers. We reached consensus on 18 items out of a total of 33 to be included in a consensus definition of predatory journals and publishers. We came to consensus on educational outreach and policy initiatives on which to focus, including the development of a single checklist to detect predatory journals and publishers, and public funding to support research in this general area. We identified technological solutions to address the problem: a ‘one-stop-shop’ website to consolidate information on the topic and a ‘predatory journal research observatory’ to identify ongoing research and analysis about predatory journals/publishers. . Conclusions In bringing together an international group of diverse stakeholders, we were able to use a modified Delphi process to inform the development of a definition of predatory journals and publishers. This definition will help institutions, funders and other stakeholders generate practical guidance on avoiding predatory journals and publishers.

Cukier S., Lalu M., Bryson GL., Cobey,. K. D., Grudniewicz, A. &  Moher, D (2020) Defining predatory journals and responding to the threat they pose: a modified Delphi consensus process. BMJ Open 10:e035561. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035561 Publisher (Open Access): https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/2/e035561.full

Less

View full details | Go to resource


The Repetition Compulsion – Inside Higher Ed (Scott McLemee | January 2020)

Published/Released on January 10, 2020 | Posted by Admin on February 16, 2020 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Scott McLemee explores various scholars' rationales for self-plagiarism.

Last spring the American Society for Engineering Education's magazine Prism ran an opinion piece titled "Plagiarism Is Not a Victimless Crime" by Adrian Bejan, a professor of mechanical engineering at Duke University. It ended with an admonishment... More

Scott McLemee explores various scholars' rationales for self-plagiarism.

Last spring the American Society for Engineering Education's magazine Prism ran an opinion piece titled "Plagiarism Is Not a Victimless Crime" by Adrian Bejan, a professor of mechanical engineering at Duke University. It ended with an admonishment to scholarly editors and publishers: "Exposing plagiarists without implementing an unforgiving policy (punishment) that terminates the practice is to do nothing." So far, so punitive. But in an interesting detour, Bejan threw down the gauntlet at publishers who "playact as enemies of plagiarism" by accusing authors of "self-plagiarism" when they recycle portions of their own work. "The term is nonsense," Bejan wrote. "One does not steal from oneself; one owns what one creates. Accusing the creative author of self-plagiarism is like accusing Picasso, Matisse and Brancusi of thievery because they sold many pieces of art that looked like their own art from a few years back." The first part of his complaint -- what we might call the argument from oxymoronicism -- is sure to be raised whenever the concept of self-plagiarism comes up. Less familiar, perhaps, is the notion of self-copying as one of the privileges of creativity. Bejan may be responding to an essay by David Goldblatt called "Self-Plagiarism" (the top JSTOR search result on the topic by relevance) that appeared in The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism in 1984. Goldblatt's understanding of originality is stringent, almost punishing. Artists who "ride on the coattails of their previous successes" -- who "mak[e] no aesthetic progress" and resort to "insignificantly repeating features that have been created at some other time, even if those features were created by the artist him or herself" -- are guilty of "enjoying the status of 'artist' when that status has expired." Aesthetic progress, it seems, is a jealous god, and vengeful in his wrath. Bejan's remarks on Picasso et al. seem a lot more generous.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Opinion: Exorcising Ghostwriting from Peer Review – TheScientist (James L. Sherley | January 2020)

Published/Released on February 13, 2020 | Posted by Admin on February 15, 2020 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Training young scientists to review submitted manuscripts should be an academic exercise, not a facet of professional scientific publishing.

On November 4, 2019, The Scientist ran a revealing Q&A highlighting a recent survey published in eLife. Responses from early career... More

Training young scientists to review submitted manuscripts should be an academic exercise, not a facet of professional scientific publishing.

On November 4, 2019, The Scientist ran a revealing Q&A highlighting a recent survey published in eLife. Responses from early career researchers (ECRs) and other scientists drew attention to a widespread, unethical practice to which academic scientists have too long resigned themselves—peer review ghostwriting (8:e48425, 2019). [colored_box]As defined in that paper, peer review ghostwriting occurs when scientists hand over manuscripts that they have agreed to review for journal editors to graduate students or postdocs in their research groups. The involvement of the junior scientists is not typically disclosed to the journal, so editors work under the impression that the invited reviewer developed and wrote the resulting manuscript review themselves. . Survey results reported in the eLife paper provided the first quantitative evidence for the prevalence of this practice, as well as for the practice the study authors refer to as co-reviewing. In a strict sense, co-reviewing happens when a trainee is involved in developing and writing the review and their contribution is disclosed to journal editors. Some consider this transparent form of collaborative peer review a valuable part of scientific training, and the eLife study authors even argue that journals should codify co-review. But in my experience, the involvement of co-reviewers is sometimes not disclosed to the journals, just as is the case with ghostwriters. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

  Less

View full details | Go to resource


When it comes to good practice in science, we need to think global but act local – Nature (Editorial | December 2019)

Published/Released on December 11, 2019 | Posted by Admin on February 15, 2020 | Keywords: , , , ,

International codes of conduct are important, but grass-roots efforts are the key to embedding research integrity.

When it comes to research integrity, scientists use the language of aspiration, whereas policymakers talk about hard rules and enforcement. [colored_box]That’s one conclusion from an in-depth analysis of published... More

International codes of conduct are important, but grass-roots efforts are the key to embedding research integrity.

When it comes to research integrity, scientists use the language of aspiration, whereas policymakers talk about hard rules and enforcement. [colored_box]That’s one conclusion from an in-depth analysis of published research and policy documents in research integrity (S. P. J. M. Horbach and W. Halffman Sci. Eng. Ethics 23, 1461–1485; 2017). There are other disconnects, too. Countries, disciplines and sectors often approach integrity in different ways. For some, it can be confined to preventing data fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. But integrity is much broader, encompassing quality and relevance, as well as recognition of diversity and inclusion. . The need for a unified approach is slowly gaining recognition. The World Science Forum, a biennial meeting of researchers and policymakers from different countries, issued a declaration at its November conference in Budapest that called for, among other things, “harmonisation and enforcement of standards of conduct of scientific research across borders and across public and private research”. The declaration also supported processes by which scientists “can report suspected research misconduct and other irresponsible research practices, without fear of reprisal”, and it urged clearer procedures for responding to such concerns. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Friday afternoon’s funny – Peril ahead?

Published/Released on February 14, 2020 | Posted by Admin on February 14, 2020 | Keywords: , , ,

View full details


Estonian Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (Guidelines | 2017)

Published/Released on February 01, 2017 | Posted by Admin on February 13, 2020 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


‘Avalanche’ of spider-paper retractions shakes behavioural-ecology community – Nature (Giuliana Viglione | February 2020)

Published/Released on February 07, 2020 | Posted by Admin on February 12, 2020 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

Allegations of fabricated data have prompted a university investigation and some soul-searching.

A complex web is unravelling in the field of spider research. On 5 February, McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada, confirmed that it was investigating allegations that behavioural ecologist Jonathan Pruitt fabricated data... More

Allegations of fabricated data have prompted a university investigation and some soul-searching.

A complex web is unravelling in the field of spider research. On 5 February, McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada, confirmed that it was investigating allegations that behavioural ecologist Jonathan Pruitt fabricated data in at least 17 papers on which he was a co-author. [colored_box]Since concerns about his work became public in late January, scientists have rushed to uncover the extent of questionable data in Pruitt’s studies. Publishers are now trying to keep up with requests for retractions and investigations. According to a publicly available spreadsheet maintained by Daniel Bolnick, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Connecticut in Storrs, seven papers have been retracted or are in the process of being retracted; five further retractions have been requested by Pruitt’s co-authors; and researchers have flagged at least five more studies as containing possible data anomalies. . Pruitt, who is reportedly doing field research in Australia and the South Pacific, told Science last week that he had not fabricated or manipulated data in any way. He did not respond to multiple requests from Nature for comment on the mounting list of retractions, or the accusation that he fabricated data. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Universities told to appoint research integrity ‘counsellors’ – Times Higher Education (Ellie Bothwell | January 2020)

Published/Released on January 27, 2020 | Posted by Admin on February 10, 2020 | Keywords: , , , , ,

But paper from League of European Research Universities says that anonymous reports of research misconduct should be avoided

Universities should appoint “confidential counsellors” at a faculty level to advise staff and students on research integrity issues, according to a new report from some of... More

But paper from League of European Research Universities says that anonymous reports of research misconduct should be avoided

Universities should appoint “confidential counsellors” at a faculty level to advise staff and students on research integrity issues, according to a new report from some of Europe’s leading institutions. [colored_box]An advice paper published by the League of European Research Universities says it is “important that researchers are able to...obtain strictly confidential advice”, adding that “in many cases researchers face problems that they do not immediately want to share with their colleagues”. . This is particularly an issue when the researcher’s career is partly dependent on their colleague, such as in the case of a PhD student and their supervisor, it says. . Antoine Hol, professor of jurisprudence at Utrecht University, chair of the Leru research integrity group and co-author of the paper, said that it was relatively common for universities to have confidential counsellors or advisers at a university level, but it was important for institutions to make such appointments at a faculty level so that they are easily accessible and understand the specific culture that researchers might be facing. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(Egypt) Professor Obbink and missing EES papyri – Egypt Exploration Society (October 2019)

Published/Released on October 14, 2019 | Posted by Admin on February 8, 2020 | Keywords: , , , ,

On 25 June 2019 the Egypt Exploration Society (EES) posted a statement on its website that it was working with the Museum of the Bible (MOTB) to clarify whether any texts from the EES Oxyrhynchus collection had been sold or offered for sale to Hobby Lobby or its agents,... More

On 25 June 2019 the Egypt Exploration Society (EES) posted a statement on its website that it was working with the Museum of the Bible (MOTB) to clarify whether any texts from the EES Oxyrhynchus collection had been sold or offered for sale to Hobby Lobby or its agents, and if so, when and by whom. This was in response to the online publication by Dr Brent Nongbri, following its release by Professor Michael Holmes of the MOTB, of a redacted copy of a contract of 17 January 2013 between Professor Dirk Obbink and Hobby Lobby Stores for the sale of six items to Hobby Lobby, including four New Testament fragments probably of EES provenance. This statement reports our findings to date. . [colored_box]With the help of photographs provided by the MOTB, the EES has so far identified thirteen texts from its collection, twelve on papyrus and one on parchment, all with biblical or related content, which are currently held by the MOTB (see the attached list). These texts were taken without authorisation from the EES, and in most of the thirteen cases the catalogue card and photograph are also missing. Fortunately, the EES has back-up records which enable us to identify missing unpublished texts. For clarity, we note that the four texts specified in the handwritten list made public alongside the 2013 contract, which are probably the texts of that contract, remain in the EES collection, and two have been published as P.Oxy. LXXXIII 5345 and 5346. . The Board of Trustees of the MOTB has accepted the EES claim to ownership of the thirteen pieces identified to date, and is arranging to return them to the EES. The EES is grateful to the MOTB for its co-operation, and has agreed that the research on these texts by scholars under the auspices of the MOTB will receive appropriate recognition when the texts are published in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri series. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(Russia) Putin wanted Russian science to top the world. Then a huge academic scandal blew up – The Washington Post (Robyn Dixon | January 2020)

Published/Released on February 17, 2020 | Posted by Admin on February 7, 2020 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

MOSCOW — Eight years ago, President Vladimir Putin decreed that Russia must become a leading scientific power. That meant at least five top-100 Russian universities by 2020, and a dramatic increase in the number of global citations of Russian scientific papers. [colored_box]Now a group at the center of Putin’s aspirations,... More

MOSCOW — Eight years ago, President Vladimir Putin decreed that Russia must become a leading scientific power. That meant at least five top-100 Russian universities by 2020, and a dramatic increase in the number of global citations of Russian scientific papers. [colored_box]Now a group at the center of Putin’s aspirations, the Russian Academy of Sciences, has dropped a bombshell into the plans. A commission set up by the academy has led to the retraction of at least 869 Russian scientific articles, mainly for plagiarism. . “This is the largest retraction in Russian scientific history. Never before have hundreds of papers been retracted,” said Andrei Zayakin, scientific secretary of the RAS Commission for Countering the Falsification of Scientific Research. “Before two years ago, there might have been single cases, but not even dozens.” .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Competition drives researchers to counselling – and exit door – Times Higher Education (Jack Grove | January 2020)

Published/Released on January 15, 2020 | Posted by Admin on February 5, 2020 | Keywords: , ,

Poll of 4,000 researchers reveals half have sought or wanted help for mental health problems, and four in 10 are victims of bullying or harassment

Half of researchers have sought or wanted professional help to deal with anxiety or depression, according to a landmark... More

Poll of 4,000 researchers reveals half have sought or wanted help for mental health problems, and four in 10 are victims of bullying or harassment

Half of researchers have sought or wanted professional help to deal with anxiety or depression, according to a landmark survey that blames competition and targets for creating an “aggressive” culture of bullying and overwork. [colored_box]Thirty-four per cent of the 4,000 researchers who completed the Wellcome Trust poll, most of whom were based in the UK, said that they had sought professional help for depression or anxiety during their research career, and a further 19 per cent had wanted to do so. . Women were more likely to have sought help than men, with 38 per cent having done so, compared with 25 per cent of males. Only 44 per cent of respondents agreed that their workplace offered adequate well-being support. Among other findings, the survey, published on 15 January, reveals:
  • Forty-three per cent of respondents said that they had experienced bullying or harassment at work, with women more likely to be victims (49 per cent) than men (34 per cent).
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Universities must overhaul the toxic working culture for academic researchers – The Guardian (Anton Muscatelli | January 2020)

Published/Released on January 16, 2020 | Posted by Admin on February 4, 2020 | Keywords:

A survey has warned that researchers are too stressed. It’s up to universities to improve their working environment

Academic research is an exciting, creative and varied endeavour, yet there is growing evidence that our culture has developed unhealthy levels of anxiety and stress. As... More

A survey has warned that researchers are too stressed. It’s up to universities to improve their working environment

Academic research is an exciting, creative and varied endeavour, yet there is growing evidence that our culture has developed unhealthy levels of anxiety and stress. As the UK increases research and development spending – all the more important after Brexit – we will see much-needed growth in the number and significance of researchers. Yet it’s clear that we also need to make changes to their working conditions. This is underscored by a new survey from research funder Wellcome, which says that 78% of researchers think that high levels of competition are creating unkind working conditions, while 57% warn of a long-hours culture. The findings resonate with my own experience: I have seen this stress during my academic career and through my conversations as a university leader. They also mirror the results of our own recent internal survey on research culture. This is why I believe that universities must unite to create a research culture that is truly supportive and will sustain our talented research community as they address the social, economic and environmental challenges of the 21st century.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Tell it like it is – Nature Human Behaviour (Editorial | January 2020)

Published/Released on January 21, 2020 | Posted by Admin on February 2, 2020 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Every research paper tells a story, but the pressure to provide ‘clean’ narratives is harmful for the scientific endeavour.

Research manuscripts provide an account of how their authors addressed a research question or questions, the means they used to do so, what they found... More

Every research paper tells a story, but the pressure to provide ‘clean’ narratives is harmful for the scientific endeavour.

Research manuscripts provide an account of how their authors addressed a research question or questions, the means they used to do so, what they found and how the work (dis) confirms existing hypotheses or generates new ones. The current research culture is characterized by significant pressure to present research projects as conclusive narratives that leave no room for ambiguity or for conflicting or inconclusive results. [colored_box]The pressure to produce such clean narratives, however, represents a significant threat to validity and runs counter to the reality of what science looks like. . Prioritizing conclusive over transparent research narratives incentivizes a host of questionable research practices: hypothesizing after the results are known, selectively reporting only those outcomes that confirm the original predictions or excluding from the research report studies that provide contradictory or messy results. Each of these practices damages credibility and presents a distorted picture of the research that prevents cumulative knowledge. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


What To Do When You Don’t Trust Your Data Anymore – Laskowski Lab at UC Davis (January 2020)

Published/Released on January 29, 2020 | Posted by Admin on February 1, 2020 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Science is built on trust. Trust that your experiments will work. Trust in your collaborators to pull their weight. But most importantly, trust that the data we so painstakingly collect are accurate and as representative of the real world as they can be. [colored_box]And so when I realized that I... More

Science is built on trust. Trust that your experiments will work. Trust in your collaborators to pull their weight. But most importantly, trust that the data we so painstakingly collect are accurate and as representative of the real world as they can be. [colored_box]And so when I realized that I could no longer trust the data that I had reported in some of my papers, I did what I think is the only correct course of action. I retracted them. . Retractions are seen as a comparatively rare event in science, and this is no different for my particular field (evolutionary and behavioral ecology), so I know that there is probably some interest in understanding the story behind it. This is my attempt to explain how and why I came to the conclusion that these papers needed to be removed from the scientific record. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(China) Publishers urged to take stronger stance on Uighur persecution – Times Higher Education (Ellie Bothwell | January 2020)

Scholars say ensuring vulnerable minorities have given consent to use of their data does not go far enough

Academics are pushing journal publishers to take more drastic action in response to China’s crackdown on minority Muslims in the wake of increasing scrutiny over the... More

Scholars say ensuring vulnerable minorities have given consent to use of their data does not go far enough

Academics are pushing journal publishers to take more drastic action in response to China’s crackdown on minority Muslims in the wake of increasing scrutiny over the global science community’s role in the continued persecution. There have been rising concerns over Western journals’ publication of papers focusing on the DNA of minority ethnic groups by Chinese scientists affiliated with the country’s surveillance agencies. More than 1 million Uighurs and other members of predominantly Muslim minority groups are believed to have been locked up in internment camps and there are worries that this research is being used to build databases, facial recognition systems and other methods for monitoring these groups.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Should research misconduct be criminalized? (Papers: Rafael Dal-Ré, et al | January 2020)

Published/Released on January 16, 2020 | Posted by Admin on January 29, 2020 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Abstract [colored_box]For more than 25 years, research misconduct (research fraud) is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP)—although other research misbehaviors have been also added in codes of conduct and legislations. A critical issue in deciding whether research misconduct should be subject to criminal law is... More

Abstract [colored_box]For more than 25 years, research misconduct (research fraud) is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP)—although other research misbehaviors have been also added in codes of conduct and legislations. A critical issue in deciding whether research misconduct should be subject to criminal law is its definition, because not all behaviors labeled as research misconduct qualifies as serious crime. But assuming that all FFP is fraud and all non-FFP not is far from obvious. In addition, new research misbehaviors have recently been described, such as prolific authorship, and fake peer review, or boosted such as duplication of images. The scientific community has been largely successful in keeping criminal law away from the cases of research misconduct. Alleged cases of research misconduct are usually looked into by committees of scientists usually from the same institution or university of the suspected offender in a process that often lacks transparency. Few countries have or plan to introduce independent bodies to address research misconduct; so for the coming years, most universities and research institutions will continue handling alleged research misconduct cases with their own procedures. A global operationalization of research misconduct with clear boundaries and clear criteria would be helpful. There is room for improvement in reaching global clarity on what research misconduct is, how allegations should be handled, and which sanctions are appropriate. . Keywords Research misconduct, scientific misconduct, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, research fraud

Dal-Ré, R., Bouter, L. M., Cuijpers, P., Gluud, C., & Holm, S. (2020) Should research misconduct be criminalized? Research Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016119898400 Publisher (Open Access): https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1747016119898400

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Working with research integrity – guidance for research performing organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement (Resource | February 2018)

View full details


Research intelligence: how to sniff out errors and fraud – Times Higher Education (Jack Grove | January 2020)

A growing number of data detectives are on the hunt for sloppy science and dodgy statistics. Jack Grove examines the methods they use

These days it is not just co-authors or peer reviewers who are checking journal papers for errors: a growing number of... More

A growing number of data detectives are on the hunt for sloppy science and dodgy statistics. Jack Grove examines the methods they use

These days it is not just co-authors or peer reviewers who are checking journal papers for errors: a growing number of self-appointed fraud busters are scanning scientific literature for flaws. This unpaid and mostly anonymous endeavour has led to the retractions of hundreds of papers and even disciplinary action where wrongdoing is exposed. So how can scholars catch errors when reviewing others’ papers, or when double-checking their own work or that of collaborators?

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Quality of reports of investigations of research integrity by academic institutions (Papers: Andrew Grey, et al | February 2019)

Published/Released on February 19, 2019 | Posted by Admin on January 27, 2020 | Keywords: , , ,

More

Abstract Background Academic institutions play important roles in protecting and preserving research integrity. Concerns have been expressed about the objectivity, adequacy and transparency of institutional investigations of potentially compromised research integrity. We assessed the reports provided to us of investigations by three academic institutions of a large body of overlapping research with potentially compromised integrity. Methods In 2017, we raised concerns with four academic institutions about the integrity of > 200 publications co-authored by an overlapping set of researchers. Each institution initiated an investigation. By November 2018, three had reported to us the results of their investigations, but only one report was publicly available. Two investigators independently assessed each available report using a published 26-item checklist designed to determine the quality and adequacy of institutional investigations of research integrity. Each assessor recorded additional comments ad hoc. Results Concerns raised with the institutions were overlapping, wide-ranging and included those which were both general and publication-specific. The number of potentially affected publications at individual institutions ranged from 34 to 200. The duration of investigation by the three institutions which provided reports was 8–17 months. These investigations covered 14%, 15% and 77%, respectively, of potentially affected publications. Between-assessor agreement using the quality checklist was 0.68, 0.72 and 0.65 for each report. Only 4/78 individual checklist items were addressed adequately: a further 14 could not be assessed. Each report was graded inadequate overall. Reports failed to address publication-specific concerns and focussed more strongly on determining research misconduct than evaluating the integrity of publications. Conclusions Our analyses identify important deficiencies in the quality and reporting of institutional investigation of concerns about the integrity of a large body of research reported by an overlapping set of researchers. They reinforce disquiet about the ability of institutions to rigorously and objectively oversee integrity of research conducted by their own employees. Keywords Research Integrity, Institution, Misconduct, Investigation

Grey, A., Bolland, M., Gamble, Avenell, A. (2019) Quality of reports of investigations of research integrity by academic institutions. Research Integrity and Peer Review 4(3). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0062-x Publisher (Open Access): https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-019-0062-x

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Evaluating ethics oversight during assessment of research integrity (Papers: Andrew Grey, et al | November 2019)

Published/Released on January 24, 2020 | Posted by Admin on January 24, 2020 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

View full details


(US) New eLife editor Michael Eisen wants to shake up scientific publishing – Berkeley News (Robert Sanders | April 2019)

Published/Released on April 04, 2019 | Posted by Admin on January 24, 2020 | Keywords: , , , ,

The University of California system’s recent decision to walk away from negotiations with scholarly journal publishing giant Elsevier highlights once again the many problems within the scientific publishing business, a $10 billion-per-year worldwide enterprise that is the bedrock of modern science. Publishers like Elsevier, Springer... More

The University of California system’s recent decision to walk away from negotiations with scholarly journal publishing giant Elsevier highlights once again the many problems within the scientific publishing business, a $10 billion-per-year worldwide enterprise that is the bedrock of modern science. Publishers like Elsevier, Springer — which publishes the high-impact journal Nature —and dozens of other for-profit companies and nonprofit scientific societies are an essential part of the give-and-take of science, offering a place to publish and share new results. But they also charge for scientists and the public to read those results, much of which the public originally funded through federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). The UC most recently paid Elsevier $11 million for a year’s worth of access to its journals, which include the well-known medical journal The Lancet and more than 2,500 lesser-known titles, from Poetics to Fungal Biology. Michael Eisen, a professor of molecular and cell biology and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator, has done his part to disrupt the stodgy business, which he thinks not only takes advantage of authors and universities, but distorts the process of science. As a founder 19 years ago of the first open access journal, PLOS (Public Library of Science), he sought to establish a new business model where scientists pay to publish, while anyone can view the results for free. Other journals slowly moved in that direction, but even today, only about 20 percent of all published research is open access, and almost none of the papers appearing in high profile publications like Nature, Science and PNAS(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) can be read by the public without charge. Appointed last month the editor-in-chief of the open access journal eLife — Berkeley Nobel Laureate Randy Schekman is stepping down as founding editor — Eisen has a new platform to shake up the field of science publishing and help make it serve scientists and the public.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Eleven tips for working with large data sets – Nature (Anna Nowogrodzki | January 2020)

Published/Released on January 13, 2020 | Posted by Admin on January 22, 2020 | Keywords: , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Meta-analysis study indicates we publish more positive results – ARS Technica (John Timmer | December 2019)

Published/Released on December 30, 2019 | Posted by Admin on January 13, 2020 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Meta-analyses will only produce more reliable results if the studies are good.

While science as a whole has produced remarkably reliable answers to a lot of questions, it does so despite the fact that any individual study may not be reliable. Issues like small... More

Meta-analyses will only produce more reliable results if the studies are good.

While science as a whole has produced remarkably reliable answers to a lot of questions, it does so despite the fact that any individual study may not be reliable. Issues like small errors on the part of researchers, unidentified problems with materials or equipment, or the tendency to publish positive answers can alter the results of a single paper. But collectively, through multiple studies, science as a whole inches towards an understanding of the underlying reality. [colored_box]A meta-analysis is a way to formalize that process. It takes the results of multiple studies and combines them, increasing the statistical power of the analysis. This may cause exciting results seen in a few small studies to vanish into statistical noise, or it can tease out a weak effect that's completely lost in more limited studies. . But a meta-analysis only works its magic if the underlying data is solid. And a new study that looks at multiple meta-analyses (a meta-meta-analysis?) suggests that one of those factors—our tendency to publish results that support hypotheses—is making the underlying data less solid than we like. Publication bias It's possible for publication bias to be a form of research misconduct. If a researcher is convinced of their hypothesis, they might actively avoid publishing any results that would undercut their own ideas. But there's plenty of other ways for publication bias to set in. Researchers who find a weak effect might hold off on publishing in the hope that further research would be more convincing. Journals also have a tendency to favor publishing positive results—one where a hypothesis is confirmed—and avoid publishing studies that don't see any effect at all. Researchers, being aware of this, might adjust the publications they submit accordingly. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Russian journals retract more than 800 papers after ‘bombshell’ investigation – Science (Dalmeet Singh Chawla | January 2020)

Published/Released on January 08, 2020 | Posted by Admin on January 11, 2020 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

Academic journals in Russia are retracting more than 800 papers following a probe into unethical publication practices by a commission appointed by the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). The moves come in the wake of several other queries suggesting the vast Russian scientific literature is riddled with plagiarism, self-plagiarism,... More

Academic journals in Russia are retracting more than 800 papers following a probe into unethical publication practices by a commission appointed by the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). The moves come in the wake of several other queries suggesting the vast Russian scientific literature is riddled with plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and so-called gift authorship, in which academics become a co-author without having contributed any work.

The RAS commission’s preliminary report documenting the problems and journals’ responses to them is “a bombshell,” says Gerson Sher, a former staffer at the U.S. National Science Foundation and the author of a recent book on U.S.-Russia science cooperation. The report, released yesterday, “will reinforce the suspicions and fears of many—that their country is not going down the right path in science and that it’s damaging its own reputation,” says Sher, who applauds RAS for commissioning the investigation.
Russia’s roughly 6000 academic journals, the vast majority published in Russian, are popular among the country’s academics. A 2019 study found that Russian authors publish far more in domestic journals than, for instance, their counterparts in Poland, Germany, or Indonesia. But standards are often low. In March 2018, for instance, Dissernet, a network aimed at cleaning up the Russian literature, identified more than 4000 cases of plagiarism and questionable authorship among 150,000 papers in about 1500 journals.
Less

View full details | Go to resource


(Queensland, Australia) Ex-judge to investigate controversial marine research – Times Higher Education (John Ross | January 2020)

Published/Released on January 08, 2020 | Posted by Admin on January 11, 2020 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , ,

An Australian university has launched an investigation into the research record of a discredited scientist it educated, as findings by academics who supervised her doctoral training are challenged. James Cook University said it has appointed an external panel to look for evidence of misconduct... More

An Australian university has launched an investigation into the research record of a discredited scientist it educated, as findings by academics who supervised her doctoral training are challenged. James Cook University said it has appointed an external panel to look for evidence of misconduct in the research conducted by marine biologist Oona Lönnstedt between 2010 and 2014, when she was undertaking PhD studies at the Queensland institution. The university said the panel’s as yet unidentified members include “eminent academics with expertise in field work, marine science and ethics” and a former federal court judge.

Read the rest of this news story

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(India) PhD students to mandatorily learn about research and publication ethics – The Times of India (Sheetal Banchariya | December 2019)

Published/Released on December 30, 2019 | Posted by Admin on January 7, 2020 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

UGC has made a two-credit course compulsory at the PhD level looking at the increasing cases of plagiarism and publication misconducts. [colored_box]With an increase in researches, maintaining quality remains a concern for Indian universities. To introduce students to the basics of research, the University Grants Commission (UGC) has approved a... More

UGC has made a two-credit course compulsory at the PhD level looking at the increasing cases of plagiarism and publication misconducts. [colored_box]With an increase in researches, maintaining quality remains a concern for Indian universities. To introduce students to the basics of research, the University Grants Commission (UGC) has approved a two-credit course on research ethics and publication misconducts. . All the PhD students will have to mandatorily pursue the 30-hour course from the academic session 2020-21. The course is divided into six units focussing on the basics of philosophy of science and ethics, research integrity, publication ethics and hands-on sessions to identify research misconducts and predatory publishers. "In the last 15 years, the number of cases related to unethical practices such as plagiarism, pay and publish have increased. The course follows the management principle known as Corrective and Prevention Actions (CAPA), which will help students identify and stay away from the predatory publishers and dubious journals," says Bhushan Patwardhan, vice chairman, UGC.

Read the rest of this news story

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(China/Gene) Chinese scientist who produced genetically altered babies sentenced to 3 years in jail – Science (Dennis Normile | December 2019)

He Jiankui, the Chinese researcher who stunned the world last year by announcing he had helped produce genetically edited babies, has been found guilty of conducting “illegal medical practices” and sentenced to 3 years in prison. [colored_box]A court in Shenzhen found that He and two collaborators forged... More

He Jiankui, the Chinese researcher who stunned the world last year by announcing he had helped produce genetically edited babies, has been found guilty of conducting “illegal medical practices” and sentenced to 3 years in prison. [colored_box]A court in Shenzhen found that He and two collaborators forged ethical review documents and misled doctors into unknowingly implanting gene-edited embryos into two women, according to Xinhua, China’s state-run press agency. One mother gave birth to twin girls in November 2018; it has not been made clear when the third baby was born. The court ruled that the three defendants had deliberately violated national regulations on biomedical research and medical ethics, and rashly applied gene-editing technology to human reproductive medicine. . All three pleaded guilty, according to Xinhua. The court also fined He, formerly of the Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech) and known as JK to friends and colleagues, 3 million Chinese yuan ($429,000). His collaborators were identified as Zhang Renli, of a medical institution in Guangdong province, and Qin Jinzhou, from a Shenzhen medical institution; Zhang received a 2-year prison sentence and was fined 1 million yuan, according to Xinhua, whereas Qin was given 18 months in prison with a 2-year reprieve, and a 500,000 yuan fine. .

Read the rest of this news  story

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Don’t let researchers recommend who reviews their work – Nature Index (Dalmeet Singh Chawla | November 2019)

Published/Released on November 22, 2019 | Posted by Admin on January 3, 2020 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Some funders and publishers call it unethical, for others, it's par for the course.

Why do some other funders and scholarly publishers still allow researchers to suggest reviewers to evaluate their work? The US National Science Foundation and the UK Research and Innovation — Britain’s... More

Some funders and publishers call it unethical, for others, it's par for the course.

Why do some other funders and scholarly publishers still allow researchers to suggest reviewers to evaluate their work? The US National Science Foundation and the UK Research and Innovation — Britain’s central research funder — are among those who still consider recommended reviewers, even though the evidence is clear that using these referees leaves the process open to bias and misconduct. Between 2012 and 2016, more than 500 papers were retracted for compromised, rigged, or faked peer review. This was largely due to authors giving fake email addresses for real experts or fabricating experts entirely when suggesting who would be fit to evaluate their work.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(China) Academic misconduct standards to be tightened – China Daily Global (Li Yan | October 2019)

China has strengthened its fight against academic misconduct by publishing new standards defining plagiarism, fabrication, falsification and other violations of research integrity. Experts believe the clarity will make it easier to discipline researchers who violate the rules. The document, issued by the Ministry of Science and Technology, has been adopted... More

China has strengthened its fight against academic misconduct by publishing new standards defining plagiarism, fabrication, falsification and other violations of research integrity. Experts believe the clarity will make it easier to discipline researchers who violate the rules. The document, issued by the Ministry of Science and Technology, has been adopted by 20 government agencies ranging from China's Supreme People's Court to the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Depending on the severity of the offense, punishments can range from canceling a project's funding to revoking the offender's titles and permanently banning them from promotion or other research positions. Institutes that connive with or shield violators will also be punished with budget cuts or judicial action.

Read the rest of this news item

Less

View full details | Go to resource


A reviewer stole a manuscript and published it himself. But you wouldn’t know it from this retraction notice – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | February 2019)

Published/Released on February 14, 2019 | Posted by Admin on December 30, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Guidelines to Counter Foreign Interference in the Australian University Sector (University Foreign Interference Taskforce November 2019)

Published/Released on November 14, 2019 | Posted by Admin on December 28, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

CONTEXT STATEMENT A defining factor in the world-class performance and reputation of Australia’s university system is its openness to the world. the globally engaged nature of our universities is indispensable to their success. Indeed, it is the bedrock of their... More

CONTEXT STATEMENT A defining factor in the world-class performance and reputation of Australia’s university system is its openness to the world. the globally engaged nature of our universities is indispensable to their success. Indeed, it is the bedrock of their competitiveness. This global engagement enables Australia to make cutting-edge research breakthroughs as our own world-class academics work in collaboration with others worldwide at the forefront of their field. It enables us to educate many of the world’s best students, who return home after graduation with an enduring knowledge of, and lifelong affection for Australia, a powerful soft power asset for the nation. It enables Australia to recruit outstanding global experts to teach and conduct research in our universities, catapulting our capacity ahead of our competitors. And it ensures the learning and the alumni networks of Australian university students are enriched by classmates from all around the world. International experience and collaboration is integral to the academic career path around the world. A global exchange of ideas is enabled by this exchange of people. The Australian government supports such international collaborations through its programs and policy settings across a wide range of initiatives and portfolios. these include appropriate visa settings and the new global talent visa; a comprehensive program of Australian trade commission work to promote international education; the new colombo Plan; the eligibility of international academics for several Australian national competitive grant schemes; the provision of targeted research funds such as the Australia-china science and Research Fund and the Australia-India strategic Research Fund; and providing support for Australian students and academic staff to travel internationally...

CONTENTS Context Statement 4 the threat environment 6 Introduction 7 How to use these guidelines 9 Governance and risk frameworks 10 Due diligence 14 Communication and education 20 Knowledge sharing 22 Cyber security 24 Best practice considerations 25 Appendix 1: University Foreign Interference Taskforce 33 Appendix 2: Government departments and contacts 34 Appendix 3: Case studies 38 Appendix 4: Scenario 40 Appendix 5: Glossary 41 Appendix 6: Acronyms 43 Appendix 7: Resources and guidance materials 44

University Foreign Interference Taskforce (2019). Guidelines to counter foreign interference in the Australian university sector. Retrieved from Analysis and Policy Observatory Website: 29/12/19 https://apo.org.au/node/267726

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Friday afternoon’s funny – Who wins?

