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

Research Integrity

Sort list by:


(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.

Researchers in China who commit scientific misconduct could soon be prevented from getting a bank loan, running a company or applying for a... More

Offending researchers could face restrictions on jobs, loans and business opportunities under a system tied to the controversial social credit policy.

Researchers in China who commit scientific misconduct could soon be prevented from getting a bank loan, running a company or applying for a public-service job. The government has announced an extensive punishment system that could have significant consequences for offenders — far beyond their academic careers. [colored_box]Under the new policy, dozens of government agencies will have the power to hand out penalties to those caught committing major scientific misconduct, a role previously performed by the science ministry or universities. Errant researchers could also face punishments that have nothing to do with research, such as restrictions on jobs outside academia, as well as existing misconduct penalties, such as losing grants and awards. . “Almost all aspects of daily life for the guilty scientists could be affected,” says Chen Bikun, who studies scientific evaluation systems at Nanjing University of Science and Technology. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Funder open access platforms – a welcome innovation? – LSE Impact Blog (Tony Ross-Hellauer, et al | July 2018)

Published/Released on December 04, 2018 | Posted by Admin on December 15, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Funding organisations commissioning their own open access publishing platforms is a relatively recent development in the OA environment, with the European Commission following the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation in financing such an initiative. But in what ways, for better or worse, do these new platforms disrupt... More

Funding organisations commissioning their own open access publishing platforms is a relatively recent development in the OA environment, with the European Commission following the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation in financing such an initiative. But in what ways, for better or worse, do these new platforms disrupt or complement the scholarly communications landscape? Tony Ross-Hellauer, Birgit Schmidt and Bianca Kramer examine the ethical, organisational, and economic strengths and weaknesses of funder OA platforms to scope the opportunities and threats they present in the transition to OA. While they may help to increase OA uptake, control costs, and lower the administrative burden on researchers, possible unintended consequences include conflicts of interest, difficulties of scale, or potential vendor lock-in.

[colored_box]In the age of open access (OA), research funding organisations have taken a more active interest in academic publishing. They are increasingly mandating their beneficiaries to publish OA, supporting infrastructures and directly funding publishing (via article processing charges). .

A step-change in this engagement is the recent phenomenon of OA publishing platforms commissioned by funding organisations. Examples include those of the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation, as well as recently announced initiatives from public funders like the Irish Health Research Board and the European Commission. As the number of such platforms increases, it becomes critical to assess in which ways, for better or worse, this emergent phenomenon complements or disrupts the scholarly communication landscape.

/

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


AHRECS is calling for expressions of interest: Unpaid internship

Published/Released on December 14, 2018 | Posted by Admin on December 14, 2018 | Keywords:

Expressions of interest are sought for a two month unpaid internship with the Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS). Intern candidates must have a demonstrated interest in human research ethics and/or research integrity, have completed a HDR qualification, be an excellent communicator and have a demonstrated... More

Expressions of interest are sought for a two month unpaid internship with the Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS). Intern candidates must have a demonstrated interest in human research ethics and/or research integrity, have completed a HDR qualification, be an excellent communicator and have a demonstrated work ethic. In addition to being involved in background work, literature searches and drafting documents, the internship will provide a valuable capacity building and professional development opportunity with a growing consultancy firm under the supervision of our senior consultants. The unpaid role will require about a 35-hour commitment to be completed over two months. At the end of the two months, the intern and the AHRECS team will decide together whether to start another two month term. Work will be conducted remotely and online, with meetings at an agreed time somewhere between 8am and 10pm AEST. Expressions of interest must be submitted in writing by 15 January 2019 to internship@ahrecs.com and must be accompanied with two relevant professional/academic/research references. The expressions of interest will be considered by the AHRECS senior consultants and shortlisted candidates may be interviewed via video conference. Less

View full details


Reboot undergraduate courses for reproducibility – Nature (Katherine Button | September 2018)

Published/Released on September 19, 2018 | Posted by Admin on December 12, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Collaboration across institutes can train students in open, team science, which better prepares them for challenges to come, says Katherine Button. Three years ago, as I prepared to start as a lecturer in the University of Bath’s psychology department, I reflected on my own undergraduate training.... More

Collaboration across institutes can train students in open, team science, which better prepares them for challenges to come, says Katherine Button. Three years ago, as I prepared to start as a lecturer in the University of Bath’s psychology department, I reflected on my own undergraduate training. What should I emulate? What would I like to improve? The ‘reproducibility crisis’ was in full swing. Many of the standard research practices I had been taught were now shown to be flawed, from P-value hacking to ‘HARKing’ — hypothesizing after the results are known — and an over-reliance on underpowered studies (that is, drawing oversized conclusions from undersized samples). It struck me that the research dissertation students do in their final year is almost a bootcamp for instilling these bad habits. Vast numbers of projects, limited time and resources, small sample sizes, the potential for undisclosed analytic flexibility (P-hacking) and a premium on novelty: together, a recipe for irreproducible results. Most undergraduate dissertations turn into exercises tallying the limitations of the research design — frustrating for both student and supervisor. However, each year a few students get lucky and publish, securing a huge CV advantage. I wondered what lesson this was teaching. Were we embedding a culture that rewards chance results over robust methods?

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


What These Medical Journals Don’t Reveal: Top Doctors’ Ties to Industry – New York Times (Charles Ornstein and Katie Thomas | December 2018)

Published/Released on December 08, 2018 | Posted by Admin on December 10, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

One is dean of Yale’s medical school. Another is the director of a cancer center in Texas. A third is the next president of the most prominent society of cancer doctors.

These leading medical figures are among dozens of doctors who have failed in recent years... More

One is dean of Yale’s medical school. Another is the director of a cancer center in Texas. A third is the next president of the most prominent society of cancer doctors.

These leading medical figures are among dozens of doctors who have failed in recent years to report their financial relationships with pharmaceutical and health care companies when their studies are published in medical journals, according to a review by The New York Times and ProPublica and data from other recent research.

Dr. Howard A. “Skip” Burris III, the president-elect of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, for instance, declared that he had no conflicts of interest in more than 50 journal articles in recent years, including in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(US) NIH set to strengthen its sexual-harassment policies – Nature (Sara Reardon | September 2018)

Published/Released on September 17, 2018 | Posted by Admin on December 8, 2018 | Keywords: , , , ,

Agency plans to create central reporting system and launch training and education campaigns.

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) is remaking how it handles allegations of harassment by its employees. The agency will soon introduce a centralized system for reporting harassment by NIH... More

Agency plans to create central reporting system and launch training and education campaigns.

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) is remaking how it handles allegations of harassment by its employees. The agency will soon introduce a centralized system for reporting harassment by NIH scientists, director Francis Collins said on 17 September. [colored_box]“NIH recognizes that we need to increase our transparency on this issue,” Collins wrote in a statement to announce the launch of an anti-sexual-harassment website. . The agency is also planning to update its harassment policy and launch training and education campaigns to prevent harassment, he said. This winter, the NIH will survey its staff and contractors about the workplace climate at the agency and harassment issues. These policies will be published in the US government’s Federal Register “in a few days”, Collins said.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


How Do We Move Towards Better Peer Review? – The Wiley Network (Elizabeth Moylan | September 2018)

Published/Released on September 14, 2018 | Posted by Admin on December 8, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Elizabeth Moylan, Publisher at Wiley, talks to Michael Willis, Senior Manager in Wiley’s Content Review team, about the work he and colleagues have undertaken to explore what better peer review looks like. [colored_box]Q. What inspired you to define a set of standards for ‘better peer review’ ? A. The starting point... More

Elizabeth Moylan, Publisher at Wiley, talks to Michael Willis, Senior Manager in Wiley’s Content Review team, about the work he and colleagues have undertaken to explore what better peer review looks like. [colored_box]Q. What inspired you to define a set of standards for ‘better peer review’ ? A. The starting point was a question thrown out by a Wiley colleague: ‘is there a gold standard of peer review?’ That got us thinking about what good peer review looks like. I guess we all have our preconceptions of what good peer review looks like – it should be timely, ethical and fair - but we felt we needed to articulate the details more usefully and also  help journals to improve in measurable, specific ways. This in turn led to a project to define essential areas of best practice for peer review. We thought about different characteristics of the peer review process, and then we described the ways in which each of these might be manifested. Taking integrity as an example, and pertinent to the theme of this year’s Peer Review Week, a journal might achieve greater integrity in its processes by working towards greater geographical and gender diversity in its reviewer pool. You can read more about our project in this blog post which we wrote soon after the project launched. Q. How did you go about researching some of the issues in peer review? A. Having defined our scope, we then published a survey seeking the views of editors, reviewers, authors, readers and the general public, asking them to share examples of good practice in peer review. We received 40 case studies which we grouped under the headings of integrity, ethics, fairness, usefulness and timeliness.

Read the rest of this interview

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Friday arvo funny: Peer review

Published/Released on December 07, 2018 | Posted by Admin on December 7, 2018 | Keywords: ,

View full details


Recognizing Contributions and Giving Credit – EOS Editors’ Vox (Brooks Hanson and Susan Webb | August 2018)

Published/Released on August 27, 2018 | Posted by Admin on December 6, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

AGU is working with other leading publishers to implement common standards for authorship and recognize and value specific contributions across cultures. Problematic practices Authorship standards in scholarly publishing can vary across disciplines. For example, in many biology papers, the last author is traditionally... More

AGU is working with other leading publishers to implement common standards for authorship and recognize and value specific contributions across cultures. Problematic practices Authorship standards in scholarly publishing can vary across disciplines. For example, in many biology papers, the last author is traditionally assumed to be the one that has organized and led the research project. In contrast, in the physical sciences, including the Earth and space sciences, the last author is considered to have contributed the least, unless the list is alphabetical. Readers are simply expected to know these distinctions. Authorship practices are also evolving as research papers become more complex, bringing together multiple techniques and data sets, interdisciplinary approaches, international teams, and ever-longer lists of co-authors. Authors are expected to navigate the conventions and expectations of different disciplines. Authorship issues are also at the core of many of the ethical and other difficult issues that publishers see. One problem is including honorary authors (Zen, 1988, p. 202). Another is ghost authors, who are often from industry partners or services and were involved in framing interpretations but are not recognized. This hides relevant information about influence or conflict of interest from readers. Finally, legitimate authors may be omitted because of perceived mores around funding and collaboration, or for other reasons.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Hanson, B., and S. Webb (2018), Recognizing contributions and giving credit, Eos, 99, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EO104827. Published on 27 August 2018.

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Pointing the Finger at Colleagues – Inside Higher Ed (Colleen Flaherty | November 2018)

Published/Released on November 26, 2018 | Posted by Admin on December 4, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Controversial visiting researcher – heavily criticized as having racist work – sparks pushback – The Daily North Western (Rachel Kupfer | November 2018)

Published/Released on November 30, 2018 | Posted by Admin on December 2, 2018 | Keywords: ,

Students and faculty of the psychology department are asking for a revamp of the screening process for visiting scholars after a controversial psychologist’s request to conduct research at Northwestern was approved without scrutiny. Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist and intelligence researcher, is spending a year-long sabbatical from The London... More

Students and faculty of the psychology department are asking for a revamp of the screening process for visiting scholars after a controversial psychologist’s request to conduct research at Northwestern was approved without scrutiny. Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist and intelligence researcher, is spending a year-long sabbatical from The London School of Economics and Political Science in Evanston. Kanazawa’s research on the relationships between intelligence, race, health and gender has provoked criticism. In 2011, he wrote an article titled “Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women” during his time as a blogger for Psychology Today. He was later removed from the site as a blogger, and the post was deleted.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Chinese military warns against forged data and plagiarism in science and technology research – South China Morning Post (Minnie Chan | September 2018)

Published/Released on September 28, 2018 | Posted by Admin on December 1, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Academics have been put on notice to maintain ‘integrity of scientific research’ as rampant misconduct puts lives at risk

China’s military top brass have released research integrity guidelines urging leaders in charge of the country’s defence-related science and technology research to avoid forgery, plagiarism... More

Academics have been put on notice to maintain ‘integrity of scientific research’ as rampant misconduct puts lives at risk

China’s military top brass have released research integrity guidelines urging leaders in charge of the country’s defence-related science and technology research to avoid forgery, plagiarism and other wrongdoing. [colored_box]The guidelines published on Friday are the first indication that China’s defence industry faces a forgery problem similar to that found in the academic community – including feigning scientific data, plagiarising subordinates’ study results, exaggerating study achievements and other misconduct. . The guidelines have been proposed by the Science and Technology Commission, a functional department directly under the powerful Central Military Commission headed by President Xi Jinping, which is in charge of China’s military defence technology research and development. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Australian Public Service Commission – Conflicts of Interest

Published/Released on March 23, 2018 | Posted by Admin on November 29, 2018 | Keywords: , , , ,

"The public is entitled to have confidence in the integrity of their public officials, and to know that an Australian Public Service (APS) employee's personal interests do not conflict with his or her public duties. In accordance with section 13(7) of the Code of Conduct contained in the Public Service... More

"The public is entitled to have confidence in the integrity of their public officials, and to know that an Australian Public Service (APS) employee's personal interests do not conflict with his or her public duties. In accordance with section 13(7) of the Code of Conduct contained in the Public Service Act 1999 (PS Act), an APS employee must:

  • take reasonable steps to avoid any conflict of interest (real or apparent) in connection with the employee's APS employment; and
  • disclose details of any material personal interest of the employee in connection with the employee's APS employment.

Access the APSC  CoI page

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Why do medical journals keep taking authors at their word? – STAT (Ivan Oransky | September 2018)

The recent revelation that a leading official at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center failed for years to disclose lucrative financial conflicts of interest might have been surprising in its scale. But it’s old news that many researchers aren’t fully transparent when it comes to their financial... More

The recent revelation that a leading official at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center failed for years to disclose lucrative financial conflicts of interest might have been surprising in its scale. But it’s old news that many researchers aren’t fully transparent when it comes to their financial relationships with industry.

So why should we keep up the charade? And why, given the clarity of the problem, do medical journals continue to take authors at their word — only to wind up looking like dupes?

According to an investigation by ProPublica and The New York Times, Dr. José Baselga — who was chief medical officer of the venerable cancer clinic until resigning Thursday — has what can charitably be described as an inconsistent personal policy on revealing companies that have given him cash or other potentially lucrative fillips. Baselga also has stayed mum about his conflicts of interest — which also involve research funding and seats on advisory boards — in many of his publications, including those in high-rent titles like the New England Journal of Medicine, and despite policies from the journals demanding that authors reveal such relationships.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


What if we could scan for image duplication the way we check for plagiarism? – Retraction Watch (Alison McCook | April 2018)

Published/Released on April 04, 2018 | Posted by Admin on November 28, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Paul Brookes is a biologist with a passion for sleuthing out fraud. Although he studies mitochondria at the University of Rochester, he also secretly ran a science-fraud.org, a site for people to post their concerns about papers. Following legal threats, he revealed he was the author and shut... More

Paul Brookes is a biologist with a passion for sleuthing out fraud. Although he studies mitochondria at the University of Rochester, he also secretly ran a science-fraud.org, a site for people to post their concerns about papers. Following legal threats, he revealed he was the author and shut the site in 2013 — but didn’t stop the fight. Recently, he’s co-authored a paper that’s slightly outside his day job: Partnering with computer scientist Daniel Acunaat Syracuse University and computational biologist Konrad Kording at the University of Pennsylvania, they developed a software to help detect duplicated images. If it works, it would provide a much needed service to the research community, which has been clamoring for some version of this for years. So how did this paper — also described by Nature News — come about? [colored_box]Retraction Watch: Dr. Brookes, you study mitochondria. What brought you to co-author a paper about software to detect duplications? . Paul Brookes: I had authored a paper on the relationship between levels of internet publicity (blogs etc.) and actions taken against problematic papers in the biosciences – retractions, corrections, etc.  As such, I was sitting on a large database (500+ papers) with documented image problems. Konrad and Daniel approached me by email, to request this set of examples, to act as a training set for their machine learning algorithm. .

Read the rest of this interview

Less

View full details | Go to resource


New COPE guidelines on publication process manipulation: why they matter – BMC (Jigisha Patel | November 2018)

Published/Released on November 26, 2018 | Posted by Admin on November 27, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Abstract Manipulation of the publication process is a relatively new form of misconduct affecting the publishing industry. This editorial describes what it is, why it is difficult for individual journal editors and publishers to handle and the background to the development of the new COPE guidelines... More

Abstract Manipulation of the publication process is a relatively new form of misconduct affecting the publishing industry. This editorial describes what it is, why it is difficult for individual journal editors and publishers to handle and the background to the development of the new COPE guidelines on how to manage publication process manipulation. These new guidelines represent an important first step towards encouraging openness and collaboration between publishers to address this phenomenon. 10 years ago, a retraction of an article was a rare thing. We know that the rate of journal retractions has been rising [1]. It has been argued that the increasing number of journals and the ‘pressure to publish’ have been the driving unethical practices such as data falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism [2]. There have been calls to address this by changing the way research success is measured, for example, by changing the way journal and article quality is measured and rewarded [3] in the hope that, by removing the pressure, unethical practices might decline.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Institutional Conflicts of Interest and Public Trust – JAMA Viewpoint (Francisco G. Cigarroa, MD | November 2018)

Published/Released on November 14, 2018 | Posted by Admin on November 22, 2018 | Keywords: , , ,

The World Medical Association developed the Declaration of Helsinki as a statement regarding ethical principles for medical research involving human research participants and directs physicians to promote and safeguard the health, well-being, and rights of patients. Included in this declaration is the requirement that each potential research participant be... More

The World Medical Association developed the Declaration of Helsinki as a statement regarding ethical principles for medical research involving human research participants and directs physicians to promote and safeguard the health, well-being, and rights of patients. Included in this declaration is the requirement that each potential research participant be informed of possible conflicts of interest among the researchers conducting the study.1 Many clinical trials and biomedical research projects are funded by the private sector and have led to the development of important novel therapeutics and devices that improve the health of individuals and society. [colored_box]Funding by the private sector is important to meeting the missions of many institutions and to the development of science, but may lead to potential or real individual conflicts of interest that must be effectively disclosed, reported, and managed. Institutional conflicts of interest related to clinical trials and biomedical research may occur because many research institutions and universities increasingly rely on funding from the private sector as state and federal funding has become more competitive and difficult to secure. Most research institutions and universities have conflicts of interest polices for individuals because of federal mandates issued under the auspices of the US Department of Health and Human Services. The same cannot be stated about the institutions even though institutional conflicts of interest can affect patients, multiple investigators, and the entire institution.2 . The lack of consistency among research institutions and universities related to managing institutional conflicts of interest must be addressed. Potential and real conflicts of interest require full disclosure to participants enrolled in research studies so that informed decisions can be made regarding participation. Institutional officers and committees responsible for protecting the integrity of research must also provide full disclosure and sufficient explanation regarding an investigator’s or the institution’s relationship to external entities that can either directly or indirectly affect research judgment. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Resolving authorship disputes by mediation and arbitration (Papers: Zen Faulkes | 2018)

Published/Released on November 16, 2018 | Posted by Admin on November 19, 2018 | Keywords: , , ,

Abstract Background Disputes over authorship are increasing. This paper examines the options that researchers have in resolving authorship disputes. Discussions about authorship disputes often address how to prevent disputes but rarely address how to resolve them. Both individuals and larger research communities are... More

Abstract Background Disputes over authorship are increasing. This paper examines the options that researchers have in resolving authorship disputes. Discussions about authorship disputes often address how to prevent disputes but rarely address how to resolve them. Both individuals and larger research communities are harmed by the limited options for dispute resolution. Main body When authorship disputes arise after publication, most existing guidelines recommend that the authors work out the disputes between themselves. But this is unlikely to occur, because there are often large power differentials between team members, and institutions (e.g., universities, funding agencies) are unlikely to have authority over all team members. Other collaborative disciplines that deal with issues of collaborative creator credit could provide models for scientific authorship. Arbitration or mediation could provide solutions to authorship disputes where few presently exist. Because authors recognize journals’ authority to make decisions about manuscripts submitted to the journal, journals are well placed to facilitate alternative dispute resolution processes. Conclusion Rather than viewing authorship disputes as rare events that must be handled on a case by case basis, researchers and journals should view the potential for disputes as predictable, preventable, and soluble. Independent bodies that can offer alternative dispute resolution services to scientific collaborators and/or journals could quickly help research communities, particularly their most vulnerable members. Keywords Authorship, Alternative dispute resolution