Published/Released on December 27, 2019 | Posted by Admin on December 27, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

View full details


Gazing into the Abyss of P-Hacking: HARKing vs. Optional Stopping – R-Bloggers (Angelika Stefan | November 2019)

Almost all researchers have experienced the tingling feeling of suspense that arises right before they take a look at long-awaited data: Will they support their favored hypothesis? Will they yield interesting or even groundbreaking results? In a perfect world (especially one without publication bias), the cause of this suspense... More

Almost all researchers have experienced the tingling feeling of suspense that arises right before they take a look at long-awaited data: Will they support their favored hypothesis? Will they yield interesting or even groundbreaking results? In a perfect world (especially one without publication bias), the cause of this suspense should be nothing else but scientific curiosity. However, the world, and specifically the incentive system in science, is not perfect. A lot of pressure rests on researchers to produce statistically significant results. For many researchers, statistical significance is the cornerstone of their academic career, so non-significant results in an important study can not only question their scientific convictions but also crash their hopes of professional promotion. (Although, fortunately things are changing for the better). Now, what does a researcher do confronted with messy, non-significant results? According to several much-cited studies (for example John et al., 2012; Simmons et al., 2011), a common reaction is to start sampling again (and again, and again, …) in the hope that a somewhat larger sample size can boost significance. Another reaction is to wildly conduct hypothesis tests on the existing sample until at least one of them becomes significant (see for example: Simmons et al., 2011; Kerr, 1998 ). These practices, along with some others, are commonly known as p-hacking, because they are designed to drag the famous p-value right below the mark of .05 which usually indicates statistical significance. Undisputedly, p-hacking works (for a demonstration try out the p-hacker app). The two questions we want to answer in this blog post are: How does it work and why is that bad for science? As many people may have heard, p-hacking works because it exploits a process called alpha error accumulation which is covered in most introductory statistics classes (but also easily forgotten again). Basically, alpha error accumulation means that as one conducts more and more hypothesis tests, the probability increases that one makes a wrong test decision at least once. Specifically, this wrong test decision is a false positive decision or alpha error, which means that you proclaim the existence of an effect although, in fact, there is none. Speaking in statistical terms, an alpha error occurs when the test yields a significant result although the null hypothesis (“There is no effect”) is true in the population. This means that p-hacking leads to the publication of an increased rate of false positive results, that is, studies that claim to have found an effect although, in fact, their result is just due to the randomness of the data. Such studies will never replicate.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Rude paper reviews are pervasive and sometimes harmful, study find – Science (Christie Wilcox | December 2019)

Published/Released on December 12, 2019 | Posted by Admin on December 26, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

There’s a running joke in academia about Reviewer 2. That’s the reviewer that doesn’t bother to read the manuscript a journal has sent out for evaluation for possible publication, offers condescending or outright offensive comments, and—of course—urges the irrelevant citation of their own work. Such... More

There’s a running joke in academia about Reviewer 2. That’s the reviewer that doesn’t bother to read the manuscript a journal has sent out for evaluation for possible publication, offers condescending or outright offensive comments, and—of course—urges the irrelevant citation of their own work. Such unprofessional conduct is so pervasive there’s even a whole Facebook group, more than 25,000 members strong, named “Reviewer 2 Must Be Stopped!” But it is no laughing matter, concludes a new study that finds boorish reviewer comments can have serious negative impacts, especially on authors belonging to marginalized groups. Peer reviewers are supposed to ensure that journals publish high-quality science by evaluating manuscripts and offering suggestions for improvement. But often, referee comments stray far from that mission, found the new PeerJ study, which surveyed 1106 scientists from 46 countries and 14 disciplines. More than half of the respondents—who were promised anonymity—reported receiving at least one “unprofessional” review, and a majority of those said they had received multiple problematic comments. Those comments tended to personally target a scientist, lack constructive criticism, or were just unnecessarily harsh or cruel, the authors report. For example, one author received a review that stated: “The phrases I have so far avoided using in this review are ‘lipstick on a pig’ and ‘bullshit baffles brains.’” Another reported receiving this missive: “The author’s last name sounds Spanish. I didn’t read the manuscript because I’m sure it’s full of bad English.”

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(Europe) Psychology researcher committed misconduct, says university – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | December 2019)

Published/Released on December 24, 2019 | Posted by Admin on December 24, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


(UK) King’s College London’s enquiry into Hans J Eysenck’s ‘Unsafe’ publications must be properly completed (Papers: David F Marks & Roderick D. Buchanan & Roderick D. Buchanan | December 2019)

View full details | Go to resource


Predatory journals: no definition, no defence – Nature (Agnes Grudniewicz, et al | December 2019)

Published/Released on December 11, 2019 | Posted by Admin on December 19, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Leading scholars and publishers from ten countries have agreed a definition of predatory publishing that can protect scholarship. It took 12 hours of discussion, 18 questions and 3 rounds to reach.

When ‘Jane’ turned to alternative medicine, she had already exhausted radiotherapy, chemotherapy and... More

Leading scholars and publishers from ten countries have agreed a definition of predatory publishing that can protect scholarship. It took 12 hours of discussion, 18 questions and 3 rounds to reach.

When ‘Jane’ turned to alternative medicine, she had already exhausted radiotherapy, chemotherapy and other standard treatments for breast cancer. Her alternative-medicine practitioner shared an article about a therapy involving vitamin infusions. To her and her practitioner, it seemed to be authentic grounds for hope. But when Jane showed the article to her son-in-law (one of the authors of this Comment), he realized it came from a predatory journal — meaning its promise was doubtful and its validity unlikely to have been vetted. [colored_box]Predatory journals are a global threat. They accept articles for publication — along with authors’ fees — without performing promised quality checks for issues such as plagiarism or ethical approval. Naive readers are not the only victims. Many researchers have been duped into submitting to predatory journals, in which their work can be overlooked. One study that focused on 46,000 researchers based in Italy found that about 5% of them published in such outlets1. A separate analysis suggests predatory publishers collect millions of dollars in publication fees that are ultimately paid out by funders such as the US National Institutes of Health (NIH)2. . One barrier to combating predatory publishing is, in our view, the lack of an agreed definition. By analogy, consider the historical criteria for deciding whether an abnormal bulge in the aorta, the largest artery in the body, could be deemed an aneurysm — a dangerous condition. One accepted definition was based on population norms, another on the size of the bulge relative to the aorta and a third on an absolute measure of aorta width. Prevalence varied fourfold depending on the definition used. This complicated efforts to assess risk and interventions, and created uncertainty about who should be offered a high-risk operation3. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece]

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(US) Politics and Open Access – Scholarly Kitchen (Robert Harington | December 2019)

Published/Released on December 16, 2019 | Posted by Admin on December 18, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Rumors have been circulating in recent weeks of an impending US Executive Order focusing on public access to federally funded research and open data. It appears that there is indeed a document making the rounds of Federal Funding Agencies for comment. The order has apparently been in the works... More

Rumors have been circulating in recent weeks of an impending US Executive Order focusing on public access to federally funded research and open data. It appears that there is indeed a document making the rounds of Federal Funding Agencies for comment. The order has apparently been in the works for a while now, emanating from the US Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), which has been tight-lipped about the existence of the order. There seems to be little concern over the fate of non-profit and society publishers. Among the likely recommendations appears to be that of a zero embargo on published journal articles. Essentially, this means that articles from researchers who are federally funded will be freely available immediately following publication. If you add this to the Plan S initiative from Europe, you may be forgiven for predicting the end of academic publishing as we know it. At the very least you may imagine the forthcoming discussions that will ensue, with hackles raised on all sides and little empathy shown for differing viewpoints. Here I want to explore the environment. It may be useful to provide insight into what a zero embargo could do to the publishing landscape, as well as how researchers may respond. First though I thought it may be useful to understand exactly how an Executive Order works here in the US, especially for those who may be reading in other parts of the world.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

  Less

View full details | Go to resource


‘A long and lonely process:’ Whistleblowers in a misconduct case speak out – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | )

View full details | Go to resource


(China) Five ways China must cultivate research integrity – Nature (Li Tang | November 2019)

Published/Released on November 26, 2019 | Posted by Admin on December 14, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


The science institutions hiring integrity inspectors to vet their papers – Nature (Alison Abbott | November 2019)

Published/Released on November 19, 2019 | Posted by Admin on December 13, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , ,

Some researchers have their manuscripts screened for errors before they go to journals

On 15 June 2017, scientists at a respected biological institute in Germany were thrown into crisis by an alarming announcement. An investigation into the Leibniz Institute on Aging had found that... More

Some researchers have their manuscripts screened for errors before they go to journals

On 15 June 2017, scientists at a respected biological institute in Germany were thrown into crisis by an alarming announcement. An investigation into the Leibniz Institute on Aging had found that its director, cell biologist Karl Lenhard Rudolph, had published eight papers with data errors, including improperly edited or duplicated parts of images. [colored_box]Investigators didn’t find deliberate fraud, but Rudolph wasn’t able to present original data to explain the problems. The Leibniz Association, which runs the institute in Jena and had commissioned the probe, concluded that Rudolph hadn’t supervised his lab group properly, and so was guilty of “grossly negligent scientific misconduct”. It applied the strictest sanctions it could, barring the institute from applying for research funding from the association while under Rudolph’s leadership for three years. It also ordered the centre to undergo an international review, even though the last one had been completed only a couple of years earlier. Rudolph resigned as director. . It was the second calamity in a year for the centre, which is also known as the Fritz Lipmann Institute (FLI). Police had raided it in 2016 after allegations that the centre had violated European regulations on animal experiments. The experiments were suspended, and although the FLI was cleared of the allegations, not all of the experiments had been re-authorized when the Rudolph affair broke. “The second crisis sent us into shock — it seemed more personal,” says molecular geneticist Christoph Englert, a group leader at the FLI, which employs 270 scientists. Most researchers at the centre hadn’t even known their director was under investigation. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Disaster-zone research needs a code of conduct – Nature (JC Gaillard & Lori Peek | November 2019)

Published/Released on November 20, 2019 | Posted by Admin on December 10, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Study the effects of earthquakes, floods and other natural hazards with sensitivity to ethical dilemmas and power imbalances.

A magnitude-7.0 earthquake rocked Anchorage, Alaska, in late November 2018. Roads buckled and chimneys tumbled from rooftops. Business operations were disrupted. Schools were damaged across the... More

Study the effects of earthquakes, floods and other natural hazards with sensitivity to ethical dilemmas and power imbalances.

A magnitude-7.0 earthquake rocked Anchorage, Alaska, in late November 2018. Roads buckled and chimneys tumbled from rooftops. Business operations were disrupted. Schools were damaged across the district. This was the largest earthquake to shake the region in a generation, and there was much to learn. What was the state of the infrastructure? Might further quakes occur? How did people respond? Teams of scientists and engineers from across the United States mobilized to conduct field reconnaissance in partnership with local researchers and practitioners. These efforts were coordinated through the clearing house set up by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute in Oakland, California, which provided daily in-person and online briefings, as well as a web portal for sharing data. [colored_box]But researchers are not always so welcome in disaster zones. After the deadly Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami on 26 December 2004, hundreds of academics from countries including Japan, Russia, France and the United States rushed to the region to collect perishable data. This influx of foreign scientists angered and fatigued some locals; many declined researchers’ requests for interviews. The former governor of Aceh province, Indonesia, where more than 128,000 people died, described foreign researchers as “guerrillas applying hit-and-run tactics”1. Yet research on tsunami propagation and people’s response to the event has led to improved warnings and emergency-response plans. . When, on 28 September 2018, an earthquake and tsunami hit the Indonesian island of Sulawesi, dozens of researchers found themselves unable to enter the country2. Indonesian law now requires foreign scientists to obtain a special visa before they can begin research. Data-collection protocols must be submitted to the government in advance and projects must have an Indonesian partner. Violators could face criminal charges and even prison. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Citizen scientists ‘deserve more credit’ – Cosmos (Nick Carne | December 2019)

Published/Released on December 05, 2019 | Posted by Admin on December 9, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Researchers say academic journals should recognise non-professional input and indigenous knowledge.

Academic journals should allow citizen scientists and indigenous knowledge to be formally recognised on papers, researchers have suggested. Writing in Trends in Ecology and Evolution, a team led by Georgia... More

Researchers say academic journals should recognise non-professional input and indigenous knowledge.

Academic journals should allow citizen scientists and indigenous knowledge to be formally recognised on papers, researchers have suggested. Writing in Trends in Ecology and Evolution, a team led by Georgia Ward-Fear from Australia’s Macquarie University and Greg Pauly from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles, US, argues that changes in technology mean non-professionals are taking greater roles in science work. “Members of the general public have become pivotal contributors to research, resulting in thousands of scientific publications and measurable conservation impacts,” says Ward-Fear. “The question is: how should we credit that input?”

Read the rest of this discussion piece

  Less

View full details | Go to resource


Lycoming College’s “Plagiarism Game” receives a one-up through new coding – Norhcentral PA (NCPA Staff | November 2019)

Published/Released on November 22, 2019 | Posted by Admin on December 8, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

“It is a quiet day at Lycoming… when suddenly the campus is taken over by Plagiarism goblins who want to destroy its academic integrity! You are the only person left who can destroy the goblins and restore order to the College!” [colored_box]So begins “Goblin Threat,” also known throughout the Lycoming... More

“It is a quiet day at Lycoming… when suddenly the campus is taken over by Plagiarism goblins who want to destroy its academic integrity! You are the only person left who can destroy the goblins and restore order to the College!” [colored_box]So begins “Goblin Threat,” also known throughout the Lycoming College campus as the Plagiarism Game. Created more than 10 years ago by Mary Broussard, professor and instructional services librarian and coordinator of reference and web services at Lycoming College’s Snowden Library, the game has steadily risen in popularity, receiving more than 200,000 page views in 2018, according to Google Analytics. . The game revolves around the player traveling through Lycoming College and defeating “plagiarism goblins” by correctly answering questions about plagiarism. Broussard always had an interest in game-based learning, so she applied that interest toward making both an informative and entertaining game. “The point was to make it more enjoyable than a straightforward tutorial on plagiarism,” she said. .

Read the rest of this news story Access the game - https://www.lycoming.edu/library/plagiarism-game/

Less

View full details | Go to resource #1, resource #2


We’re All ‘P-Hacking’ Now – Wired (Christie Aschwanden | November 2019)

Published/Released on November 26, 2019 | Posted by Admin on December 7, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

An insiders' term for scientific malpractice has worked its way into pop culture. Is that a good thing?

It’s got an entry in the Urban Dictionary, been discussed on Last... More

An insiders' term for scientific malpractice has worked its way into pop culture. Is that a good thing?

It’s got an entry in the Urban Dictionary, been discussed on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, scored a wink from Cards Against Humanity, and now it’s been featured in a clue on the TV game show Jeopardy. Metascience nerds rejoice! The term p-hacking has gone mainstream. Results from a study can be analyzed in a variety of ways, and p-hacking refers to a practice where researchers select the analysis that yields a pleasing result. The p refers to the p-value, a ridiculously complicated statistical entity that’s essentially a measure of how surprising the results of a study would be if the effect you’re looking for wasn’t there. Suppose you’re testing a pill for high blood pressure, and you find that blood pressures did indeed drop among people who took the medicine. The p-value is the probability that you’d find blood pressure reductions at least as big as the ones you measured, even if the drug was a dud and didn’t work. A p-value of 0.05 means there’s only a 5 percent chance of that scenario. By convention, a p-value of less than 0.05 gives the researcher license to say that the drug produced “statistically significant” reductions in blood pressure.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Chinese ministry investigates duplications in papers by university president – Nature (Andrew Silver | November 2019)

Published/Released on November 27, 2019 | Posted by Admin on December 6, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Four journals also say they are scrutinizing papers coauthored by Cao Xuetao after scientists raise questions about images on Twitter and PubPeer.

The Chinese education ministry is investigating scientific articles authored by high-profile immunologist and university president Cao Xuetao, following suggestions that dozens of... More

Four journals also say they are scrutinizing papers coauthored by Cao Xuetao after scientists raise questions about images on Twitter and PubPeer.

The Chinese education ministry is investigating scientific articles authored by high-profile immunologist and university president Cao Xuetao, following suggestions that dozens of papers contain potentially problematic images. Four journals also say they are examining papers from Cao. The scrutiny comes after US microbiologist Elisabeth Bik raised concerns two weeks ago on Twitter and the post-publication peer-discussion site PubPeer about images in papers written by Cao and his group. Cao is the president of Nankai University in Tianjin, and his team has pioneered the development of cancer immunotherapies in China. He says that his group is investigating the papers in question, and he is confident that the issues raised do not affect the papers’ conclusions. Cao has been a prominent voice for strengthening research integrity in China, and gave a speech on the topic at the prestigious Great Hall of the People in Beijing earlier this month.

Read the rest of this news story

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Disgraced tracheal transplant surgeon is handed 16 month prison sentence in Italy (Papers: Michael Day | November 2019)

Disgraced surgeon Paolo Macchiarini, who faked research relating to dangerous and largely discredited tracheal transplants, has been handed a 16 month prison sentence in Italy for forging documents and abuse of office. Macchiarini made headlines around the world after claiming a major breakthrough for patients with failing windpipes, by “seeding”... More

Disgraced surgeon Paolo Macchiarini, who faked research relating to dangerous and largely discredited tracheal transplants, has been handed a 16 month prison sentence in Italy for forging documents and abuse of office. Macchiarini made headlines around the world after claiming a major breakthrough for patients with failing windpipes, by “seeding” an artificial scaffold with a patient’s own stem cells, to generate a functioning trachea. But excitement at the prospect of a genuine medical advance turned to scandal when it emerged that Macchiarini had falsified results and misled hospital authorities regarding the health of those receiving the experimental procedures. The revelation prompted his research centre, the Karolinska Institute, to eventually disown his …

Day, M. (2019) Disgraced tracheal transplant surgeon is handed 16 month prison sentence in Italy. BMJ. 367:l6676. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l6676. No abstract available. PMID: 31767600 Publisher: https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6676

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Quintet of study retractions rocks criminology community – Science (Dalmeet Singh Chawla | November 2019)

Criminology researchers are retracting five studies that have sparked a bitter battle over potential scientific misconduct and issues of race. The episode has riveted the criminology community—and severed a once close relationship after one of the researchers accused his former mentor of falsifying data. On 10 November, Justin Pickett, a... More

Criminology researchers are retracting five studies that have sparked a bitter battle over potential scientific misconduct and issues of race. The episode has riveted the criminology community—and severed a once close relationship after one of the researchers accused his former mentor of falsifying data. On 10 November, Justin Pickett, a criminologist at the State University of New York in Albany, announced on Twitter that he and his co-authors have agreed to retract a 2011 study published in Criminology that examined public support for taking a suspect’s ethnicity into account at sentencing. Four additional disputed papers, published between 2015 and this year in the journals Criminology, Social Problems, and Law & Society Review, have been or are in the process of being be retracted with the agreement of all the authors, ScienceInsider has learned. Eric Stewart, Pickett’s former mentor and a criminologist at Florida State University (FSU) in Tallahassee, is a co-author of all five studies. The studies being retracted cover a range of topics. Two found that the number of black people lynched in a U.S. county 100 years ago influences whether white people in the same area today perceive black people as a threat and favor harsh punishments for them. Another examined the role of social context in antiblack and anti-Latino sentiment in the U.S. criminal justice system.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Value pluralism in research integrity (Papers: Rik Peels, et al | August 2019)

Abstract Both scientists and society at large have rightfully become increasingly concerned about research integrity in recent decades. In response, codes of conduct for research have been developed and elaborated. We show that these codes contain substantial... More

Abstract Both scientists and society at large have rightfully become increasingly concerned about research integrity in recent decades. In response, codes of conduct for research have been developed and elaborated. We show that these codes contain substantial pluralism. First, there is metaphysical pluralism in that codes include values, norms, and virtues. Second, there is axiological pluralism, because there are different categories of values, norms, and virtues: epistemic, moral, professional, social, and legal. Within and between these different categories, norms can be incommensurable or incompatible. Codes of conduct typically do not specify how to handle situations where different norms pull in different directions. We review some attempts to develop an ordering of different sorts of norm violations based on a common measure for their seriousness. We argue that they all fail to give adequate guidance for resolving cases of incommensurable and conflicting norms. We conclude that value pluralism is inherent to codes of conduct in research integrity. The application of codes needs careful reasoning and judgment together with an intellectually humble attitude that acknowledges the inevitability of value pluralism.

Peels, R., Ridder, J., Haven, T. & Bouter, L. (2019) Value pluralism in research integrity. Research Integrity and Peer Review 4, 18 doi:10.1186/s41073-019-0076-4 Publisher (Open Access): https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-019-0076-4

Less

View full details | Go to resource


‘Science by tweet’ prompts expression of concern, irking authors – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | October 2019)

Published/Released on October 23, 2019 | Posted by Admin on November 29, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

The leader of an international team of genetics researchers is seething after a journal responded to critical tweets about their paper by issuing an expression of concern. [colored_box]The article, “Exome sequencing in multiple sclerosis families identifies 12 candidate genes and nominates biological pathways for the genesis... More

The leader of an international team of genetics researchers is seething after a journal responded to critical tweets about their paper by issuing an expression of concern. [colored_box]The article, “Exome sequencing in multiple sclerosis families identifies 12 candidate genes and nominates biological pathways for the genesis of disease,” was published in PLOS Genetics in early June 2019 by a group led by Carles Vilariño-Güell, of the Department of Medical Genetics at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. . Less than a week after publication, according to Vilariño-Güell, the journal notified him that:

There are 93 tweets in the conversation about the paper started by Daniel MacArthur. It is overwhelmingly negative towards the journal and paper. In addition to MacArthur (32.9k followers) weighing in, other names and influencers including Jeffrey Ross-Ibarrra (UC Davis, 6.2k followers), Heidi Rehm (Mass General, 4.4k followers), Manuel Rivas (Stanford, 2.2k followers), etc. One positive tweet appears responding to PLOS Genetics’ own coverage of this paper.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


We are all complicit in harassment and abuse – Nature (Virginia Valian | October 2019)

Published/Released on October 01, 2019 | Posted by Admin on November 27, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

In August, a prominent professor issued a public apology to Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. He said he had not known about the nature of Epstein’s crimes when he accepted donations from the financial tycoon and serial abuser of underage girls, but he acknowledged responsibility for helping to burnish the criminal’s... More

In August, a prominent professor issued a public apology to Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. He said he had not known about the nature of Epstein’s crimes when he accepted donations from the financial tycoon and serial abuser of underage girls, but he acknowledged responsibility for helping to burnish the criminal’s reputation: information was there for the learning, had he thought to look for it. The vast majority of scholars will never have crossed paths with Epstein, but many of us — myself included — are guilty of lapses, of instances when we failed to recognize or take steps to prevent abuse. It is past time for us to create effective ways to intervene. Funding agencies have moved to curtail abuse, but they also helped to create a system that abets it. Research institutions tend to have money and power concentrated in too few hands. They tend to ignore reports of misconduct to ‘protect’ the school.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Examination of CIs in health and medical journals from 1976 to 2019: an observational study (Papers: Adrian Gerard Barnett, Jonathan D Wren | November 2019)

Published/Released on November 21, 2019 | Posted by Admin on November 26, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

Abstract Objectives Previous research has shown clear biases in the distribution of published p values, with an excess below the 0.05 threshold due to a combination of p-hacking and publication bias. We aimed to examine the bias for statistical significance using published confidence... More

Abstract Objectives Previous research has shown clear biases in the distribution of published p values, with an excess below the 0.05 threshold due to a combination of p-hacking and publication bias. We aimed to examine the bias for statistical significance using published confidence intervals. Design Observational study. Setting Papers published in Medline since 1976. Participants Over 968 000 confidence intervals extracted from abstracts and over 350 000 intervals extracted from the full-text. Outcome measures Cumulative distributions of lower and upper confidence interval limits for ratio estimates. Results We found an excess of statistically significant results with a glut of lower intervals just above one and upper intervals just below 1. These excesses have not improved in recent years. The excesses did not appear in a set of over 100 000 confidence intervals that were not subject to p-hacking or publication bias. Conclusions The huge excesses of published confidence intervals that are just below the statistically significant threshold are not statistically plausible. Large improvements in research practice are needed to provide more results that better reflect the truth.

Barnett, A.G., Wren, J.D. (2019)  Examination of CIs in health and medical journals from 1976 to 2019: an observational study. 
Less

View full details | Go to resource


(Australia) Skin cancer doctor in hot water after papers retracted – The Age (Liam Mannix and Tom Cowie | November 2019)

View full details | Go to resource


‘Misunderstanding of the academic rules’ leads to retraction of arthritis paper – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | October 2019)

Published/Released on October 22, 2019 | Posted by Admin on November 19, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

A group of arthritis researchers in China have lost a 2019 paper which was effectively an English-language reprint of an earlier article in a Chinese journal. Two of the authors blamed a “misunderstanding of the academic rules” on the part of their colleagues for the duplication. [colored_box]The article, “The clinical... More

A group of arthritis researchers in China have lost a 2019 paper which was effectively an English-language reprint of an earlier article in a Chinese journal. Two of the authors blamed a “misunderstanding of the academic rules” on the part of their colleagues for the duplication. [colored_box]The article, “The clinical significance of serum sCD25 as a sensitive disease activity marker for rheumatoid arthritis,” appeared in the Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology. But, as the retraction notice explains, the work wasn’t original: .

We, the Editor and Publishers of the Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology, have retracted the following article: .

H Sun, Y Wang, H Yao, L Wang, S Wu, Y Si, Y Meng, J Xu, Q Wang, X Sun & Z Li (2019). The clinical significance of serum sCD25 as a sensitive disease activity marker for rheumatoid arthritis. Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology 48(5). DOI: 10.1080/03009742.2019.1574890.

.

Read the rest of this discussion piece are

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Born Digital – The Expanding Universe of Research Content – Scholarly Kitchen (Judy Luther | November 2019)

Published/Released on November 06, 2019 | Posted by Admin on November 18, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

Beginning with the launch of the Internet, enabling technologies have expanded the number of formats that are widely used. Images, audio, video, data, code, and other forms of digital content are common in the researcher’s workflow and have become a necessary part of scholarly communications. Meanwhile, scholarly publishing has... More

Beginning with the launch of the Internet, enabling technologies have expanded the number of formats that are widely used. Images, audio, video, data, code, and other forms of digital content are common in the researcher’s workflow and have become a necessary part of scholarly communications. Meanwhile, scholarly publishing has remained predominantly page based and dependent on PDFs, though that may be about to change. DOIs signal research content DOIs have been associated with scholarly publishing since Crossref began providing connections between research articles in 1999. When Datacite was launched a decade later, they expanded to providing DOIs for datasets and other research objects. Then three years ago, Crossref released a schema for Preprints as the precursor to the published work. Amy Brand’s recent post in the Scholarly Kitchen noted that 87% of Crossref DOIs are assigned to journal articles and book chapters, with only 5.5% assigned to conferences. The remaining items are almost all text based works. As a result, DOIs have primarily represented published works and data as supplemental material to the Version of Record. This signaled that research had been reviewed, curated, published, and preserved for future reference as part of the scholarly record. Given that library budgets funded these publications, preservation was an essential requirement as the digital content was no longer housed within each institution.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Contract cheating will erode trust in science – Nature (Tracey Bretag | October 2019)

Published/Released on October 30, 2019 | Posted by Admin on November 13, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , ,

To combat academic dishonesty, focus on educational systems and not just individual offenders, says Tracey Bretag.

Stories of students paying others to do their work come from all around the world. In the 2015 MyMaster scandal in Australia, hundreds of students who were enrolled... More

To combat academic dishonesty, focus on educational systems and not just individual offenders, says Tracey Bretag.

Stories of students paying others to do their work come from all around the world. In the 2015 MyMaster scandal in Australia, hundreds of students who were enrolled in more than a dozen universities paid a total of at least Aus$160,000 (US$108,000) to a ‘service’ that provided ghost-written essays and responses to online tests. In 2018, YouTube stars on more than 250 channels received money for promoting a cheating service called EduBirdie. Similar companies have been uncovered in the United States and elsewhere. Scientists should not deceive themselves: they are not immune. [colored_box]Academics call this ‘contract cheating’. My colleagues and I have assembled what is, to our knowledge, the largest data set on the topic — with responses from some 14,000 students and 1,000 teachers across 8 Australian universities. We found that roughly 6% of students have engaged in the practice; that most who cheat do so more than once; and that both post- and undergraduate students engage in it. Cheating is not new, but the proliferation of commercial, online services in the past 5–10 years has made it easier than ever. . And cheating is becoming increasingly normal. Since the 1990s, universities around the world have reimagined themselves as commercial enterprises that promote educational ‘products’ to student ‘consumers’. In 2017, a commentator likened the brash marketing strategies of some UK universities to the advertising of shampoo, and hundreds of academic papers have openly criticized the ‘marketization’ of higher education. It’s no wonder students opt to take the most convenient route to an academic credential — just as they would shop around for any other deal. In our survey, more than one-third of teachers specifically blamed contract cheating on the commercialization of higher education. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


“Do we have the will to do anything about it?” James Heathers reflects on the Eysenck case – Retraction Watch (James Heathers | October 2019)

Published/Released on October 07, 2019 | Posted by Admin on November 12, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

We have a tension about resolving inaccuracies in scientific documents when they’re past a certain age. [colored_box]Specifically, what should we do with old papers that are shown to be not just wrong, which is a fate that will befall most of them, but seriously misleading, fatally flawed, or overwhelmingly likely to... More

We have a tension about resolving inaccuracies in scientific documents when they’re past a certain age. [colored_box]Specifically, what should we do with old papers that are shown to be not just wrong, which is a fate that will befall most of them, but seriously misleading, fatally flawed, or overwhelmingly likely to be fabricated, i.e. when they reach the (very high) threshold we set for retraction? . To my way of thinking, there are three components of this: . (1) the continuing use of the documents themselves as citable objects in contemporary research – some research stays current and relevant, other research is consigned to obscurity, or is so completely superseded that it has no bearing on contemporary research whatsoever. . (2) the profile of the authors – some authors of such documents are alive, famous, and have theories with contemporary relevance. Others are dead, obscure, and have theories which have no continuation in any other papers. Like it or not, these authors are treated differently. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


We’re Incentivizing Bad Science – Scientific American (James Zimring | October 2019)

Published/Released on October 29, 2019 | Posted by Admin on November 11, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Current research trends resemble the early 21st century’s financial bubble

Whatever you might want to say about humans, our behavior is profoundly affected by the incentive structures we encounter. Imagine what might happen if banks that issued home loans no longer made money off... More

Current research trends resemble the early 21st century’s financial bubble

Whatever you might want to say about humans, our behavior is profoundly affected by the incentive structures we encounter. Imagine what might happen if banks that issued home loans no longer made money off the interest, but rather made money by blending the loans into investment bonds that they then sold to investors. There are a limited number of people fortunate enough to afford a home. Once all those people had mortgages, the banks would then become a mortgage-backed–security factory that had run out of raw materials to make its product. The banks could simply stop making money—or they could start making loans to anyone who applied, regardless of people’s ability to pay. After all, once the loans were sold to investors, the risk was no longer the bank’s. Of course, the rating agencies are designed to alert us to risk, but they get paid to do so by the banks, and angering your only customer base is not good business. Prior to 2008, without the intention of doing so, the system had evolved such that the bankers were specifically incentivized to inflate a massive bubble in the economy, built upon bad loans and unsustainable debt, and make a fortune doing it at no risk to themselves—and this is precisely what they did. So, let’s imagine what might happen if the rules of professional science evolved such that scientists were incentivized to publish as many papers as they could and if those who published many papers of poor scientific rigor were rewarded over those who published fewer papers of higher rigor? What would happen if scientists weren’t rewarded for the long-term reproducibility and rigor of their findings, but rather became a factory that produced and published highly exciting and innovative new discoveries, and then other scientists and companies spent resources on the follow up studies and took all the risk?

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Highlight negative results to improve science – Nature (Devang Mehta | October 2019)

Published/Released on October 04, 2019 | Posted by Admin on November 10, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

Publishers, reviewers and other members of the scientific community must fight science’s preference for positive results — for the benefit of all, says Devang Mehta.

Near the end of April, my colleagues and I published an More

Publishers, reviewers and other members of the scientific community must fight science’s preference for positive results — for the benefit of all, says Devang Mehta.

Near the end of April, my colleagues and I published an unusual scientific paper — one reporting a failed experiment — in Genome Biology. Publishing my work in a well-regarded peer-reviewed journal should’ve been a joyous, celebratory event for a newly minted PhD holder like me. Instead, trying to navigate through three other journals and countless revisions before finding it a home at Genome Biology has revealed to me one of the worst aspects of science today: its toxic definitions of ‘success’. Our work started as an attempt to use the much-hyped CRISPR gene-editing tool to make cassava (Manihot esculenta) resistant to an incredibly damaging viral disease, cassava mosaic disease. (Cassava is a tropical root crop that is a staple food for almost one billion people.) However, despite previous reports that CRISPR could provide viral immunity to plants by disrupting viral DNA, our experiments consistently showed the opposite result. In fact, our paper also showed that using CRISPR as an ‘immune system’ in plants probably led to the evolution of viruses that were more resistant to CRISPR. And although this result was scientifically interesting, it wasn’t the ‘positive’ result that applied scientists like me are taught to value. I had set off on my PhD trying to engineer plants to be resistant to viral diseases, and instead, four years later, I had good news for only the virus.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Turning the tables: A university league-table based on quality not quantity (Papers: Adrian G. Barnett & David Moher | July 2019)

Published/Released on July 29, 2019 | Posted by Admin on November 8, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract Background: Universities closely watch international league tables because these tables influence governments, donors and students. Achieving a high ranking in a table, or an annual rise in ranking, allows universities to promote their achievements using an externally validated measure. However, league... More

Abstract Background: Universities closely watch international league tables because these tables influence governments, donors and students. Achieving a high ranking in a table, or an annual rise in ranking, allows universities to promote their achievements using an externally validated measure. However, league tables predominantly reward measures of research output, such as publications and citations, and may therefore be promoting poor research practices by encouraging the “publish or perish” mentality. Methods: We examined whether a league table could be created based on good research practice. We rewarded researchers who cited a reporting guideline, which help researchers report their research completely, accurately and transparently, and were created to reduce the waste of poorly described research. We used the EQUATOR guidelines, which means our tables are mostly relevant to health and medical research. We used Scopus to identify the citations. Results: Our cross-sectional tables for the years 2016 and 2017 included 14,408 papers with 47,876 author affiliations. We ranked universities and included a bootstrap measure of uncertainty. We clustered universities in five similar groups in an effort to avoid over-interpreting small differences in ranks. Conclusions: We believe there is merit in considering more socially responsible criteria for ranking universities, and this could encourage better research practice internationally if such tables become as valued as the current quantity-focused tables. Keywords meta-research, research quality, research reporting, league tables

Barnett, A.G. and Moher D. Turning the tables: A university league-table based on quality not quantity [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2019, 8:583 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.18453.2) Publisher (Open Access): https://f1000research.com/articles/8-583/v2

Less

View full details | Go to resource


South Korea clamps down on academics attending ‘weak’ conferences – Nature (Mark Zastrow | November 2019)

Published/Released on November 06, 2019 | Posted by Admin on November 7, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

A new policy will attempt to stop researchers travelling to meetings with little academic value.

South Korea’s education ministry wants to stop academics from participating in conferences that it considers “weak” and of little academic value. The ministry announced on 17 October that it... More

A new policy will attempt to stop researchers travelling to meetings with little academic value.

South Korea’s education ministry wants to stop academics from participating in conferences that it considers “weak” and of little academic value. The ministry announced on 17 October that it will require all universities to adopt measures to vet academics’ travel to overseas conferences so as to “prevent researchers from engaging in poor academic activities”. [colored_box]The ministry’s order comes after a report that it released in May which found that 574 professors from 90 universities around the country had participated in conferences that it called “weak”. . It is thought that some researchers knowingly elect to pay the fees to attend conferences of little value, or publish in low quality journals1 — some of which are considered ‘predatory’ — because they are a quick and easy way to add a publication or presentation to their CVs, or gain experience in presenting at international conferences. . Changgu Lee, a materials scientist at Sungkyunkwan University in Suwon, welcomes the oversight from the education authority. “Those who have lots of research money and want to have a vacation in a nice place without being bothered by academic responsibility attend those conferences,” he says. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Where Research Meets Profits – Inside Higher Ed (Colleen Flaherty | October 2019)

Published/Released on October 23, 2019 | Posted by Admin on November 6, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Recent allegations of copyright violations against a professor who shared his own work on his website spark debate about ownership and whether peer reviewers should be paid.

Like many academics, William Cunningham, professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, shares his own articles... More

Recent allegations of copyright violations against a professor who shared his own work on his website spark debate about ownership and whether peer reviewers should be paid.

Like many academics, William Cunningham, professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, shares his own articles -- published and soon-to-be -- on his website. And like most academics, he does so in the interest of science, not personal profit. So Cunningham and hundreds of his colleagues were recently irked by a takedown notice he received from the American Psychological Association, telling him that the articles he had published through the organization and then posted on his website were in violation of copyright law. The notice triggered a chain of responses -- including a warning from his website platform, WordPress, that multiple such violations put the future of his entire website at risk. And because the APA had previously issued similar takedown notices, the threat of losing his website seemed real to Cunningham. In response, psychologists started a petition to the APA, saying that if it didn’t stop policing authors’ personal websites for the sharing of science, then it needed to pay peer reviewers $300 for each article review.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Data Management Expert Guide (Guidance: CESSDA | December 2017)

This guide is designed by European experts to help social science researchers make their research data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR). You will be guided by different European experts who are - on a daily basis - busy ensuring long-term access to valuable social science datasets, available for discovery... More

This guide is designed by European experts to help social science researchers make their research data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR). You will be guided by different European experts who are - on a daily basis - busy ensuring long-term access to valuable social science datasets, available for discovery and reuse at one of the CESSDA social science data archives. Target audience and mission This guide is written for social science researchers who are in an early stage of practising research data management. With this guide, CESSDA wants to contribute to professionalism in data management and increase the value of research data.

Overview If you follow the guide, you will travel through the research data lifecycle from planning, organising, documenting, processing, storing and protecting your data to sharing and publishing them. Taking the whole roundtrip will take you approximately 15 hours, however you can also hop on and off at any time.

CESSDA Training Working Group (2017 - 2018). CESSDA Data Management Expert Guide. Bergen, Norway: CESSDA ERIC. Retrieved from https://www.cessda.eu/DMGuide

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Venice ‘time machine’ project suspended amid data row – Nature (Davide Castelvecchi Davide Castelvecchi | October 2019)

Published/Released on October 25, 2019 | Posted by Admin on November 2, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Disagreements among international partners leave plans to digitize the Italian city’s history in limbo.

Like the city itself, an ambitious effort to digitize ten centuries’ worth of documents that record the history of Venice is at risk of sinking. Two key partners have suspended... More

Disagreements among international partners leave plans to digitize the Italian city’s history in limbo.

Like the city itself, an ambitious effort to digitize ten centuries’ worth of documents that record the history of Venice is at risk of sinking. Two key partners have suspended the Venice Time Machine project after reaching an impasse over issues surrounding open data and methodology. The State Archive of Venice and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL) say they have had to pause data collection, and the archive’s director has raised questions about the usability of the 8 terabytes of information that have already been collected. [colored_box]The project sought to digitize documents that stretch over 80 kilometres of shelves in the state archive. These record the minutiae of the city’s administration — from financial transactions to citizens’ addresses and family connections — during its heyday in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance as a republic that for centuries dominated trade in the eastern Mediterranean. Many are written in Latin or the Venetian dialect, and have never been read by modern historians. . The goal was to make this information freely available online to researchers worldwide. The project also aimed to push the state-of-the-art in text-recognition technology for handwritten documents, using machine learning to automatically read millions of pages and tag their contents so that historians could perform quick searches. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Citation Contamination: References to Predatory Journals in the Legitimate Scientific Literature – Scholarly Kitchen (Rick Anderson | October 2019)

Published/Released on October 28, 2019 | Posted by Admin on October 31, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

(This post is based on a presentation given at the 6th annual World Conference on Research Integrity, in Hong Kong, June 2019.) My objective with this small research project was to get an idea of whether (and, if so, to what extent) articles published in predatory journals are being cited... More

(This post is based on a presentation given at the 6th annual World Conference on Research Integrity, in Hong Kong, June 2019.) My objective with this small research project was to get an idea of whether (and, if so, to what extent) articles published in predatory journals are being cited in the legitimate scientific literature. To that end, I identified seven journals that had revealed their predatory nature when they were exposed by one of four different “sting” operations, each of which had clearly demonstrated that the journal in question will (despite its public claims of peer-reviewed rigor) either publish nonsense in return for payment of article-processing charges, or take on as an editor someone with no qualifications. I then searched for citations to articles published in these journals in three large aggregators of scientific papers:

  • The Web of Science, a massive index of scholarly journals, books, and proceedings that claims to index over 90 million documents
  • The ScienceDirect database of journals and books published by Elsevier, which claims to include over 15 million publications
  • PLOS ONE, an open-access megajournal that has published roughly 200,000 articles in its history

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Former GP Spurs 20+ Retractions Over Forced Transplants From Chinese Prisoners – Medspace (Diana Swift | October 2019)

In her second career as a bioethicist, a former ge... More

In her second career as a bioethicist, a former general practitioner is reshaping the scientific literature of organ transplantation. From 1983 to 2000, Wendy Rogers, BMBS, practiced primary care medicine in different settings in the United Kingdom and Australia. In the latter country, the single mother of two grew disillusioned with the fee-for-service system, so while she was pondering her future, she decided to change course, leaving practice to take a degree in English literature and philosophy that led to a doctorate in philosophy. Medicine's loss was medical ethics' gain. Now a professor of clinical ethics at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, Rogers' work to draw attention to scientific research that used organ transplants from executed prisoners in China have led to at least 20 retractions, and counting.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Repairing an Institutional Reputation Tarnished by Fraudulent Publishing – Scholarly Kitchen (Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe | September 2019)

Published/Released on September 30, 2019 | Posted by Admin on October 28, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

[colored_box]Earlier this year, a U.S. District Court ruled that publisher and conference organizer Srinubabu Gedela and his companies OMICS, iMedPub, and Conference Series violated the U.S. FTC Act “by making deceptive claims regarding their academic journals and scientific conferences, and by failing to adequately disclose... More

[colored_box]Earlier this year, a U.S. District Court ruled that publisher and conference organizer Srinubabu Gedela and his companies OMICS, iMedPub, and Conference Series violated the U.S. FTC Act “by making deceptive claims regarding their academic journals and scientific conferences, and by failing to adequately disclose their publishing fees.” The Court imposed a number of requirements as well as a judgment of $50.1 million. . Today I’d like to reflect on the implications that this ruling may have for institutions — those that employ researchers and those that fund researchers, especially as this will by no means be the last enforcement action taken against publishers accused of deceptive practices. . How might an institution repair a tarnished reputation? And, given the reality of fraudulent publishers and their deceptive practices, will institutions consider more strongly guiding author choice of publishing venue in order to protect institutional reputation? . Institutional Interests Universities and funders often herald the achievements of their researchers in order to garner positive press coverage, bolster their reputations, or recruit new employees. University rankings and memberships many times depend heavily not only on measures of research activity and quality but also on the impression they generate — the brand identity if you will — of their quality. ..

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


What fake science journals may do to your health – Ottawa Citizen (Tom Spears | October 2019)

Published/Released on October 09, 2019 | Posted by Admin on October 27, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Kelly Cobey studies the shadowy world of scammers who publish fraudulent medical journals, but a few years back her professional field took a personal turn.

[colored_box]A colleague’s mother had cancer. Medical treatment failed to stop it, so the woman turned to an alternative practitioner... More

Kelly Cobey studies the shadowy world of scammers who publish fraudulent medical journals, but a few years back her professional field took a personal turn.

[colored_box]A colleague’s mother had cancer. Medical treatment failed to stop it, so the woman turned to an alternative practitioner who advised her to have vitamin infusions, backed up by a published study that promoted this treatment. . But there was a problem: The study was published by an Indian company that specializes in publishing groundless or substandard science studies. This is a scam that helps under-qualified scientists pretend they are doing real research, paying these “predatory” journals to advance their careers. (The company in question was later fined $50 million by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission for a pattern of deceptive practices.) . The vitamin study was worthless, and all it did was give false hope to a woman who was very sick. As well, Cobey said, “she may have changed her care plan as a result of what she was given.” . Cobey, a researcher at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, is giving a public lecture Thursday on the dangers of predatory science journals, especially in her field of health. It’s free, and can also be seen live online. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Enhancing the Taxonomies Relating to Academic Integrity and Misconduct (Papers: Loreta Tauginienė, et al | October 2019)

Published/Released on October 08, 2019 | Posted by Admin on October 27, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , ,

Abstract A clear understanding of terminology is crucial in any academic field. When it is clear that complex interdisciplinary concepts are interpreted differently depending on the academic field, geographical setting or cultural values, it is time to take action. Given this, the Glossary for Academic Integrity,... More

Abstract A clear understanding of terminology is crucial in any academic field. When it is clear that complex interdisciplinary concepts are interpreted differently depending on the academic field, geographical setting or cultural values, it is time to take action. Given this, the Glossary for Academic Integrity, newly developed by the European Network for Academic Integrity project, served as the basis for compiling a comprehensive taxonomy of terms related to academic integrity. Following a rigorous coding exercise, the taxonomy was partitioned into three constituent components – Integrity, Misconduct and Neutral terms. A review of relevant literature sources is included, and the strengths and weaknesses of existing taxonomies are discussed in relation to this new offering. During the creation of these artefacts the authors identified and resolved many differences between their individual interpretative understandings of concepts/terms and the viewpoints of others. It is anticipated that the freely-available glossary and taxonomy will be explored and valued by researchers, teachers, students and the general public alike. Keywords Academic integrity, Academic misconduct, Taxonomy, Research integrity, Research misconduct, Qualitative content analysis, Concept analysis

Tauginienė, L., Gaižauskaitė, I., Razi, S. et al. Enhancing the Taxonomies Relating to Academic Integrity and Misconduct. Journal of Academic Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-019-09342-4 Publisher (Open Access): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10805-019-09342-4
Less

View full details | Go to resource


(US) National Academy of Sciences to allow expulsion of harassers – Science (Meredith Wadman | June 2019)

Published/Released on June 03, 2019 | Posted by Admin on October 27, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

For the first time since its founding in 1863, the National Academy of Sciences will allow expulsion of members for serious offences including sexual harassment. MAXWELL MACKENZIE/NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

The prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in Washington,... More

For the first time since its founding in 1863, the National Academy of Sciences will allow expulsion of members for serious offences including sexual harassment. MAXWELL MACKENZIE/NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

The prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in Washington, D.C., has voted to allow expulsion of members for breaches of its Code of Conduct, including sexual harassment. Until now, election to the 156-year-old academy, a pinnacle of scientific achievement, has been a lifetime honour. In voting that concluded on 31 May with results announced this morning, 84% of those who cast ballots approved an amendment to the organization’s bylaws, allowing expulsion of a member by a two-thirds vote of NAS’s 17-member Council; 16% voted against the change. The average age of NAS members is 72; 83% are men. Although 2242 NAS members were eligible to vote, the academy did not disclose how many participated. “All women who have had a tough road—even those who have made it—I’m sure like me are happy to see this day where they can finally say: ‘The climate is gonna change,’” says Marcia McNutt, president of NAS, who drove the vote to the change the bylaws. “No longer will a climate be tolerated that doesn’t allow women to have the same chance as their male colleagues to thrive.”

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(Australian case) A researcher with 30 retractions and counting: The whistleblower speaks – Retraction Watch (Artemisia Stricta | October 2019)

Retraction Watch readers who have been following our coverage of retractions by Ali Nazari may have noticed that an anonymous whistleblower was the person who flagged the issues for journals and publishers. That whistleblower uses the pseudonym Artemisia Stricta, and we’re pleased to present a... More

Retraction Watch readers who have been following our coverage of retractions by Ali Nazari may have noticed that an anonymous whistleblower was the person who flagged the issues for journals and publishers. That whistleblower uses the pseudonym Artemisia Stricta, and we’re pleased to present a guest post written by him or her. Something is seriously out of place with the roughly 200 publications by Ali Nazari, a scientist at Swinburne University who studies structural materials. Some of these problems have been known by journals and publishers for years — some since 2012 — yet their response has been mixed. Some have retracted papers. Some have decided not to, so far. And others have been mum. The issues are serious enough to call into question the reliability of Nazari’s entire body of work. During 2010-2012, around 30 of Nazari’s papers duplicated images from Li et al. 2004, reporting that the materials had been produced by his group. The images, whose scale, orientation, brightness and contrast has been changed from the originals, reportedly represented materials different from those in Li et al.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Two papers that we’ve covered have been retracted—here’s why – ars Technica (John0 Timmer | October 2019)

Published/Released on October 18, 2019 | Posted by Admin on October 24, 2019 | Keywords: , , ,

Not all retractions are created equal.

Science is an activity performed by humans, so it's inevitable that some of the scientific papers we cover will end up being wrong. As we noted yesterday, the cause can range from factors completely... More

Not all retractions are created equal.

Science is an activity performed by humans, so it's inevitable that some of the scientific papers we cover will end up being wrong. As we noted yesterday, the cause can range from factors completely outside of a researcher's control—like OS implementation oddities—to mistakes and errors or even intentional fraud. In some cases, the problems are minor or peripheral to the main conclusions of a study and can be handled with a correction. In others, the issues are fatal to the paper's conclusion. In these cases, the only option is to retract the paper. When Ars discovers that a paper we've covered has been retracted, we make an effort to go back and provide a notice of it in our article. But until recently, we didn't have a formal policy regarding what that notice should look like, and we typically didn't publish anything new to indicate a retraction had occurred. Having given it some thought, that practice seems insufficient. A failure to prominently correct the record makes it easier for people to hang on to a mistaken impression about our state of understanding. Perhaps more importantly, not reporting a retraction leaves people unaware of a key aspect of science's self-correcting nature and how retractions can sometimes actually advance our scientific understanding. This is definitely apparent in the contrast between two retractions that we'll revisit today.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

  Less

View full details | Go to resource


Fining one ‘predatory’ publisher won’t fix the problem of bad science in journals – STAT (Adam Marcus | April 2019)

Published/Released on April 05, 2019 | Posted by Admin on October 21, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Science publishers aren’t supposed to be in the disinformation business. And that’s precisely what a federal judge in Nevada was saying late last month when she slapped OMICS International with a $50 million penalty in a suit brought by the U.S. Federal Trade... More

Science publishers aren’t supposed to be in the disinformation business. And that’s precisely what a federal judge in Nevada was saying late last month when she slapped OMICS International with a $50 million penalty in a suit brought by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Judge Gloria M. Navarro agreed with regulators that OMICS, which publishes hundreds of journals and puts on scientific conferences, was guilty of “numerous express and material misrepresentations regarding their journal publishing practices.” The ruling clearly is a win for honest brokers in scientific publishing. But it’s not the solution to the problem of so-called predatory journals — a term used to describe for-profit publications that pretend to offer peer review and editing but in reality do little, if any, of either.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(Australia) UNSW skin cancer researcher Levon Khachigian hit with string of retractions – ABC News (Elise Worthington and Kyle Taylor | October 2019)

Levon Khachigian cuts an imposing figure in the hallways of the UNSW School of Medical Sciences. [colored_box]The 55-year-old cell biologist rose to the top of the university's academic hierarchy, on a salary package once worth more than $250,000 a year. . In the elite world of academia, where prestige is... More

Levon Khachigian cuts an imposing figure in the hallways of the UNSW School of Medical Sciences. [colored_box]The 55-year-old cell biologist rose to the top of the university's academic hierarchy, on a salary package once worth more than $250,000 a year. . In the elite world of academia, where prestige is driven by publication in top scientific journals and research funding is scarce, Professor Khachigian has been a big earner, bringing more than $23 million in funding to the university over his three-decade career. The cancer and cardiovascular researcher was once regarded as a rising star on the brink of a breakthrough treatment for skin cancer. . Professor Khachigian is the winner of multiple Eureka prizes, widely regarded as the "Oscars" of Australian science, and once told a newspaper that the toughest part of the job was "when a research paper is rejected for publication on whimsical grounds". .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Advancing research integrity: a programme to embed good practice in Africa (Papers: Anke Rohwer, et al | 2019)

Published/Released on August 13, 2019 | Posted by Admin on October 18, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract In Africa, training programmes as well as institutional policies on research integrity are lacking. Institutions have a responsibility to oversee research integrity through various efforts, including policies and training. We developed, implemented and evaluated an institutional approach to promote research integrity at African institutions, comprising... More

Abstract In Africa, training programmes as well as institutional policies on research integrity are lacking. Institutions have a responsibility to oversee research integrity through various efforts, including policies and training. We developed, implemented and evaluated an institutional approach to promote research integrity at African institutions, comprising a workshop for researchers ("bottom-up") and discussions with senior faculty on institutional policies ("top-down"). During the first day, we facilitated a workshop to introduce research integrity and promote best practices with regards to authorship, plagiarism, redundant publication and conflicts of interest. We used a variety of interactive teaching approaches to facilitate learning, including individual and group activities, small group discussions and case-based learning. We met with senior faculty on the following day to provide feedback and insights from the workshop, review current institutional policies and provide examples of what other research groups are doing. We evaluated the process. Participants actively engaged in discussions, recognised the importance of the topic and acknowledged that poor practices occurred at their institution. Discussions with senior researchers resulted in the establishment of a working group tasked with developing a publication policy for the institution. Our approach kick-started conversations on research integrity at institutions. There is a need for continued discussions, integrated training programmes and implementation of institutional policies and guidelines to promote good practices. Keywords: Research integrity, Africa, institution, publication policy, workshop

Rohwer, A., Wager, E. & Young, T. (2019). Advancing research integrity: a programme to embed good practice in Africa. Pan African Medical Journal. 33. 10.11604/pamj.2019.33.298.17008. Publisher (Open Access): http://www.panafrican-med-journal.com/content/article/33/298/full/

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(US) Google and the University of Chicago Are Sued Over Data Sharing – New York Times (Daisuke Wakabayashi | June 2019)

SAN FRANCISCO — When the University of Chicago Medical Center announced a partnership to share patient data with Google in 2017, the alliance was promoted as a way to unlock information trapped in electronic health records and improve predictive analysis in medicine.

On Wednesday, the... More

SAN FRANCISCO — When the University of Chicago Medical Center announced a partnership to share patient data with Google in 2017, the alliance was promoted as a way to unlock information trapped in electronic health records and improve predictive analysis in medicine.

On Wednesday, the University of Chicago, the medical center and Google were sued in a potential class-action lawsuit accusing the hospital of sharing hundreds of thousands of patients’ records with the technology giant without stripping identifiable date stamps or doctor’s notes.

The suit, filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, demonstrates the difficulties technology companies face in handling health data as they forge ahead into one of the most promising — and potentially lucrative — areas of artificial intelligence: diagnosing medical problems.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(Taiwan) Draft amendment would make hiring thesis ghostwriter ethical misconduct – Taipei Times (Chien Hui-ju | September 2019)

Published/Released on October 01, 2019 | Posted by Admin on October 16, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

If proposed new regulations are approved, researchers who have papers ghostwritten would need to return their government funding, because the draft would classify the practice as misconduct, Minister of Science and Technology Chen Liang-gee (陳良基) said on Monday last week. The ministry last month proposed draft amendments to its Guidelines... More

If proposed new regulations are approved, researchers who have papers ghostwritten would need to return their government funding, because the draft would classify the practice as misconduct, Minister of Science and Technology Chen Liang-gee (陳良基) said on Monday last week. The ministry last month proposed draft amendments to its Guidelines for Handling and Investigating Research Misconduct (學術倫理案件處理及審議要點), which governs researchers’ applications to the ministry for project funding or academic awards. Having a paper ghostwritten is a breach of research ethics and investigations would be able to go back 10 years, the draft says.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


A publisher wants to destigmatize retractions. Here’s how – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | September 2019)

Published/Released on September 12, 2019 | Posted by Admin on October 15, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

It’s no secret that retractions have a stigma, which is very likely part of why authors often resist the move — even when honest error is involved. There have been at least a few proposals to change the nomenclature for some retractions over the years,... More

It’s no secret that retractions have a stigma, which is very likely part of why authors often resist the move — even when honest error is involved. There have been at least a few proposals to change the nomenclature for some retractions over the years, from turning them into “amendments” to a new taxonomy. Erica Boxheimer, data integrity analyst at EMBO Press, and Bernd Pulverer, chief editor of The EMBO Journal and head of scientific publications for the Press, have suggested a related solution, which builds on a 2015 proposal:

We proposed to use the term “withdrawal” instead of the canonical “retraction” for an author‐initiated retraction based on “honest mistakes”. We are now using the terms “retraction” and “withdrawal” as formally distinct content types across EMBO Press in the hope that “withdrawal” attracts less stigma and encourages self‐correction. 

Read the rest of this interview and discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Personality and fatal diseases: Revisiting a scientific scandal (Papers: Anthony J Pelosi | February 2019)

View full details | Go to resource


Work of renowned UK psychologist Hans Eysenck ruled ‘unsafe’ – The Guardian (Sarah Boseley | October 2019)

View full details | Go to resource


(Australia) Unauthorised survey asked students to rate Chinese people out of seven – Sydney Morning Herald (Nick Bonyhady | September 2019)

An unauthorised survey delivered to students at the University of Sydney under the university's official logo asked them to rate the attractiveness and intelligence of Chinese people out of seven.
[colored_box]The survey was delivered by both paid and volunteer pollsters to students voting in student representative council elections at the university... More

An unauthorised survey delivered to students at the University of Sydney under the university's official logo asked them to rate the attractiveness and intelligence of Chinese people out of seven.
[colored_box]The survey was delivered by both paid and volunteer pollsters to students voting in student representative council elections at the university this week. It claimed to be "approved in principle by the University of Sydney's ethics committee" and "endorsed by the political science department." . A University of Sydney spokeswoman said the university had "very strong concerns" about the content of the survey, which it was not aware of until contacted by the Herald on Wednesday, and how it was delivered. . "An initial inquiry indicates ethics approval was not obtained for the study and our logo has been used without permission," the spokeswoman said. "We are formally contacting the staff and student involved today to advise them the matter may be subject to disciplinary proceedings." .

Read the rest of this news story

Less

View full details | Go to resource


UK universities compliance with the Concordat to Support Research Integrity: findings from cross-sectional time-series – PeerJ (Elizabeth Wager | July 2019)

Published/Released on July 16, 2019 | Posted by Admin on October 12, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


When CVs Are Too Good to Be True – Inside Higher Ed (Colleen Flaherty | October 2019)

Published/Released on October 03, 2019 | Posted by Admin on October 9, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


(Australia) Materials scientist will soon be up to 30 retractions – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | October 2019)

A researcher at Swinburne University of Technology in Australia will soon add three more retractions to his burgeoning count, making 30. Ali Nazari has lost 27 papers from several journals, as we’ve reported over the past few months. According to an upcoming notice obtained by Retraction Watch, the International Journal... More

A researcher at Swinburne University of Technology in Australia will soon add three more retractions to his burgeoning count, making 30. Ali Nazari has lost 27 papers from several journals, as we’ve reported over the past few months. According to an upcoming notice obtained by Retraction Watch, the International Journal of Material Research (IJMR) will be retracting three more:

These papers published in IJMR have significant overlap in terms of identical content and wording with papers published by Ali Nazari et al. in other journals; strikingly the same micrographs and numerical data were used in different papers, albeit discussing different materials (additives).

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details


Two-thirds of researchers report ‘pressure to cite’ in Nature poll – Nature (Dalmeet Singh Chawla | October 2019)

Published/Released on October 01, 2019 | Posted by Admin on October 7, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Readers say they have been asked to reference seemingly superfluous studies after peer review.

An online poll answered by more than 4,300 Nature readers suggests that most researchers have felt pressured by peer reviewers to cite studies in their papers that seem unnecessary. Readers were... More

Readers say they have been asked to reference seemingly superfluous studies after peer review.

An online poll answered by more than 4,300 Nature readers suggests that most researchers have felt pressured by peer reviewers to cite studies in their papers that seem unnecessary. Readers were asked, ‘Have you ever felt pressured by peer reviewers to cite seemingly superfluous studies in your work?’, to which 66% responded ‘yes’ and 34% said ‘no’ (see ‘Coercive citation?’). The poll accompanied a news story last month, which revealed that the Dutch publisher Elsevier had found a small proportion of academics reviewing papers for its journals were exploiting the review process by asking authors to reference the reviewers’ own papers in exchange for a positive report.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Fighting Citation Pollution — The Challenge of Detecting Fraudulent Journals in Works Cited – Scholarly Kitchen ( Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe and Michael Clarke | September 2019)

Published/Released on October 25, 2019 | Posted by Admin on October 7, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Disclosure of interests and management of conflicts of interest (NHMRC An Australian Code (2018) good practice guide | August 2019)

A guide supporting the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research

Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Disclosure of interests 2 ...2.1 What interests should be disclosed? 2 More

A guide supporting the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research

Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Disclosure of interests 2 ...2.1 What interests should be disclosed? 2 ...2.2 What is a conflict of interest? 3 ...2.3 Identifying and managing conflicts of interest 3 3. Responsibilities of institutions 4 ...3.1 Develop and promote institutional policy 4 ...3.2 Provide training for researchers 4 ...3.3 Manage institutional interests 5 4. Responsibilities of researchers 5 ...4.1 Disclose interests and comply with relevant policies 5 ...4.2 Engage in relevant training 6 5. Resolution of disputes 6 6. Breaches of the Code 6 Additional resources 6

Access the good practice guide

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Peer Review (NHMRC An Australian Code (2018) good practice guide | August 2019)

Published/Released on August 26, 2019 | Posted by Admin on September 30, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Management of Data and Information in Research (NHMRC An Australian Code (2018) good practice guide | June 2019)

A guide supporting the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research

aContents 1. Introduction 1 2. Responsibilities of institutions 1 ...2.1 Provision of training for researchers 2 More

A guide supporting the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research

aContents 1. Introduction 1 2. Responsibilities of institutions 1 ...2.1 Provision of training for researchers 2 ..2.2 Ownership, stewardship and control of research data and primary materials 2 ...2.3 Storage, retention and disposal 3 ...2.4 Safety, security and confidentiality 3 ...2.5 Access by interested parties 4 ...2.6 Facilities 4 3. Responsibilities of researchers 4 ...3.1 Retention and publication 6 ...3.2 Managing confidential and other sensitive information 7 ...3.3 Acknowledging the use of others’ data 7 ...3.4 Engagement with relevant training 7 4. Breaches of the Code 7 Additional Resources 8

Access the good practice guide

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Authorship (NHMRC An Australian Code (2018) good practice guide | June 2019)

View full details | Go to resource


Copyright the Card Game – Australian Edition (a game produced by Creative Commons Australia and the Australian Libraries Copyright Committee, in partnership with the Australian Digital Alliance | April 2019)

Published/Released on April 01, 2019 | Posted by Admin on September 28, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Copyright The Card Game – Australian Edition is an adaptation of Copyright The Card Game v3.0 by Chris Morrison and Jane Secker. This Edition and the original game are licensed for reuse under the terms of a Creative Common Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0. This Edition... More

Copyright The Card Game – Australian Edition is an adaptation of Copyright The Card Game v3.0 by Chris Morrison and Jane Secker. This Edition and the original game are licensed for reuse under the terms of a Creative Common Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0. This Edition was adapted for Australia and Australian copyright law by Nerida Quatermass, Kate Makowiecka, Lisa Conti Phillipps, Elliott Bledsoe and Jessica Coates. It is proudly produced by Creative Commons Australia and the Australian Libraries Copyright Committee, in partnership with the Australian Digital Alliance. Resources You can download the cards as a PDF with or without bleeds:

Access the rest of the game materials and instructions

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Peer Review Week – the Podcast and the Videos! – Scholarly Kitchen (Alice Meadows | September 2019)

Published/Released on September 20, 2019 | Posted by Admin on September 28, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

[colored_box] We’re delighted to end this year’s Peer Review Week celebrations by sharing some great community resources that you can use all year round! The Peer Review Week channel on YouTube features short videos by researchers, editors, publishers, and others on the theme of quality in peer review, and there’s... More

[colored_box] We’re delighted to end this year’s Peer Review Week celebrations by sharing some great community resources that you can use all year round! The Peer Review Week channel on YouTube features short videos by researchers, editors, publishers, and others on the theme of quality in peer review, and there’s also a 60 second podcast on Peer Review Week by Sense about Science Director, Tracey Brown, OBE. Until next year … enjoy!

Access  the video and resources

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(US) Columbia historian stepping down after plagiarism finding – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | September 2019)

Published/Released on September 17, 2019 | Posted by Admin on September 26, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

A tenured professor of history at Columbia University will be stepping down at the end of next year after an investigating committee at the school found “incontrovertible evidence of research misconduct” in his controversial 2013 book. Charles King Armstrong, the Korea Foundation Professor of Korean Studies in the Social Sciences,... More

A tenured professor of history at Columbia University will be stepping down at the end of next year after an investigating committee at the school found “incontrovertible evidence of research misconduct” in his controversial 2013 book. Charles King Armstrong, the Korea Foundation Professor of Korean Studies in the Social Sciences, was found to have “cited nonexistent or irrelevant sources in at least 61 instances” in “Tyranny of the Weak: North Korea and the World, 1950-1992,” according to the Columbia Spectator, which first reported on the resignation last week. In a September 10 letter, Maya Tolstoy, dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, announced the news to the institution:

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


How to Be A Good Peer Reviewer – Scholarly Kitchen (Jasmine Wallace | September 2019)

Published/Released on September 17, 2019 | Posted by Admin on September 25, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

In my experience, the streamlined process of peer review is complicated when reviewers with good intentions do bad things. A reviewer who does bad things displays behaviors that slow down or lessen the effectiveness of peer review. A good peer reviewer displays efficient behaviors and adds value to the... More

In my experience, the streamlined process of peer review is complicated when reviewers with good intentions do bad things. A reviewer who does bad things displays behaviors that slow down or lessen the effectiveness of peer review. A good peer reviewer displays efficient behaviors and adds value to the process. The good thing about a reviewer who does bad things is that they can change. There are quite a few ways to shift bad behaviors and habits of reviewers to become not just good, but great peer reviewers. Mind the Time Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Seriously, good reviewers do not keep a fellow peer waiting longer than needed to receive their review. Keep in mind that your review is holding their work from progressing. Some people have been working for years to get their research “peer review” ready. Their blood, sweat, and tears have gone into the work you’ve been asked to evaluate. When you get the initial invitation to review, make note of the deadline. Pull out your calendar and check to see if you can realistically return a fair and sound assessment of the work in the allotted time. If the deadline is not reasonable, don’t be afraid to ask for an extension.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


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

Published/Released on September 12, 2019 | Posted by Admin on September 24, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

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... More

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

Less

View full details | Go to resource


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

Published/Released on September 16, 2019 | Posted by Admin on September 23, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

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... More

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

Less

View full details | Go to resource


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

Published/Released on October 28, 2017 | Posted by Admin on September 22, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

Introduction The Publishing Trap is a board game from the UK Copyright Literacy team that allows participants... More

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. [colored_box]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

Less

View full details | Go to resource


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

[colored_box]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... More

[colored_box]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

Less

View full details | Go to resource


China strengthens its campaign against scientific misconduct – CE&EN (Hepeng Jia | September 2019)

New publishing standards aim for clarity on plagiarism, fabrication, and authorship

Amid increasing attention to scientific research integrity in China, the country has adopted a new set of standards to more clearly define misconduct in publishing journal articles. Experts hope the new... More

New publishing standards aim for clarity on plagiarism, fabrication, and authorship

Amid increasing attention to scientific research integrity in China, the country has adopted a new set of standards to more clearly define misconduct in publishing journal articles. Experts hope the new clarity will make it easier to discipline researchers who violate the standards. The State Administration of Press and Publication, the agency in charge of China’s publishing sector, released and adopted in July the Academic Publishing Specification—Definition of Academic Misconduct for Journals. Other standards developed by the agency cover citation and translation practices and the use of ancient Chinese.
The publishing specification defines and distinguishes plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification. It also addresses inappropriate authorship, duplicate or multiple submissions, and overlapping publications.
Less

View full details | Go to resource


What’s next for Registered Reports? – Nature (Chris Chambers | September 2019)

Published/Released on September 10, 2019 | Posted by Admin on September 19, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , ,

Reviewing and accepting study plans before results are known can counter perverse incentives. Chris Chambers sets out three ways to improve the approach.

What part of a research study — hypotheses, methods, results, or discussion — should remain beyond a scientist’s control? The answer,... More

Reviewing and accepting study plans before results are known can counter perverse incentives. Chris Chambers sets out three ways to improve the approach.

What part of a research study — hypotheses, methods, results, or discussion — should remain beyond a scientist’s control? The answer, of course, is the results: the part that matters most for publishing in prestigious journals and advancing careers. This paradox means that the careful scepticism required to avoid massaging data or skewing analysis is pitted against the drive to identify eye-catching outcomes. Unbiased, negative and complicated findings lose out to cherry-picked highlights that can bring prominent articles, grant funding, promotion and esteem. The ‘results paradox’ is a chief cause of unreliable science. Negative, or null, results go unpublished, leading other researchers into unwittingly redundant studies. Ambiguous or otherwise ‘unattractive’ results are airbrushed (consciously or not) into publishable false positives, spurring follow-up research and theories that are bound to collapse. Clearly, we need to change how we evaluate and publish research. For the past six years, I have championed Registered Reports (RRs), a type of research article that is radically different from conventional papers. The 30 or so journals that were early adopters have together published some 200 RRs, and more than 200 journals are now accepting submissions in this format (see ‘Rapid rise’). When it launched in 2017, Nature Human Behaviour became the first of the Nature journals to join this group. In July, it published its first two such reports1. With RRs on the rise, now is a good time to take stock of their potential and limitations

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Elsevier investigates hundreds of peer reviewers for manipulating citations – Nature (Dalmeet Singh Chawla | September 2019)

Published/Released on September 10, 2019 | Posted by Admin on September 17, 2019 | Keywords: , ,

The publisher is scrutinizing researchers who might be inappropriately using the review process to promote their own work.

[colored_box]The Dutch publisher Elsevier is investigating hundreds of researchers whom it suspects of deliberately manipulating the peer-review process to boost their own citation numbers. . The... More

The publisher is scrutinizing researchers who might be inappropriately using the review process to promote their own work.

[colored_box]The Dutch publisher Elsevier is investigating hundreds of researchers whom it suspects of deliberately manipulating the peer-review process to boost their own citation numbers. . The publisher is looking into the possibility that some peer reviewers are encouraging the authors of work under review to cite the reviewers’ own research in exchange for positive reviews — a frowned-on practice broadly termed coercive citation. . Elsevier’s probe has also revealed that several of these reviewers seem to be engaging in other questionable publishing practices in studies that they have themselves authored. The Elsevier analysts who uncovered the activity told Nature that they “discovered clear evidence of peer-review manipulation” and of academics publishing the same studies more than once. Elsevier said that their investigations will lead to some of these studies being retracted. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(Australian case) A publisher just retracted 22 articles. And the whistleblower is just getting started – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | September 2019)

Published/Released on September 13, 2019 | Posted by Admin on September 15, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Fake Citations Kill a Career – Inside Higher Ed (Colleen Flaherty | September 2017)

Columbia says a historian's acclaimed book on North Korea was plagiarized, and its publisher says it's been taken out of print.

Charles Armstrong, Korea Foundation Professor of Korean Studies in the Social Sciences at Columbia University, plagiarized parts of his... More

Columbia says a historian's acclaimed book on North Korea was plagiarized, and its publisher says it's been taken out of print.

Charles Armstrong, Korea Foundation Professor of Korean Studies in the Social Sciences at Columbia University, plagiarized parts of his award-winning book on North Korea, Tyranny of the Weak: North Korea and the World, 1950-1992. He’s currently on sabbatical and will retire at the end of 2020, the university told Armstrong’s colleagues this week. “These findings were made in accordance with our policy, which required a confidential preliminary review by an inquiry committee, an investigation by a separate ad hoc faculty committee, oversight and recommendations by the university’s standing Committee on the Conduct of Research, and final decisions by the executive vice president for research and the provost,” Maya Tolstoy, dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, wrote in an email to professors that was obtained by Inside Higher Ed. Findings of research misconduct are generally “communicated to the public through retractions or corrections published in the scholarly literature,” Tolstoy wrote. “Where such a retraction is not feasible, the university may choose to notify the relevant community.”