Faulkes, Z. (2018) Resolving authorship disputes by mediation and arbitration. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 3:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0057-z Publisher (Open Access): https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-018-0057-z

Less

View full details | Go to resource


When it comes to retracting papers by the world’s most prolific scientific fraudsters, journals have room for improvement – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | September 2018)

Published/Released on September 06, 2018 | Posted by Admin on November 18, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Journals have retracted all but 19 of the 313 tainted papers linked to three of the most notorious fraudsters in science, with only stragglers left in the literature. But editors and publishers have been less diligent when it comes to delivering optimal retraction notices for the affected articles. [colored_box]That’s the... More

Journals have retracted all but 19 of the 313 tainted papers linked to three of the most notorious fraudsters in science, with only stragglers left in the literature. But editors and publishers have been less diligent when it comes to delivering optimal retraction notices for the affected articles. [colored_box]That’s the verdict of a new analysis in the journal Anaesthesia, which found that 15% of retraction notices for the affected papers fail fully to meet standards from the Committee for Publication Ethics (COPE). Many lacked appropriate language and requisite watermarks stating that the articles had been removed, and some have vanished from the literature. . The article was written by U. M. McHugh, of University Hospital in Galway, Ireland, and Steven Yentis, a consultant anaesthetist at Chelsea & Westminster Hospital in London. Yentis was editor of Anaesthesia during the three scandals and had a first-hand view of two of the investigations. He also is the editor who unleashed anesthetist and self-trained statistician John Carlisle on the Fujii papers to see how likely the Japanese researcher’s data were to be valid (answer: not very likely). .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Have retraction notices improved over time? – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | August 2018)

Published/Released on August 01, 2018 | Posted by Admin on November 14, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Evelyne Decullier & Hervé Maisonneuve have been studying retractions for a long time. They’ve looked at how long retractions take to show up in PubMed, and five years ago they published a paper on the quality of retraction... More

Evelyne Decullier & Hervé Maisonneuve have been studying retractions for a long time. They’ve looked at how long retractions take to show up in PubMed, and five years ago they published a paper on the quality of retraction notices — and how well they were disseminated — in 2008. Now, they’ve repeated that analysis for papers retracted in 2016, and in a new paper in BMC Research Notes, conclude that “management of retraction has improved.” We asked them some questions — one of which, about an Elsevier policy, as noted below, led to a re-examination of the conclusions — about their findings: Retraction Watch (RW): Why do you think it’s important for journals to provide a reason for retraction? Evelyne Decullier & Hervé Maisonneuve (ED and HM): Correcting the literature is key for ensuring the quality of data and that the scientific method is respected. Readers should at least be able to differentiate retractions for honest errors from retractions for fraud or plagiarism.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Constructive Voices: Panel discussion about institutional implementation of the Australian Code (2018)

On 8th November, AHRECS hosted its first Constructive Voices panel. These panels aim to create an opportunity for open discussion about human research ethics and research integrity among researchers, policymakers, research managers, research ethics reviewers and other stakeholders. The first panel featured:

  • Jillian Barr, Director of Ethics and Governance at NHMRC
  • ... More

    On 8th November, AHRECS hosted its first Constructive Voices panel. These panels aim to create an opportunity for open discussion about human research ethics and research integrity among researchers, policymakers, research managers, research ethics reviewers and other stakeholders. The first panel featured:

    • Jillian Barr, Director of Ethics and Governance at NHMRC
    • Kandy White, Director, Research Ethics and Integrity, Macquarie Uni
    • Gary Allen, Senior Consultant, AHRECS
    We had close to 40 participants at peak and would like to believe that the session nudged the debate and activity forward across a range of institutions. The PowerPoints, recording and links to relevant documents will be freely available on the AHRECS website for 90 days at https://ahrecs.com/post-panel-room Below is a recording of the panel discussion. It will here for 90 and afterwards, the materials will be archived on the Patreon site for AHRECS subscribers. OTHER MATERIAL MENTIONED Register for the National Statement Constructive Voices discussion panel event on 22 November The free Research Ethics Monthly blog - Subscribe The subscribers’ area - a subscription of USD15/month provides access to the growing library of professional development and other resources. It is also a great way to support events and services like this. If you have any questions or comments about any of the above send an email to ConstructiveVoices@ahrecs.com.   Less

    View full details


Journal flags papers, saying authors didn’t adequately disclose ties to Monsanto – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | September 2018)

Published/Released on September 27, 2018 | Posted by Admin on November 12, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

A toxicology journal has issued an expression of concern for a group of papers about the controversial herbicide glyphosate after concluding that some of the authors didn’t adequately disclose their ties to the maker of the product. At issue are five articles that appeared in a 2016 supplement to More

A toxicology journal has issued an expression of concern for a group of papers about the controversial herbicide glyphosate after concluding that some of the authors didn’t adequately disclose their ties to the maker of the product. At issue are five articles that appeared in a 2016 supplement to Critical Reviews in Toxicology, a Taylor & Francis title, about the chemical, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s blockbuster weed-killer Roundup. Although the authors of the articles don’t overlap perfectly, Keith Solomon, of the University of Guelph, in Canada, appears on three of the articles; Gary Williams, of New York Medical College, appears on three as well. Williams was caught up in a ghost-writing scandal after court documents revealed that he had put his name on a published paper written by Monsanto employees. Solomon served on a panel funded by Monsanto that undercut the conclusions of a report from the World Health Organization that glyphosate is probably cancerous to people.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(Egypt) Debate over misconduct stalls Egyptian clinical trials law – Sci Dev Net (Hazem Badr | October 2018)

[Cairo] Egypt’s president Abdel Fattah El-Sisi has declined to sign the country’s clinical trials law into action, after objecting to parts that, he said, might violate the human body. [colored_box]According to researchers following the law’s creation, Sisi returned seven amendments to the law, which... More

[Cairo] Egypt’s president Abdel Fattah El-Sisi has declined to sign the country’s clinical trials law into action, after objecting to parts that, he said, might violate the human body. [colored_box]According to researchers following the law’s creation, Sisi returned seven amendments to the law, which could delay its creation. For example, articles 28, 29 and 32 of the law have been amended to reduce the severity of proposed prison terms for misconduct, such as using human samples without informed consent. . But the scientists following the law’s creation are positive about the president’s response, saying that his amendments show he is engaging with the matter and keen to see the law signed into life. “The president’s comments address the complex equation of respecting the sacredness of the human body and, at the same time, endorsing scientific research,” said Mahmoud Sakr, the director of Egypt’s Academy of Scientific Research and Technology. . “The text [as it stands] contradicts our goal of motivating universities to pursue joint research and hinders the exploration of samples using advanced equipment that might not be available locally,” ......Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, Egypt’s president .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Predatory publishers: the journals that churn out fake science -The Guardian (Alex Hern and Pamela Duncan | August 2018)

A Guardian investigation, in collaboration with German broadcaster Norddeutscher Rundfunk, reveals the open-access publishers who accept any article submitted for a fee

A vast ecosystem of predatory publishers is churning out “fake science” for profit, an investigation by the Guardian in collaboration with German... More

A Guardian investigation, in collaboration with German broadcaster Norddeutscher Rundfunk, reveals the open-access publishers who accept any article submitted for a fee

A vast ecosystem of predatory publishers is churning out “fake science” for profit, an investigation by the Guardian in collaboration with German publishers NDR, WDR and Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazin has found. [colored_box]More than 175,000 scientific articles have been produced by five of the largest “predatory open-access publishers”, including India-based Omics publishing group and the Turkish World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, or Waset. . But the vast majority of those articles skip almost all of the traditional checks and balances of scientific publishing, from peer review to an editorial board. Instead, most journals run by those companies will publish anything submitted to them – provided the required fee is paid. . To demonstrate the lack of peer review, Svea Eckert, a researcher who worked with NDR on the investigation, successfully submitted an article created by the joke site SCIgen, which automatically generates gibberish computer science papers. The paper was accepted for discussion at a Waset conference, which Eckert attended and filmed for NDR. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(Japan) When researchers from a particular country dominate retraction statistics, what does it mean? – Retraction Watch (Iekuni Ichikawa | October 2018)

Published/Released on October 24, 2018 | Posted by Admin on November 8, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

The Retraction Watch Leaderboard of authors with the most retractions is a frequent source of comment and speculation. Why do only men appear on it? And what fields and countries are represented? Here, Iekuni Ichikawa, Project Professor at Shinshu University and Emeritus Professor of Pediatrics... More

The Retraction Watch Leaderboard of authors with the most retractions is a frequent source of comment and speculation. Why do only men appear on it? And what fields and countries are represented? Here, Iekuni Ichikawa, Project Professor at Shinshu University and Emeritus Professor of Pediatrics at Vanderbilt University, as well as a co-founder of the Association for the Promotion of Research Integrity (APRIN) in Japan, takes a look at a recent story that referenced our leaderboard — and what those figures really mean. [colored_box]The authors of Retraction Watch often take pains to point out that the relative rarity of retractions — despite dramatic increases in their rates — make studying them a challenge. But it is often difficult to resist seeking out truth in retraction numbers. . As a case in point, in August Science published an article by Kai Kupferschmidt about research misconduct in Japan that quoted data from the Retraction Watch Leaderboard, pointing that out that although “half of the top 10 are Japanese researchers…only about 5% of published research comes from Japan.” .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


It’s not too late to register for today’s free webinar about institutions and the implementation of the Australian Code (2018)

Published/Released on November 08, 2018 | Posted by Admin on November 7, 2018 | Keywords: , , , ,

This afternoon AHRECS is hosting a hosting a free Constructive Voices panel discussion about implementing the Australian Code 2018. The 30 minute online panel will bring together the perspectives of the NHMRC, the drafting committee and research offices. While question be sent in during the session we encourage sending... More

This afternoon AHRECS is hosting a hosting a free Constructive Voices panel discussion about implementing the Australian Code 2018. The 30 minute online panel will bring together the perspectives of the NHMRC, the drafting committee and research offices. While question be sent in during the session we encourage sending your questions to us now - ACburningquestion@ahrecs.com

New South Wales Thursday, 8 November at 2:30:00 pm AEDT UTC+11 hours
Western Australia Thursday, 8 November at 11:30:00 am AWST UTC+8 hours
Australian Capital Territory Thursday, 8 November at 2:30:00 pm AEDT UTC+11 hours
Queensland Thursday, 8 November at 1:30:00 pm AEST UTC+10 hours
South Australia Thursday, 8 November at 2:00:00 pm ACDT UTC+10:30 hours
Northern Territory Thursday, 8 November at 1:00:00 pm ACST UTC+9:30 hours
Victoria/Tasmania Thursday, 8 November at 2:30:00 pm AEDT UTC+11 hours
New Zealand Thursday, 8 November at 4:30:00 pm NZDT UTC+13 hours
. To register for this event complete the short form at  https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_nsbPkzfbT6S4YWzeEekKxA

We hope to see you there!