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(China) A 10-year follow up of publishing ethics in China: what is new and what is unchanged (Papers: Katrina A. Bramstedt & Jun Xu | September 2019)

Abstract Background Organ donation and transplantation in China are ethically complex due to questionable informed consent and the use of prisoners as donors. Publishing works from China can be problematic. The objective of this study was to perform a 10-year follow up on... More

Abstract Background Organ donation and transplantation in China are ethically complex due to questionable informed consent and the use of prisoners as donors. Publishing works from China can be problematic. The objective of this study was to perform a 10-year follow up on Chinese journals active in donation and transplant publishing regarding the evolution of their publishing guidelines. Methods Eleven Chinese journals were analyzed for 7 properties: (1) ethics committee approval; (2) procedure consent; (3) publishing consent; (4) authorship criteria; (5) conflict of interest; (6) duplicate publication; and (7) data integrity. Results were compared with our 2008 study data. Additionally, open access status, impact factor, and MEDLINE-indexing were explored. Results Most journals heightened the ethical requirements for publishing, compared to the results of 2008. All 11 now require their published manuscripts to have data integrity. Ten of 11 require ethics committee approval and informed consent for the publication of research studies, whereas in the original study only 2 journals evidenced these requirements. Nine of 11 have criteria for authorship, require conflict of interest disclosure, and forbid duplicate publishing. None of the journals have a policy to exclude data that was obtained from unethical organ donation practices. Nine of 11 journals are MEDLINE-indexed but only 2 are open-access. Conclusions Most journals have improved their general ethical publishing requirements but none address unethical organ donation practices. Keywords: China; Informed consent; Organ donation; Publishing; Research ethics; Research integrity

Bramstedt, K. and Xu, J. (20019) (China) A 10-year follow up of publishing ethics in China: what is new and what is unchanged. Research Integrity and Peer Review 4(17) https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0077-3. Publisher (Open Access): https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-019-0077-3

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Why we shouldn’t take peer review as the ‘gold standard’ – The Washington Post (Paul D. Thacker and Jon Tennant | August 2019)

Published/Released on August 01, 2019 | Posted by Admin on September 10, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

It’s too easy for bad actors to exploit the process and mislead the public

In July, India’s government dismissed a research paper finding that the country’s economic growth had been overestimated, saying the paper had not been “peer... More

It’s too easy for bad actors to exploit the process and mislead the public

In July, India’s government dismissed a research paper finding that the country’s economic growth had been overestimated, saying the paper had not been “peer reviewed.” At a conference for plastics engineers, an economist from an industry group dismissed environmental concerns about plastics by claiming that some of the underlying research was “not peer reviewed.” And the Trump administration — not exactly known for its fealty to science — attempted to reject a climate change report by stating, incorrectly, that it lacked peer review.

Researchers commonly refer to peer review as the “gold standard,” which makes it seem as if a peer-reviewed paper — one sent by journal editors to experts in the field who assess and critique it before publication — must be legitimate, and one that’s not reviewed must be untrustworthy. But peer review, a practice dating to the 17th century, is neither golden nor standardized. Studies have shown that journal editors prefer reviewers of the same gender, that women are underrepresented in the peer review process, and that reviewers tend to be influenced by demographic factors like the author’s gender or institutional affiliation. Shoddy work often makes it past peer reviewers, while excellent research has been shot down. Peer reviewers often fail to detect bad research, conflicts of interest and corporate ghostwriting.

Meanwhile, bad actors exploit the process for professional or financial gain, leveraging peer review to mislead decision-makers. For instance, the National Football League used the words “peer review” to fend off criticism of studies by the Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee, a task force the league founded in 1994, which found little long-term harm from sport-induced brain injuries in players. But the New York Times later discovered that the scientists involved had omitted more than 100 diagnosed concussions from their studies. What’s more, the NFL’s claim that the research had been rigorously vetted ignored that the process was incredibly contentious: Some reviewers were adamant that the papers should not have been published at all.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Could a New Project Expose Predatory Conferences? – Technology Networks (Paul Killoran, Ex Ordo | September 2019)

Published/Released on September 03, 2019 | Posted by Admin on September 9, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

By now, predatory conferences should be on your radar. These “scholarly” events are organized on a strictly for-profit basis, pay lip service to peer review, and publish almost anything sent their way — for a fee, of course. (An associate professor submitted a nuclear physics paper More

By now, predatory conferences should be on your radar. These “scholarly” events are organized on a strictly for-profit basis, pay lip service to peer review, and publish almost anything sent their way — for a fee, of course. (An associate professor submitted a nuclear physics paper written using iOS autocomplete to one such conference. It passed review with flying colors.) For years, shady individuals have been exploiting early-career researchers’ eagerness to publish. But unless you were desperate  — or painfully naive — fake conferences were pretty easy to spot and avoid. Up till now. Effective predators adapt, and today’s breed of predatory conference is a much better mimic of the real deal. Their organizers are tech-savvy enough to create counterfeit websites that masquerade as those belonging to learned societies. I know of at least one medical association that had its conference website cloned by scammers and placed online at a web address that was just close enough to the real thing to be believable.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Q&A Linda Beaumont: Journals should take action against toxic peer reviews – Nature Index (Gemma Conroy | August 2019)

Published/Released on August 30, 2019 | Posted by Admin on September 8, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

Keep it constructive.

Learning to accept criticism is an important skill for researchers navigating the peer-review process. But what happens when the feedback is unhelpful, rude or downright toxic? Linda Beaumont, an ecologist... More

Keep it constructive.

Learning to accept criticism is an important skill for researchers navigating the peer-review process. But what happens when the feedback is unhelpful, rude or downright toxic? Linda Beaumont, an ecologist at Macquarie University in Australia, is no stranger to a harsh review. “One reviewer of a submission bluntly wrote, ‘I can’t believe the authors used this approach. This paper shouldn’t be published,’” says Beaumont. “Two sentences. I was gobsmacked.” But when one of her PhD students received a similarly cutting review, Beaumont knew it was time to speak out. In August 2019, she published a comment in Nature calling for clear ethical guidelines for peer-reviewers. She adds that editors have a role to play in addressing damaging feedback before it reaches the authors. Nature Index spoke to Beaumont about how peer reviewers can keep their feedback constructive, and how authors should respond when they don’t.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


How often do authors with retractions for misconduct continue to publish? – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | May 2019)

Published/Released on May 08, 2019 | Posted by Admin on September 8, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , ,

How does retraction change publishing behavior? Mark Bolland and Andrew Grey, who were two members of a team whose work led to dozens of retractions for Yoshihiro Sato, now third on the Retraction... More

How does retraction change publishing behavior? Mark Bolland and Andrew Grey, who were two members of a team whose work led to dozens of retractions for Yoshihiro Sato, now third on the Retraction Watch leaderboard, joined forces with Vyoma Mistry to find out. We asked Bolland to answer several questions about the new University of Auckland team’s paper, which appeared in Accountability in Research. Retraction Watch (RW): You “undertook a survey of publication rates, for authors with multiple retractions in the biomedical literature, to determine whether they changed after authors’ first retractions.” What did you find? Mark Bolland (MB): We wondered whether people continue to publish after they have had more than one of their papers retracted. We identified 100 authors with more than one first-author retraction from the Retraction Watch database (the top 10 from the Retraction watch leaderboard, 40 with at least 10 retractions, and 50 with 2-5 retractions). 82 authors were associated with a retraction in which scientific misconduct was listed as a reason for retraction in the Retraction Watch database.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Study pulls back curtain on contracts between Coca-Cola and the researchers it funds – STAT (Andrew Josep | May 2019)

When it funds scientific research, Coca-Cola includes a provision in its contracts with academic institutions that allows the beverage giant to pull its funding for a study at any point, according to a group of researchers who obtained several such agreements. The policies could pressure recipients of the... More

When it funds scientific research, Coca-Cola includes a provision in its contracts with academic institutions that allows the beverage giant to pull its funding for a study at any point, according to a group of researchers who obtained several such agreements. The policies could pressure recipients of the funding to pursue research that dovetails with Coca-Cola’s goals out of fear of having their project canceled, the researchers said in a paper published Tuesday, though they added that they found no example of that occurring. The paper, which was published in the Journal of Public Health Policy, comes amid increasing scrutiny of the food and beverage industry’s funding of and influence over academic research. The industry has taken a number of steps to improve transparency and safeguard the independence of studies it sponsors. Notably, Coca-Cola in 2015 started listing on its website the institutions and researchers it funded and the following year outlined principles that would guide its support for scientific research.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details


Data sharing and how it can benefit your scientific career – Nature (Gabriel Popkin | May 2019)

Published/Released on May 13, 2019 | Posted by Admin on September 5, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Open science can lead to greater collaboration, increased confidence in findings and goodwill between researchers.

Ecologist Thomas Crowther knew that scientists had already collected a vast amount of field data on forests worldwide. But almost all of those data were sequestered in researchers’ notebooks... More

Open science can lead to greater collaboration, increased confidence in findings and goodwill between researchers.

Ecologist Thomas Crowther knew that scientists had already collected a vast amount of field data on forests worldwide. But almost all of those data were sequestered in researchers’ notebooks or personal computers, making them unavailable to the wider scientific community. In 2012, Crowther, then a postdoctoral researcher at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, began to e-mail and cold-call researchers to request their data. He started to assemble an inventory, now hosted by the Global Forest Biodiversity Initiative, an international research collaboration, that contains data on more than 1 million locations. Data are stored in CSV files (plain-text files that contain a list of data) on servers at Crowther’s present laboratory at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich and on those of a collaborator at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana; he hopes to outsource database storage to a third-party organization with expertise in archiving and access. After years of courting and cajoling, Crowther has persuaded about half of the data owners to make their data public. The other half, he laments, say that they support open data in principle, but have specific reasons for keeping their data sets private. Mainly, he explains, they want to use their data to conduct and publish their own studies. Crowther’s database challenges reflect the current state of science: partly open, partly closed, and with unclear and inconsistent policies and expectations on data sharing that are still in flux. High-level bodies such as the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the European Commission have called for science to become more open and endorsed a set of data-management standards known as the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable) principles. Government funding agencies in the United States, Europe and Australia require researchers to devise plans for data management and, in some cases, data sharing; some private funders also require them. Many journals, including Nature, have adopted policies that encourage or require authors to make data available. A plethora of open-access repositories host data sets from almost all fields, and scientists have been publicly criticized by colleagues for not sharing data.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Better Metadata Could Help Save The World! – Scholarly Kitchen (Alice Meadows | June 2019)

Published/Released on June 11, 2019 | Posted by Admin on September 4, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

The title of this post may seem like a farfetched claim, however, no one can deny that we are currently faced with increasingly critical challenges — climate crisis, shrinking biodiversity, hunger, poverty, disease, and more. I think most of us would agree this means it’s essential for the research... More

The title of this post may seem like a farfetched claim, however, no one can deny that we are currently faced with increasingly critical challenges — climate crisis, shrinking biodiversity, hunger, poverty, disease, and more. I think most of us would agree this means it’s essential for the research findings that could help address these challenges to be shared as quickly and widely as possible — and for the data behind those findings to be FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable). And that means…metadata! As a community, we have a collective responsibility for sharing research outputs, including their metadata. That’s why Metadata 2020 is so timely and important (disclaimer: I am co-chair of their Researcher Communications project group). This community-led initiative aims to improve metadata in order to enhance discoverability, encourage new services, create efficiencies, and — ultimately — accelerate scholarly research. Lofty goals, to be sure! Which means that to succeed in achieving them we need the support of everyone who is involved in creating, curating, and consuming metadata. Per the FAIR principles, “Metadata and data should be easy to find for both humans and computers.  Machine-readable metadata are essential for automatic discovery of datasets and services.” Building on this, the Metadata 2020 project group on Best Practices and Principles has developed a set of draft principles, which were recently released for community comment. They state that for metadata to support the community, they should be:

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


What universities can learn from one of science’s biggest frauds – Nature (Holly Else – June 2019)

Published/Released on June 18, 2019 | Posted by Admin on September 3, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

Detailed analysis of misconduct investigations into huge research fraud suggests institutional probes aren’t rigorous enough.

By day, Andrew Grey studies bone health. But over the past few years, he’s developed another speciality: the case of one of science’s most prolific fraudsters. From 1996 to 2013,... More

Detailed analysis of misconduct investigations into huge research fraud suggests institutional probes aren’t rigorous enough.

By day, Andrew Grey studies bone health. But over the past few years, he’s developed another speciality: the case of one of science’s most prolific fraudsters. From 1996 to 2013, Yoshihiro Sato, a Japanese bone-health researcher plagiarized work, fabricated data and forged authorships — prompting retractions of more than 60 studies in the scholarly literature so far. Grey and colleagues at the University of Auckland in New Zealand and the University of Aberdeen, UK, are among the researchers who have raised concerns about Sato’s work over the past decade or so, and they have studied the case in detail — in particular, how universities involved in the research investigated concerns about his work and allegations of misconduct. At the World Conference on Research Integrity in Hong Kong from 2 to 5 June, Grey’s team described its years-long efforts to clean up Sato’s literature, and presented its analysis of the inquiries conducted by four universities in Japan and the United States ensnared in the scandal (the team published its analysis of three investigations in a paper in February1). Grey says their findings provide evidence to support a growing view in the academic community: that university investigations into research misconduct are often inadequate, opaque and poorly conducted. They challenge the idea that institutions can police themselves on research integrity and propose that there should be independent organizations to evaluate allegations of research fraud should.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Implementation of a responsible conduct of research education program at Duke University School of Medicine (Papers: Christian Simon, et al 02 June 2019)

Published/Released on June 02, 2019 | Posted by Admin on September 2, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


‘Search for inspiration’ lands too close to plagiarism, forcing retraction of grief paper – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | April 2019)

Published/Released on April 04, 2019 | Posted by Admin on August 30, 2019 | Keywords: , , ,

A pair of grief scholars in Denmark have lost a 2018 paper on ghostly apparitions after one of the researchers copied text from another article. [colored_box]The study, “How many bereaved people hallucinate about their loved one? A systematic review and meta-analysis of bereavement hallucinations,” appeared in the Journal of Affective... More

A pair of grief scholars in Denmark have lost a 2018 paper on ghostly apparitions after one of the researchers copied text from another article. [colored_box]The study, “How many bereaved people hallucinate about their loved one? A systematic review and meta-analysis of bereavement hallucinations,” appeared in the Journal of Affective Disorders, an Elsevier publication. Authors Karina Stengaard Kamp and Helena Due — yes, a second author named Due — are with The Aarhus Bereavement Research Unit at Aarhus University. . As the retraction notice explains: . This article has been retracted at the request of the authors. . After publication it came to their attention that parts of the wording especially in the last part of the discussion section (i.e., Methodological challenges and recommendation for future research, Strengths and limitations, and Conclusion) are too close to the cited manuscript (Lundorff et al., 2017). This mistake has sprung from the first author’s inexperience, and... .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


The gold rush: Why open access will boost publisher profits – LSE Impact Blog (Shaun Khoo | June 2019)

Published/Released on June 04, 2019 | Posted by Admin on August 29, 2019 | Keywords: , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Transparent Attribution of Contributions to Research: Aligning Guidelines to Real-Life Practices (Papers: Valerie Matarese and Karen Shashok | April 2019)

Published/Released on April 03, 2019 | Posted by Admin on August 28, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


(Japan) Former university president up to ten retractions – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | April 2019)

The former president of Tohoku University in Japan has just had a tenth paper retracted, because it duplicated one of his earlier works. One of the most recent retractions by materials scientist Akihisa Inoue, late last month, was of a paper in Materials Transactions... More

The former president of Tohoku University in Japan has just had a tenth paper retracted, because it duplicated one of his earlier works. One of the most recent retractions by materials scientist Akihisa Inoue, late last month, was of a paper in Materials Transactions that had duplicated a now-retracted paper and was subject to an expression of concern in 2012:

This article had been acknowledged by the Editorial Committee of Materials Transactions as the secondary publication from the previously published paper, because the contents were almost identical. Recently, the original paper was retracted. Unreferred reproduction from another paper which was not pointed out in the announcement has also been found. Therefore, this article is improper as a scientific paper, and it is retracted with the primary author’s agreement. The authors are required to pay more careful attention to contributing papers.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Technological Support for Peer Review Innovations – Scholarly Kitchen (Jessica Polka | March 2019)

Published/Released on March 26, 2019 | Posted by Admin on August 24, 2019 | Keywords: , , ,

The design of critical infrastructure determines what its users can do, and when. For example, the New York City subway system carries 1.7 billion passengers annually, shapes centers of residential and commercial activity, and enables a vibrant culture with its late night service. Incredibly, it does... More

The design of critical infrastructure determines what its users can do, and when. For example, the New York City subway system carries 1.7 billion passengers annually, shapes centers of residential and commercial activity, and enables a vibrant culture with its late night service. Incredibly, it does this with a signaling system that predates World War II that forces trains to be spaced far apart from one another, limiting capacity and causing delays. Upgrading the signaling system is necessary to meet current demands, but it is estimated to cost tens of billions of dollars and would require closing stations on nights and weekends, harming New Yorkers who depend on these services. Thus, the radical (but ultimately necessary) upgrade has been delayed in favor of putting out more urgent fires, for example track damage caused by hurricane Sandy. Similarly, journal management systems and publishing platforms act as essential infrastructure for scholarly communication. While more nimble than a metropolitan transport network, they nevertheless face challenges in balancing needs for both urgent fixes and aspirational developments. Over the long term, their supported features can shape the nature of scholarly communication, restricting or inspiring innovation. Peer review innovation Interest is mounting in modernizing peer review. In just the last year, a variety of new platforms and initiatives have launched: BioMed Central’s In Review, a Wiley, ScholarOne, and Publons collaboration, and independent peer review services linked from both Europe PMC (see the “External Links” tab of these results) and bioRxiv (see the section on “Preprint discussion sites” in this example).

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Doing the right thing: Psychology researchers retract paper three days after learning of coding error – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | August 2019)

Published/Released on August 13, 2019 | Posted by Admin on August 21, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

[colored_box]We always hesitate to call retraction statements “models” of anything, but this one comes pretty close to being a paragon. . Psychology researchers in Germany and Scotland have retracted their 2018 paper in Acta Psychologica after learning of a coding error in their work that proved fatal to the... More

[colored_box]We always hesitate to call retraction statements “models” of anything, but this one comes pretty close to being a paragon. . Psychology researchers in Germany and Scotland have retracted their 2018 paper in Acta Psychologica after learning of a coding error in their work that proved fatal to the results. That much is routine. Remarkable in this case is how the authors lay out what happened next. . The study, “Auditory (dis-)fluency triggers sequential processing adjustments:" . investigated as to whether the challenge to understand speech signals in normal-hearing subjects would also lead to sequential processing adjustments if the processing fluency of the respective auditory signals changes from trial to trial. To that end, we used spoken number words (one to nine) that were either presented with high (clean speech) or low perceptual fluency (i.e., vocoded speech as used in cochlear implants-Experiment 1; speech embedded in multi-speaker babble noise as typically found in bars-Experiment 2). Participants had to judge the spoken number words as smaller or larger than five. Results show that the fluency effect (performance difference between high and low perceptual fluency) in both experiments was smaller following disfluent words. Thus, if it’s hard to understand, you try harder. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


More detailed guidance on the inclusion/exclusion of retracted articles in systematic reviews is needed (Papers: July 2019)

Published/Released on July 12, 2019 | Posted by Admin on August 20, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

[colored_box]There are currently no clear guidelines on how to proceed when a retracted article is selected in the systematic review process. The Cochrane handbook provides information only on how to identify retracted articles within the scientific literature, instead of clear guidance and criteria for inclusion in the systematic review... More

[colored_box]There are currently no clear guidelines on how to proceed when a retracted article is selected in the systematic review process. The Cochrane handbook provides information only on how to identify retracted articles within the scientific literature, instead of clear guidance and criteria for inclusion in the systematic review or not [1]. Other guidelines for conducting systematic reviews do not address this topic [2,3]. Common sense would indicate the exclusion from a systematic review of a study that was retracted because of faked or unreliable data [4]. .

Faggion, C. M., Jr. "More detailed guidance on the inclusion/exclusion of retracted articles in systematic reviews is needed." Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.07.006 Publisher: https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(19)30573-6/abstract

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(US) NIH probe of foreign ties has led to undisclosed firings-and refunds from institutions – Science (Jeffrey Mervis | June 2019)

Published/Released on June 26, 2019 | Posted by Admin on August 17, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

An aggressive effort by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to enforce rules requiring its grantees to report foreign ties is still gathering steam. But it has already had a major impact on the U.S. biomedical research community. A senior NIH official tells ScienceInsider that universities have fired more... More

An aggressive effort by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to enforce rules requiring its grantees to report foreign ties is still gathering steam. But it has already had a major impact on the U.S. biomedical research community. A senior NIH official tells ScienceInsider that universities have fired more scientists—and refunded more grant money—as a result of the effort than has been publicly known. Since August 2018, Bethesda, Maryland–based NIH has sent roughly 180 letters to more than 60 U.S. institutions about individual scientists it believes have broken NIH rules requiring full disclosure of all sources of research funding. To date, the investigation has led to the well-publicized dismissals of five researchers, all Asian Americans, at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, and Emory University in Atlanta. But other major U.S. research universities have also fired faculty in cases that have remained confidential, according to Michael Lauer, head of NIH’s extramural research program. And some have repaid NIH “hundreds of thousands of dollars” in grants as a result of rule violations, he says. “I can understand why [the universities] aren’t talking about it,” Lauer says. “No organization wants to discuss personnel actions in a public forum.”

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


How to organize a conference that’s open to everyone – Nature (Nic Fleming | July 2019)

Published/Released on July 24, 2019 | Posted by Admin on August 17, 2019 | Keywords: , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Journals retract more than a dozen studies from China that may have used executed prisoners’ organs – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | August 2017)

In the past month, PLOS ONE and Transplantation have retracted fifteen studies by authors in China because of suspicions that the authors may have used organs from executed prisoners. All of the original studies — seven in Transplantation, and eight in PLOS ONE — were published between 2008 and 2014.... More

In the past month, PLOS ONE and Transplantation have retracted fifteen studies by authors in China because of suspicions that the authors may have used organs from executed prisoners. All of the original studies — seven in Transplantation, and eight in PLOS ONE — were published between 2008 and 2014. Two involved kidney transplants, and the rest involved liver transplants. Two other journals, the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology and Kidney International, have recently issued expressions of concern for the same reason. In an editorial explaining the seven retractions from its journal, the editors of Transplantation write:

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Fraud In A Leading UK Scientist’s Lab – BuzzFeed News (Peter Aldhous | July 2019)

David Latchman was never punished for leading a University College London lab that published more than a dozen fraudulent studies, according to newly released investigation documents.

David Latchman, a leading geneticist and one of the highest-paid university leaders in the... More

David Latchman was never punished for leading a University College London lab that published more than a dozen fraudulent studies, according to newly released investigation documents.

David Latchman, a leading geneticist and one of the highest-paid university leaders in the UK, was last year found responsible for failing to properly supervise a lab in which widespread scientific fraud occurred over many years. Two investigation reports found data falsification in a total of nine scientific papers published by members of a lab Latchman ran at University College London, according to documents released to BuzzFeed News under a Freedom of Information request. Latchman did not have direct involvement in the manipulation and reuse of images to falsify scientific results, investigators found.

Read the rest of this news story

Less

View full details | Go to resource


AMWA–EMWA–ISMPP joint position statement on predatory publishing (Papers: American Medical Writers Association, et al | July 2019)

Published/Released on July 29, 2019 | Posted by Admin on August 12, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

The American Medical Writers Association (AMWA), the European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) and the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) recognize the challenges to scientific publishing being posed by predatory journals and their publishers, which employ practices undermining the quality, integrity and reliability of published scientific research. This... More

The American Medical Writers Association (AMWA), the European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) and the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) recognize the challenges to scientific publishing being posed by predatory journals and their publishers, which employ practices undermining the quality, integrity and reliability of published scientific research. This joint position statement complements several other sets of guidelines that have helped define the characteristics of a predatory journal1–

American Medical Writers Association, European Medical Writers Association & International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (2019) AMWA–EMWA–ISMPP joint position statement on predatory publishing,Current Medical Research and Opinion,35:9, 1657-1658,10.1080/03007995.2019.1646535 Publisher (Open Access): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03007995.2019.1646535

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Fudged research results erode people’s trust in experts – The Conversation (Gavin Moodie | July 2019)

Reports of research misconduct have been prominent recently and probably reflect wider problems of relying on dated integrity protections. The recent reports are from Retraction Watch, which is a blog that reports on the withdrawal of articles by academic journals. The site’s... More

Reports of research misconduct have been prominent recently and probably reflect wider problems of relying on dated integrity protections. The recent reports are from Retraction Watch, which is a blog that reports on the withdrawal of articles by academic journals. The site’s database reports that journals have withdrawn a total of 247 papers with an Australian author going back to the 1980s. This compares with 324 papers withdrawn with Canadian authors, 582 from the UK and 24 from New Zealand. Australian retractions are 1.2% of all retractions reported on the site, a fraction of Australia’s 4% share of all research publications.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Meet the woman who’s tracking down systematic research fraud – Elsevier (Jennifer A. Byrne and Christopher Tancock | July 2019)

Published/Released on July 19, 2019 | Posted by Admin on August 6, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

The topic of research fraud is a serious – and growing issue. In this article, we interview Professor Jennifer A. Byrne about her work in identifying systematic fraud, the software she’s helped develop and the pioneering work she’s been doing to promote a better appreciation... More

The topic of research fraud is a serious – and growing issue. In this article, we interview Professor Jennifer A. Byrne about her work in identifying systematic fraud, the software she’s helped develop and the pioneering work she’s been doing to promote a better appreciation and regard for the importance of a “clean” body of research literature. [colored_box]Tell us a little about your background and research interests. I’m a molecular biologist and a cancer researcher. My research interests include studying the functions of specific genes in cancer, investigating the genetic basis of childhood cancer predisposition, and studying the operations of cancer biobanks. . How did you begin your work on (systematic) fraud? This started by accident, when I read five papers about a gene that my team had identified years before. These papers were very similar, even sharing particular nucleotide (or gene) sequence reagents. I could also see that the same reagent was being used in different ways, which couldn’t be right. Further analyses revealed that some reagents were wrongly identified, meaning that some reported results were impossible. When I realised that many other papers had these same types of errors, I fell into a strange new scientific reality, where I’ve been ever since. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Does psychology have a conflict-of-interest problem? – Nature (Tom Chivers | July 2019)

Published/Released on August 02, 2019 | Posted by Admin on August 5, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Some star psychologists don’t disclose in research papers the large sums they earn for talking about their work. Is that a concern?

Generation Z has made Jean Twenge a lot of money. As a psychologist at San Diego State University in California, she studies... More

Some star psychologists don’t disclose in research papers the large sums they earn for talking about their work. Is that a concern?

Generation Z has made Jean Twenge a lot of money. As a psychologist at San Diego State University in California, she studies people born after the mid-1990s, the YouTube-obsessed group that spends much of its time on Instagram, Snapchat and other social-media platforms. Thanks to smartphones and sharing apps, Generation Z has grown up to be more narcissistic, anxious and depressed than older cohorts, she argues. Twenge calls them the ‘iGen’ generation, a name she says she coined. And in 2010, she started a business, iGen Consulting, “to advise companies and organizations on generational differences based on her expertise and research on the topic”. Twenge has “spoken at several large corporations including PepsiCo, McGraw-Hill, nGenera, Nielsen Media, and Bain Consulting”, one of her websites notes. She delivers anything from 20-minute briefings to half-day workshops, and is also available to speak to parents’ groups, non-profit organizations and educational establishments. In e-mail exchanges, she declined to say how much she earns from her advisory work, but fees for star psychologists can easily reach tens of thousands of dollars for a single speech, and possibly much more, several experts told Nature. Twenge’s academic papers don’t mention her paid speeches and consulting. Yet that stands in stark contrast to the conflict-of-interest (COI) guidelines issued by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), an influential organization whose standards have been widely adopted by many medical and some psychology journals. Those guidelines say that such ‘personal fees’ should be declared as potential COIs in research papers because readers should be made aware of any financial interests that they might perceive as potentially influencing the findings.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Singapore joins the rise of research integrity networks – Nature Index (Dalmeet Singh Chawla | July 2019)

Published/Released on July 03, 2019 | Posted by Admin on August 3, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Global effort to combat research misconduct gathers pace.

Research integrity professionals in Singapore have responded to a high-profile case of research misconduct by launching a professional network to discuss research integrity. In a scandal that has rocked the island nation’s close-knit... More

Global effort to combat research misconduct gathers pace.

Research integrity professionals in Singapore have responded to a high-profile case of research misconduct by launching a professional network to discuss research integrity. In a scandal that has rocked the island nation’s close-knit research community during the past three years, two researchers at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) had their doctorate degrees revoked after being found guilty of falsifying data. The scandal led to the retraction and correction of several studies and resulted in Ravi Kambadur, the group’s leader — who had joint appointments at the NTU and the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (ASTAR) — being dismissed for negligence.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Why India is striking back against predatory journals – Nature (Bhushan Patwardhan | July 2019)

Published/Released on July 02, 2019 | Posted by Admin on August 2, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Our foe is determined and adaptable, says Bhushan Patwardhan. A list of credible titles is the latest salvo in the fight against shoddy scholarship.

According to 2015 estimates, more than 8,000 predatory journals churn out more than 400,000 items a year, and India —... More

Our foe is determined and adaptable, says Bhushan Patwardhan. A list of credible titles is the latest salvo in the fight against shoddy scholarship.

According to 2015 estimates, more than 8,000 predatory journals churn out more than 400,000 items a year, and India — which has also seen a spurt in high-quality scientific publications — contributes more than one-third of the articles in predatory publications. Last month, India launched its latest salvo against the ‘pay and publish trash’ culture that sustains predatory journals. Over several months, more than 30 organizations representing universities and academic disciplines have vetted journals to release a reference list of respectable titles. Predators sabotaged our last attempt. We hope this better-curated list will help to cut off the supply of manuscripts to the unscrupulous operators that profit financially by undercutting academic quality. Fending off the attack of trash science will be a long battle. Predatory journals have severely compromised scientific scholarship. They collect fees, but do not perform peer review or other promised services. My country’s experience so far shows both what makes an academic enterprise vulnerable to predatory publishers, and the coordinated efforts necessary to thwart them.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Journals’ Plagiarism Detectors May Flag Papers in Error – The Scientist (Diana Kwon | June 2019)

Published/Released on June 25, 2019 | Posted by Admin on August 1, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

One recent case, in which a scientist claims his submitted manuscript was rejected despite a lack of actual plagiarism, highlights the limitations of automated tools.

[colored_box]Last week, Jean-François Bonnefon, a behavioral scientist at the French Centre National de la... More

One recent case, in which a scientist claims his submitted manuscript was rejected despite a lack of actual plagiarism, highlights the limitations of automated tools.

[colored_box]Last week, Jean-François Bonnefon, a behavioral scientist at the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, tweeted that a scientific manuscript he submitted to a journal had been rejected by a bot. The program had flagged his paper for plagiarism, highlighting the methods, references, and authors’ affiliations. “It would have taken 2 [minutes] for a human to realize the bot was acting up,” Bonnefon wrote in one of his tweets. “But there is obviously no human in the loop here.” . In a massive Twitter thread that followed, several other academics noted having similar experiences. . “I found [Bonnefon’s] experience quite disconcerting,” Bernd Pulverer, chief editor of The EMBO Journal, writes in an email to The Scientist. “Despite all the AI hype, we are miles from automating such a process.” Plagiarism is a complex issue, he adds, and although tools to identify text duplication are an invaluable resource for routine screening, they should not be used in lieu of a human reviewer. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Retracted papers die hard: Diederik Stapel and the enduring influence of flawed science (Papers – preprint: Luis Morís Fernández Miguel Vadillo | June 2019)

Published/Released on June 26, 2019 | Posted by Admin on July 31, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


6th World Conference on Research Integrity

Published/Released on July 29, 2019 | Posted by Admin on July 29, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

Videos and powerpoints now available online from 6th WCRI: Post-conference updates http://wcri2019.org/index/programme/archive-plenary

View full details | Go to resource


Australian universities must wake up to the risks of researchers linked to China’s military – The Conversation (Clive Hamilton | July 2019)

Two Australian universities, University of Technology Sydney and Curtin University, are conducting internal reviews of their funding and research approval procedures after Four Corners’ revealed their links to researchers whose work has materially assisted China’s human rights abuses against the More

Two Australian universities, University of Technology Sydney and Curtin University, are conducting internal reviews of their funding and research approval procedures after Four Corners’ revealed their links to researchers whose work has materially assisted China’s human rights abuses against the Uyghur minority in Xinjiang province. UTS, in particular, is in the spotlight because of a major research collaboration with CETC, the Chinese state-owned military research conglomerate. In a response to Four Corners, UTS expressed dismay at the allegations of human rights violations in Xinjiang, which were raised in a Human Rights Watch report earlier this year. Yet, UTS has been aware of concerns about its collaboration with CETC for two years. When I met with two of the university’s deputy vice chancellors in 2017 to ask them about their work with CETC, they dismissed the concerns.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(Australia) ‘Bad science’: Australian studies found to be unreliable, compromised – Sydney Morning Herald (Liam Mannix | July 2019)

Hundreds of scientific research papers published by Australian scientists have been found to be unreliable or compromised, fuelling calls for a national science watchdog. For the first time, a team of science writers behind Retraction Watch has put together a database of compromised scientific research in Australia. Over the past two... More

Hundreds of scientific research papers published by Australian scientists have been found to be unreliable or compromised, fuelling calls for a national science watchdog. For the first time, a team of science writers behind Retraction Watch has put together a database of compromised scientific research in Australia. Over the past two decades, 247 scientific research papers - some associated with the country's most reputable universities - have been found to be compromised.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey (Papers: Kelly D Cobey, et al | March 2019)

Published/Released on March 23, 2019 | Posted by Admin on July 27, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract Objectives To develop effective interventions to prevent publishing in presumed predatory journals (ie, journals that display deceptive characteristics, markers or data that cannot be verified), it is helpful to understand the motivations and experiences of those who have published in these journals. More

Abstract Objectives To develop effective interventions to prevent publishing in presumed predatory journals (ie, journals that display deceptive characteristics, markers or data that cannot be verified), it is helpful to understand the motivations and experiences of those who have published in these journals. Design An online survey delivered to two sets of corresponding authors containing demographic information, and questions about researchers' perceptions of publishing in the presumed predatory journal, type of article processing fees paid and the quality of peer review received. The survey also asked six open-ended items about researchers' motivations and experiences. Participants Using Beall’s lists, we identified two groups of individuals who had published empirical articles in biomedical journals that were presumed to be predatory. Results Eighty-two authors partially responded (~14% response rate (11.4%[44/386] from the initial sample, 19.3%[38/197] from second sample) to our survey. The top three countries represented were India (n=21, 25.9%), USA (n=17, 21.0%) and Ethiopia (n=5, 6.2%). Three participants (3.9%) thought the journal they published in was predatory at the time of article submission. The majority of participants first encountered the journal via an email invitation to submit an article (n=32, 41.0%), or through an online search to find a journal with relevant scope (n=22, 28.2%). Most participants indicated their study received peer review (n=65, 83.3%) and that this was helpful and substantive (n=51, 79.7%). More than a third (n=32, 45.1%) indicated they did not pay fees to publish. Conclusions This work provides some evidence to inform policy to prevent future research from being published in predatory journals. Our research suggests that common views about predatory journals (eg, no peer review) may not always be true, and that a grey zone between legitimate and presumed predatory journals exists. These results are based on self-reports and may be biased thus limiting their interpretation. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial Cobey KD, Grudniewicz A, Lalu MM, et al Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey. BMJ Open 2019;9:e026516. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026516 Publisher (Open Access): https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/3/e026516 Less

View full details | Go to resource


Scandal-weary Swedish government takes over research-fraud investigations – Nature (Holly Else | July 2019)

Published/Released on July 09, 2019 | Posted by Admin on July 26, 2019 | Keywords: , , ,

The Research Misconduct Board is one of the first national agencies tasked with investigating serious research misconduct.