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Is your institution on track to have implemented the Australian Code 2018 by the 30 June deadline?

Published/Released on November 07, 2018 | Posted by Admin on November 7, 2018 | Keywords: , , ,

View full details


‘Could Somebody Please Debunk This?’: Writing About Science When Even the Scientists Are Nervous – The New York Times (Amy Harmon | October 2018)

Published/Released on October 18, 2018 | Posted by Admin on November 6, 2018 | Keywords: , , , ,

Times Insider delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how news, features and opinion come together at The New York Times.

[colored_box]N. is a black high school student in Winston-Salem, N.C., who does not appear in my article on Thursday’s front page about... More

Times Insider delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how news, features and opinion come together at The New York Times.

[colored_box]N. is a black high school student in Winston-Salem, N.C., who does not appear in my article on Thursday’s front page about how human geneticists have been slow to respond to the invocation of their research by white supremacists. (Note: N.’s full name has been removed to minimize online harassment.) .

But the story of how he struggled last spring to find sources to refute the claims of white classmates that people of European descent had evolved to be intellectually superior to Africans is the reason I persevered in the assignment, even when I felt as if my head were going to explode. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Universities warn against defence plans to increase control over research – The Guardian (Christopher Knaus | October 2018)

Published/Released on October 30, 2018 | Posted by Admin on November 4, 2018 | Keywords: , , , ,

Labor and academics say freedoms will be stifled by proposed powers which officials claim are necessary because of potential overseas infiltration

Labor, Australia’s leading universities, and the tertiary education union have warned a proposal to dramatically expand defence’s control over university research would stifle... More

Labor and academics say freedoms will be stifled by proposed powers which officials claim are necessary because of potential overseas infiltration

Labor, Australia’s leading universities, and the tertiary education union have warned a proposal to dramatically expand defence’s control over university research would stifle academic freedom and damage the sector’s competitiveness. [colored_box]Defence has called for a sweeping overhaul of laws that currently give it strict control over the sharing or export of sensitive Australian research and technology, citing a “changed national security environment”. . It wants the ability to control technology and research beyond that currently on a defined list, known as the defence and strategic goods list, which compiles military and some commercial goods and technologies. Defence has also asked for an escalation of warrantless search and seizure powers on university campuses and research agencies. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Perish not publish? New study quantifies the lack of female authors in scientific journals – The Conversation (Ione Fine and Alicia Shen | March 2018)

Published/Released on March 08, 2018 | Posted by Admin on November 2, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

“Publish or perish” is tattooed on the mind of every academic. Like it or loathe it, publishing in high-profile journals is the fast track to positions in prestigious universities with illustrious colleagues and lavish resources, celebrated awards and plentiful grant funding. Yet somehow, in the search to understand why... More

“Publish or perish” is tattooed on the mind of every academic. Like it or loathe it, publishing in high-profile journals is the fast track to positions in prestigious universities with illustrious colleagues and lavish resources, celebrated awards and plentiful grant funding. Yet somehow, in the search to understand why women’s scientific careers often fail to thrive, the role of high-impact journals has received little scrutiny. One reason is that these journals don’t even collect data about the gender or ethnic background of their authors. To examine the representation of women within these journals, with our colleagues Jason Webster and Yuichi Shoda, we delved into MEDLINE, the online repository that contains records of almost every published peer-reviewed neuroscience article. We used the Genderize.io database to predict the gender of first and last authors on over 166,000 articles published between 2005 and 2017 in high-profile journals that include neuroscience, our own scientific discipline. The results were dispiriting. Female scientists underrepresented We began by looking at first authors – the place in the author list that traditionally is held by the junior researcher who does the hands-on research. We expected over 40 percent to be women, similar to the percentage of women postdocs in neuroscience in the U.S. and Europe. Instead, fewer than 25 percent first authors in the journals Nature and Science were women.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


From punish to empower: A blame-free approach to research misconduct – Nature Index (Lex Bouter | October 2018)

Published/Released on October 16, 2018 | Posted by Admin on October 31, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Research institutions have a duty to foster integrity, and that includes monitoring.

The Netherlands has a new code of conduct, which outlines institutions’ duty of care to foster research integrity — a rare emphasis in such documents. In many regions, including the... More

Research institutions have a duty to foster integrity, and that includes monitoring.

The Netherlands has a new code of conduct, which outlines institutions’ duty of care to foster research integrity — a rare emphasis in such documents. In many regions, including the United States and Scandinavia, codes of conduct have a legal basis. Serious breaches in research integrity are investigated by governmental committees, with an emphasis on sanctioning misconduct. In contrast, the Netherlands' position is that research institutions should empower scientists to maintain the principles and standards of responsible research practice. Researchers and their institutions are expected to learn from their mistakes, and improve the quality of science. Rather than policing scientists, the Dutch focus is on blame-free reporting and inviting researchers to discuss the dilemmas they experience.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Scientists Rarely Admit Mistakes. A New Project Wants to Change That – UnDark (Dalmeet Singh Chawla | July 2018)

Published/Released on July 02, 2018 | Posted by Admin on October 30, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

What are researchers to do when they lose confidence in their previously published work? A new project seeks to offer them an outlet. IN SEPTEMBER 2016, the psychologist Dana Carney came forward with a confession: She no longer believed the findings of a More

What are researchers to do when they lose confidence in their previously published work? A new project seeks to offer them an outlet. IN SEPTEMBER 2016, the psychologist Dana Carney came forward with a confession: She no longer believed the findings of a high-profile study she co-authored in 2010 to be true. The study was about “power-posing” — a theory suggesting that powerful stances can psychologically and physiologically help one when under high-pressure situations. Carney’s co-author, Amy Cuddy, a psychologist at Harvard University, had earned much fame from power poses, and her 2012 TED talk on the topic is the second most watched talk of all time.

Carney, now based at the University of California, Berkeley, had, however, changed her mind. “I do not believe that ‘power pose’ effects are real,” she wrote on her website in 2016. The reason, she added, was that “since early 2015 the evidence has been mounting suggesting there is unlikely any embodied effect of nonverbal expansiveness.” Other researchers, it turned out, could not replicate the power pose results, and withering scrutiny of the Carney and Cuddy study by fellow scientists mounted.
Carney’s assertions and Cuddy’s responses were widely covered in the media. (Earlier this year, Forbes reported that Cuddy had successfully refuted criticism of the power-posing study.) And despite her own eventual refutation of the findings, Carney did not believe the original paper warranted a full retraction, because it “was conducted in good faith based on phenomena thought to be true at the time,” she told the research integrity blog Retraction Watch.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(Australia) Outrage over minister cancelling research grants – University World News (Geoff Maslen | October 2018)

Published/Released on October 26, 2018 | Posted by Admin on October 30, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

Revelations that a former federal education minister interfered in a competitive research grants process and cancelled 11 humanities and social sciences projects, costed at more than AU$4 million (US$2.8 million), has generated outrage across Australia’s higher education sector. The decision by former education minister Simon Birmingham last year and early... More

Revelations that a former federal education minister interfered in a competitive research grants process and cancelled 11 humanities and social sciences projects, costed at more than AU$4 million (US$2.8 million), has generated outrage across Australia’s higher education sector. The decision by former education minister Simon Birmingham last year and early this year to override recommendations from the Australian Research Council (ARC) was belatedly revealed in federal parliament on Thursday night. ARC officials were being questioned during a Senate hearing and explained how Birmingham had stepped in to reject the council’s decision that 11 of the research projects be funded.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Should research fraud be a crime? (Zulfiqar A Bhutta and Julian Crane | 2014)

Published/Released on July 15, 2014 | Posted by Admin on October 28, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Zulfiqar A Bhutta says that criminal sanctions are necessary to deter growing deliberate research misconduct, which can ultimately harm patients. Julian Crane disagrees: he doubts that sanctions will have any deterrent effect and worries that criminalisation would undermine trust

Bhutta, Z. A. and J. Crane (2014).... More

Zulfiqar A Bhutta says that criminal sanctions are necessary to deter growing deliberate research misconduct, which can ultimately harm patients. Julian Crane disagrees: he doubts that sanctions will have any deterrent effect and worries that criminalisation would undermine trust

Bhutta, Z. A. and J. Crane (2014). "Should research fraud be a crime?" BMJ : British Medical Journal 349 Publisher: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g4532

Audio https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/158806647/download?client_id=LBCcHmRB8XSStWL6wKH2HPACspQlXg2P

Less

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


Retraction Watch: We’re officially launching our database today. Here’s what you need to know.

Published/Released on October 27, 2018 | Posted by Admin on October 27, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

Readers, this is a big day for us.

We’re officially launching the Retraction Watch Database of more than 18,000 retractions, along with a six-page package of stories and infographics based on it that we developed with our partners... More

Readers, this is a big day for us.

We’re officially launching the Retraction Watch Database of more than 18,000 retractions, along with a six-page package of stories and infographics based on it that we developed with our partners at Science Magazine. In that package, you’ll learn about trends — some surprising, some perhaps not — and other tidbits such as which countries have the highest retraction rates. Thanks as always to our partners at Science, particularly Jeffrey Brainard and Jia You, who crunched the numbers and developed the package. [colored_box] As readers no doubt know, we’ve been working on the database for some years. Some have asked us why it has taken so long — can’t we just pull retractions from existing databases like PubMed, or publishers’ sites? The answer is resoundingly no. All of those databases are missing retractions, whether by design or because notices aren’t transmitted well. That’s why we found more than 18,000, far more than you’ll find elsewhere. And we also went through each one and assigned it a reason, based on a detailed taxonomy we developed over eight years of reporting on retractions. . Now that you know how much work the database is, please consider thanking Alison Abritis, our researcher, who has done the lion’s share of the work on this project. She had some help — see below — but without Alison’s expertise and painstaking efforts, we wouldn’t have a database. And true to form, Alison has created an exhaustive user’s guide that we would strongly urge you to review if you’re planning to use the database for anything other than simple searches. .

Read the rest of this notice Access the database

Less

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


Austrian agency shows how to tackle scientific misconduct – Nature (Editorial | September 2018)

Published/Released on September 19, 2018 | Posted by Admin on October 22, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

A decade on from a major academic scandal, officials there have got their act together.

Many countries are trying to clamp down on scientific misconduct. Last week, the UK government promised to look into setting up an independent body to oversee institutional investigations into... More

A decade on from a major academic scandal, officials there have got their act together.

Many countries are trying to clamp down on scientific misconduct. Last week, the UK government promised to look into setting up an independent body to oversee institutional investigations into research misconduct, and the Netherlands has revamped its research-integrity code. Last month, India said it would crack down on widespread academic plagiarism. And earlier this year, Chinese officials pledged to get tough on academic fraud with new laws that include a dedicated government agency to police misconduct. The problem is that much of this renewed political attention is not translating into meaningful action. High-profile cases of exposed malpractice continue to pile up, and surveys of researchers regularly confirm that poor behaviour is shockingly more common than many who promote the values of science might want to accept. So it is promising to report from a meeting in Vienna last week that was held to celebrate ten years of the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity. The organization is not perfect, but it has much to be proud of. Its work shows what can be achieved given the requisite political will. And it reveals some of the problems that remain, in Austria and elsewhere. Officials in countries that are looking for ways to tackle misconduct should pay close attention.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


How Much Editorial Misconduct Goes Unreported? – Scholarly Kitchen (Phil Davis | June 2018)

Published/Released on June 21, 2018 | Posted by Admin on October 20, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

COPE Case #18-03, “Editors and reviewers requiring authors to cite their own work”  reads like a political thriller:

Working alone late one night, a staffer stumbles upon a decision letter in which a handling editor instructs an author to... More

COPE Case #18-03, “Editors and reviewers requiring authors to cite their own work”  reads like a political thriller:

Working alone late one night, a staffer stumbles upon a decision letter in which a handling editor instructs an author to cite some of his papers. Intrigued, the staffer digs deeper and finds a pattern of systematic abuse that involves a gang of crony reviewers willing to do the handling editor’s misdeeds and evidence of strong-arming authors who put up any resistance. The staffer brings the ream of evidence to the Editor-in-Chief, who goes to the editorial board. Confronted by questions to explain himself, the handling editor resigns out of haughty indignation. Case closed. Or is it? [colored_box]All COPE cases are public, however, the texts are carefully edited to preserve anonymity. COPE is an industry advisory group, not a court of law. The purpose of publicizing cases is to educate, not adjudicate. We can only hope that the summary of actions provides a clear path of action for future staffers and editors dealing with similar cases of misconduct. Still, it makes me wonder just how common is editorial misconduct and whether the vast majority of cases, like similar power-abuse misconduct, goes unreported. . A 2012 survey of social sciences authors published in the journal Science, reported that one-in-five respondents said they were coerced by journal editors to add more citations to papers published in their journal. Not surprisingly, lower-ranked faculty were more likely to acquiesce to this type of coercion. A follow-up study in PLOS ONE confirmed that the practice of requesting additional citations to the journal was prevelant across disciplines, although much more frequent in marketing, information systems, finance, and management than it was in math, physics, political science, and chemistry. In these studies, the researchers limit coercive citation to the journal itself, assuming that its purpose was to inflate the journal’s Impact Factor. But what if its purpose was also to inflate citations to the editor himself or to a cartel of other participating journals? .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Davis, P. (2018) How Much Editorial Misconduct Goes Unreported? The Scholarly Kitchen, 21 June. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/06/21/much-editorial-misconduct-goes-unreported/ Less

View full details | Go to resource


The Rise of Peer Review: Melinda Baldwin on the History of Refereeing at Scientific Journals and Funding Bodies – Scholarly Kitchen (Robert Harington | September 2018)

Published/Released on September 26, 2018 | Posted by Admin on October 17, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

I  was recently given the opportunity to read a fascinating paper by Melinda Baldwin, (Books Editor at Physics Today magazine, published by the American Institute of Physics), entitled “Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer Review” in the... More

I  was recently given the opportunity to read a fascinating paper by Melinda Baldwin, (Books Editor at Physics Today magazine, published by the American Institute of Physics), entitled “Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer Review” in the Cold War United States” (Isis, volume 109, number 3, September 2018). Melinda is an accomplished historian of science, with a special emphasis on the cultural and intellectual history of science and scientific communication. Not only is her writing infectiously entertaining, the story itself is new, or at least it is new to me. It turns out that peer reviewing in scientific journals is a relatively recent construct, first emerging in the nineteenth century and not seen as a central part of science until the late twentieth century. [colored_box]Melinda paints a picture of constant change in peer review, which perhaps provides a lesson for us all. Maybe this should be obvious, but there is no status quo in academic publishing, and while we may feel our moment is more important than those that have gone before, or those ahead of us, expectations and models are fluid, be you author, reviewer, publisher, institution, or funder. . In this interview I ask Melinda to talk about her article, and provide some more personal views on peer review topics of the moment. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


The “problem” of predatory publishing remains a relatively small one and should not be allowed to defame open access – LSE Impact Blog (Tom Olijhoek and Jon Tennant | September 2018)

Published/Released on September 25, 2018 | Posted by Admin on October 15, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

A recent investigation led by an international group of journalists raised concerns over the scale of the problem of deceptive publishing practices, with many researchers of standing and reputation found to have published in “predatory” journals. However, while the findings of this investigation garnered significant media attention, the... More

A recent investigation led by an international group of journalists raised concerns over the scale of the problem of deceptive publishing practices, with many researchers of standing and reputation found to have published in “predatory” journals. However, while the findings of this investigation garnered significant media attention, the robustness of the study itself was not subject to the same scrutiny. To Tom Olijhoek and Jon Tennant, the profile afforded to investigations of this type causes some to overstate the problem of predatory publishing, while often discrediting open access publishing at the same time. The real problem here is one of education around questionable journals, and should not distract from more urgent questions around the shifting scholarly ecosystem.

[colored_box]Full disclosure: Tom Olijhoek is Editor-in-Chief of DOAJ and Jon Tennant is the founder of the Open Science MOOC. . Imagine you want to investigate the quality of restaurants. You know beforehand there are bad restaurants. So you set up your investigation by going to a number of bad restaurants of bad reputation. What do you find? You find that a number of restaurants are really bad, an inevitable conclusion. You even find that people of standing and reputation have visited these restaurants on occasion. . Would the conclusion here be that all restaurants are bad? Several investigations of this kind have looked into the problem of “predatory” or “questionable” publishers, the most famous being the heavily criticised and deeply flawed “sting operation” by John Bohannon in Science magazine. In science speak, this is called doing an experiment without an appropriate control group, usually sufficient for research to be desk rejected for being fundamentally flawed.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(US) Mount Sinai multiple sclerosis researcher admits to misconduct – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | May 2018)

Published/Released on May 14, 2018 | Posted by Admin on October 14, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

A researcher who has received millions in funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health and who runs a lab at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York has confessed to falsifying data in a 2014 paper. Gareth John, who studies multiple sclerosis... More

A researcher who has received millions in funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health and who runs a lab at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York has confessed to falsifying data in a 2014 paper. Gareth John, who studies multiple sclerosis and other neurological diseases, “has expressed remorse for his actions,” according to a report released last week from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Research Integrity. John falsified data in two different figures in a 2014 paper in Development, “Combinatorial actions of Tgfβ and Activin ligands promote oligodendrocyte development and CNS myelination,” according to the report. In one figure, a Western blot, he “removed the lower set of bands, reordered the remaining bands and used those bands to represent the actin control,” among other falsifications, and in another, he cut and pasted bands “onto a blank background and used those false bands to create a graph.”

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


The Limits of Dual Use – Issues in Science & Technology (Tara Mahfoud, et al | September 2018)

Published/Released on September 03, 2018 | Posted by Admin on October 12, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Distinguishing between military and civilian applications of scientific research and technology development has become increasingly difficult. A more nuanced framework is needed to guide research.

Research and technologies designed to generate benefits for civilians that can also be used for military purposes... More

Distinguishing between military and civilian applications of scientific research and technology development has become increasingly difficult. A more nuanced framework is needed to guide research.

Research and technologies designed to generate benefits for civilians that can also be used for military purposes are termed “dual use.” The concept of dual use frames and informs debates about how such research and technologies should be understood and regulated. But the emergence of neuroscience-based technologies, combined with the dissolution of any simple distinction between civilian and military domains, requires us to reconsider this binary concept. Not only has neuroscience research contributed to the development and use of technology and weapons for national security, but a variety of factors have blurred the very issue of whether a technological application is military or civilian. These factors include the rise of asymmetric warfare, the erosion of clear differentiation between states of war abroad and defense against threats “at home,” and the use of military forces for homeland security. It is increasingly difficult to disentangle the relative contributions made by researchers undertaking basic studies in traditional universities from those made by researchers working in projects specifically organized or funded by military or defense sources. Amid such complexity, the binary world implied by “dual use” can often obscure rather than clarify which particular uses of science and technology are potentially problematic or objectionable. To help in clarifying matters, we argue that policy makers and regulators need to identify and focus on specific harmful or undesirable uses in the following four domains: political, security, intelligence, and military (PSIM). We consider the ways that research justified in terms of socially constructive applications—in the European Human Brain Project, the US BRAIN initiative, and other brain projects and related areas of neuroscience—can also provide knowledge, information, products, or technologies that could be applied in these four domains. If those who fund, develop, or regulate research and development (R&D) in neuroscience, neurotechnology, and neurorobotics fail to move away from the dual-use framework, they may be unable to govern its diffusion.