Bruised by a string of high-profile scientific-misconduct cases, Sweden has laid the legislative groundwork for a government agency that will handle all allegations of serious More

The Research Misconduct Board is one of the first national agencies tasked with investigating serious research misconduct.

Bruised by a string of high-profile scientific-misconduct cases, Sweden has laid the legislative groundwork for a government agency that will handle all allegations of serious research misconduct. The country follows in the footsteps of neighbouring Denmark, which created the world’s first such agency in 2017. [colored_box]Proponents say that handling research-misconduct investigations centrally should ensure equal, impartial treatment. But others say the move will divert resources and attention away from less serious breaches that universities will continue to deal with in-house and which, they argue, cumulatively do more damage than some more serious misdemeanours. . The way in which Swedish research institutes handle allegations of research misconduct has come under fire in recent years — thanks in part to the case of trachea surgeon Paolo Macchiarini. Macchiarini had been accused of misconduct relating to trials of an experimental trachea-transplant method, in which some patients died. On three occasions in 2015, the prestigious Karolinska Institute in Stockholm cleared him, but independent investigations commissioned by the Karolinska later found that he had committed misconduct. A 2016 independent commission concluded that the institute’s procedures were flawed. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


It’s Time to Lift the Veil on Peer Review – UnDark (Dalmeet Singh Chawla | June 2019)

Published/Released on June 20, 2019 | Posted by Admin on July 24, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

Data analysis can improve the vetting of scientific papers, but first publishers must agree to make the information public.

THE JOB OF A PEER REVIEWER is thankless. Collectively, academics spend around 70 million hours every year evaluating each other’s manuscripts on the behalf of... More

Data analysis can improve the vetting of scientific papers, but first publishers must agree to make the information public.

THE JOB OF A PEER REVIEWER is thankless. Collectively, academics spend around 70 million hours every year evaluating each other’s manuscripts on the behalf of scholarly journals — and they usually receive no monetary compensation and little if any recognition for their effort. Some do it as a way to keep abreast with developments in their field; some simply see it as a duty to the discipline. Either way, academic publishing would likely crumble without them. In recent years, some scientists have begun posting their reviews online, mainly to claim credit for their work. Sites like Publons allow researchers to either share entire referee reports or simply list the journals for whom they’ve carried out a review. Just seven years old, Publons already boasts more than 1.7 million users. The rise of Publons suggests that academics are increasingly placing value on the work of peer review and asking others, such as grant funders, to do the same. While that’s vital in the publish-or-perish culture of academia, there’s also immense value in the data underlying peer review. Sharing peer review data could help journals stamp out fraud, inefficiency, and systemic bias in academic publishing. In fact, there’s a case to be made that open peer review — in which the content of their reviews is published, sometimes with the name of reviewers who carried out the work — should become the default option in academic publishing.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


The Rise of Junk Science – The Walrus (Alex Gillis | July 2019)

Published/Released on July 09, 2019 | Posted by Admin on July 23, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Journal Publishes Concern About Study Using Forced Organ Donation – Medscape (Diana Swift | June 2019)

The Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology (CJASN) recently issued an "Expression of Concern" regarding a 2008 article on renal allograft recipients written by Chinese researchers. The Expression of Concern stems from an Australian report More

The Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology (CJASN) recently issued an "Expression of Concern" regarding a 2008 article on renal allograft recipients written by Chinese researchers. The Expression of Concern stems from an Australian report published online in February in BMJ Open, which urged the repudiation by English-language journals of more than 445 studies involving 85,477 organ transplants done in China. The reason? Many of the organs used were likely forcibly harvested from Chinese prisoners of conscience, such as practitioners of Falun Gong, Uyghurs, Tibetans, and underground Christians. "We reached out for clarification of the organ source to the senior authors, but one was deceased and the other had left the institution where the research was done," said CJASN Editor-in-Chief Rajnish Mehrotra, MD, MBBS, a professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California Los Angeles.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(US/China) Update: In reversal, science publisher IEEE drops ban on using Huawei scientists as reviewers – Science (Jeffrey Mervis | June 2019)

Published/Released on June 03, 2019 | Posted by Admin on July 21, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

*Update, 3 June, 12:15 p.m.: On 2 June, IEEE lifted its ban on using Huawei scientists as journal reviewers, saying it had received “clarification” from the U.S. Department of Commerce on how the government’s recent actions against the company affect its peer-review process. Here is our original story from... More

*Update, 3 June, 12:15 p.m.: On 2 June, IEEE lifted its ban on using Huawei scientists as journal reviewers, saying it had received “clarification” from the U.S. Department of Commerce on how the government’s recent actions against the company affect its peer-review process. Here is our original story from 29 May: A major scientific society has banned employees of Huawei, the Chinese communications giant, from reviewing submissions to its journals because of U.S. government sanctions against the company. The New York City–based Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) told editors of its roughly 200 journals yesterday that it feared “severe legal implications” from continuing to use Huawei scientists as reviewers in vetting technical papers. They can continue to serve on IEEE editorial boards, according to the memo, but “cannot handle any papers” until the sanctions are lifted.

Read the rest of this news story

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(US/China) China computer research body cuts ties with IEEE in protest at decision to bar Huawei from peer review – South China Post (Meng Jing | May 2019)

Published/Released on July 31, 2019 | Posted by Admin on July 21, 2019 | Keywords: , , ,

A Chinese computer professionals body announced that it is suspending ties with the world’s largest engineers association based in the US, as a controversy over the latter’s move to ban Huawei Technologies from peer reviewing research deepens. The Beijing-based China Computer Federation said in a statement on Thursday that it... More

A Chinese computer professionals body announced that it is suspending ties with the world’s largest engineers association based in the US, as a controversy over the latter’s move to ban Huawei Technologies from peer reviewing research deepens. The Beijing-based China Computer Federation said in a statement on Thursday that it would suspend “its communication and collaboration” with a division of the New York-based Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), just hours after the latter confirmed that it would bar Huawei employees from its peer preview process in order to comply with new US government restrictions. As part of the protest, the CCF, which is listed as one of IEEE’s “sister societies” on its website, said it would also delete some IEEE journals on its list. The move came after at least two professors from China’s elite Peking University and Tsinghua University publicly announced their resignation from the IEEE in protest at its move to bar Huawei employees from the peer review process.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(US/China) Papers IEEE Forced to Ban Huawei Employees From Peer-Reviewing Papers – PanDaily (Diming Xu | May 2019)

Published/Released on May 29, 2019 | Posted by Admin on July 21, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

Today, IEEE sent an email to its editors, saying “we cannot use colleagues from Huawei as reviewers or Editors for the peer-review process of our journals,” because the US government has put Huawei on its BIS list. Later, the full email was revealed by an IEEE member: More

Today, IEEE sent an email to its editors, saying “we cannot use colleagues from Huawei as reviewers or Editors for the peer-review process of our journals,” because the US government has put Huawei on its BIS list. Later, the full email was revealed by an IEEE member:

Read the rest of this news story

Less

View full details | Go to resource


On the use of blockchain-based mechanisms to tackle academic misconduct (Vijay Mohan | June 2019)

Published/Released on June 08, 2019 | Posted by Admin on July 18, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

Highlights

  • There exists a Prisoners’ Dilemma in academia, where researchers engage in misconduct in equilibrium.
  • Conventional “centralized” solutions under the current system may not work.
  • New advances in distributed ledger technology, like blockchain, provide a decentralized alternative.
  • The incentive structures in... More

    Highlights

    • There exists a Prisoners’ Dilemma in academia, where researchers engage in misconduct in equilibrium.
    • Conventional “centralized” solutions under the current system may not work.
    • New advances in distributed ledger technology, like blockchain, provide a decentralized alternative.
    • The incentive structures in academia may necessitate a solution involving a permissioned blockchain.
    • Open Science is necessary to fight misconduct.
    Abstract Current incentives for publishing in academic journals result in a “winner-take-all” contest-like situation, with significant benefits for publishing research in quality journals. At the same time, empirically, we observe a greater incidence of research misconduct. The purpose of this paper is to summarize the nature and extent of the misconduct problem, to show why it may persist in the absence of conscious remedial action, and to discuss solutions that help lower the likelihood of spurious research escaping undetected. A simple model is constructed to emphasize that there exists the potential for a Prisoners’ Dilemma in academia, where scholars engage in misconduct at equilibrium (the Academic Dilemma). The paper then examines why conventional “centralized” regulatory solutions under the current system are not likely to succeed in resolving the problem, analyzes the properties of a decentralized solution utilizing blockchains, and argues that once incentive structures in academia are factored in, a permissioned blockchain may emerge as an effective middle-ground solution for mitigating scientific misconduct. In doing so, the paper highlights the importance of new technologies and recent advancements in Open Science for battling misconduct, and takes stock of the evolving nature of academic publishing. Keywords Academic misconduct, Prisoners’ dilemma, Blockchain, Open science, Decentralized cooperation

    Mohan, V. (2019) On the use of blockchain-based mechanisms to tackle academic misconduct. Research Policy. 48(9), November 2019, 103805 Publisher: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048733319301258

    Less

    View full details | Go to resource


Knowledge and attitudes among life scientists towards reproducibility within journal articles (Papers: Evanthia Kaimaklioti Samota and Robert P. Davey | June 2019)

Published/Released on June 04, 2019 | Posted by Admin on July 16, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

Abstract We constructed a survey to understand how authors and scientists view the issues around reproducibility, and how solutions such as interactive figures could enable the reproducibility of experiments from within a research article. This manuscript reports the results of this survey on the views of... More

Abstract We constructed a survey to understand how authors and scientists view the issues around reproducibility, and how solutions such as interactive figures could enable the reproducibility of experiments from within a research article. This manuscript reports the results of this survey on the views of 251 researchers, including authors who have published in eLIFE Sciences, and those who work at the Norwich Biosciences Institutes (NBI). The survey also outlines to what extent researchers are occupied with reproducing experiments themselves and what are their desirable features of an interactive figure. Respondents considered various features for an interactive figure within a research article that would allow for them to better understand and reproduce in situ the experiment presented in the figure. Respondents said that the most important element that would enable the better reproducibility of published research would be that authors describe methods and analyses in detail. The respondents believe that having interactive figures in published papers is a beneficial element. Whilst interactive figures are potential solutions for demonstrating technical reproducibility, we find that there are equally pressing cultural demands on researchers that need to be addressed to achieve greater success in reproducibility in the life sciences.

Samota, E. K. and R. P. Davey (2019). Knowledge and attitudes among life scientists towards reproducibility within journal articles. bioRxiv: 581033. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/581033 Publisher: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/581033v2 This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed

Less

View full details | Go to resource


UGC move to thwart ‘pay and publish trash’ culture – Hindustan Times (Rajeev Mullick | June 2019)

Published/Released on June 14, 2019 | Posted by Admin on July 15, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

UGC secretary Rajnish Jain has issued a public notice on academic integrity for Indian academic community dated.

The University Grants Commission (UGC) has made it clear that any publications in predatory, dubious journals or presentations and dubious conferences will not be considered for academic... More

UGC secretary Rajnish Jain has issued a public notice on academic integrity for Indian academic community dated.

The University Grants Commission (UGC) has made it clear that any publications in predatory, dubious journals or presentations and dubious conferences will not be considered for academic selection, confirmation, promotion, performance and appraisal, besides award of scholarship or academic degrees or credits in any form. [colored_box]UGC secretary Rajnish Jain has issued a public notice on academic integrity for Indian academic community dated June 14, 2019. It reads: With immediate effect, research publications only from journals indexed in UCG-CARE List should be used for all academic purposes. Any attempt of compromised academic integrity should be challenged, questioned and de-recognised all levels, it reads. . The UGC has setup a consortium for academics and research ethics (CARE) to identify, monitor and maintain ‘UCG-CARE Reference List of Quality Journals’ available at the , with useful resources as relevant publications, audio visual materials, videos, web link etc. UCG-CARE website also provides FAQ’s, feedback and grievance redressal mechanism. .

Read the rest of this news  story

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Credit data generators for data reuse – Nature (Heather H. Pierce, et al | June 2019)

To promote effective sharing, we must create an enduring link between the people who generate data and its future uses, urge Heather H. Pierce and colleagues.

Much effort has gone towards crafting mandates and standards for researchers to share their data1–3. Considerably less time... More

To promote effective sharing, we must create an enduring link between the people who generate data and its future uses, urge Heather H. Pierce and colleagues.

Much effort has gone towards crafting mandates and standards for researchers to share their data1–3. Considerably less time has been spent measuring just how valuable data sharing is, or recognizing the scientific contributions of the people responsible for those data sets. The impact of research continues to be measured by primary publications, rather than by subsequent uses of the data. To incentivize the sharing of useful data, the scientific enterprise needs a well-defined system that links individuals with reuse of data sets they generate4. To further this goal, the Association of American Medical Colleges (where H.H.P. and A.D. work) and the Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School (where E.S. and B.E.B. work), along with The New England Journal of Medicine, convened a 2018 workshop of representatives from 50 organizations to discuss and validate such a system. The workshop included major journals, funders, data-citation groups and academic centres (see Supplementary Information, Participant list) and was preceded by numerous meetings. Here we propose a system for leveraging existing initiatives and infrastructure to track the use, reuse and impact of scientific data through the consistent adoption of unique identifiers. Our system begins when researchers deposit a data set that they have generated. It then links every use and published analysis of that data set back to the original researchers (see ‘Virtuous cycle’).

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Montenegro just made plagiarism illegal. What does it hope to achieve? – Retraction Watch (Mico Tatalovic | March 2019)

Published/Released on March 25, 2019 | Posted by Admin on July 13, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

The parliament of Montenegro, a small country in the southeast of Europe, approved a law on academic integrity earlier this month that effectively criminalizes plagiarism, self-plagiarism and donation of authorship. We spoke to Mubera Kurpejović, director of higher education at the country’s Ministry of Education, explains... More

The parliament of Montenegro, a small country in the southeast of Europe, approved a law on academic integrity earlier this month that effectively criminalizes plagiarism, self-plagiarism and donation of authorship. We spoke to Mubera Kurpejović, director of higher education at the country’s Ministry of Education, explains why the law was needed and what they hope it will achieve. Why did Montenegro need such a law, given that no other country in the region has anything similar?  Adoption of the Law on Academic Integrity is an affirmation of the state’s determination to deal with integrity in a quality manner and thus influence citizens’ awareness of this important issue, as well as their awareness of the harmfulness of the violation of academic integrity. The recommendation to adopt a special law on this came out of a feasibility study on a customized system for the prevention of plagiarism in Montenegro.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Authorship inflation and author gender in pulmonology research (Blake Umberham, et al | October 2018)

Published/Released on October 18, 2018 | Posted by Admin on July 12, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract Introduction Honorary authorship and equal gender representation are two pressing matters in scientific research. Honorary authorship is the inclusion of authors who do not meet the criteria established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship guidelines. The inclusion of... More

Abstract Introduction Honorary authorship and equal gender representation are two pressing matters in scientific research. Honorary authorship is the inclusion of authors who do not meet the criteria established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship guidelines. The inclusion of honorary authors in the medical literature has led to an increase of the number of authors on studies and a decrease in single author studies in various fields. Methods Our primary objective was to assess authorship trends in two major pulmonology journals (selected on the basis of Google Scholar rankings): Thorax and American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. We reviewed all articles published in both journals in the years 1994, 2004, and 2014 using Web of Science and extracted data such as number of authors and gender of the first and last authors. Results The total number of authors steadily increased from 1994 to 2014. The median number of authors grew from about four in 1994 to nearly seven in 2014, which is approximately a 75% increase. When we compiled all the data, we found the percentage of female authors from both journals had increased from 17% to 29.9% during the study period. Discussion We found an increase in the average number of authors on pulmonology publications between 1994 and 2014 as well as an increase in the number of females with a lead or main author position. This may be due to a variety of factors, such as increased team science. However, our data in conjunction with data from other areas of medicine, indicate that honorary authorship may be contributing to the trends we identified.

Umberham, B., et al. (2018). "Authorship inflation and author gender in pulmonology research." bioRxiv. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/446385 Publisher (Open Access): https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/446385v1.full

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Guest Post — Open Research in Practice: Moving from Why to How? – Scholarly Kitchen (Fiona Murphy, et al | June 2019)

Published/Released on June 17, 2019 | Posted by Admin on July 11, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Today’s research knowledge can be harvested and data analyzed faster than has been possible in all previous generations combined. As a result, Open Research practices and outputs face a number of tensions between initial intentions and unforeseen consequences. For example, the FAIR Data Principles propose... More

Today’s research knowledge can be harvested and data analyzed faster than has been possible in all previous generations combined. As a result, Open Research practices and outputs face a number of tensions between initial intentions and unforeseen consequences. For example, the FAIR Data Principles propose that research data should be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable — but nothing has prepared us for the use and misuse of personal data. Even if they start out ethically approved and safe in the researcher’s toolkit, they can later be sold to a third party in exchange for analytical services, enabling machines to identify disease states from a picture, classify your intelligence and demographic profile in four “likes” or less, or traffic organs and direct market to those that need them on social media. And so our questions about Open Research are also changing — from “why” to “how” — amidst growing awareness that the required skill sets, both technical and social, are not yet part of the standard training programs for researchers. Consider, for example, the questions and challenges that early career researchers face as they critique a distinguished professor’s work while conducting an open peer review. How do they balance the need for research integrity and rigorous review without career-ending consequences? How do we protect reviewers who review in good faith only to be raked through the coals on social media, while the perpetrators are funded and their work is published. So, if you actually want to practice Open Research, how do you learn about it? How do you balance effort with effect? How do you discover and validate the standards that are being adopted by your communities?

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Farewell authors, hello contributors – Nature (Alex Holcombe | July 2019)

Published/Released on July 05, 2019 | Posted by Admin on July 10, 2019 | Keywords: , , ,

More disciplines must embrace a system of academic credit that rewards a greater range of roles more specifically, says Alex Holcombe.

We graduate students flocked to our department’s ‘sherry hour’ — it meant free drinks. As I fished around in the beer bucket, a... More

More disciplines must embrace a system of academic credit that rewards a greater range of roles more specifically, says Alex Holcombe.

We graduate students flocked to our department’s ‘sherry hour’ — it meant free drinks. As I fished around in the beer bucket, a friendly professor struck up a conversation. He needed a programmer, and my skills fit the bill. He offered to pay. I could have used the money, but knew that dollars wouldn’t get me a professorship. For that, what I needed was authorship. But the professor told me that “just programming” did not merit authorship. According to the journals in our field, becoming an author required participation in the conception or design of the experiment, the data analysis and interpretation, and the writing. These roles were already spoken for. So, the next day, I was back in my adviser’s lab, conducting experiments and writing them up — doing what I had to do to get my name on papers. Twenty years on, to my chagrin, I resemble that professor from sherry hour. I’m too busy to do everything myself, so I’m looking for someone who can program. The shortage of researchers with specialized skills, such as programming, should ease if more journal publishers adopt a better way to document who does what in research: a function provided by the machine-readable classification system CRediT (the Contributor Roles Taxonomy). Launched in 2014, CRediT allows contributors to report the specific tasks (such as data collection or statistics) they performed in a paper’s production. We need to make this routine across most of the sciences.

Read the rest of this discussion piece.

Less

View full details | Go to resource


A peer review card exchange game (Papers: Ružica Tokalićb & Ana Marušić | August 2018)

Published/Released on August 01, 2018 | Posted by Admin on July 6, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Abstract Introduction: Peer review aims to ensure the quality of research and help journal editors in the publication process. COST action PEERE, which explores peer review, including its efficiency, transparency and accountability, organised a peer review school endorsed by EASE. We developed... More

Abstract Introduction: Peer review aims to ensure the quality of research and help journal editors in the publication process. COST action PEERE, which explores peer review, including its efficiency, transparency and accountability, organised a peer review school endorsed by EASE. We developed a card exchange game based on responsibility and integrity in peer review for a hands-on training session. Methods: We used the approach for the development of training materials about responsible research and innovation developed by the HEIRRI project, and the principles of the card game for the popularisation of the philosophy of science. Results: We created 32 card statements about peer review, distributed across 6 domains: Responsiveness, Competence, Impartiality, Confidentiality, Constructive criticism and Responsibility to science. We adapted the instructions for the game and tested the game during the peer review school at the University of Split School of Medicine, Croatia, May 2018. The feedback by the participants was very positive. Conclusions: The Peer Review Card Exchange Game could be used as an introductory activity for teaching integrity and ethics in peer review training. Keywords Peer review, training, card game, research integrity

Tokalićb, R. & Marušić, A (2018) A peer review card exchange game. Journal: European Science Editing. 44(3) August 2018 Publisher (Open Access): http://europeanscienceediting.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ESEAug18_origarticle.pdf Supplement: ESE Peer Review Card Exchange Game_Supplement 1 Cards Supplement 2: ESE Peer Review Card Exchange Game_Supplement 2 Instructions

Less

View full details | Go to resource #1, resource #2, resource #3


Embassy of Good Science (Resources | May 2019)

Published/Released on May 29, 2019 | Posted by Admin on July 5, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Your platform for research integrity and ethics The Embassy offers help to anyone seeking support in handling day-to-day research practices and dilemmas.

The goal of The Embassy of Good Science is to promote research integrity among all those involved in research.... More

Your platform for research integrity and ethics The Embassy offers help to anyone seeking support in handling day-to-day research practices and dilemmas.

The goal of The Embassy of Good Science is to promote research integrity among all those involved in research. The platform is open to anyone willing to learn or support others in fostering understanding and awareness around Good Science. The Embassy aims to become a unique ‘go to’ place, a public square where the community of researchers can gather to discuss ‘hot topics’, share knowledge, and find guidance and support to perform science responsibly and with integrity.

Access the Embassy of Good Science About Short video 

Less

View full details | Go to resource #1, resource #2, resource #3


Peer Review Week Is Five! – Scholarly Kitchen (Alice Meadows | June 2019)

Published/Released on June 26, 2019 | Posted by Admin on July 4, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

It’s hard to believe that this year Peer Review Week (PRW) will celebrate its fifth anniversary. Five years ago, it was literally not even a twinkle in anyone’s eye! So, as we prepare for #PeerRevWk19 (September 16-20), I thought Scholarly Kitchen readers might enjoy a... More

It’s hard to believe that this year Peer Review Week (PRW) will celebrate its fifth anniversary. Five years ago, it was literally not even a twinkle in anyone’s eye! So, as we prepare for #PeerRevWk19 (September 16-20), I thought Scholarly Kitchen readers might enjoy a look back at the history of this annual celebration of the essential role that peer review plays in maintaining scientific and scholarly quality. Year One (September 28 – October 2, 2015) The first ever Peer Review Week was really a piece of last-minute serendipity. It grew out of a conversation in August, 2015 between ORCID, which I had recently joined as Director of Communications, and AAAS*. At ORCID, we were about to launch the beta version of our peer review functionality, enabling organizations to recognize peer review activities by adding them to ORCID records, while AAAS — an ORCID member — had recently acquired PRE (Peer Review Evaluation). So we were brainstorming ways we could work together, and came up with the idea of a week of posts celebrating peer review on the ORCID blog. But then we thought, why stop there!? So we invited a handful of other organizations that we knew were especially interested in the topic to join the celebrations — ScienceOpen, Sense About Science (whose annual lecture that year inspired the dates for Peer Review Week), and Wiley (my former company). We had all of six weeks or so to organize ourselves, so it was a case of all hands on deck, but amazingly we did (just about!) pull it off (see Welcome to Peer Review Week). Much more importantly, it started a wider conversation about the need to regularly celebrate the importance of peer review to scholarly communications, with numerous other organizations expressing interest in participating. Year Two (September 19 – 26, 2016) Thankfully, planning for Peer Review Week 2016 started a lot earlier and involved over 20 organizations, including the original founders. The planning committee decided to choose a theme for each year’s celebrations, starting with “Recognizing Peer Review” for 2016. One of our goals was to  recognize peer review in all its many forms, from grant application through promotion and tenure, to conference abstracts, publications, and more. As part of that effort, we started our now annual week of Peer Review Week posts here on the Kitchen, including an interview with Maryanne Martone of Hypothes.is about the importance of annotations as a form of review, and a conversation between Chefs Alison Mudditt and Karin Wulf, as well as Mary Francis of University of Michigan Press, about peer review in the humanities and social sciences. And we created our own video of interviews with people from a range of organizations about how and why their organizations recognize review.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Not Reporting Results of a Clinical Trial Is Academic Misconduct – ACP (Editorial | Joshua D. Wallach, MS, PhD; Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, SM | May 2019)

Failure to report the results of clinical trials threatens the public's trust in research and the integrity of the medical literature, and should be considered academic misconduct at the individual and institutional levels. According to the ethical principles for research outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki, researchers “have a... More

Failure to report the results of clinical trials threatens the public's trust in research and the integrity of the medical literature, and should be considered academic misconduct at the individual and institutional levels. According to the ethical principles for research outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki, researchers “have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects and are accountable for the completeness and accuracy of their reports” (1). When participants volunteer to take part in clinical trials, and expose themselves to interventions with unknown safety and efficacy profiles, they have a tacit assumption, based on trust, that the evidence generated will inform clinical science (2). Health care providers and medical societies, who are responsible for evaluating and synthesizing evidence and filling the gap between research and practice, need for investigators to fully report their results in a timely manner. The utility of the diligent search for truth in the medical literature depends on its completeness. However, when research findings are not consistently disseminated, the literature provides a skewed view of the science, which may bias reviews of the evidence. During the past 2 decades, efforts have been increasing to promote the reporting of clinical trial results. After the creation of ClinicalTrials.gov, a public registration database, the United States moved to establish consequences of not reporting clinical trial results. In particular, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) of 2007 created legal requirements for certain intervention studies of FDA-regulated...

Read the rest of this discussion piece Subscription required

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Make reports of research misconduct public – Nature (C. K. Gunsalus | June 2019)

Published/Released on June 03, 2019 | Posted by Admin on June 30, 2019 | Keywords: , ,

Confronted with bad behaviour, institutions will keep asking the wrong questions until they have to show their working, says C. K. Gunsalus.

During decades as a research-integrity officer, expert witness for misconduct investigations and consultant, I have been inspired — and I have seen... More

Confronted with bad behaviour, institutions will keep asking the wrong questions until they have to show their working, says C. K. Gunsalus.

During decades as a research-integrity officer, expert witness for misconduct investigations and consultant, I have been inspired — and I have seen inexcusable conduct. Even when investigations are exemplary and findings clear, universities rarely report them publicly. That secrecy perpetuates misbehaviour and breeds mistrust — as evidenced by the ongoing revelations of universities that failed to respond appropriately, sometimes for years, to allegations of sexual misconduct. Science is fast becoming more transparent. So, too, should institutional practice. Open misconduct reports would create a virtuous circle. Institutions would learn from their own and others’ investigations. Leaders would be more likely to pay attention to reports that are subject to scrutiny. Honest researchers could see that although groundbreaking science is often uncertain, it is qualitatively different from the conduct that leads to misconduct reviews. We are already seeing such a shift in health care. Last month, a study showed that mortality is lower in UK hospitals in which medical professionals feel that they can talk openly about problems without worrying about repercussions to their careers (V. Toffolutti and D. Stuckler Health Affair. http://doi.org/c6df; 2019). I often find that institutional investigators ask the wrong questions, such as: ‘We don’t have to report this, do we?’, ‘How could anyone think Dr X would do such a thing?’ or (to whistle-blowers) ‘Why would you want to cause trouble for your own research project?’ Investigators pin all the blame on one actor without examining the contributions of co-authors or supervisors of the flawed work. An investigation might stop abruptly if the subject of it resigns. A 2019 paper examining investigations by institutions after the retraction of 12 clinical-trial papers by one research group stated that although investigations lasted for between 8 and 17 months, they did not examine preclinical papers from this group even after receiving detailed, serious concerns about them (A. Grey et al. Res. Integr. Peer Rev. 4, 3; 2019).

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Unfortunately Less

View full details | Go to resource


Fake news about the past is a crime against history – University World News (Antoon De Baets | May 2019)

Published/Released on May 04, 2019 | Posted by Admin on June 29, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

Historians observing the current debate on fake news are tempted to make comments from a long-term perspective. First, fake news, as a type of lie that constitutes disinformation, has an ancient pedigree. Indeed, among the plethora of primary sources used by historians to study the... More

Historians observing the current debate on fake news are tempted to make comments from a long-term perspective. First, fake news, as a type of lie that constitutes disinformation, has an ancient pedigree. Indeed, among the plethora of primary sources used by historians to study the past, some are forged, many distorted and all are biased. To filter truth from such sources, historians have developed a severe method of source criticism over the ages, first in East Asia and Europe. Although an old phenomenon, fake news in its recent guises also has some strikingly new features because it spreads on the internet nowadays, mainly via social media platforms.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Guidelines for open peer review implementation (Paper: Tony Ross-Hellauer and Edit Görögh | February 2019)

Published/Released on February 27, 2019 | Posted by Admin on June 28, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Abstract Open peer review (OPR) is moving into the mainstream, but it is often poorly understood and surveys of researcher attitudes show important barriers to implementation. As more journals move to implement and experiment with the myriad of innovations covered by this term, there is a... More

Abstract Open peer review (OPR) is moving into the mainstream, but it is often poorly understood and surveys of researcher attitudes show important barriers to implementation. As more journals move to implement and experiment with the myriad of innovations covered by this term, there is a clear need for best practice guidelines to guide implementation. This brief article aims to address this knowledge gap, reporting work based on an interactive stakeholder workshop to create best-practice guidelines for editors and journals who wish to transition to OPR. Although the advice is aimed mainly at editors and publishers of scientific journals, since this is the area in which OPR is at its most mature, many of the principles may also be applicable for the implementation of OPR in other areas (e.g., books, conference submissions). Keywords Peer review, Guidelines, Open peer review, Scholarly publishing, Open science

Ross-Hellauer, T. and Görögh, E. (2019) Guidelines for open peer review implementation. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 4(4) https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9 Publisher (Open Access): https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Junior researchers are losing out by ghostwriting peer reviews – Nature (Virginia Gewin | May 2019)

Published/Released on May 13, 2019 | Posted by Admin on June 26, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Graduate students and postdocs who produce reviews under a senior colleague’s name receive no credit or acknowledgement for their work, and miss a chance to become acquainted with journal editors.

A large proportion of graduate students... More

Graduate students and postdocs who produce reviews under a senior colleague’s name receive no credit or acknowledgement for their work, and miss a chance to become acquainted with journal editors.

A large proportion of graduate students and postdocs ghostwrite peer reviews for senior colleagues and supervisors, receiving no professional credit for their work, finds a study1. Co-authors of the article, which was posted on the preprint server bioRxiv on 26 April, surveyed 498 early-career researchers at institutions in the United States (74%), Europe (17%), Asia (4%) and elsewhere to assess how often junior scientists contribute to such reports and how they feel about them. Half of survey respondents said that they had ghostwritten a peer review, but 80% of those said that they felt the practice was unethical, according to the article. The survey took pains to distinguish ghostwriting from co-reviewing, a well-established form of training in which an invited reviewer shares a manuscript with junior researchers to solicit their assessment of the paper’s quality; those researchers can expect to receive some type of credit for their efforts. With ghostwriting, by contrast, a principal investigator (PI) uses part or all of a junior researcher’s review contributions and provides no credit. Roughly 75% of survey respondents said that they had co-reviewed; 95% found it to be a beneficial practice and 73% deemed it ethical.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(CAN) Pharmacy School Dean Withdraws From New Role After Retracted Book Review – Medscape (Ellie Kincaid | June 2019)

Published/Released on June 07, 2019 | Posted by Admin on June 24, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

The incoming dean of a leading Canadian pharmacy school has "voluntarily withdrawn" from the new position after a book review he wrote was retracted from The Lancet in May. The journal retracted a review of Danielle Martin's Better Now: Six Big Ideas to Improve Health Care for All Canadians by Kishor... More

The incoming dean of a leading Canadian pharmacy school has "voluntarily withdrawn" from the new position after a book review he wrote was retracted from The Lancet in May. The journal retracted a review of Danielle Martin's Better Now: Six Big Ideas to Improve Health Care for All Canadians by Kishor Wasan and two coauthors because "substantial passages…match parts of a review of the same book by [journalist] André Picard," the journal wrote in a retraction notice previously reported by Medscape Medical News. Wasan and his coauthors Ellen Wasan and Jawahar Kalra were all at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada, at the time of publication. Kishor Wasan was the corresponding author of the review and had been appointed dean of the University of Toronto's pharmacy school for a 5-year term. Wasan "has voluntarily withdrawn from his upcoming appointment as dean and professor of the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, which had been scheduled to begin July 1, 2019," University of Toronto spokesperson Elizabeth Church told Medscape Medical News.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(US) UCSD has not told women with HIV of data breach, despite researchers’ pleas – inewsource (Jill Castellano & Brad Racino | May 2019)

University of California San Diego officials stonewalled attempts to notify women in an HIV research study that their confidential data was breached more than seven months ago, an inewsource investigation has found. [colored_box]UCSD researchers conducting the EmPower Women study told university officials in October that participants’... More

University of California San Diego officials stonewalled attempts to notify women in an HIV research study that their confidential data was breached more than seven months ago, an inewsource investigation has found. [colored_box]UCSD researchers conducting the EmPower Women study told university officials in October that participants’ names, audio-taped conversations and other sensitive materials were made accessible to everyone working at Christie’s Place, a San Diego nonprofit supporting women with HIV and AIDS. They called the situation “very serious” and said the women affected are “within one of the most vulnerable and marginalized populations.” . But internal emails, reports and meeting minutes chronicle months of communication between lead researcher Jamila Stockman — who pushed for telling two dozen women enrolled in the project about the breach — and UCSD officials concerned about the consequences. .

Read the rest of this new story

Less

View full details | Go to resource


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

All researchers should strive to improve the quality, relevance and reliability of their work.

Start a conversation about research integrity and many researchers will assume you’re talking about misconduct. Too often, they are wrong. Research misconduct encompasses fraud, fabrication and plagiarism. It is essential to... More

All researchers should strive to improve the quality, relevance and reliability of their work.

Start a conversation about research integrity and many researchers will assume you’re talking about misconduct. Too often, they are wrong. Research misconduct encompasses fraud, fabrication and plagiarism. It is essential to deal with such dishonesty thoroughly and fairly, but it’s patching up a tear after the damage is done. Research integrity includes such investigations, but it is much more. It is about creating systems that boost the quality, relevance and reliability of all research. The distinction is clear at the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity, being held this week in Hong Kong. Yes, there are sessions on misconduct — but there are many more on improving science overall. The biggest impact on research integrity is achieved through sustained improvements in day-to-day research practices — better record-keeping, vetting experimental designs, techniques to reduce bias, rewards for rigorous work, and incentives for sharing data, code and protocols — rather than narrow efforts to find and punish a few bad actors. (Both are important, of course, and sometimes the same policies can address both problems.)