Mahfoud, Tara, Christine Aicardi, Saheli Datta, and Nikolas Rose. "The Limits of Dual Use." Issues in Science and Technology 34, no. 4 (Summer 2018). http://issues.org/34-4/the-limits-of-dual-use/

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Text recycling: acceptable or misconduct? (Papers: Stephanie Harriman and Jigisha Patel | 2014)

Published/Released on August 16, 2014 | Posted by Admin on October 10, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract Text recycling, also referred to as self-plagiarism, is the reproduction of an author’s own text from a previous publication in a new publication. Opinions on the acceptability of this practice vary, with some viewing it as acceptable and efficient, and others as misleading and unacceptable.... More

Abstract Text recycling, also referred to as self-plagiarism, is the reproduction of an author’s own text from a previous publication in a new publication. Opinions on the acceptability of this practice vary, with some viewing it as acceptable and efficient, and others as misleading and unacceptable. In light of the lack of consensus, journal editors often have difficulty deciding how to act upon the discovery of text recycling. In response to these difficulties, we have created a set of guidelines for journal editors on how to deal with text recycling. In this editorial, we discuss some of the challenges of developing these guidelines, and how authors can avoid undisclosed text recycling. The guidelines can be found here: http://media.biomedcentral.com/content/editorial/BMC-text-recycling-editorial_guidelines.pdf Keywords: Text recycling, Self-plagiarism, Publication ethics, Transparency, Guidelines

Harriman, S., & Patel, J. (2014). Text recycling: acceptable or misconduct? BMC Medicine, 12, 148. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0148-8 Publisher (Open Access): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4243367/

Access the great resource paper it refers to

Less

View full details | Go to resource


What does it mean to “take responsibility for” a paper? – Scientist Sees Squirrel (Stephen Heard | July 2018)

Published/Released on July 17, 2018 | Posted by Admin on October 8, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

 I spend a lot of time talking with students and colleagues about what authorship means, and about what criteria one might use for assigning it.  That’s partly because the nature of authorship is both complex and (especially for early-career scientists) critically important.  It’s also because my research has evolved... More

 I spend a lot of time talking with students and colleagues about what authorship means, and about what criteria one might use for assigning it.  That’s partly because the nature of authorship is both complex and (especially for early-career scientists) critically important.  It’s also because my research has evolved in ways that mean I rarely write a single-authored paper any more.  In fact, I rarely write a 2- or 3-authored paper any more. [colored_box]There’s nothing unusual about me (in this respect); the lengths of author lists have been increasing in almost every field.  In some fields, they’ve reached startling proportions, with author lists surpassing 5,000.  It’s not universally agreed exactly what contributions merit authorship, or what responsibilities coauthors bear.  However, one thing we often hear – and I’m pretty sure, one thing I’ve said – is that each coauthor should be willing to take responsibility for the entire paper.  Take, for example, the recommendations on coauthorship from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: . The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria: .

  • Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
  • Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
  • Final approval of the version to be published; AND
  • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. ,

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Guide to Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Code

Published/Released on June 22, 2018 | Posted by Admin on October 8, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


The Evolution and Critical Role of Peer Review in Academic Publishing – The Wiley Network (Marilyn Pollett | September 2018)

Published/Released on September 12, 2018 | Posted by Admin on October 6, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Did you know that the number of peer-reviewed journals has steadily grown by 3.5% per year for over the past three centuries? In fact, a rigorous peer review process is considered to be an indication of a journal’s quality, and most journals rely on... More

Did you know that the number of peer-reviewed journals has steadily grown by 3.5% per year for over the past three centuries? In fact, a rigorous peer review process is considered to be an indication of a journal’s quality, and most journals rely on peer review to ensure that only the best research gets accepted for publication. This often results in journals having high rejection rates, for example, as high as 90% in the case of many Wiley journals. Peer review is considered the pillar that upholds the credibility and integrity of the scientific record. However, in its conventional form, peer review has drawn some criticism for issues like lack of transparency and inconsistency in output. To address these issues, several innovations in peer review have been introduced (new models, reviewer recognition, and more). Let’s take a look at the evolution of peer review and how industry experts see it shaping up in the future. Challenges associated with peer review Despite its merits, peer review has some limitations that threaten to weaken the entire scholarly publishing system:

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


The Great Leap Fraud: China’s wake-up call on scientific misconduct and fake science on Science Friction – ABC RN (Natasha Mitchell | September 2018)

You've heard of fake news, but what about fake science? The shocking, shady world of the modern scientific marketplace. A special for ABC RN's China In Focus series featuring Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch and guests. China's president wants to turn the country into a scientific... More

You've heard of fake news, but what about fake science? The shocking, shady world of the modern scientific marketplace. A special for ABC RN's China In Focus series featuring Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch and guests. China's president wants to turn the country into a scientific superpower, but mass retractions by scientific journals of papers penned by Chinese scientists has exposed a major problem for China and for science globally. It's home to a thriving black market for fake papers, fake peer reviews, and beyond. But is China alone?

Listen to the interview and read more and this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Revisiting: Six Years of Predatory Publishing – Scholarly Kitchen (David Crotty | August 2018)

Published/Released on August 14, 2018 | Posted by Admin on October 3, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Predatory publishing has been on our radar for quite a while now, but mainstream media coverage and awareness is rapidly intensifying. We have perhaps finally reached a point where the damage being done to the credibility of research may be enough to move the stakeholders involved... More

Predatory publishing has been on our radar for quite a while now, but mainstream media coverage and awareness is rapidly intensifying. We have perhaps finally reached a point where the damage being done to the credibility of research may be enough to move the stakeholders involved — universities, funders, and publishers, to finally take some action. Just what that action will be is unclear — like most of our lingering problems, if there was an easy solution, it would have happened long ago. In light of the increasing debate, I thought it worth revisiting some of our coverage of predatory publishing over the years. [colored_box]Kent Anderson first wrote about the phenomenon back in 2012, in his post, “Predatory” Open Access Publishers — The Natural Extreme of an Author-Pays Model. It’s interesting to see that even in this early post, the focus was on the author-pays model, rather than a condemnation of open access as a whole. Also interesting to see how much unconditional support there was (particularly in the comments) for Jeffrey Beall’s list, which later fell under so much controversy. . Speaking of Beall, a trio of posts — two interviews, the first in the form of a podcast from 2013, and the second as a written interview, done after Beall had taken a public swipe at The Scholarly Kitchen. And finally, Joe Esposito’s post entitled, “Parting Company with Jeffrey Beall“, where he tried to come to grips with Beall’s increasingly problematic rhetoric. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


A Major Industry-Funded Alcohol Study Was Compromised. How Many Others Are Out There? – UnDark (Jeremy Samuel Faust | July 2018)

Published/Released on July 13, 2018 | Posted by Admin on October 2, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

The most salient takeaway from the collapse of the MACH15 trial is that the conflicts of interest at its core are probably not as rare as we think.

LAST YEAR, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, part of the federal National Institutes... More

The most salient takeaway from the collapse of the MACH15 trial is that the conflicts of interest at its core are probably not as rare as we think.

LAST YEAR, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, part of the federal National Institutes of Health, laid out plans for what is a rarity in the realm of public health: a high quality clinical trial. The “Moderate Alcohol and Cardiovascular Health Trial,” known as MACH15, was to be randomized so that some subjects would be selected to drink and some would not. It would follow participants “prospectively,” over time, not retrospectively. And in the end, the results were to be adjudicated by evaluators blinded to which subjects had been instructed to drink and which to abstain. The goal was an assessment of the effect of alcohol consumption on cardiovascular health. [colored_box]But last month, the National Institutes of Health took the unusual step of shutting down one of its own clinical trials — a $100 million dollar experiment gone wrong. The announcement followed an internal investigation, prompted by a dogged New York Times report, that uncovered inappropriate interactions between the alcohol industry (Anheuser-Busch InBev, Heineken, and others) and the NIAAA in the execution of MACH15. . By law, federal health agencies can receive funding from for-profit industry. But direct courting of funding, coordination, and collaboration on research design, and excessive communications are not permitted, and according to The Times and the findings of the NIH’s subsequent internal investigation, these violations occurred early and often during the development of the MACH15 trial. The NIH report concluded that the actions uncovered “calls into question the impartiality of the process and thus casts doubt that the scientific knowledge gained from the study would be actionable or believable.” .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Urology Clinical Practice Guidelines (Papers: Austin Carlisle, et al | September 2018)

Published/Released on May 07, 2018 | Posted by Admin on October 1, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract Background Recent studies have highlighted the presence of disclosed and undisclosed financial conflicts of interest among authors of clinical practice guidelines. Objective We sought to determine to what extent urology guideline authors receive and report industry payments in accordance with... More

Abstract Background Recent studies have highlighted the presence of disclosed and undisclosed financial conflicts of interest among authors of clinical practice guidelines. Objective We sought to determine to what extent urology guideline authors receive and report industry payments in accordance with the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. Design, setting, and participants We selected the 13 urology guidelines that were published by the American Urological Association (AUA) after disclosure was mandated by the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. Payments received by guideline authors were searched independently by two investigators using the Open Payments database. Outcome measures and statistical analysis Our primary outcome measure was the number of authors receiving payments from industry, stratified by amount thresholds. Our secondary outcome measure was the number of authors with accurate conflict of interest disclosure statements. Results and limitations We identified a total of 54 author disclosures. Thirty-two authors (59.3%) received at least one payment from industry. Twenty (37.0%) received >$10 000 and six (11.1%) received >$50 000. Median total payments were $578 (interquartile range $0–19 228). Twenty (37.0%) disclosure statements were inaccurate. Via Dollars for Docs, we identified $74 195.13 paid for drugs and devices directly related to guideline recommendations. We were limited in our ability to determine when authors began working on guideline panels, as this information was not provided, and by the lack of specificity in Dollars for Docs. Conclusions Many of the AUA guideline authors received payments from industry, some in excess of $50 000. A significant portion of disclosure statements were inaccurate, indicating a need for more stringent enforcement of the AUA disclosure policy. Patient summary Pharmaceutical company payments to doctors have been shown to influence how doctors treat patients. If these doctors are charged with making clinical recommendations to other doctors, in the form of clinical practice guidelines, the issue of industry payments becomes more severe. We found that many urologists on guideline panels receive money from industry and that a significant portion did not disclose all payments received.