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Establishing Rules for Ethicists and Ethics Organizations in Academic Publishing to Avoid Conflicts of Interest, Favoritism, Cronyism and Nepotism (Papers: Dr. János Tóth, et al | May 2019)

Abstract: A proliferation of publication venues, scholarly journals, use of social media to disseminate knowledge and research results, scientific information, increased international scientific collaboration, a move towards open knowledge and data sharing, recent scandals such as journal editors’ coercive citations, fake peer review, peer review rings, data... More

Abstract: A proliferation of publication venues, scholarly journals, use of social media to disseminate knowledge and research results, scientific information, increased international scientific collaboration, a move towards open knowledge and data sharing, recent scandals such as journal editors’ coercive citations, fake peer review, peer review rings, data fabrication, research spin, and retraction of articles, several of the latter within the emergence of a post publication peer review movement, are some of the many reasons why publishing ethics are constantly evolving. These challenges have led to the birth of an increasing number of guidelines and recommendations being issued by multiple organizations and committees around the world in light of the recognized need to salvage peer review, and in an attempt to restore eroding trust in science, scientists and their publications. The principal objective of these guidelines and recommendations is supposedly to provide guidance for editors, reviewers and authors to conduct honest and ethical research and publishing practices, including responsible authorship and editorship, conflict of interest management, maintaining the confidentiality of peer review, and other ethical issues that arise in conducting and reporting research. Despite the fact that scholarly publishing is an international enterprise with global impact, current guidelines and recommendations appear to fall very short on imposing any obligations on their parent members, i.e., committee members who issue guidelines and recommend solutions for ethical dilemmas especially when such organizations are dependent on commercial publishers who may be paying members. Obviously, financial incentives indicate that ethical organizations or ethicists are not in a power position compared to editors or publishers. Imbalanced guidelines risk that hidden conflicts of interest, cronyism, or nepotism may corrupt the decision-making process or the ethical hierarchy that has been put into place to safe-guard research and publishing ethics. Therefore, the ethics gate-keepers to the integrity of scholarly publishing should also be carefully scrutinized, and strict ethical guidelines have to be imposed on them as equally as their rules are imposed on global academia to avoid the risk of further corrupting the scientific process as a result of the absence of strong exterior regulation or oversight. This theoretical paper highlights signs of favoritism and cronyism in ethics. It also offers proposals for rules (limitations and consequences) to avoid them in science publishing. Our guidelines should be used by academics in the position of authors or editors who may sense, perceive or detect abuses of power among ethicists. Keywords: organization ethics; ethical dilemmas; corruption; conflict of interest

Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Katavić, V., Dobránszki, J., Al-Khatib, A. and Bornemann-Cimenti, Hel (2019) Establishing Rules for Ethicists and Ethics Organizations in Academic Publishing to Avoid Conflicts of Interest, Favoritism, Cronyism and Nepotism. KOME: An International Journal of Pure Communication Inquiry. ISSN 2063-7330 Publisher (Open Access): http://komejournal.com/files/KOME_MS_rulesethicists.pdf ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333311739_Establishing_Rules_for_Ethicists_and_Ethics...

Less

View full details | Go to resource #1, resource #2


Hyped-up science erodes trust. Here’s how researchers can fight back – Vox (Brian Resnick | June 2019)

Published/Released on June 11, 2019 | Posted by Admin on June 18, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

Science is often poorly communicated. Researchers can fight back.

In 2018, psychology PhD student William McAuliffe co-published a paper in the prestigious journal Nature Human Behavior. The study’s conclusion — that people become less generous over time when... More

Science is often poorly communicated. Researchers can fight back.

In 2018, psychology PhD student William McAuliffe co-published a paper in the prestigious journal Nature Human Behavior. The study’s conclusion — that people become less generous over time when they make decisions in an environment where they don’t know or interact with other people — was fairly nuanced.

But the university’s press department, perhaps in an attempt to make the study more attractive to news outlets, amped up the finding. The headline of the press release heralding the publication of the study read “Is big-city living eroding our nice instinct?

From there, the study took on a new life as stories in the press appeared with headlines like “City life makes humans less kind to strangers.”

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


SPEECH: Actions to advance research integrity – Dr Alan Finkel AO (6th World Conference on Research Integrity | June 2019)

Looking around the room today, I’m reminded that research truly is a human pursuit: it thrives on face-to-face connections. It’s easy to forget that, when you’re a student, and it’s late at night, and you’re the last person left in the lab – again. So, every so often, it’s worth pausing... More

Looking around the room today, I’m reminded that research truly is a human pursuit: it thrives on face-to-face connections. It’s easy to forget that, when you’re a student, and it’s late at night, and you’re the last person left in the lab – again. So, every so often, it’s worth pausing to remember just how many people are out there, working hard, gathering data – just like you. Worldwide, there are more than eight million researchers. Every year, we produce well over a quarter of a million new PhDs. China alone has added more than a million people to its research workforce since 2011. Not all of these researchers will work in academia – but those who do are highly productive. They publish in the order of four million academic journal articles every year, spread across more than 40,000 journals.

Read the rest of this speech

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Should journals credit eagle-eyed readers by name in retraction notices? – Retraction Watch (Benjamin Mazer | February 2019)

Published/Released on February 06, 2019 | Posted by Admin on June 12, 2019 | Keywords: , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


How Do You Publish the Work of a Scientific Villain? – WIRED (Megan Molteni | December 2018)

HOW DO YOU handle the data of a scientist who violates all the norms of his field? Who breaches the trust of a community that spans the entire globe? Who shows a casual disregard for the fate of the whole... More

HOW DO YOU handle the data of a scientist who violates all the norms of his field? Who breaches the trust of a community that spans the entire globe? Who shows a casual disregard for the fate of the whole human species? On the one hand, you might want to learn from such a person’s work; to have a full and open dissection of everything that went wrong. Because, spoiler, there was a lot that went wrong in the case in question. But rewarding such “abhorrent” behavior, as one scientist put it, with a publication—the currency of the scientific world—would send a message that ethical rules only exist to be broken.

This is the precarious situation in which we find ourselves today, as scientists hash out the next chapter of the human gene-editing scandal that erupted two weeks ago, when the Chinese scientist He Jiankui revealed that for the last two years he has been working in secret to produce the world’s first Crispr-edited babies. Scientists denounced the work with near-unanimous condemnation, citing its technical failures as well as its deep breaches of ethical (and possibly legal) lines. What’s much less certain is what should happen to the work, now that it’s been done.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Plan U: Universal access to scientific and medical research via funder preprint mandates (Papers: Richard Sever, et al | June 2019)

Published/Released on June 04, 2019 | Posted by Admin on June 10, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract Preprint servers such as arXiv and bioRxiv represent a highly successful and relatively low cost mechanism for providing free access to research findings. By decoupling the dissemination of manuscripts from the much slower process of evaluation and certification by journals, preprints also significantly accelerate the... More

Abstract Preprint servers such as arXiv and bioRxiv represent a highly successful and relatively low cost mechanism for providing free access to research findings. By decoupling the dissemination of manuscripts from the much slower process of evaluation and certification by journals, preprints also significantly accelerate the pace of research itself by allowing other researchers to begin building on new results immediately. If all funding agencies were to mandate posting of preprints by grantees—an approach we term Plan U (for “universal”)—free access to the world’s scientific output for everyone would be achieved with minimal effort. Moreover, the existence of all articles as preprints would create a fertile environment for experimentation with new peer review and research evaluation initiatives, which would benefit from a reduced barrier to entry because hosting and archiving costs were already covered.

Sever, R., Eisen, M., Inglis, J. (2019) Plan U: Universal access to scientific and medical research via funder preprint mandates. PLoS Biology 17(6): e3000273. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000273 Publisher (Open Access): https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000273

Less

View full details | Go to resource


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

Published/Released on June 04, 2019 | Posted by Admin on June 9, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

With the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI) underway in Hong Kong, C.K. Gunsalus, who has served as a research integrity officer, expert witness in scientific integrity cases, and consultant, argues in Nature this week that universities should “More

With the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI) underway in Hong Kong, C.K. Gunsalus, who has served as a research integrity officer, expert witness in scientific integrity cases, and consultant, argues in Nature this week that universities should “Make reports of research misconduct public.” We asked her a few questions about why she has changed her mind about this issue. Retraction Watch (RW): We have of course been campaigning for universities to release investigation reports for some time, and have published a number of them following public records requests and reviews of court documents. What led you to this call to make them public? C.K. Gunsalus (CKG): I argued the opposite position for many years, decades, even. What led me to this call is that our current approaches are not working: not for credibility of investigations, not for reinforcing research integrity, not for protecting the integrity of the research community.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Reviewer-coerced citation: Case report, update on journal policy, and suggestions for future prevention (Papers: Jonathan D Wren, et al | January 2019)

Published/Released on January 30, 2019 | Posted by Admin on June 8, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

A case was recently brought to the journal’s attention regarding a reviewer who had requested a large number of citations to their own papers as part of their review. After investigation of their most recent reviews, we found that in every review this reviewer requested an average of 35... More

A case was recently brought to the journal’s attention regarding a reviewer who had requested a large number of citations to their own papers as part of their review. After investigation of their most recent reviews, we found that in every review this reviewer requested an average of 35 citations be added, ∼90% of which were to their own papers and the remainder to papers that both cited them extensively and mentioned them by name in the title. The reviewer’s phrasing strongly suggested that inclusion of these citations would influence their recommendation to the editor to accept or reject the paper. The reviewer was unable to provide a satisfactory justification for these requests and Bioinformatics has therefore banned them as a reviewer. Our investigation also suggests that the reviewer has behaved similarly in reviewing for other journals. This case has alerted us to how the peer-review system is vulnerable to unethical behavior, and prompted us to clarify the journal’s policy on when it is appropriate for reviewers to request citations to their own work, and to suggest how some of the current weak points in the peer-review system can be mitigated, so that this behavior can be detected more quickly and efficiently.

Wren, J.D., Valencia, A. & Kelso, J. Reviewer-coerced citation: case report, update on journal policy and suggestions for future prevention, Bioinformatics, , btz071, https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btz071 Publisher (Open Access): https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bioinformatics/btz071/5304360

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(Includes an update 07/06/2019) A report about Plan S’s potential effects on journals marks a busy week for the open-access movement – Science (Jeffrey Brainard | March 2019)

Published/Released on June 07, 2019 | Posted by Admin on June 7, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

It’s been a busy week for the open-access movement, the effort to make all scientific journal articles immediately free to read. Making that change would require a major shift in most journals’ business models, from one that charges subscribers to read articles to one in which authors pay to... More

It’s been a busy week for the open-access movement, the effort to make all scientific journal articles immediately free to read. Making that change would require a major shift in most journals’ business models, from one that charges subscribers to read articles to one in which authors pay to publish. Among the developments:

  • Many journals aren’t prepared to meet the requirements of Plan S, the proposal largely by European funders to require grantees to publish articles that are immediately open access, a report from a science publishing analytics company says.
  • Springer Nature, one of the largest publishers of scientific journals, and the networking website ResearchGate began an experiment making some articles open access through authors’ profiles on the website.

Read the rest of this discussion piece Radical open-access plan is delayed a year (07/06/2019)

Less

View full details | Go to resource #1, resource #2


(US) ‘Banished’ blood, stool samples from San Diego veterans used in research article, despite federal probe – ienewsource (Brad Racino & Jill Castellano | May 2019)

Two prominent doctors associated with the University of California San Diego and the local VA used blood and stool samples taken from sick veterans to bolster a paper published this month in an academic research journal. The specimens were not supposed to be used, according to... More

Two prominent doctors associated with the University of California San Diego and the local VA used blood and stool samples taken from sick veterans to bolster a paper published this month in an academic research journal. The specimens were not supposed to be used, according to the project’s lead researcher, because they were part of a study that unethically collected biological samples from living subjects without their consent, which investigators called "serious noncompliance." When people volunteer to be human research subjects, they accept potential health risks in order to contribute to a growing bank of scientific and medical knowledge.

Read the rest of this news story

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Chem journal yanks paper because authors had stolen it as peer reviewers – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | February 2019)

Published/Released on February 08, 2019 | Posted by Admin on June 5, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

The UK’s Royal Society of Chemistry has retracted a 2017 paper in one of its journals after learning that the authors stole the article from other researchers during peer review. The offending article, “Typical and interstratified arrangements in Zn/Al layered double hydroxides: an experimental and theoretical approach,” appeared in CrystalEngComm,... More

The UK’s Royal Society of Chemistry has retracted a 2017 paper in one of its journals after learning that the authors stole the article from other researchers during peer review. The offending article, “Typical and interstratified arrangements in Zn/Al layered double hydroxides: an experimental and theoretical approach,” appeared in CrystalEngComm, and was written by Priyadarshi Roy Chowdhury and Krishna G. Bhattacharyya, of Gauhati University in Jalukbari. Well, that’s not really true, is it? The retraction notice lays out the transgression in detail:

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(Japan) 158 ethics violations found in research by Japan’s NCVC medical institute – The Japan Times (May 2019)

SUITA, OSAKA PREF. - The National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center said Thursday it has found 158 cases of research that was conducted in violation of the country’s ethical standards. The violations include the use of patients’ information without their consent, the NCVC said. There have been no reports of health... More

SUITA, OSAKA PREF. - The National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center said Thursday it has found 158 cases of research that was conducted in violation of the country’s ethical standards. The violations include the use of patients’ information without their consent, the NCVC said. There have been no reports of health damage linked to these cases that involved follow-up research, the institute said. “We deeply apologize for the misconduct,” NCVC President Hisao Ogawa said at a news conference in Suita, where the institute is based.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


The social values and politics behind science publishing – University World News (John Richard Schrock | May 2019)

Published/Released on May 18, 2019 | Posted by Admin on June 3, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

There are some unique challenges faced by Chinese academics when they attempt to publish in Western journals which I have gleaned from years correcting English in entomology papers. In a recent presentation I outlined the main ones and, in some cases, gave suggestions for how to get around them. Understanding... More

There are some unique challenges faced by Chinese academics when they attempt to publish in Western journals which I have gleaned from years correcting English in entomology papers. In a recent presentation I outlined the main ones and, in some cases, gave suggestions for how to get around them. Understanding the context – the social values and politics – around science and science publishing for Chinese academics is vital. The following case studies illustrate the common problems.

Case 1: A Chinese scientist receives several peer reviews back via the ‘editor’. One reviewer finds the paper submitted acceptable, but a second reviewer notes that there are six very important references missing that must be added. All of these new references are by this second reviewer and are remote from the topic of the paper.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(US) UMKC says pharmacy professor stole student’s research and sold it for millions – The Kansas City Star (Mike Hendricks & Mará Rose Williams | February 2019)

Published/Released on February 27, 2019 | Posted by Admin on June 2, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

UMKC pharmacy professor Ashim Mitra stole a student’s research and sold it secretly to a pharmaceutical company, defrauding the university of millions of dollars, the University of Missouri alleges in a lawsuit filed Tuesday. [colored_box]Mitra, the suit alleges, already has improperly reaped $1.5 million from the sale and has the... More

UMKC pharmacy professor Ashim Mitra stole a student’s research and sold it secretly to a pharmaceutical company, defrauding the university of millions of dollars, the University of Missouri alleges in a lawsuit filed Tuesday. [colored_box]Mitra, the suit alleges, already has improperly reaped $1.5 million from the sale and has the potential of earning $10 million more in royalties over the next five years from what the university says could be a billion-dollar drug. . The suit said the money rightfully belongs to the university because the student who developed a new and more effective way to deliver drugs to the eye — through nanotechnology — did so while employed as a graduate research assistant at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Rein in the four horsemen of irreproducibility – Nature ( Dorothy Bishop | April 2019)

Published/Released on April 24, 2019 | Posted by Admin on June 1, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , ,

Dorothy Bishop describes how threats to reproducibility, recognized but unaddressed for decades, might finally be brought under control.

More than four decades into my scientific career, I find myself an outlier among academics of similar age and seniority: I strongly identify with the movement... More

Dorothy Bishop describes how threats to reproducibility, recognized but unaddressed for decades, might finally be brought under control.

More than four decades into my scientific career, I find myself an outlier among academics of similar age and seniority: I strongly identify with the movement to make the practice of science more robust. It’s not that my contemporaries are unconcerned about doing science well; it’s just that many of them don’t seem to recognize that there are serious problems with current practices. By contrast, I think that, in two decades, we will look back on the past 60 years — particularly in biomedical science — and marvel at how much time and money has been wasted on flawed research. How can that be? We know how to formulate and test hypotheses in controlled experiments. We can account for unwanted variation with statistical techniques. We appreciate the need to replicate observations. Yet many researchers persist in working in a way almost guaranteed not to deliver meaningful results. They ride with what I refer to as the four horsemen of the reproducibility apocalypse: publication bias, low statistical power, P-value hacking and HARKing (hypothesizing after results are known). My generation and the one before us have done little to rein these in.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

  Less

View full details | Go to resource


Friday afternoon’s funny – Data Food Chain

Published/Released on May 31, 2019 | Posted by Admin on May 31, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

View full details


“Always read the small print”: a case study of commercial research funding, disclosure and agreements with Coca-Cola (Papers: Sarah Steele| May 2019)

Published/Released on May 08, 2019 | Posted by Admin on May 27, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract Concerns about conflicts of interest in commercially funded research have generated increasing disclosure requirements, but are these enough to assess influence? Using the Coca-Cola Company as an example, we explore its research agreements to understand influence. Freedom of Information requests identified 87,013 pages of documents,... More

Abstract Concerns about conflicts of interest in commercially funded research have generated increasing disclosure requirements, but are these enough to assess influence? Using the Coca-Cola Company as an example, we explore its research agreements to understand influence. Freedom of Information requests identified 87,013 pages of documents, including five agreements between Coca-Cola and public institutions in the United States, and Canada. We assess whether they allowed Coca-Cola to exercise control or influence. Provisions gave Coca-Cola the right to review research in advance of publication as well as control over (1) study data, (2) disclosure of results and (3) acknowledgement of Coca-Cola funding. Some agreements specified that Coca-Cola has the ultimate decision about any publication of peer-reviewed papers prior to its approval of the researchers’ final report. If so desired, Coca-Cola can thus prevent publication of unfavourable research, but we found no evidence of this to date in the emails we received. The documents also reveal researchers can negotiate with funders successfully to remove restrictive clauses on their research. We recommend journals supplement funding disclosures and conflict-of-interest statements by requiring authors to attach funder agreements. Keywords Coca-Cola Research funding Transparency Industry funding Conflicts of interest

Steele, S., Ruski, G,. McKee, M. & Stuckler, D. (2019). "Always read the small print”: a case study of commercial research funding, disclosure and agreements with Coca-Cola. Journal of Public Health Policy. Publisher (Open Access): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057%2Fs41271-019-00170-9

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(Australia) University of Sydney pulls claims elderberries can fight flu – The Age (Liam Mannix | May 2019)

One of the country's leading universities has been forced to retract a claim its study showed eating elderberries could help beat the flu after admitting it was overhyping its own science. The University of Sydney also concealed the research was part-funded by company Pharmacare - which sells elderberry-based flu remedies... More

One of the country's leading universities has been forced to retract a claim its study showed eating elderberries could help beat the flu after admitting it was overhyping its own science. The University of Sydney also concealed the research was part-funded by company Pharmacare - which sells elderberry-based flu remedies - at the company's request. Although it was declared in the study itself, the university also failed to publicise that a Pharmacare employee was involved in the research.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(Japan) Researcher at Japan stem cell institute falsified nearly all images in 2017 paper – Retraction Watch (Victoria Stern | January 2019)

Published/Released on January 23, 2019 | Posted by Admin on May 25, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

An investigation by Kyoto University in Japan has found a researcher guilty of falsifying all but one of the figures in a 2017 stem cell paper. Yesterday, Kyoto University announced that the paper’s first author, Kohei Yamamizu, had fabricated and falsified data... More

An investigation by Kyoto University in Japan has found a researcher guilty of falsifying all but one of the figures in a 2017 stem cell paper. Yesterday, Kyoto University announced that the paper’s first author, Kohei Yamamizu, had fabricated and falsified data in the Stem Cell Reports paper. According to the investigation report, none of the other authors were involved in the data manipulation. Yamamizu works at the Center for iPS cell Research and Application (CiRA) at Kyoto University, directed by Shinya Yamanaka, a Nobel Prize winner for his pioneering work in stem cell biology.

Read the rest of this news story

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Ask The Chefs: AI and Scholarly Communications – Scholarly Kitchen (Ann Michael | April 2019)

Published/Released on April 25, 2019 | Posted by Admin on May 19, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

No one will dispute that AI (Artificial Intelligence) needs to “eat” data, preferably in massive quantities, to develop. The better the data quality, the better the result. When thinking about the potential applications of AI in scholarly communications as related to research artifacts, how will that work? How might... More

No one will dispute that AI (Artificial Intelligence) needs to “eat” data, preferably in massive quantities, to develop. The better the data quality, the better the result. When thinking about the potential applications of AI in scholarly communications as related to research artifacts, how will that work? How might AI be trained on high quality, vetted information? How are the benefits and costs distributed? [colored_box]This month we asked the Chefs: Where does scholarly communication and academic outputs fit in to the world of AI development? . Judy Luther: In scholarly communications there is an expanding body of openly available content from preprint servers, such as arXiv and bioRxiv, and Open Access journals and books. In addition, there is a growing variety of formats that include datasets and code, open peer review, media, and other elements of the scholarly research cycle. This volume of content provides a rich resource to be mined for all stakeholders as well as a broader audience. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Trump’s science adviser on research ethics, immigration and presidential tweets – Science (Sara Reardon | April 2019)

Five months into the job, Kelvin Droegemeier tells Nature what it’s like to work with the US president.

When meteorologist Kelvin Droegemeier was sworn in as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in February, he inherited More

Five months into the job, Kelvin Droegemeier tells Nature what it’s like to work with the US president.

When meteorologist Kelvin Droegemeier was sworn in as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in February, he inherited an office that had been without a leader for two years — and became the top science adviser to President Donald Trump. Trump's push to cut government spending on research, and his policies on issues such as immigration, have caused controversy in science. Nature spoke to Droegemeier in mid-April — two months into his tenure — about these policies, his plans and what it’s like to work with the president. The interview has been edited for length and clarity. The number of OSTP staff dropped precipitously during Trump’s first two years in office. What is the situation now? The lights were definitely on, and there was a lot of work actually getting done. We have people cycle through. Some of them are on detail for a year, so there’s kind of a constant refresh. I have brought additional people on board in some of the areas that I’m going to be working on a little bit more.

Read the rest of this interview

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Friday afternoon’s funny – How safe is your data?

Published/Released on May 17, 2019 | Posted by Admin on May 17, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

View full details


Cabell’s Predatory Journal Blacklist: An Updated Review – Scholarly Kitchen (Rick Anderson | May 2019)

Published/Released on May 01, 2019 | Posted by Admin on May 15, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

A couple of years ago, I published in The Kitchen a review of what was then a new product: Cabell’s Blacklist, a directory of journals that are published using questionable, suspicious, or objectively deceitful and dishonest strategies. The Blacklist was designed... More

A couple of years ago, I published in The Kitchen a review of what was then a new product: Cabell’s Blacklist, a directory of journals that are published using questionable, suspicious, or objectively deceitful and dishonest strategies. The Blacklist was designed to take the place of the controversial Beall’s List, which had recently shut down after being operated out of the library office of Jeffrey Beall for about five years. Beall’s List had offered a mixed bag of benefits and problems from the start, and Cabell’s (publisher of a long-respected serials directory) sought to create a more rigorous and consistent version of the same service. [colored_box]A very quick summary for those who may — against all odds — still be blissfully unaware of what terms like “predatory publishing or “deceptive publishing” refer to: what are commonly called predatory publishers are those who lie about their business practices for the purpose of attracting paying authors. These journals misrepresent themselves with regard to, for example, editorial board members (claiming people as editors without permission), peer review practices (falsely claiming to provide meaningful peer review), impact metrics (mostly by lying about their Journal Impact Factor), organizational affiliations (usually claiming a relationship with a nonexistent organization), etc. The common feature of all such journals is that instead of rigorously evaluating and vetting submitted articles, they will instead publish anything submitted as long as the author is willing to pay an article processing charge (APC). By injecting non-vetted content into the scholarly and scientific marketplace and misrepresenting it as peer-reviewed science, these journals contaminate and undermine both the legitimacy and the trustworthiness of scholarly discourse. . Thus, the introduction of Cabell’s Blacklist in 2017 was a welcome development. It promised a tool that can be used by authors needing help deciding where to publish, by academics and other employers seeking to check the legitimacy of job applicants’ claimed applications or editorial board memberships, or anyone else interested in monitoring the behavior of deceptive publishers. And for those who question the necessity of such a tool, it’s worth noting that Cabell’s Blacklist currently includes almost 12,000 journals — and its list of titles under consideration for inclusion in the Blacklist comes to over 1,000 more. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Prominent UCSD eye doctor ‘on leave’ after inewsource investigation – inewsource (Jill Castellano & Brad Racino | April 2019)

Dr. Kang Zhang, chief of eye genetics at the University of California San Diego, is “on leave” after an inewsource investigation exposed how the doctor put medical research subjects in harm’s way for years while pulling in millions of federal dollars for the institution. [colored_box]In a... More

Dr. Kang Zhang, chief of eye genetics at the University of California San Diego, is “on leave” after an inewsource investigation exposed how the doctor put medical research subjects in harm’s way for years while pulling in millions of federal dollars for the institution. [colored_box]In a new development, inewsource obtained an inspection report from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that detailed more problems with one of Zhang’s studies. The report, compiled in 2016, described one incident in which Zhang poked a hole in a study participant’s eye with a needle, causing a cataract that had to be fixed with surgery. . The person wasn’t supposed to be enrolled in the study, according to the report, and the injury allegedly occurred because Zhang was in a hurry to take a trip to China. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


“We got scammed:” Authors “sincerely apologize” for plagiarism they blame a ghostwriter for – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | May 2019)

Published/Released on May 02, 2019 | Posted by Admin on May 13, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

The journal Cureus is retracting three articles by a mashup of authors from Pakistan and the United States for plagiarism, which the researchers blame on their use of a hired gun to prepare the papers. [colored_box]The articles were published over a roughly one-month stretch in August and September 2018 and... More

The journal Cureus is retracting three articles by a mashup of authors from Pakistan and the United States for plagiarism, which the researchers blame on their use of a hired gun to prepare the papers. [colored_box]The articles were published over a roughly one-month stretch in August and September 2018 and covered an impressively polymathic range of topics, from lupus to heart disease. Although the list of authors varied, a few names remained constant. One, Asad Ali, of Lahore Medical College and Institute of Dentistry, was the first author on all three papers. Another was Malik Qistas Ahmad, whose affiliation is given as the University of Arizona Cancer Center in Tucson although he no longer works there. . The papers (not in chronological order) are: “Systemic lupus erythematosus: an overview of the disease pathology and its management”;  “Neurogenic stunned myocardium: a literature review”; and “An overview of the pathology and emerging treatment approaches for interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome.” .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(US) Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags their foreign ties – Science (Mara Hvistendahl | April 2019)

Published/Released on April 19, 2019 | Posted by Admin on May 11, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

HOUSTON, TEXAS—The MD Anderson Cancer Center here has ousted three senior researchers after the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, informed it that the scientists had committed potentially “serious” violations of agency rules involving confidentiality of peer review and the disclosure of foreign ties. The researchers are... More

HOUSTON, TEXAS—The MD Anderson Cancer Center here has ousted three senior researchers after the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, informed it that the scientists had committed potentially “serious” violations of agency rules involving confidentiality of peer review and the disclosure of foreign ties. The researchers are among five MD Anderson scientists that NIH cited in letters to the cancer center, which is part of the University of Texas (UT) system. MD Anderson officials say they invoked termination proceedings against three of the researchers, are still investigating allegations against one, and determined termination was not warranted for the fifth scientist. The new developments are linked to a sweeping effort launched last year by NIH to address growing U.S. government fears that foreign nations, particularly China, are taking unfair advantage of federally funded research. NIH says its inquiries about the foreign ties of specific NIH-funded researchers have prompted at least 55 institutions to launch investigations. The cases at MD Anderson, which received $148 million in NIH funding in 2018, are the first publicly known instances where NIH’s inquiries appear to have led an institution to invoke termination proceedings against researchers judged to have violated the rules. Cancer center officials have not named any of the five researchers. MD Anderson President Peter Pisters says all are “Asian”; Science has confirmed that three are ethnically Chinese. Several faced NIH inquiries about their ties to China, according to internal cancer center documents and NIH emails provided by MD Anderson to the Houston Chronicle and reviewed by Science. Those documents also show that MD Anderson has been working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for several years on undisclosed national security investigations, which included searches of faculty email accounts and in one instance, video surveillance. Those investigations could be linked to the recent departures and to the NIH letters; MD Anderson had put at least one faculty member named by NIH on leave in December 2017, months before NIH sent its letter and 1 week after FBI gained access to several MD Anderson network accounts.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Peer-review experiments tracked in online repository – Nature (Richard Van Noorden | March 2019)

Published/Released on March 04, 2019 | Posted by Admin on May 8, 2019 | Keywords: , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


(Japan) Science retracts report on deadly Kumamoto earthquake – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | May 2019)

Published/Released on May 02, 2019 | Posted by Admin on May 6, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

Science is retracting a 2017 paper about the deadly Kumamoto earthquake about a month after the university announced that the paper’s first author, Aiming Lin, had committed misconduct, including falsification of data and plagiarism. Science editor in chief Jeremy Berg More

Science is retracting a 2017 paper about the deadly Kumamoto earthquake about a month after the university announced that the paper’s first author, Aiming Lin, had committed misconduct, including falsification of data and plagiarism. Science editor in chief Jeremy Berg told us in late March that the journal had been trying to obtain more information in preparation for writing an expression of concern. Here’s today’s retraction notice:

The November 2018 Science Report, “Coseismic rupturing stopped by Aso volcano during the 2016 Mw 7.1 Kumamoto earthquake, Japan” presented evidence that the 2016 Mw 7.1 Kumamoto earthquake produced a surface rupture zone of ~40 km long along the pre-existing active fault zone and identified for the first time faults on the western side of Aso caldera, Kyushu Island, Japan. In August 2017, a confidential investigation into potential irregularities in the paper was initiated at Kyoto University. The investigation was completed in March 2019 and has confirmed that the paper contained falsified data and manipulated images. Specifically, there were multiple falsifications in Figs 1B, 1C, 2A, and 2C, and instances of plagiarism in Fig. 1C. These were the responsibility of the corresponding author, Aiming Lin. In agreement with the recommendation of the investigation, the authors are retracting the Report.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Censorship in a China Studies Journal – Inside Higher Ed (Elizabeth Redden | April 2019)

Scholars say they thought a journal was run on Western standards of free expression, but they found Chinese government control instead.

Yet another account of censorship involving a China studies journal has come to light. And the scholars involved say this case involves an... More

Scholars say they thought a journal was run on Western standards of free expression, but they found Chinese government control instead.

Yet another account of censorship involving a China studies journal has come to light. And the scholars involved say this case involves an insidious “blurring of boundaries” where they were misled into thinking Western publishing standards would apply when in fact the journal in question was subject to Chinese government censorship. Lorraine Wong and Jacob Edmond, both professors at the University of Otago, in New Zealand, have written an account of the censorship they encountered when they edited a planned special issue of the journal Frontiers of Literary Studies in China. The journal is published by the Netherlands-based publishing company Brill in association with the China-based Higher Education Press, an entity that describes itself on its website (in Chinese) as affiliated with China’s Ministry of Education. The journal's editorial board lists scholars from major American and international universities -- including Cornell University, Duke University, Harvard University, the University of California, Davis, and the University of Washington -- and its editor in chief is based at New York University. The journal’s editorial office is located in Beijing. Wong and Edmond wrote that the association with Brill, along with the involvement of leading scholars in the field on the editorial board, led them to mistakenly assume the publication standards would be akin to those of other journals in the field published in the U.S. What they found, however, was that the affiliation with the Higher Education Press and the location of the editorial office in Beijing means “the journal is subject to the full range of Chinese government censorship.”

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


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

Published/Released on February 19, 2019 | Posted by Admin on May 3, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Australian chief scientist Alan Finkel calls for formal action to bake in better research practices.

In 1969, I skipped school to watch the Moon landing from home. Fifty years later, I struggle to think of an... More

Australian chief scientist Alan Finkel calls for formal action to bake in better research practices.

In 1969, I skipped school to watch the Moon landing from home. Fifty years later, I struggle to think of an event that would justify truancy today. It’s not for lack of stunning breakthroughs in research, but rather their frequency: if children neglected their work every time the television reported another scientific milestone that my generation scarcely dared to contemplate, they’d end up with no education at all. Yet there is a growing rumble of concern about the rigour and reproducibility of published research. Problems of over-hyped analysis and puffed-up CVs are well recognized. Financial and career incentives keep researchers on a treadmill, churning out papers. We cannot know how many of the 1.6 million or so papers now added every year to the Web of Science database are flawed as a consequence, but we can agree that our focus has to shift from quantity to quality if we are to safeguard against shoddy work.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Fraud Ain’t The Game

Published/Released on March 16, 2019 | Posted by Admin on May 1, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Forget about morality. Wrong is wrong.

In a parallel universe, not unlike our own, a graduate student is working late. She is putting the finishing touches on a paper she hopes will be the cornerstone of... More

Forget about morality. Wrong is wrong.

In a parallel universe, not unlike our own, a graduate student is working late. She is putting the finishing touches on a paper she hopes will be the cornerstone of her PhD, which — as much as it’s often reasonably soul-destroying — is progressively becoming more exciting. She works late to preserve this excitement. It gives her hope that maybe one day this rotten, unforgiving business will work out, that she will have a life of curiosity and progress. People doubt her. She does not doubt herself. Or, at least, not too often.

[colored_box]In another parallel universe, a tenured professor who is a complete bastard has finished kicking his neighbour’s garbage bins and yelling at the television for the evening, and slopes off to his study. It is working late nights like this, he grouses in a moment of self-pity, that caused his third wife to leave him (it actually wasn’t this, it’s because he’s a miserable wretch who would try the patience of St. Anthony and wipe the smile off the face of a golden retriever). He is a shiny brittle little man. He is a sneer in a cardigan, a tumble-dried faculty Grinch without the fetching skin tone. He is a martinet, a hypocrite, a bastard, and a ruiner.

Her latest study is a model of good scientific practice and prudence. She has tried to be careful, open, honest, forthright. The studies are correctly powered. The interventions are reasonable. The notes are careful. The data is freshly scrubbed and annotated, should anyone request it. She’s a model citizen. It’s important to her to BE a model citizen.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Figure errors, sloppy science, and fraud: keeping eyes on your data (Papers: Corinne L. Williams, et al | March 2019)

Published/Released on March 25, 2019 | Posted by Admin on April 30, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


We need to talk about systematic fraud – Nature (Jennifer Byrne | February 2019)

Published/Released on February 09, 2019 | Posted by Admin on April 28, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Singapore legal challenge ‘will chill academic freedom’ – Times Higher Education (Ellie Bothwell | January 2019)

Published/Released on January 23, 2019 | Posted by Admin on April 27, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

Academics issue warning after news story including critical comments about country’s top universities is removed

Academics fear that the removal of an online article that included critical comments about the country’s two leading universities following a legal challenge will have a chilling effect on... More

Academics issue warning after news story including critical comments about country’s top universities is removed

Academics fear that the removal of an online article that included critical comments about the country’s two leading universities following a legal challenge will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression. The story, “Opaque policies, xation with KPIs, rankings: why arts and humanities academics quit NUS, NTU”, which was published by the online newspaper Today, included interviews with several academics who had left or were planning to leave the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. According to the article, scholars claimed that the universities failed to retain talented academics because of their “incessant pursuit of rankings and the relative lack of academic freedom when it comes to certain projects or research initiatives”.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

  Less

View full details | Go to resource


The Pernicious Effects of Compression Plagiarism on Scholarly Argumentation (Papers: M. V. Dougherty | April 2019)

Published/Released on April 12, 2019 | Posted by Admin on April 26, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract Despite an increased recognition that plagiarism in published research can take many forms, current typologies of plagiarism are far from complete. One under-recognized variety of plagiarism—designated here as compression plagiarism—consists of the distillation of a lengthy scholarly text... More

Abstract Despite an increased recognition that plagiarism in published research can take many forms, current typologies of plagiarism are far from complete. One under-recognized variety of plagiarism—designated here as compression plagiarism—consists of the distillation of a lengthy scholarly text into a short one, followed by the publication of the short one under a new name with inadequate credit to the original author. In typical cases, compression plagiarism is invisible to unsuspecting readers and immune to anti-plagiarism software. The persistence of uncorrected instances of plagiarism in all its forms—including compression plagiarism—in the body of published research literature has deleterious consequences for the reliability of scholarly communication. Not the least of these problems is that original authors are denied credit for their discoveries. When unsuspecting researchers read articles that are the products of plagiarism, they unwittingly engage the arguments of hidden original authors through the proxy of plagiarists. Furthermore, when these researchers later publish responses to the plagiarizing articles, not knowing they are engaging products of plagiarism, they create additional inefficiencies and redundancies in the body of published research. This article analyzes a suspected instance of compression plagiarism that appeared within the pages of this journal and considers the particular ways in which plagiarism of this variety weakens the quality of scholarly argumentation, with special attention paid to the field of philosophy.