Carlisle, A., et al. (2018). "Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Urology Clinical Practice Guidelines." European Urology 74(3): 348-354. Publisher (Open Access): https://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302-2838(18)30329-4/fulltext

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Top Chinese rabies vaccine maker ordered to stop production over forged data – FiercePharma (Angus Liu | July 2018)

Published/Released on July 17, 2018 | Posted by Admin on September 28, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

China’s drug regulator just pulled a manufacturing permit for the country’s second-largest maker of rabies vaccines over data falsification, marking the latest episode in China’s drug safety scandal. During an inspection, China’s State Drug Administration found Changchun Changsheng Life Sciences forged production records for its Vero cell-based rabies vaccines. The... More

China’s drug regulator just pulled a manufacturing permit for the country’s second-largest maker of rabies vaccines over data falsification, marking the latest episode in China’s drug safety scandal. During an inspection, China’s State Drug Administration found Changchun Changsheng Life Sciences forged production records for its Vero cell-based rabies vaccines. The agency immediately moved to revoke the company’s GMP license tied to the vaccine—just three months after its issuance—and dispatched a team to investigate the incident on site, according to a Sunday statement (Chinese). In its announcement filed to Shenzhen Stock Exchange, the Changchun, China-based company said it has started recalling all unexpired rabies vaccines, even though the batches under question weren’t released to the market, and it hasn’t received any adverse event report related to the quality of the vaccines through years of monitoring.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


There is little evidence to suggest peer reviewer training programmes improve the quality of reviews – LSE Blog (Shaun Khoo | May 2018)

Published/Released on May 23, 2018 | Posted by Admin on September 28, 2018 | Keywords: , , , ,

In little more than a year a number of peer reviewer training programmes have launched, promising to help early-career researchers learn how to do peer review, review more efficiently, and connect with editors at top journals. This follows an expressed need from graduate students and postdocs for precisely this... More

In little more than a year a number of peer reviewer training programmes have launched, promising to help early-career researchers learn how to do peer review, review more efficiently, and connect with editors at top journals. This follows an expressed need from graduate students and postdocs for precisely this sort of training. But can these new programmes deliver? And as many providers suggest moves towards a subscription-based model, are they worth individuals or institutions paying for them? Shaun Khoo examines the evidence base and finds that there is little to suggest that peer reviewer training programmes actually improve the quality of article reviews.

Peer reviewer training for graduate students and postdocs is pretty trendy right now. As the number of submissions to academic journals grows, publishers are interested in expanding their reviewer pools. Over the last year we have seen the launch of the Publons Academy, ACS Reviewer Lab, Nature Masterclasses’ Focus on Peer Review, and JNeurosci’s Reviewer Mentoring Program. These training programmes promise to help researchers learn how to do peer review, review more efficiently, and connect with editors at top journals. They also fill a gap in researcher training, as over 90% of early-career researchers express interest in peer review training but few receive any formal training during their PhDs. But can these new training programmes deliver? And if training providers were to make their programmes subscription-based, would it be worth the investment?

What are the training programmes like?

Each training course has its own distinct and useful features. In general, programmes like the ACS Reviewer Lab, Publons Academy, and Nature Masterclass feature text and short video segments on how to do peer review, what to focus on, what not to focus on, and ethical dilemmas. They sometimes also feature online formative assessments, like answering multiple choice questions at the end of the unit.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Let the Sun Shine into the Medical Ivory Tower – The Hastings Center (Adriane Fugh-Berman | September 2018)

In 2012, I coauthored a case report about the successful use of dietary supplements in treating a case of male infertility in the American Family Physician. Before it was published, I was surprised to receive a communication asking me to disclose the fact that I had... More

In 2012, I coauthored a case report about the successful use of dietary supplements in treating a case of male infertility in the American Family Physician. Before it was published, I was surprised to receive a communication asking me to disclose the fact that I had written a textbook on dietary supplements. It had not occurred to me to disclose the publication of my then decade-old book, but I certainly should have, and I was impressed that the publication had actually checked up on me. Would that more journals would follow AFP’s example. A joint New York Times and ProPublica investigation found that Jose Baselga, the chief medical officer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, failed to disclose payments from pharmaceutical and health care companies in more than 100 articles he authored in medical journals. Between August 2013 (when Federal Open Payments disclosures began) and 2017, nine pharmaceutical and medical device companies paid Dr. Baselga almost $3.5 million. Dr. Baselga has been on the board of directors of Bristol Myers Squibb and Varian medical systems, which sells radiation equipment to Memorial Sloan Kettering, among other clients. Dr. Baselga has been a consultant to Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Roche/Genentech and an advisor to many pharmaceutical companies, diagnostics companies, and start-ups. He has presented favorable opinions about drugs made by companies that paid him– including drugs that other researchers found ineffective or unsafe. According to the Times article, Dr. Baselga called the results of a Roche trial of taselisib, a P13K inhibitor “incredibly exciting” at a meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology; Roche, the manufacturer, considered the drug so disappointing they scrapped further development.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Gender and Regional Diversity In Peer Review – The Wiley Network (Lou Peck | September 2018)

Published/Released on September 10, 2018 | Posted by Admin on September 25, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

In keeping with the theme of Diversity in Peer Review, for this year’s Peer Review Week we’re taking a closer look at two recent studies on the topic. These articles are freely available What influences the regional diversity of reviewers: A study of medical and agricultural/biological sciences journals This... More

In keeping with the theme of Diversity in Peer Review, for this year’s Peer Review Week we’re taking a closer look at two recent studies on the topic. These articles are freely available What influences the regional diversity of reviewers: A study of medical and agricultural/biological sciences journals This 2018 Learned Publishing article discusses the geographical imbalance of reviewers discovered during research in medicine and agricultural and biological sciences. They found that:

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2018)

The Australian Code is the Australian national reference for research integrity. The document was issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council and Universities Australia. The Australian Code discusses eight core principles, 13 institutional responsibilities and 16 research responsibilities. At launch it was complemented by the Guide to... More

The Australian Code is the Australian national reference for research integrity. The document was issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council and Universities Australia. The Australian Code discusses eight core principles, 13 institutional responsibilities and 16 research responsibilities. At launch it was complemented by the Guide to Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Code, 2018 (the Investigation Guide). Two more guides are expected by the end   of 2018, with the remaining guides expected early 2019. The eight-page 2018 version is a significant change from the 2007 version (which was 39 pages). It represents a movement away from detailed strict standards on research integrity matters to general principles that must inform institutional policies, processes and resources. Less

View full details | Go to resource


Japanese university revokes PhD following a retraction – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | September 2018)

Published/Released on September 10, 2018 | Posted by Admin on September 22, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Tokyo Women’s Medical University has stripped a researcher of her PhD, following the retraction of a paper — for data duplication — that was based on her thesis. [colored_box]The August 30th announcement notes that a degree was revoked on July 20. The announcement does not name the... More

Tokyo Women’s Medical University has stripped a researcher of her PhD, following the retraction of a paper — for data duplication — that was based on her thesis. [colored_box]The August 30th announcement notes that a degree was revoked on July 20. The announcement does not name the researcher, but refers to degree number 2881, which corresponds to Rika Nakayama’s PhD. The university describes carelessness and errors, but not misconduct. . Here’s a rough Google translation of the announcement: .

The thesis which became the application paper is based on the case which was handled at the off-campus facility to which the person belongs. Duplication of case data occurred due to carelessness of the person during the preparation of the paper. Those who created the paper with data duplication applied for a degree, and a degree was approved. Duplication of case data was discovered when this paper was investigated by random monitoring of the facility. That person did not take the form of correction but undertook the withdrawal procedure of the paper from the journal. In recognition of the fact that the dissertation application paper was withdrawn, we decided to cancel the degree award. .

Read the rest of this report

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Little White Lies in Healthcare Publishing – Scholarly Kitchen (Phaedra Cress | July 2018)

Published/Released on July 31, 2018 | Posted by Admin on September 21, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , , ,

Most Americans lie one to two times daily according to an article in the Journal of Language and Social Psychology. Yet, we are “truth biased” to believe that the majority of messages we interact with are honest versus dishonest. This chips away at our lie-detecting skills... More

Most Americans lie one to two times daily according to an article in the Journal of Language and Social Psychology. Yet, we are “truth biased” to believe that the majority of messages we interact with are honest versus dishonest. This chips away at our lie-detecting skills and in a field (or an entire era?) fraught with transparency issues, it can be incredibly detrimental. [colored_box]What’s the difference between telling someone they look great in those jeans versus I didn’t really read that entire manuscript, but I came “close enough” to provide peer review comments for it? Was that employee fired or laid off, and how can recruiters tell the difference on their LinkedIn profile? Subtle nuances tell the real story but can be hard to discern just like the various shades of grey. . Nearly all of us have engaged in some form of writing, editing, or research during our professional careers, especially those who’ve built their careers in publishing. We endeavor to hold ourselves to the highest standards in all that we do, in both our work and personal lives, including our Instagram stories. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


From lectures to the lab: three steps to becoming an undergraduate researcher – Nature (James Ankrum | July 2018)

Published/Released on July 30, 2018 | Posted by Admin on September 19, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Participating in research gives students first-hand experience of a potential career path and provides graduate students and postdocs with important mentoring opportunities.

In the past decade, I’ve mentored 18 undergraduates in my laboratory, with the majority of them going on to pursue graduate degrees... More

Participating in research gives students first-hand experience of a potential career path and provides graduate students and postdocs with important mentoring opportunities.