Keywords Compression plagiarism Authorship Research misconduct Retractions Argumentation Scholarly communication 

Dougherty, M.V. (2019) The Pernicious Effects of Compression Plagiarism on Scholarly Argumentation. Argumentation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-019-09481-3 Publisher: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-019-09481-3

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Director of Hong Kong science institute ASTRI charged with misconduct for not disclosing shares in vendor companies – South China Morning Post (Danny Lee | March 2019)

Published/Released on March 29, 2019 | Posted by Admin on April 20, 2019 | Keywords: , , ,

Research head at government-run ASTRI accused of holding shares in companies he approved HK$535,000 worth of purchases from

The research director of a government science institute has been charged with misconduct for failing to disclose his financial interests in two companies before endorsing over... More

Research head at government-run ASTRI accused of holding shares in companies he approved HK$535,000 worth of purchases from

The research director of a government science institute has been charged with misconduct for failing to disclose his financial interests in two companies before endorsing over half a million dollars worth of purchases. The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) found that Lau Man-kin, the research and development director of the Hong Kong Applied Science and Technology Research Institute (ASTRI), did not reveal that he and his wife had investments in the two vendors before he approved buying HK$535,000 (US$68,155) worth of computers and software. The ICAC said in a statement on Friday that the case arose from a corruption complaint referred by ASTRI, which provided cooperation during the investigation.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Guest Post: Encouraging Data Sharing: A Small Investment for Large Potential Gain – Scholarly Kitchen (Rebecca Grant, et al | January 2019)

Published/Released on January 30, 2019 | Posted by Admin on April 20, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


We need to relearn how to play nice in peer review – UA/AU (Daniel Harris | March 2019)

Published/Released on March 19, 2019 | Posted by Admin on April 16, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Duke University’s huge misconduct fine is a reminder to reward rigour – Nature (Arturo Casadevall | April 2019)

Published/Released on April 02, 2019 | Posted by Admin on April 15, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


“Predatory” company uses Canadian universities to sell shoddy conferences – Ottawa Citizen (Tom Spears | April 2019)

Published/Released on April 10, 2019 | Posted by Admin on April 14, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Omics International is still marketing junky science conferences in Montreal and Toronto this month despite a U.S. judge’s order to stop “deceptive” promoting of its conferences and academic journals. [colored_box]The company has a long record of publishing any research papers for a fee. This allows underqualified academics to pad their... More

Omics International is still marketing junky science conferences in Montreal and Toronto this month despite a U.S. judge’s order to stop “deceptive” promoting of its conferences and academic journals. [colored_box]The company has a long record of publishing any research papers for a fee. This allows underqualified academics to pad their credentials with fake research papers and gain promotion. Companies that do this are known as “predatory” publishers. . But a US District Court judge fined Omics more than $50 million on March 29 and made a sweeping order prohibiting the India-based company from “misrepresenting” its conferences and journals. . So far, the company is showing no signs of change. It is running a series of 18 small but pricey conferences in Toronto and Montreal in the next few weeks on topics ranging from cosmetology to medicine. Registration fees range up to US$1,399 for two days. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Commentary: a broader perspective on the RePAIR consensus guidelines (Responsibilities of Publishers, Agencies, Institutions, and Researchers in protecting the integrity of the research record) (Papers: Zoë H. Hammatt | December 2018)

Published/Released on April 14, 2019 | Posted by Admin on April 14, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

View full details


RePAIR consensus guidelines: Responsibilities of Publishers, Agencies, Institutions, and Researchers in protecting the integrity of the research record (Papers: Collaborative Working Group from the conference “Keeping the Pool Clean… | December 2018)

Abstract The progression of research and scholarly inquiry does not occur in isolation and is wholly dependent on accurate reporting of methods and results, and successful replication of prior work. Without mechanisms to correct the literature, much time and money is wasted on research based on... More

Abstract The progression of research and scholarly inquiry does not occur in isolation and is wholly dependent on accurate reporting of methods and results, and successful replication of prior work. Without mechanisms to correct the literature, much time and money is wasted on research based on a crumbling foundation. These guidelines serve to outline the respective responsibilities of researchers, institutions, agencies, and publishers or editors in maintaining the integrity of the research record. Delineating these complementary roles and proposing solutions for common barriers provide a foundation for best practices. Keywords Research integrity, Retractions, Researchers, Publishers, Editors, Agencies, Institutions, Research misconduct, International, Communication

Research Integrity and Peer Review - RePAIR consensus guidelines: Responsibilities of Publishers, Agencies, Institutions, and Researchers in protecting the integrity of the research record. Research Integrity and Peer Review 2018, 3:15 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0055-1 Publisher (Open Access): https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-018-0055-1

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Corruption risks involving publicly funded research (CCC | December 2017)

Published/Released on December 08, 2017 | Posted by Admin on April 13, 2019 | Keywords: , , ,

 PREVENTION IN FOCUS

What you should know
  • The Queensland public sector conducts research in diverse sectors including medical and health sciences, agriculture, engineering and the biological sciences. In 2014-15, Australian governments spent more than $3,000 million on research... More

     PREVENTION IN FOCUS

    What you should know
    • The Queensland public sector conducts research in diverse sectors including medical and health sciences, agriculture, engineering and the biological sciences. In 2014-15, Australian governments spent more than $3,000 million on research and development.
    • Queensland has set the precedent for researchers to be prosecuted and convicted of fraud and attempted fraud in relation to fabrication of research results and fraudulent grant applications.
    • Units of public administrations (UPAs) and those who manage and supervise research within them have a responsibility to ensure not only the intellectual integrity of the work being undertaken within their agency, but also the financial and administrative probity related to its conduct and delivery

    Access a complete copy of this guidance  document (PDF)

    Less

    View full details | Go to resource


U.S. judge rules deceptive publisher should pay $50 million in damages – Science (Jeffrey Brainard | April 2019)

Published/Released on April 03, 2019 | Posted by Admin on April 10, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

A U.S. federal judge has ordered the OMICS International publishing group to pay $50.1 million in damages for deceiving thousands of authors who published in its journals and attended its conferences. It’s one of the first rulings of its kind against one of the largest publishers accused of so-called... More

A U.S. federal judge has ordered the OMICS International publishing group to pay $50.1 million in damages for deceiving thousands of authors who published in its journals and attended its conferences. It’s one of the first rulings of its kind against one of the largest publishers accused of so-called predatory tactics. But because it’s a U.S. judgment and OMICS is based in Hyderabad, India, it’s not clear that any money will be collected or shared with researchers who claim OMICS deceived them. Judge Gloria Navarro of the U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada, granted summary judgment without a trial, accepting as uncontroverted a set of allegations made in 2016 by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in Washington, D.C., in its capacity as a consumer watchdog. The ruling also bars OMICS from similar future conduct.

Read the rest of this news story View the court ruling

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Open Access, Academic Freedom, and the Spectrum of Coercive Power – Scholarly Kitchen (Rick Anderson | November 2018)

Published/Released on January 05, 2019 | Posted by Admin on April 8, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

I’m on the record as having suggested that institutional, funder-imposed, and governmental open access (OA) mandates have troubling implications for academic freedom, given that academic freedom includes — according to the statement promulgated by the American Association of University Professors —... More

I’m on the record as having suggested that institutional, funder-imposed, and governmental open access (OA) mandates have troubling implications for academic freedom, given that academic freedom includes — according to the statement promulgated by the American Association of University Professors — “full freedom… in publication.”* You can’t simultaneously enjoy “full freedom in publication” and operate under a regime that requires you to publish in very specific ways — especially when those modes of publication require you to give up important rights granted to you by law. When I’ve raised these concerns in the past, I’ve often been asked (usually by people who are strongly in favor of institutional, funder-based, and/or governmental OA mandates) whether I have the same concerns about a journal’s or publisher’s requirement that authors relinquish copyright in return for the their publishing services. After all, in both cases the author is being asked to relinquish control over her work in return for something else she wants. Aren’t journal publishers being just as coercive when they require copyright transfer as funders are when they require OA publication with a CC BY license? This question has usually come in relatively constraining forums like Twitter and online commenting threads, where it can be tough to respond effectively to a question this complex. Hence this posting, in which I’ll try to explain my thinking on this issue, which I think is a very important one. The first crucial thing to bear in mind is that when dealing with questions of freedom and coercion generally, we are not dealing with a binary issue. There’s no scenario available to faculty authors that offers either perfect freedom or absolute constraint. Even at their most free, academic authors are still generally expected by their peers to publish in quality scholarly journals, and their careers are hobbled when they fail to do so; even under the most constraining scenarios, authors usually still have some degree of choice between publishing venues (although some emerging models, like Plan S, would have particularly severe effects on authors’ freedom to choose). So this isn’t about choosing between absolute freedom and total coercion; the issue is how best to balance the tradition of academic freedom with the rights of various kinds of institutions to impose requirements on authors in return for such considerations as employment, funding, or publishing services. As it does in so many situations where different parties’ rights come into conflict, the challenge boils down to trying to find the right balance between the legitimate rights of individuals and an obligation to the collective good — or at least, the “collective good” as understood by people who have power over authors.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Springer Nature Syndicates Content to ResearchGate – Scholarly Kitchen (Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe | March 2019)

Published/Released on March 01, 2019 | Posted by Admin on April 7, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Ever since Springer Nature and ResearchGate announced their cooperative agreement this past April, many have wondered what exactly the “sharing of articles on the scholarly collaboration platform in a way that protects the rights of authors and publishers” might look like. Today, we get our first... More

Ever since Springer Nature and ResearchGate announced their cooperative agreement this past April, many have wondered what exactly the “sharing of articles on the scholarly collaboration platform in a way that protects the rights of authors and publishers” might look like. Today, we get our first glimpse. Springer Nature and ResearchGate have announced that “full-text articles published in select Nature journals since November 2017 will be rolled out to researchers’ ResearchGate profiles starting now and completed by March 7, making it easier to read or download research on or off campus from that moment on.” I had a chance to speak yesterday with Steven Inchcoombe, Chief Publishing Officer at Springer Nature, and Ijad Madisch, CEO of ResearchGate, about this project. Though small in scope, the importance of this project should not be overlooked. This pilot project represents the first significant experiment with the syndication of publisher content to a content supercontinent. My fellow Scholarly Kitchen contributor, Roger Schonfeld, has been tracking this emerging strategy and exploring it in recent months.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Research Misconduct in East Asia’s Research Environments (Papers: Hee-Je Bak | June 2018)

Published/Released on June 01, 2018 | Posted by Admin on April 6, 2019 | Keywords: , , ,

High-profile cases of scientific misconduct, such as the Hwang scandal in South Korea, the Obokata scandal in Japan, and the growing number of retracted papers written by Chinese scientists have led to a new interest in research misconduct in East Asia. Since research misconduct is by no means rare... More

High-profile cases of scientific misconduct, such as the Hwang scandal in South Korea, the Obokata scandal in Japan, and the growing number of retracted papers written by Chinese scientists have led to a new interest in research misconduct in East Asia. Since research misconduct is by no means rare in the history of science, some observers may view them merely as indicative of increased research activity in this region. From this perspective, research misconduct tends to result in blaming and punishing individual scientists. However, if we subscribe to the precept of STS that scientists’ behavior is embedded in their social and cultural contexts, we may use research misconduct to apprehend the distinctive social and cultural contexts of scientific practices. In other words, the investigation of research misconduct in East Asia is a valuable opportunity for the STS community to discuss the social and cultural environment that shapes research practices in this region. Drawing on three cases of research misconduct in Japan, South Korea, and China, this special issue highlights the social and cultural environments surrounding each case rather than the scientific misconduct itself. Local biologicals are a promising way of capturing the influence of social and cultural environments of a specific location on scientific practices. Sarah Franklin has explained stem cell science as a global biological enterprise interwoven with local biologicals. She described a local biological as practices in stem cell science that reflect “specific national and economic priorities, moral and civic values, and technoscientific institutional cultures” (Franklin 2005, 61). Using the concept of local and global biologicals, Koichi Mikami’s article in this issue highlights the importance of social and institutional culture to understand a case of research misconduct. She addresses the stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency (STAP) cell scandal, often called the Obokata scandal, in Japan where Haruko Obokata and her colleagues at RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology (CDB) published two papers in Nature on a new method to reprogram differentiated somatic cells to be pluripotent, or capable of becoming any type of cell in the body, but soon these papers were retracted. Mikami focuses on how Japan’s socioinstitutional culture influences the reactions of society to Obokata’s claim of the existence of STAP cells, instead of her individual misbehavior. She notes the influence of Shinya Yamanaka’s success on stem cell science in Japan. Obokata’s work attracted media attention in Japan partly because it claimed to extend Yamanaka’s work on iPS cells. As a Nobel Prize winner, Yamanaka was a young hero in Japan and brought high expectations for stem cell research not only in the stem cell research community but also in the Japanese government and the public. According to Mikami, the initial enthusiasm for Obokata and her colleagues’ successful experiment on STAP cells reflected the high expectation for stem cell research in Japan since Yamanaka’s success in 2007, which constitutes a local biological.

Bak, HJ. (2018) Research Misconduct in East Asia’s Research Environments. East Asian Science, Technology and Society 12 (2): 117-122. https://doi.org/10.1215/18752160-6577620 Publisher (Open Access): https://read.dukeupress.edu/easts/article/12/2/117/133940/Research-Misconduct-in-East-Asia-s-Research

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Publish and Perish: The Dangers of Being Young and in a Hurry (Papers: James S. Huntley | February 2019)

Published/Released on February 19, 2019 | Posted by Admin on April 5, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , ,

Abstract Publications in peer-reviewed journals are a key and official requirement for progression to a consultant surgeon post. Paradoxically, a stipulation that should enhance the importance of surgical research may, in fact, contribute to a pressure that is one of the causes of research misconduct. Consultant trainers can... More

Abstract Publications in peer-reviewed journals are a key and official requirement for progression to a consultant surgeon post. Paradoxically, a stipulation that should enhance the importance of surgical research may, in fact, contribute to a pressure that is one of the causes of research misconduct. Consultant trainers can go some way to mitigating against this danger with appropriate teaching and an emphasis on the core values surrounding research ethics.

Huntley J S (February 19, 2019) Publish and Perish: The Dangers of Being Young and in a Hurry. Cureus 11(2): e4098. doi:10.7759/cureus.4098 Publisher (Editorial): https://www.cureus.com/articles/17575-publish-and-perish-the-dangers-of-being-young-and-in-a-hurry

[colored_box] Less

View full details | Go to resource


The impact on authors and editors of introducing Data Availability Statements at Nature journals ( Papers: Rebecca Grant & Iain Hrynaszkiewicz | December 2018)

Published/Released on December 27, 2018 | Posted by Admin on April 4, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

Abstract

This article describes the adoption of a standard policy for the inclusion of data availability statements in all research articles published at the Nature family of journals, and the subsequent research which assessed the impacts that these policies had on authors, editors,... More

Abstract

This article describes the adoption of a standard policy for the inclusion of data availability statements in all research articles published at the Nature family of journals, and the subsequent research which assessed the impacts that these policies had on authors, editors, and the availability of datasets. The key findings of this research project include the determination of average and median times required to add a data availability statement to an article; and a correlation between the way researchers make their data available, and the time required to add a data availability statement.

Grant, R. & Hrynaszkiewicz, I. (2018)  The impact on authors and editors of introducing Data Availability Statements at Nature journals. International Journal of Digital Curation. 13(1) DOI: https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.614 Publisher: http://www.ijdc.net/article/view/614

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(US) Old emails hold new clues to Coca-Cola and CDC’s controversial relationship – CNN (Jacqueline Howard | January 2019)

Published/Released on January 29, 2019 | Posted by Admin on April 3, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Private emails between employees at the Coca-Cola Co. and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been exposed in a new research paper, raising questions about just how extensive of a relationship the soda company has had with the nation's public health agency. [colored_box]The paper, published Tuesday in... More

Private emails between employees at the Coca-Cola Co. and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been exposed in a new research paper, raising questions about just how extensive of a relationship the soda company has had with the nation's public health agency. [colored_box]The paper, published Tuesday in the journal The Milbank Quarterly includes excerpts from emails and suggests that current and former Coca-Cola staff tried to influence the CDC by attempting to frame the debate around whether sugar-sweetened beverages play a role in America's obesity epidemic, as well as trying to lobby decision-makers. . The email exchanges -- obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests -- were sent between 2011 and the time the FOIA requests were made in 2016 and 2017. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(China) Academic integrity gets renewed stress in aftermath of actor’s misconduct case – ECNS.cn (Jing Yuxin | February 2019)

Published/Released on February 28, 2019 | Posted by Admin on April 1, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

The Ministry of Education has asked universities with advanced degree programs to strengthen their supervision of student enrollment and management after a few high-profile academic misconduct cases tarnished the reputation of the country's postgraduate education. The ministry has zero tolerance for academic misconduct, such as plagiarism,... More

The Ministry of Education has asked universities with advanced degree programs to strengthen their supervision of student enrollment and management after a few high-profile academic misconduct cases tarnished the reputation of the country's postgraduate education. The ministry has zero tolerance for academic misconduct, such as plagiarism, and universities should scrutinize every step of graduate writing, from choosing research topics to dissertation defense, it said in a statement on Wednesday. Any misconduct will be dealt with seriously, and academic papers, theses and dissertations will be shared with other institutions to add more scrutiny, it said.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(US) Duke whistleblower gets more than $33 million in research fraud settlement – NPR (Bill Chappell | March 2019)

Duke University is paying the U.S. government $112.5 million to settle accusations that it submitted bogus data to win federal research grants. The settlement will also bring a $33.75 million payment to Joseph Thomas, the whistleblower who drew attention to the fraud when he worked for Duke. Thomas, a former... More

Duke University is paying the U.S. government $112.5 million to settle accusations that it submitted bogus data to win federal research grants. The settlement will also bring a $33.75 million payment to Joseph Thomas, the whistleblower who drew attention to the fraud when he worked for Duke. Thomas, a former Duke lab analyst, sued the university on behalf of the federal government, saying that a Duke researcher fudged data to help the university win and keep lucrative grants from two agencies, the National Institutes of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency. The dozens of grants in question covered the study of the lung function of mice. The Justice Department says Thomas' lawsuit alleged that "between 2006 and 2018, Duke knowingly submitted and caused to be submitted" claims to federal agencies that were unknowingly paying grant money for falsified research data. It adds that while the agreement settles the court case, it does not mean Duke has been determined liable.

Read the rest of this news story

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(US) NIH apologizes for its failure to address sexual harassment in science – STAT (Lev Facher | February 2019)

Published/Released on February 28, 2019 | Posted by Admin on March 29, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

[colored_box]WASHINGTON — The National Institutes of Health on Thursday apologized for its past failures to recognize and address the culture of sexual harassment that has impacted scientists for generations. . “To all those who have endured these experiences, we are sorry that it has taken so long to acknowledge... More

[colored_box]WASHINGTON — The National Institutes of Health on Thursday apologized for its past failures to recognize and address the culture of sexual harassment that has impacted scientists for generations. . “To all those who have endured these experiences, we are sorry that it has taken so long to acknowledge and address the climate and culture that has caused such harm,” NIH Director Francis Collins said in a statement. . Sexual harassment in science, Collins said, is “morally indefensible, it’s unacceptable, and it presents a major obstacle that is keeping women from achieving their rightful place in science.” .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Sexual harassment rife in Australian science, suggests first workplace survey – Science (February 2019)

Published/Released on February 28, 2019 | Posted by Admin on March 26, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

One in two female respondents to a national poll has been sexually harassed at work.

Nearly half the female scientists who responded to an Australian survey on sexual misconduct at work have experienced sexual harassment. In More

One in two female respondents to a national poll has been sexually harassed at work.

Nearly half the female scientists who responded to an Australian survey on sexual misconduct at work have experienced sexual harassment. In a report released today, 10% of male scientists also said they had been sexually harassed at work. [colored_box]The poll represents the first investigation into the prevalence of sexual harassment among Australian scientists and technologists working in industry, the public sector or non-profit organizations, as well as academia. Almost 300 science professionals answered the questions in an online poll conducted by Science & Technology Australia (STA), an organization based in Canberra that lobbies for the interests of scientists. . Previous surveys of students in Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom have found widespread harassment at universities. The latest results show that harassment is rife across all types of scientific workplace. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


#MeToo and Health Research Ethics – The Hastings Center (Kathleen Bachynski | March 2019)

As a public health researcher interested in brain injuries in sports, I was searching for peer-reviewed literature that examined cultural pressures that cause athletes to minimize symptoms of potentially serious injuries when I came across a 1994 article entitled, “A Little Pain Never Hurt Anybody: A Photo-Essay on the... More

As a public health researcher interested in brain injuries in sports, I was searching for peer-reviewed literature that examined cultural pressures that cause athletes to minimize symptoms of potentially serious injuries when I came across a 1994 article entitled, “A Little Pain Never Hurt Anybody: A Photo-Essay on the Normalization of Sport Injuries.” The identity of one of the authors cast the study in a suspicious light: Dr. Richard Strauss, the Ohio State University physician who has been accused by more than 100 former students of sexual abuse. His article was a “visual study” with numerous photos of student wrestlers. It claimed to “convey some of the details and social ambiance of today’s approach to collegiate sports medicine.”  A research method that involves photographing injured students, both at the time of injury and while undergoing medical examinations and surgical procedures, also involves significant intimate contact with a vulnerable population. In such circumstances, patients must be able to fully trust the researcher’s integrity, honesty, and respect for persons. The irony that a doctor accused of groping his patients’ genitalia also studied the cultural belief that “a little pain never hurt anybody” astonishes me. Furthermore, I am concerned about the implications of accused serial sexual abusers publishing in academic literature: that they can use their position of authority to not only enhance their professional status but also to shape academic knowledge. According to Google Scholar, at least 117 articles have cited Strauss’ photo-essay. One 2005 article described it as an example of how the technique of photo-interviewing provided “a way to get people to talk about more difficult and abstract concepts.”

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(Australia Queensland case) Universal Medicine research conducted by devotees won’t be pulled by Queensland uni – ABC (Josh Robertson | March 2019)

A top Australian university has stood by studies into the health benefits of a group that a jury found was a "dangerous cult" making false healing claims, despite its own medical researchers failing to disclose they were devotees. [colored_box]A 10-month investigation by the University of Queensland (UQ) has cleared the... More

A top Australian university has stood by studies into the health benefits of a group that a jury found was a "dangerous cult" making false healing claims, despite its own medical researchers failing to disclose they were devotees. [colored_box]A 10-month investigation by the University of Queensland (UQ) has cleared the researchers of academic misconduct despite finding they did not fully detail their involvement with Universal Medicine (UM). . The studies were published in overseas journals and explored the benefits of UM treatments including "esoteric breast massage" and proposed clinical studies in Vietnamese hospitals that would be forbidden in Australia. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


High-profile subscription journals critique Plan S – Nature (Holly Else | February 2019)

Published/Released on February 26, 2019 | Posted by Admin on March 23, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Publishers say that the bold open-access initiative rules out proven ways of opening up the literature.

Publishers of highly selective scholarly journals — including Nature and Science — say that they cannot comply with Plan... More

Publishers say that the bold open-access initiative rules out proven ways of opening up the literature.

Publishers of highly selective scholarly journals — including Nature and Science — say that they cannot comply with Plan S, a European-led initiative that mandates free access to research results on publication from 2020, unless its rules are changed. Their appeals come as part of a massive consultation on how the open-access initiative should work, which closed on 8 February and received about 600 responses, including from most of the world’s major academic publishers. Many publishers told the Plan S coalition that they support the general aims of the initiative, but don’t agree on its details. They also say the timeframe for the transition is too short.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


A decade of empirical research on research integrity: what have we (not) looked at? (Papers: Noémie Aubert Bonn & Wim Pinxten | March 2019)

Published/Released on March 04, 2019 | Posted by Admin on March 20, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Abstract In the past decades, increasing visibility of research misconduct scandals created momentum for discourses on research integrity to such an extent that the topic became a field of research itself. Yet, a comprehensive overview of research in the field is still missing. Here we describe... More

Abstract In the past decades, increasing visibility of research misconduct scandals created momentum for discourses on research integrity to such an extent that the topic became a field of research itself. Yet, a comprehensive overview of research in the field is still missing. Here we describe methods, trends, publishing patterns, and impact of a decade of research on research integrity. To give a comprehensive overview of research on research integrity, we first systematically searched SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed for relevant articles published in English between 2005 and 2015. We then classified each relevant article according to its topic, several methodological characteristics, its general focus and findings, and its citation impact. We included 986 articles in our analysis. We found that the body of literature on research integrity is growing in importance, and that the field is still largely dominated by non-empirical publications. Within the bulk of empirical records (N=342), researchers and students are most often studied, but other actors and the social context in which they interact, seem to be overlooked. The few empirical articles that examined determinants of misconduct found that problems from the research system (e.g., pressure, competition) were most likely to cause inadequate research practices. Paradoxically, the majority of empirical articles proposing approaches to foster integrity focused on techniques to build researchers’ awareness and compliance rather than techniques to change the research system. Our review highlights the areas, methods, and actors favoured in research on research integrity, and reveals a few blindspots. Involving non-researchers and reconnecting what is known to the approaches investigated may be the first step to generate executable knowledge that will allow us to increase the success of future approaches.

Bonn, N.A. & Pinxten, W. (2019) A decade of empirical research on research integrity: what have we (not) looked at? bioRxiv. 567263; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/567263 Publisher (Open Access): https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/567263v1

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Editorial Mutiny at Elsevier Journal – Inside Higher Ed (Lindsay McKenzie | January 2019)

Published/Released on January 14, 2019 | Posted by Admin on March 18, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

Following in the footsteps of linguistics journal Lingua, the editorial board of the Elsevier-owned Journal of Informetrics has resigned and launched a rival journal that will be free for all to read. The entire editorial board of the Elsevier-owned Journal of Informetrics... More

Following in the footsteps of linguistics journal Lingua, the editorial board of the Elsevier-owned Journal of Informetrics has resigned and launched a rival journal that will be free for all to read. The entire editorial board of the Elsevier-owned Journal of Informetrics resigned Thursday in protest over high open-access fees, restricted access to citation data and commercial control of scholarly work. Today, the same team is launching a new fully open-access journal called Quantitative Science Studies. The journal will be for and by the academic community and will be owned by the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI). It will be published jointly with MIT Press. The editorial board of the Journal of Informetrics said in a statement that they were unanimous in their decision to quit. They contend that scholarly journals should be owned by the scholarly community rather than by commercial publishers, should be open access under fair principles, and publishers should make citation data freely available.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Why were scientists silent over gene-edited babies? – Nature (Natalie Kofler | February 2019)

Published/Released on February 26, 2019 | Posted by Admin on March 12, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


An idea to promote research integrity: adding badges to papers where the authors fought against the results being suppressed or sanitised – LSE Impact Blog (Adrian Barnett | July 2018)

Published/Released on July 11, 2018 | Posted by Admin on March 11, 2019 | Keywords: , ,

Some journals, including Biostatistics and BMJ Open Science, add prominent badges to research papers for which the authors have shared the data and/or statistical code. The badge is intended to recognise the additional work undertaken by the authors to curate and deposit their data and code. It also... More

Some journals, including Biostatistics and BMJ Open Science, add prominent badges to research papers for which the authors have shared the data and/or statistical code. The badge is intended to recognise the additional work undertaken by the authors to curate and deposit their data and code. It also rewards good research practice, because sharing data and code helps with reproducibility and increases the value of research by allowing other researchers to run new studies. Evidence from two observational studies shows that badges have increased the rate of data sharing at journals.

I am a supporter of open science and have shared data without receiving a badge. However, if I could add badges to any of my papers, it would be where there was an attempt to suppress or sanitise the results. These are the papers I am most proud of publishing.

I’ve experienced three instances of suppression or sanitisation: two papers were eventually published in whole, but one other was sanitised, much to my enduring chagrin. In all three cases I believe the attempted suppression occurred because the study’s sponsor did not like the results. There is a similar story on the COPE website (Committee on Publication Ethics) involving a disagreement between a drug company and academic researchers.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


The Fraud Finder: A conversation with Elisabeth Bik – The Last Word on Nothing (Sally Adee | February 2019)

Published/Released on February 12, 2019 | Posted by Admin on March 10, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


(US) Is it time to revise the definition of research misconduct? (Papers: David B. Resnik | February 2019)

Published/Released on February 01, 2019 | Posted by Admin on March 9, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


(US) Will Me Too Activism Cost Professor Her Job? – Inside Higher Ed (Scott Jaschi | February 2019)

Published/Released on March 22, 2019 | Posted by Admin on March 8, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Persistent Underrepresentation of Women’s Science in High Profile Journals (Papers: Yiqin Alicia Shen, et al | 2018)

Published/Released on March 02, 2018 | Posted by Admin on March 7, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

Abstract [colored_box]Past research has demonstrated an under-representation of female editors and reviewers in top scientific journals, but very few studies have examined the representation of women authors within original research articles. We collected research article publication records from 15 high-profile multidisciplinary and neuroscience journals for 2005-2017... More

Abstract [colored_box]Past research has demonstrated an under-representation of female editors and reviewers in top scientific journals, but very few studies have examined the representation of women authors within original research articles. We collected research article publication records from 15 high-profile multidisciplinary and neuroscience journals for 2005-2017 and analyzed the representation of women over time, as well as its relationship with journal impact factor. We found that 1) Women authors have been persistently underrepresented in high-profile journals. This under-representation has persisted over more than a decade, with glacial improvement over time. 2) The percent of female first and last authors is negatively associated with a journal's impact factor. Since publishing in high-profile journals is a gateway to academic success, this underrepresentation of women may contribute to the lack of women at the top of the scientific academic ladder.

Shen YA., Webster JM., Shoda Y (2018) Persistent Underrepresentation of Women's Science in High Profile Journals. bioRxiv. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/275362 Publisher (Open Access): https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/03/02/275362

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Rare trial of open peer review allays common concerns – Nature (Dalmeet Singh Chawla | February 2019)

Published/Released on March 15, 2019 | Posted by Admin on March 6, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

Study suggests that making reviewers’ reports freely readable doesn’t compromise peer-review process.

[colored_box]A rare analysis of open peer review — in which reviews are posted alongside published papers — has overturned some common conceptions about the practice: notably, that it doesn’t put the reviewers... More

Study suggests that making reviewers’ reports freely readable doesn’t compromise peer-review process.

[colored_box]A rare analysis of open peer review — in which reviews are posted alongside published papers — has overturned some common conceptions about the practice: notably, that it doesn’t put the reviewers off or affect their recommendations on whether to accept a paper. . The analysis, published on 18 January in Nature Communications1, also indicates that open reviewers mostly prefer to remain anonymous, and that they don’t take any longer to complete reviews than in the conventional process. . “I think the case for publishing peer reviews is quite clear in terms of transparency and accountability,” says Tony Ross-Hellauer, an information scientist at the Graz University of Technology in Austria who conducted a 2017 survey about open peer review. “In terms of clearing away some doubts about publishing peer reviews, I think this study is really good news.” .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Whitepaper: Practical challenges for researchers in data sharing (David Stuart, et al | September 2018)

Published/Released on March 21, 2018 | Posted by Admin on March 4, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource #1, resource #2


(US) This neuroscientist is fighting sexual harassment in science – but her own job is in peril – Science (By Meredith Wadmam | February 2019)

Published/Released on February 12, 2019 | Posted by Admin on March 3, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

BethAnn McLaughlin has no time for James Watson, especially not when the 90-year-old geneticist is peering out from a photo on the wall of her guest room at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory’s Banbury Center. [colored_box]“I don’t need him staring at me when I’m trying to go to sleep,” McLaughlin told... More

BethAnn McLaughlin has no time for James Watson, especially not when the 90-year-old geneticist is peering out from a photo on the wall of her guest room at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory’s Banbury Center. [colored_box]“I don’t need him staring at me when I’m trying to go to sleep,” McLaughlin told a December 2018 gathering at the storied New York meeting center as she projected a photo of her redecorating job: She had hung a washcloth over the image of Watson, who co-discovered DNA’s structure, directed the lab for decades—and is well-known for racist and sexist statements. . The washcloth image was part of McLaughlin’s unconventional presentation—by turns sobering, hilarious, passionate, and profane—to two dozen experts who had gathered to wrestle with how to end gender discrimination in the biosciences. McLaughlin, a 51-year-old neuroscientist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) in Nashville, displayed the names of current members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) who have been sanctioned for sexual harassment. She urged other NAS members—several of whom sat in the room—to resign in protest, “as one does.” She chided institutions for passing along “harassholes” to other universities. “The only other places that do this are the Catholic Church and the military,” she said. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Why journal editors should dig deeper when authors ask for a retraction – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | February 2019)

Published/Released on February 21, 2019 | Posted by Admin on March 2, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

Imagine you’re a journal editor. A group of authors sends you a request to retract one of their papers, saying that “during figure assembly certain images were inappropriately processed.” What do you do next? Do you ask some tough questions about just what “inappropriately processed” means? Do you check your... More

Imagine you’re a journal editor. A group of authors sends you a request to retract one of their papers, saying that “during figure assembly certain images were inappropriately processed.” What do you do next? Do you ask some tough questions about just what “inappropriately processed” means? Do you check your files for whether the author’s institution had told you about an investigation into the work? Do you Google the author’s names? Do you…search Retraction Watch? It seems unlikely that any of those things happened in the case of a recent retraction from Nature Communications, or, if they did, they don’t seem to have informed the notice. We don’t know for sure, because, as is typical, the journal isn’t saying much. But here’s what we do know.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


He Jiankui’s Germline Editing Ethics Article Retracted by The CRISPR Journal – GEN (Julianna LeMieux – February 2019)

Published/Released on February 20, 2019 | Posted by Admin on March 2, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

Failure to disclose conflicts of interest was "unacceptable"

Twelve weeks after publishing a perspective on the ethics of gene editing by He Jiankui, PhD, the scientist reportedly responsible for the first gene-edited humans, the editors of The CRISPR Journal have decided to retract the... More

Failure to disclose conflicts of interest was "unacceptable"

Twelve weeks after publishing a perspective on the ethics of gene editing by He Jiankui, PhD, the scientist reportedly responsible for the first gene-edited humans, the editors of The CRISPR Journal have decided to retract the article, GEN can exclusively report. [colored_box]In late November, the shocking news of the genetically edited twin girls broke out on the eve of the second international Human Genome Editing Summit in Hong Kong. The creation of germline-edited humans was unprecedented and not something that the scientific community had prepared for. . Most of the attention focused on the actions of 34-year-old He, formerly a professor at the Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech) in Shenzhen. He’s decision to ignore advice from prominent members of the scientific community and serious questions over the technical and ethical procedures prompted an immediate investigation by Chinese authorities while he was held under house arrest, culminating in his dismissal by SUSTech last month.| .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

  Less

View full details | Go to resource


Will the world embrace Plan S, the radical proposal to mandate open access to science papers? – Science (Tania Rabesandratana | January 2019)

Published/Released on February 03, 2019 | Posted by Admin on February 24, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

How far will Plan S spread? Since the September 2018 launch of the Europe-backed program to mandate immediate open access (OA) to scientific literature, 16 funders in 13 countries have signed on. That's still far shy of Plan S's ambition: to convince the world's major research funders to require immediate... More

How far will Plan S spread? Since the September 2018 launch of the Europe-backed program to mandate immediate open access (OA) to scientific literature, 16 funders in 13 countries have signed on. That's still far shy of Plan S's ambition: to convince the world's major research funders to require immediate OA to all published papers stemming from their grants. Whether it will reach that goal depends in part on details that remain to be settled, including a cap on the author charges that funders will pay for OA publication. But the plan has gained momentum: In December 2018, China stunned many by expressing strong support for Plan S. This month, a national funding agency in Africa is expected to join, possibly followed by a second U.S. funder. Others around the world are considering whether to sign on. Plan S, scheduled to take effect on 1 January 2020, has drawn support from many scientists, who welcome a shake-up of a publishing system that can generate large profits while keeping taxpayer-funded research results behind paywalls. But publishers (including AAAS, which publishes Science) are concerned, and some scientists worry that Plan S could restrict their choices.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(JAP) Japanese stem cell fraud leads to a new retraction – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | January 2019)

Published/Released on February 04, 2019 | Posted by Admin on February 23, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , , ,

Last March, we reported on the retraction of a 2017 paper in Stem Cell Reports by Kohei Yamamizu and colleagues for widespread fabrication of figures. Turns out the problems were at least five years older than that. Yamamizu had received a pink slip from his institution, the... More

Last March, we reported on the retraction of a 2017 paper in Stem Cell Reports by Kohei Yamamizu and colleagues for widespread fabrication of figures. Turns out the problems were at least five years older than that. Yamamizu had received a pink slip from his institution, the Center for iPS Cell Research and Application (CiRA), which had put the blame for the misconduct squarely on his shoulders. (The director of the institute, Nobel winner Shinya Yamanaka, also took some of the blame in a public statement in which he said he bore “a strong responsibility for not having prevented research misconduct at our institute.”) Yamamizu has a new retraction, but this time’s a bit different. Here’s the notice for the paper, “Protein Kinase A Determines Timing of Early Differentiation through Epigenetic Regulation with G9,” which appeared in Cell Stem Cell in June 2012 (Yamanaka was not a co-author on either study).  Although the statement acknowledges the internal investigation, it doesn’t mention misconduct or name Yamamizu:

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(US) Overdue: a US advisory board for research integrity – Nature (C. K. Gunsalus, et al | February 2019)

Published/Released on February 11, 2019 | Posted by Admin on February 23, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Research needs an authoritative forum to hash out collective problems, argue C. K. Gunsalus, Marcia K. McNutt and colleagues

When it comes to fostering rigour and scientific integrity, US research institutions are stuck. Working out best practice is far from straightforward, and faculty members... More

Research needs an authoritative forum to hash out collective problems, argue C. K. Gunsalus, Marcia K. McNutt and colleagues

When it comes to fostering rigour and scientific integrity, US research institutions are stuck. Working out best practice is far from straightforward, and faculty members can be resistant to top-down directives. So, on a day-to-day basis, the conventions that research groups have for documenting methods and results, conducting analyses and allocating credit are often less than optimal. At worst, they can encourage dishonesty and scandal. For example, in April 2017, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and its health-care network agreed to pay US$10 million to settle fraud allegations in stem-cell research funding. (Researchers contest who is at fault.) The hospital has requested retractions of more than 30 papers, and a clinical trial involving more than 100 participants has been paused while data are reviewed. Resources that might have brought better medical care have been squandered. [colored_box]Building a culture of quality and integrity requires conversations across the scientific enterprise. Science is a complex ecosystem of funders, journals, academic administrators, scientific societies and researchers — the latter group including principal investigators, staff scientists, postdocs and graduate students. The interests of each group conflict as often as they overlap, and interactions tend to be stratified and constrained. Institutional presidents sit on working groups with each other but not with research-integrity officers. These officers attend conferences with each other, but not with faculty advisers and bench scientists. Journal editors meet scientists and other editors, but not institutional officers, on whom they rely for investigation when concerns about manuscripts arise. . In the United States, a fractured, inefficient, inconsistent system has built up over the past 70 years to protect research quality and integrity. Separate and sometimes overlapping mechanisms focus on distinct areas, such as oversight of trial participants and animal subjects, data management, financial transactions and declarations of interest. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Learning lessons from the Paolo Macchiarini case – Horizons (Matthias Egger | December 2018)

Published/Released on December 06, 2018 | Posted by Admin on February 23, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


A Star Surgeon Left a Trail of Dead Patients—and His Whistleblowers Were Punished – LeapsMag (Eve Herold | October 2018)

View full details | Go to resource


Oft-quoted paper on spread of fake news turns out to be…fake news – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | January 2019)

Published/Released on January 09, 2019 | Posted by Admin on February 20, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

The authors of an much-ballyhooed 2017 paper about the spread of fake news on social media have retracted their article after finding that they’d botched their analysis. [colored_box]The paper, “Limited individual attention and online virality of low-quality information,” presented an argument for why bogus facts seem to gain so much... More

The authors of an much-ballyhooed 2017 paper about the spread of fake news on social media have retracted their article after finding that they’d botched their analysis. [colored_box]The paper, “Limited individual attention and online virality of low-quality information,” presented an argument for why bogus facts seem to gain so much traction on sites such as Facebook. According to the researchers — — from Shanghai Institute of Technology, Indiana University and Yahoo — the key was in the sheer volume of bad information, which swamps the brain’s ability to discern the real from the merely plausible or even the downright ridiculous, competing with limited attention spans and time. . As they reported: .

Our main finding is that survival of the fittest is far from a foregone conclusion where information is concerned. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Paper submitted for publication without consent or knowledge of co-authors (COPE Case Study)

An article was submitted by corresponding author (CA) on 19 December 2011. After several revisions the article was accepted for publication on 23 March 2012. The article was published online 8 May 2012. At the time of submission, CA was a PhD student at a research centre (X). On 21 November... More

An article was submitted by corresponding author (CA) on 19 December 2011. After several revisions the article was accepted for publication on 23 March 2012. The article was published online 8 May 2012. At the time of submission, CA was a PhD student at a research centre (X). On 21 November 2012, co-author A (also head of the research group) contacted the publisher and editor-in-chief of journal A with a request to retract the published article claiming the following:

Read the rest of this case study Also  available as an audio file

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Supervision and HDR candidate research outputs (Resource material: Griffith University | June 2018) UPDATED 14/02/19

[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.]. . More

[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

    Less

View full details | Go to resource


Tips for negotiating the peer-reviewed journal publication process as an early-career researcher – LSE Impact Blog (Margaret K. Merga, et al | November 2018)

Published/Released on November 07, 2018 | Posted by Admin on February 13, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Early-career researchers are subject to higher levels of scrutiny than ever before, with publication in academic journals essential to how they are funded and evaluated, and how their careers will be built. Margaret K. Merga, Shannon Mason and Julia E. Morris share insights from their own experiences of... More

Early-career researchers are subject to higher levels of scrutiny than ever before, with publication in academic journals essential to how they are funded and evaluated, and how their careers will be built. Margaret K. Merga, Shannon Mason and Julia E. Morris share insights from their own experiences of navigating the journal submission and publication process as ECRs, emphasising the importance of being strategic about journal selection, understanding which suggested revisions will actually improve a paper, and knowing what is the right moment to contact the editor for guidance.

[colored_box]Publishing in quality peer-reviewed journals is essential for early-career researchers (ECRs), due to their need to build a track record and expertise in their field. ECRs are subject to higher levels of scrutiny than ever before, with our contributions quantified through performance measurement indicators which may fail to adequately capture their scope, the efforts applied, and our stage in career. As contended by Hyland, publication is essential “because it is through publication that knowledge is constructed, academics are evaluated, universities are funded, and careers are built, and each year its influence becomes ever more intrusive and demanding”. As ECRs, we are particularly vulnerable to this imperative, as many of us have yet to secure tenure, so we may lack the job security of our more-established senior colleagues. . The knowledge and skills needed to write an academic journal article for publication and then to successfully negotiate the peer review process are complex and unique. Many ECRs will have experienced inadequate training and mentoring in this area. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Legal threats, opacity, and deceptive research practices: A look at more than 100 retractions in business and management – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | November 2018)

View full details | Go to resource


A Beginner’s Guide to the Peer Review System – GradHacker (Carolyn Trietsch | January 2019)

Published/Released on January 16, 2019 | Posted by Admin on February 10, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

Thinking through the Peer Review system, especially for first time writers.

I was thrilled to receive my first request to peer review a paper while working on my Ph.D. Then I realized I didn’t know how to peer review. It had never been covered in... More

Thinking through the Peer Review system, especially for first time writers.

I was thrilled to receive my first request to peer review a paper while working on my Ph.D. Then I realized I didn’t know how to peer review. It had never been covered in my classes, so I started asking around and sending emails, reaching out to my friends in other programs, but with little luck. As important as peer review is, it seems that few STEM programs actively teach students about how to navigate the peer review process and make the decisions involved, such as whether to accept or reject a paper for publication. Fortunately, this is why we have mentors. I set up a meeting with a veteran peer reviewer and journal editor who was kind enough to spend an afternoon answering my questions and sharing important takeaways gleaned over years of experience. I realized that others could benefit from this advice, and I put together the following post from our discussion (with permission, of course, though my mentor wished to remain anonymous). Here is some guidance for students, early career professionals and others who are new to the peer review system:

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


It’s time to end the code of silence at universities – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | November 2018)

Published/Released on November 06, 2018 | Posted by Admin on February 8, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

[colored_box]Yesterday, Cornell University told a group of researchers who had petitioned them to release a report of their investigation into alleged misconduct by Brian Wansink, a food marketing researcher who recently resigned his post there, that they would not release that report. As BuzzFeed reports, the... More

[colored_box]Yesterday, Cornell University told a group of researchers who had petitioned them to release a report of their investigation into alleged misconduct by Brian Wansink, a food marketing researcher who recently resigned his post there, that they would not release that report. As BuzzFeed reports, the university is now conducting a “Phase II” investigation into Wansink’s work. (It’s unclear what a “Phase II” investigation refers to; we’ve asked the university to clarify.) . Unfortunately, Cornell’s lack of transparency about the case puts them in the majority. Here’s a piece by our two co-founders, Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, about why this veil of secrecy needs to be lifted. . For more than a decade, Cornell University’s Brian Wansink was a king in the world of nutrition. He published his findings — on everything from why small plates make us eat less to the behavior of obese people at all-you-can-eat Chinese buffets — in top-tier journals and garnered media coverage in prestigious newspapers. His work even formed the basis of U.S. dietary guidelines. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


AI peer reviewers unleashed to ease publishing grind – Science (Douglas Heaven | November 2018)

Published/Released on November 22, 2018 | Posted by Admin on February 4, 2019 | Keywords: , , ,

A suite of automated tools is now available to assist with peer review but humans are still in the driver's seat.

Most researchers have good reason to grumble about peer review: it is time-consuming and error-prone, and the workload is unevenly spread, with More

A suite of automated tools is now available to assist with peer review but humans are still in the driver's seat.

Most researchers have good reason to grumble about peer review: it is time-consuming and error-prone, and the workload is unevenly spread, with just 20% of scientists taking on most reviews. Now peer review by artificial intelligence (AI) is promising to improve the process, boost the quality of published papers — and save reviewers time. A handful of academic publishers are piloting AI tools to do anything from selecting reviewers to checking statistics and summarizing a paper’s findings.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


25% researchers worldwide unaware, confused what is plagiarism: Survey – Business Standard (Press Trust of India | November 2018)

View full details | Go to resource


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

Published/Released on January 14, 2019 | Posted by Admin on February 2, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


A colleague included plagiarized material in your grant proposal. Are you liable? – Retraction Watch (Richard Goldstein | December 2018)

Published/Released on December 03, 2018 | Posted by Admin on January 29, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Single-molecule magnet controversy highlights transparency problems with U.K. research integrity system – C&EN (Mark Peplow | November 2018)

Universities’ reluctance to reveal details of such cases could undermine public trust in research, experts say

For Conrad A. P. Goodwin, June 6, 2017, was a pretty harrowing day. The organometallic chemist, then at the University of Manchester, had just finished his Ph.D. on... More

Universities’ reluctance to reveal details of such cases could undermine public trust in research, experts say

For Conrad A. P. Goodwin, June 6, 2017, was a pretty harrowing day. The organometallic chemist, then at the University of Manchester, had just finished his Ph.D. on a high. Earlier that year he had synthesized an organometallic complex called dysprosocenium that could be switched from one stable magnetic state to another. Single-molecule magnets (SMMs) like this might eventually be used in extremely-high-density memory devices, but researchers had previously been able to make SMMs that only operated at ultracold temperatures. Crucially, Goodwin’s molecule could retain its designated magnetic state at up to 60 K—the highest temperature yet for any SMM. By the end of May, Nature had accepted a paper about the work from Goodwin and his colleagues, subject to revisions. Then, on that fateful June day—months before Goodwin’s report actually published—a paper appeared in Angewandte Chemie describing exactly the same molecule, made in exactly the same way. Goodwin and his colleagues had been scooped. To make matters worse, the team behind the Angewandte paper was led by Richard A. Layfield, a professor whose office was just down the hall from Goodwin’s supervisor, David P. Mills. “We’d put so much work into it,” recalls Goodwin, who now works at Los Alamos National Laboratory. “The synthetic methodology was brand new, so we thought we were on to something cool. Then, suddenly, the novelty was gone.”

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Ten considerations for open peer review (Papers: Birgit Schmidt, et al |

Published/Released on June 29, 2018 | Posted by Admin on January 26, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract Open peer review (OPR), as with other elements of open science and open research, is on the rise. It aims to bring greater transparency and participation to formal and informal peer review processes. But what is meant by `open peer review', and what advantages and... More

Abstract Open peer review (OPR), as with other elements of open science and open research, is on the rise. It aims to bring greater transparency and participation to formal and informal peer review processes. But what is meant by `open peer review', and what advantages and disadvantages does it have over standard forms of review? How do authors or reviewers approach OPR? And what pitfalls and opportunities should you look out for? Here, we propose ten considerations for OPR, drawing on discussions with authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and librarians, and provide a pragmatic, hands-on introduction to these issues. We cover basic principles and summarise best practices, indicating how to use OPR to achieve best value and mutual benefits for all stakeholders and the wider research community. Keywords open peer review, open science, good practice, research integrity

Schmidt B, Ross-Hellauer T, van Edig X and Moylan EC. Ten considerations for open peer review [version 1; referees: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2018, 7:969 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.15334.1)

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(US) Temple Will Pay $5.5M to Settle Suits Over False Rankings Data – Inside Higher ED (Scott Jaschik | January 2019

Published/Released on January 07, 2019 | Posted by Admin on January 22, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Open Access: A Look Back – Scholarly Kitchen (David Crotty | October 2018)

Published/Released on October 22, 2018 | Posted by Admin on January 22, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

Open Access Week 2018 has begun, and as happens each year, I’m never quite sure how The Scholarly Kitchen should (or shouldn’t) participate. This blog has long (unfairly, in my opinion) been cast as “the enemy” of open access (OA). The reality is, as with most... More

Open Access Week 2018 has begun, and as happens each year, I’m never quite sure how The Scholarly Kitchen should (or shouldn’t) participate. This blog has long (unfairly, in my opinion) been cast as “the enemy” of open access (OA). The reality is, as with most things OA, more complex once you get past the sloganeering. To me, the questions have never been about the concept behind OA (more availability of high quality information is a good thing for the world), but rather the implementation. We’ve been stuck in something of a loop for the last decade, knowing that OA is a good idea, but never getting past flawed ways to put it into action (author-pays Gold OA, which merely shifts the point of inequity from the reader to the author; Green OA which, if efficiently implemented threatens to destroy the subscription journals upon which it relies; and an insistence on one-size-fits-all policies). Today’s OA world seems split between those who are actively experimenting with new models, looking for something better, and those determined to force change upon academic culture and business practices to fit the models already in hand.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


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

View full details | Go to resource


An Australian university cleared a cancer researcher of misconduct. He’s now retracted six papers – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky – January 2019)

Khachigian’s research is a long and winding tale. One place to start would be in October 2009, when a paper co-authored by Khachigian — whose work at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) has been funded by millions of dollars in funding from the Australian government,... More

Khachigian’s research is a long and winding tale. One place to start would be in October 2009, when a paper co-authored by Khachigian — whose work at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) has been funded by millions of dollars in funding from the Australian government, and has led to clinical trials, although more on that later — was retracted from Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications. The “corresponding author published the paper without the full consent or acknowledgement of all the researchers and would like to apologize for this error,” according to that notice. Three more papers, all from the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC), were retracted the following July, saying only that “This article has been withdrawn by the authors,” as was typical for the JBC for many years.

Read more of this news item

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Cribbing from Kribbe: UK criminology prof loses four papers for plagiarism – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | January 2019)

Published/Released on January 09, 2019 | Posted by Admin on January 13, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Institutional Conflict of Interest Policies at U.S. Academic Research Institutions (Papers: David B. Resnik, et al | 2016)

Published/Released on February 01, 2016 | Posted by Admin on January 11, 2019 | Keywords: , ,

[colored_box]Abstract Purpose Institutional conflicts of interest (ICOIs) occur when the institution or leaders with authority to act on behalf of the institution have conflicts of interest (COIs) that may threaten the objectivity, integrity, or trustworthiness of research because they could impact institutional decision... More

[colored_box]Abstract Purpose Institutional conflicts of interest (ICOIs) occur when the institution or leaders with authority to act on behalf of the institution have conflicts of interest (COIs) that may threaten the objectivity, integrity, or trustworthiness of research because they could impact institutional decision making. The purpose of this study was to gather and analyze information about the ICOI policies of the top 100 U.S. academic research institutions, ranked according to total research funding. . Method From May–June 2014, the authors attempted to obtain ICOI policy information for the top 100 U.S. academic research institutions from publicly available Web sites or via e-mail inquiry. If an ICOI policy was not found, the institutions' online COI policies were examined. Data on each institution's total research funding, national funding rank, public versus private status, and involvement in clinical research were collected. The authors developed a coding system for categorizing the ICOI policies and used it to code the policies for nine items. Interrater agreement and P values were assessed. Results Only 28/100 (28.0%) institutions had an ICOI policy. ICOI policies varied among the 28 institutions. Having an ICOI policy was positively associated with total research funding and national funding ranking but not with public versus private status or involvement in clinical research. Conclusions Although most U.S. medical schools have policies that address ICOIs, most of the top academic research institutions do not. Federal regulation and guidance may be necessary to encourage institutions to adopt ICOI policies and establish a standard form of ICOI review.

Resnik, D. B., Ariansen, J. L., Jamal, J., & Kissling, G. E. (2016). Institutional Conflict of Interest Policies at U.S. Academic Research Institutions. Academic medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 91(2), 242-6. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000980 Publisher: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097%2FACM.0000000000000980 HHS Public access: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4731244/

Less

View full details | Go to resource #1, resource #2


Even potential participants of a research integrity conference commit plagiarism, organizers learn – Retraction Watch (Lex Bouter | January 2019)

Published/Released on January 10, 2019 | Posted by Admin on January 11, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

One would hope that researchers submitting abstracts for a meeting on research integrity would be less likely to commit research misconduct. But if the experience of the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity is any indication, that may not be the case. Here, the co-organizers of the conference —... More

One would hope that researchers submitting abstracts for a meeting on research integrity would be less likely to commit research misconduct. But if the experience of the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity is any indication, that may not be the case. Here, the co-organizers of the conference — Lex Bouter, Daniel Barr, and Mai Har Sham — explain. [colored_box]Recently the 430 abstracts submitted for the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI) were peer reviewed. After an alarming report of apparent plagiarism from one of the 30 reviewers, text similarity checking was conducted on all the abstracts received using Turnitin. This identified 12 suspected cases of plagiarism and 18 suspected cases of self-plagiarism. Abstracts with a Turnitin Similarity Index above 30% (ranging from 37% to 94%) were further assessed and labelled as potential self-plagiarism if overlapping texts had at least one author in common. . We did not investigate the 18 cases of suspected self-plagiarism further, but decided to exclude them from oral presentation and to consider them as eligible for poster presentation only. In the call for abstracts we did not say that submissions should contain work that had not been presented or published before. Furthermore, the abstract form did not allow for references to earlier presentations or publications. For future conferences we will explicitly ask whether the work is novel and to provide references to earlier presentations or publications. We do not believe that novelty is an absolute condition for eligibility as there may be good reasons to present important work to different audiences or to present important work that has recently been published but might have escaped being noticed.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


More science than you think is retracted. Even more should be – The Washington Post (Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky | December 2018)

Adam Marcus, the managing editor of Gastroenterology & Endoscopy News, and Ivan Oransky, distinguished writer in residence at New York University’s Arthur Carter Journalism Institute and vice president for editorial at Medscape, are co-founders of Retraction Watch.

The fall from grace wasn’t exactly swift, but it... More

Adam Marcus, the managing editor of Gastroenterology & Endoscopy News, and Ivan Oransky, distinguished writer in residence at New York University’s Arthur Carter Journalism Institute and vice president for editorial at Medscape, are co-founders of Retraction Watch.

The fall from grace wasn’t exactly swift, but it was stunning. Among stem cell researchers, Piero Anversa’s work trying to regrow the human heart in the 1990s and 2000s was legendary. That was then. In October, his former institutions, Harvard Medical School and its affiliate Brigham and Women’s Hospital, asked journals to retract 31 of his lab’s papers. That followed an agreement last year by the Brigham and other hospitals to pay the government $10 million to settle claims that Anversa and a colleague used bogus data to obtain their grant funding.

As dramatic as the Anversa case is, he is far from alone. This month, Anversa’s lab saw 13 papers retracted, but even if all journals honor the retraction requests, he won’t crack the top 10 for scientists who’ve had their articles pulled from the literature. Neither does Cornell University’s Brian Wansink, the food marketing researcher — and former media fixture — who experienced a similar fall over the past few years. The dubious honor for most retractions goes to Yoshitaka Fujii, a Japanese anesthesiologist who fabricated his findings in at least 183 papers, according to a 2012 investigation launched by journal editors and Japanese universities.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(Australia) Reef company altered scientist’s report on crown-of-thorns program — even though he told them not to – ABC News (Michael Slezak | October 2018)

Published/Released on October 19, 2018 | Posted by Admin on January 7, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


As China cracks down on faked drug trial data, US FDA abandons disclosure rule – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | October 2018)

Published/Released on January 23, 2019 | Posted by Admin on January 5, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

The FDA has walked away from a 2010 rule that would have forced drug makers to disclose fabricated data to regulators. As Bloomberg Law reported last week, the FDA has withdrawn the proposed rule, “Reporting Information Regarding Falsification of Data,” which would

require sponsors to report information indicating that... More

The FDA has walked away from a 2010 rule that would have forced drug makers to disclose fabricated data to regulators. As Bloomberg Law reported last week, the FDA has withdrawn the proposed rule, “Reporting Information Regarding Falsification of Data,” which would

require sponsors to report information indicating that any person has, or may have, engaged in the falsification of data in the course of reporting study results, or in the course of proposing, designing, performing, recording, supervising, or reviewing studies that involve human subjects or animal subjects conducted by or on behalf of a sponsor or relied on by a sponsor. A sponsor would be required to report this information to the appropriate FDA center promptly, but no later than 45 calendar days after the sponsor becomes aware of the information. This proposal is necessary because ambiguity in the current reporting scheme has caused confusion among sponsors. The proposed rule is intended to help ensure the validity of data that the agency receives in support of applications and petitions for FDA product approvals and authorization of certain labeling claims and to protect research subjects.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Major publishers sue ResearchGate over copyright infringement – Nature (Holly Else | October 2018)

Published/Released on October 05, 2018 | Posted by Admin on January 4, 2019 | Keywords: , , ,

Elsevier and the American Chemical Society say that the academic-networking website violates US copyright law.

Two journal publishers have launched legal proceedings in the United States against academic-networking site ResearchGate for copyright infringement. Elsevier and the American Chemical Society (ACS) say that the ResearchGate website... More

Elsevier and the American Chemical Society say that the academic-networking website violates US copyright law.

Two journal publishers have launched legal proceedings in the United States against academic-networking site ResearchGate for copyright infringement. Elsevier and the American Chemical Society (ACS) say that the ResearchGate website violates US copyright law by making articles in their journals freely available. The two publishers filed the claim with the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on 2 October. ResearchGate, which is based in Berlin, Germany, declined to comment to Nature. In October 2017, the same publishers launched a similar suit for copyright infringement in Germany, which has not yet concluded. At the time, ResearchGate declined to comment on this lawsuit.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


From Paywall to Datawall – Scholarly Kitchen (Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe | October 2018)

Published/Released on October 11, 2018 | Posted by Admin on January 3, 2019 | Keywords: , ,

Almost every day, my email or Twitter feed brings ... More

Almost every day, my email or Twitter feed brings an alert to a “free” report, article, white paper, etc. No payment or subscription required! [colored_box]It sounds great. In many ways it is the promise of the Internet fulfilled, a world in which a single click brings you the document you are seeking for immediate review or even a deep read. . The reader experience, however, is quite often not exactly that. Instead of a paywall, perhaps to be negotiated through a proxy server or some other authentication mechanism, the reader is faced with a demand for their contact information. Or, even more demanding, they face a requirement to create an account. Use of that account will be tracked and the data fed into an analytics system, likely joined up with data collected elsewhere as well. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Which kind of peer review is best for catching fraud? – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | December 2018)

Published/Released on December 20, 2018 | Posted by Admin on January 2, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Is peer review a good way to weed out problematic papers? And if it is, which kinds of peer review? In a new paper in Scientometrics, Willem Halffman, of Radboud University, and Serge Horbach, of Radboud University and Leiden University, used our database of retractions to... More

Is peer review a good way to weed out problematic papers? And if it is, which kinds of peer review? In a new paper in Scientometrics, Willem Halffman, of Radboud University, and Serge Horbach, of Radboud University and Leiden University, used our database of retractions to try to find out. We asked them several questions about the new work. Retraction Watch (RW): You write that “journals’ use of peer review to identify fraudulent research is highly contentious.” Can you explain what you mean? Willem Halffman and Serge Horbach (WH and SH): The precise role of the peer review system has long been discussed. Two expectations of the system are more or less universally accepted: peer review is supposed to help improve the quality of a submitted manuscript and it is expected to distinguish between high and low quality work. However, there are quite a few expectations of the peer review system that are not as widely shared. These include expectations such as granting equal and fair opportunities to all authors (regardless of gender, nationality etc.), providing a hierarchy of the most significant published results, or detecting errors or outright fraud in submitted papers. Some claim that peer review cannot be expected to perform such functions, as it was never designed nor meant to do so. Others point out that the peer review and editorial system are increasingly remodelled to detect fraud, supported by recent developments such as text similarity scanners, image manipulation scanners or the establishment of editorial ‘integrity czars’. In addition, when new cases of misconduct come to light, the peer review system is often blamed for not filtering out the fraudulent research before it could enter the academic literature. Researchers talk about peer review as if we all know precisely what it is and what it is for, but there is actually quite some variation hidden under that general term.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


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

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,... More

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

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(US) ‘It’s time for systemic change’: Scientific leaders urge new efforts to curb sexual harassment in the field – STAT (Megan Thielking | September 2018)

Leaders of one of the nation’s most prominent scientific groups are calling for the research community to “act with urgency” to address sexual and gender-based harassment in the field.

“It’s time for systemic change,” three leaders of the American Association for the Advancement of Science wrote in... More

Leaders of one of the nation’s most prominent scientific groups are calling for the research community to “act with urgency” to address sexual and gender-based harassment in the field.

“It’s time for systemic change,” three leaders of the American Association for the Advancement of Science wrote in an editorial published Thursday in Science.

The editorial — penned by AAAS president Dr. Margaret Hamburg, chair of the board Susan Hockfield, and president-elect Steven Chu — follows on the heels of a new policy on harassment adopted by the organization last weekend. That policy allows the organization to revoke the membership of elected fellows in cases of proven scientific misconduct or serious breaches of professional ethics. The policy also makes it clear: Sexual and gender-based harassment violate those standards and are grounds for removal.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Amid ethics outcry, should journals publish the ‘CRISPR babies’ paper? – STAT (Adam Marcus | December 2018)

Like researchers everywhere, He Jiankui — the scientist in China who claims to have used CRISPR to edit embryos to create babies protected from HIV — is eager to publish scientific papers. It is, after all, a publish-or-perish world — although in He’s case, his fate... More

Like researchers everywhere, He Jiankui — the scientist in China who claims to have used CRISPR to edit embryos to create babies protected from HIV — is eager to publish scientific papers. It is, after all, a publish-or-perish world — although in He’s case, his fate at home may rest more with what the Chinese government thinks of his behavior than what a peer reviewer says about his work.

[colored_box]As STAT reported Monday, He shopped around a manuscript earlier this fall about using CRISPR to edit genes for a different purpose — to prevent an inherited condition that causes sky-high cholesterol levels — but it was rejected because of ethical and scientific shortcomings. And two weeks ago, in the face of withering criticism over his lack of transparency, He told the International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong that he had submitted a paper on the “CRISPR babies” work to a journal. .

Given the maelstrom surrounding He’s claims, however, should any journals even consider papers from him? And if they do, what should they keep in mind? .

Jeremy Berg, editor of Science, told STAT that while he could not comment on whether the paper had been submitted to his journal, “given the numerous ethical issues with this situation as presented, we would be extremely unlikely to consider it." .

Howard Bauchner, the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, wouldn’t comment on the possibility of a submission by He either, but said, “I believe articles should be reviewed and not judged based upon what is written in the media.”.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Journal retracts paper by controversial Australian journalist – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | December 2018)

Published/Released on December 29, 2018 | Posted by Admin on December 30, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

View full details


A new publishing approach – retract and replace – is having growing pains – Retraction Watch (Alison McCook | March 2018)

Published/Released on March 29, 2018 | Posted by Admin on December 29, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Why Cell Systems is publishing Peer Reviews – Crosstalk (Carly Britton | December 2018)

Published/Released on December 07, 2018 | Posted by Admin on December 29, 2018 | Keywords: , , , ,

Quincey Justman's first editorial as Editor-in-Chief of Cell Systems highlights a new type of article: the Peer Review, which showcases the contributions to science that peer reviewers make every day. The Peer Review is separate from, but complementary to, broader forthcoming experiments with... More

Quincey Justman's first editorial as Editor-in-Chief of Cell Systems highlights a new type of article: the Peer Review, which showcases the contributions to science that peer reviewers make every day. The Peer Review is separate from, but complementary to, broader forthcoming experiments with transparent peer review conducted by Molecular Cell, Developmental Cell, and Cell Systems. The first Peer Review from Cell Systems, by John Doyle, Noah Olsman, and Fangzhou Xiao, evaluates the research article "Cytoplasmic Amplification of Transcriptional Noise Generates Substantial Cell-to-Cell Variability," by Maike Hansen, Leor Weinberger, and their colleagues. Both pieces were published in the October 24 issue of Cell Systems. Quincey sat down with Cell Press Press Officer Carly Britton to answer some questions about why she wanted to publish this Peer Review.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Kinder Peer Review – Scientists Are Humans (Dr Rebecca Kirk | November 2018)

Published/Released on November 08, 2018 | Posted by Admin on December 24, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Every day, thousands of scientists around the world donate their spare hours as peer reviewers to help colleagues (and competitors!) improve their work. But unkindness does exist too (as you can see from the emergence of Facebook groups such as Reviewer 2 Must Be Stopped…) and... More

Every day, thousands of scientists around the world donate their spare hours as peer reviewers to help colleagues (and competitors!) improve their work. But unkindness does exist too (as you can see from the emergence of Facebook groups such as Reviewer 2 Must Be Stopped…) and we all have a role to play in making it a kinder, more-productive process. As an editor, I have seen the full gamut of reviews, from unhelpful one-liners, through useful assessment of the work that highlights deficits and provides solutions to help the authors transform their paper, to unrealistic demands that go far beyond the scope of the paper under scrutiny. There is a lot of comment out there on what makes a good scientific review, but what basic tenets of peer review could we agree to sign up to if we all wanted to make science a kinder place? Importantly, all parties involved in peer review need to remember that there are people behind the science. A publication is the outcome of hard work and time away from loved ones or much-loved leisure pursuits; for some, there are hopes, dreams and grants at stake. Fair, fast, thorough and impartial assessment is needed to ensure the wheels of research keep spinning. Firstly, what can editors do? We can be transparent in our processes and keep authors informed. We can ensure we contact the best people to review a paper, and we can endeavour to provide a fast, fair decision, with guidance regarding the peer review reports and how authors might address the comments. We should ensure that we invite reviewers who represent the full spectrum of researchers. We should look for ways to support authors and referees in a continuously changing publishing landscape and to improve the peer review process by trialling new approaches that could help speed up peer review.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Publish AND perish: how the commodification of scientific publishing is undermining both science and the public good – Learning for Sustainability (Arjen Wals | December 2018)

Published/Released on December 04, 2018 | Posted by Admin on December 19, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

“Everybody is writing, nobody is reading, everybody is writing for nobody.”

Academics are spending hundreds of hours a year, getting their work published, in peer-reviewed journals, providing free labor to commercial publishing companies. The pressure to ‘produce’ and grow is huge, both in academia and... More

“Everybody is writing, nobody is reading, everybody is writing for nobody.”

Academics are spending hundreds of hours a year, getting their work published, in peer-reviewed journals, providing free labor to commercial publishing companies. The pressure to ‘produce’ and grow is huge, both in academia and in the publishing industry; this undermines quality and the university’s ability to serve the public good and, indeed, public trust in science. Open access journal Sustainability publishes over 4000 contributions in its current Volume 10 – where most contributors will have to pay 1400 US Dollars* to have their work published. Its publisher MDPI has close to 200 journals working in a similar vein.’

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Oh, What A Tangled Web! Citation Network Underscores Editorial Conflicts of Interest – Scholarly Kitchen (Phil Davis | December 2018)

Published/Released on December 18, 2018 | Posted by Admin on December 18, 2018 | Keywords: , , , ,

The separation of powers is as important in academic publishing as it is in government.

If readers are to trust the integrity of the editorial and peer review process, editors need to be insulated from the business of publishing, which often means keeping them... More

The separation of powers is as important in academic publishing as it is in government.

If readers are to trust the integrity of the editorial and peer review process, editors need to be insulated from the business of publishing, which often means keeping them away from their colleagues in marketing, sales, and advertising. So important is the separation of powers that some publishers physically separate editorial offices from business operations and place them in different cities. If they can’t separate these divisions physically, they will often develop strong internal policies to minimize influence. For example, PLOS does not disclose to the editor whether a submitting author has applied for article processing fee assistance when reviewing a manuscript. Similarly, many publishers have explicit rules that prevent editors from handling their own paper or the papers of authors very closely associated with them. None of these separations of roles and powers guarantee that the decision to publish is entirely free of bias, but they do demonstrate a seriousness in building an institution, a process, and a product that can be trusted.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Pathogenic organization in science: Division of labor and retractions (John P. Walsh | 2018)

Published/Released on November 10, 2018 | Posted by Admin on December 17, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Abstract Science is increasingly a team activity, and the size of the teams has been growing. At the same time, there are concerns about an increasing rate of pathologies in science. The growth of team science suggests the need to look beyond individual-level explanations and focus... More

Abstract Science is increasingly a team activity, and the size of the teams has been growing. At the same time, there are concerns about an increasing rate of pathologies in science. The growth of team science suggests the need to look beyond individual-level explanations and focus on organizational structures and institutional contexts to explain pathologies in science. Drawing on the literature on organizational pathologies, we argue that division of labor may be a key factor contributing to pathologies in science. Furthermore, we examine the effects of high-stakes incentives and of institutional corruption as additional predictors of scientific pathologies. Using retractions as an indicator of pathologies, and drawing on a matched sample of 195 retracted papers and 349 paired papers that were not retracted, we develop indicators of the division of labor in the team that produced a paper and find that the rate of retractions is higher as the division of labor increases (net of team size). Additionally, we find that high-stakes incentives and institutional corruption are also associated with increased retractions. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of these findings for science policy, in particular for organizing team science projects. Keywords Organization, Science, Pathologies, Corruption, Incentives, Division of labor

Walsh, J. P., et al. (2019). Pathogenic organization in science: Division of labor and retractions. Research Policy 48(2): 444-461. Publisher: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048733318302129 Conference: https://appam.confex.com/appam/2018/webprogram/Paper26758.html

Less

View full details | Go to resource #1, resource #2


China introduces ‘social’ punishments for scientific misconduct – Nature (David Cyranoski | December 2018)

Published/Released on December 14, 2018 | Posted by Admin on December 16, 2018 | Keywords: , , , ,

Offending researchers could face restrictions on jobs, loans and business opportunities under a system tied to the controversial social credit policy.

Resea