In the past decade, I’ve mentored 18 undergraduates in my laboratory, with the majority of them going on to pursue graduate degrees in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering or mathematics) and co-authoring papers. Nearly every tier 1 research university in the United States has an undergraduate research programme, and uptake exceeds 90% at some institutions, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. Students in these programmes are a valuable resource for research labs and vice versa. Although beneficial to the lab overall, mentoring undergraduates requires investment in education and technical training. Adapting from lectures to life in a research lab is an abrupt transition, and is one that students and mentors should be prepared to navigate together. In my experience, students typically progress through three stages during their time in the lab. Although not everyone will move through all of the stages, setting aspirational goals can help to draw undergraduates into the excitement of research and keep them focused on the task in mind. They are:

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Guest Post: What a new Publons Report on Peer Review Says About Diversity, and More – Scholarly Kitchen (Tom Culley, et al | September 2018)

Published/Released on September 12, 2018 | Posted by Admin on September 17, 2018 | Keywords: , , , ,

Editor’s Note: This third installment of posts for Peer Review Week is a guest post from Tom Culley and the team at Publons. For centuries academic journals have brought modern research from around the globe into regularly published pages for consumption. At the heart of this system is peer review... More

Editor’s Note: This third installment of posts for Peer Review Week is a guest post from Tom Culley and the team at Publons. For centuries academic journals have brought modern research from around the globe into regularly published pages for consumption. At the heart of this system is peer review — the process we rely on to ensure the quality and integrity of scholarly communication. But as the research market grows exponentially the peer review system is feeling the strain. [colored_box]How do we know this? Publons Global State of Peer Review Report brings a new level of transparency to the state of peer review, revealing the numbers behind who’s doing it, how well they’re doing it, and how efficient the process really is. The timing is right, as the community comes together to celebrate the fourth installment of Peer Review Week, focusing on the theme of Diversity and Inclusion in Peer Review. . Released on September 7th, the report combines novel results of a global survey alongside data from PublonsScholarOne, and Web of Science. For the survey, Publons reached out to researchers via the Publons database of over 400,000 reviewers, and 1 million authors indexed in Web of Science. Of the more than 11,000 researchers who completed the survey, 69% were working at a university or college, 69% were men, and over 35% had 15 years or more experience writing and reviewing scholarly articles. The majority of reviewers came from Europe (37% — including the UK) and 13% worked in the areas of Clinical Medicine or Engineering respectively.* .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Gender and Regional Diversity In Peer Review – The Wiley Network (Lou Peck | September 2018)

Published/Released on September 10, 2018 | Posted by Admin on September 17, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

In keeping with the theme of Diversity in Peer Review, for this year’s Peer Review Week we’re taking a closer look at two recent studies on the topic. These articles are freely available What influences the regional diversity of reviewers: A study of medical... More

In keeping with the theme of Diversity in Peer Review, for this year’s Peer Review Week we’re taking a closer look at two recent studies on the topic. These articles are freely available What influences the regional diversity of reviewers: A study of medical and agricultural/biological sciences journals This 2018 Learned Publishing article discusses the geographical imbalance of reviewers discovered during research in medicine and agricultural and biological sciences. They found that:

  • there was a correlation between the reviewer location and the country and region of the EditorChief and that of the corresponding author.
  • reviewers were more likely to accept invitations to review articles when the corresponding author was from their region and were more likely to be positive about such articles.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Addressing the Regional Diversity of Reviewers – The Wiley Network (Thomas Gaston | September 2018)

Published/Released on September 11, 2018 | Posted by Admin on September 17, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

There is a present imbalance in the regional distribution of the burden of peer review. The regional distribution of reviewers (or, more specifically, of those invited to review) does not mirror the regional distribution of submitting authors. This is the conclusion of multiple studies (Kovanis, 2016 and Mulligan and... More

There is a present imbalance in the regional distribution of the burden of peer review. The regional distribution of reviewers (or, more specifically, of those invited to review) does not mirror the regional distribution of submitting authors. This is the conclusion of multiple studies (Kovanis, 2016 and Mulligan and van Rossum, 2014), including a study conducted by Wiley in 2016 (Warne, 2016). This research found that uneven burden upon researchers from the USA, providing 33-34% of the reviewers and 22-24% of the submissions. One might argue that this is not an issue. Editors are under no obligation to ensure an even geographic distribution of those they invite to review. The primary consideration for editors, when selecting reviewers, must be choosing individuals whose expertise is appropriate to the manuscript under consideration. However, there are reasons for seeing the present imbalance as a problem. The burden of peer review is currently borne by a small pool of reviewers, leading to increased difficulty for editors in finding available reviewers (Sipior, 2018). Furthermore, there is an inherent advantage in having a diverse reviewer pool to counter tendencies toward group-think and bias. Why This Imbalance? We wanted to understand why there is this regional imbalance. Non-US researchers are willing to review (Mulligan and van Rossum, 2014); the problem seems to be that they are not being invited. We wanted to investigate the factors involved in the reviewers being invited and agreeing to review. Our hypothesis was that there would be a correlation between the location of the editor-in-chief (EiC) and the location of the reviewer. We also wanted to look at other potential factors, including the location of the author, the ranking of the journal, the size of the journal, and the apparent difficulty the journal had in obtaining reviews.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Indigenous Data Sovereignty: University Institutional Review Board Policies and Guidelines and Research with American Indian and Alaska Native Communities (Papers: Tennille L. Marley | 2018)

Abstract American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people throughout the world have undergone and continue to experience research abuses. Qualitative data such as intellectual property, Indigenous knowledge, interviews, cultural expressions including songs, oral histories/stories, ceremonies, dances, and other texts, images, and recordings are at risk... More

Abstract American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people throughout the world have undergone and continue to experience research abuses. Qualitative data such as intellectual property, Indigenous knowledge, interviews, cultural expressions including songs, oral histories/stories, ceremonies, dances, and other texts, images, and recordings are at risk of exploitation, appropriation, theft, and misrepresentation and threaten the cultural sovereignty of American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people. These issues are potentially magnified with the increasing use of big data. Partly as a result of past and current research abuse, the Indigenous data sovereignty, the control, ownership, and governance of research and data, is growing. In this article, I discuss American Indian political sovereignty, cultural sovereignty, and Indigenous data sovereignty, with an emphasis on qualitative data sovereignty. In addition, I explore whether Arizona’s public universities—Northern Arizona University, Arizona State University, and University of Arizona—policies and guidelines support Indigenous data sovereignty and the extent to which they align with the Arizona Board of Regent’s tribal consultation policy that governs relations between the three Arizona universities and Arizona American Indian nations. Overall expectations, requirements, and processes do not go far enough in supporting Indigenous data sovereignty. Although each university has specific research policies that follow the Arizona Board of Regent’s tribal consultation policy, the university guidelines differ in scope in term of supporting Indigenous data sovereignty. In addition, none of the policies address qualitative data sharing, including those in big data sets. Based on the findings I make several recommendations for researchers, including supporting the Indigenous sovereignty movement and to reconsider big data use and past positions about qualitative data ownership and sharing with regard to American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people. Keywords Indigenous data sovereignty, American Indian and Alaska Native, Indigenous people, qualitative data

Marley, T. L. "Indigenous Data Sovereignty: University Institutional Review Board Policies and Guidelines and Research with American Indian and Alaska Native Communities." American Behavioral Scientist 0(0): 0002764218799130. Publisher: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002764218799130#articleCitationDownloadContainer

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Ask The Chefs: How Would You Ensure Diversity In Peer Review? – Scholarly Kitchen (Ann Michael | September 2018)

Published/Released on September 07, 2018 | Posted by Admin on September 12, 2018 | Keywords: , , , ,

Next week is Peer Review Week 2018. Asking the Chefs a peer review question has become a bit of a tradition for us. In 2016 we asked: What is the future of peer review? Last year we contemplated: Should peer review... More

Next week is Peer Review Week 2018. Asking the Chefs a peer review question has become a bit of a tradition for us. In 2016 we asked: What is the future of peer review? Last year we contemplated: Should peer review change? This year the theme is diversity in peer review. So we’ve asked the Chefs: How would you ensure diversity in peer review? Lisa Hinchliffe: Given I have served as a journal editor multiple times in my career, allow me to respond to this question from that perspective. First, you must have a commitment to diversity in peer review as a non-negotiable facet of your process and investing the time and effort needed in order achieve your goal of diversity. Second, you must do the work to identify a diverse reviewer corps and solicit the commitment of reviewers who you wish to be part of your team. Third, you must ensure that the experience of serving as a peer reviewer is a positive experience. You may need to do additional outreach and offer additional support to overcome the impact of reviewers’ past negative experiences as a peer reviewer. Fourth, you must check your own biases and privileges when you review the assessments submitted by the peer reviewers and not discount the feedback and evaluations submitted from the diversity of perspectives you have recruited. Fifth, you must ensure that peer reviewers receive recognition for their labor in ways that are valued in the performance review (tenure/promotion) schemes under which they are evaluated. No one owes their diversity to our peer review processes but many are willing. It is our responsibility as editors to invite, recognize, and reward them.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Radical open-access plan could spell end to journal subscriptions – Nature (Holly Else | September 2018)

Published/Released on September 04, 2018 | Posted by Admin on September 10, 2018 | Keywords: , , , ,

Eleven research funders in Europe announce ‘Plan S’ to make all scientific works free to read as soon as they are published.

Research funders from France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and eight other European nations have... More

Eleven research funders in Europe announce ‘Plan S’ to make all scientific works free to read as soon as they are published.

Research funders from France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and eight other European nations have unveiled a radical open-access initiative that could change the face of science publishing in two years — and which has instantly provoked protest from publishers. The 11 agencies, who together spend €7.6 billion (US$8.8 billion) in research grants annually, say they will mandate that, from 2020, the scientists they fund must make resulting papers free to read immediately on publication (see ‘Plan S players’). The papers would have a liberal publishing licence that would allow anyone else to download, translate or otherwise reuse the work. “No science should be locked behind paywalls!” says a preamble document that accompanies the pledge, called Plan S, released on 4 September. “It is a very powerful declaration. It will be contentious and stir up strong feelings,” says Stephen Curry, a structural biologist and open-access advocate at Imperial College London. The policy, he says, appears to mark a “significant shift” in the open-access publishing movement, which has seen slow progress in its bid to make scientific literature freely available online.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Can Peer Review Be Saved? – Chronicle of Higher Education (Paul Basken | March 2018)

Published/Released on May 04, 2018 | Posted by Admin on September 8, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Peer Review in Flux

The internet era has changed the landscape [colored_box]The problem facing universities in 2018 isn't so much that peer review has inevitably evolved, but that scientists collectively have failed to respond with a better replacement. . Beaten down by technological change and... More

Peer Review in Flux

The internet era has changed the landscape [colored_box]The problem facing universities in 2018 isn't so much that peer review has inevitably evolved, but that scientists collectively have failed to respond with a better replacement. . Beaten down by technological change and economic pressures, the long-held notion of scientific peer review is losing its status as the "gold standard" measure of scholarly reliability. . The problem facing universities in 2018, however, isn't so much that peer review has inevitably evolved, but that scientists collectively have failed to respond with a better replacement. Among the many troubles for peer-reviewed publications: .

Read the rest of this discussion piece Subscription  required

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Non-preferred reviewers and editorial discretion – Small Pond Science (Terry Mcglynn | May 2018)

Published/Released on May 21, 2018 | Posted by Admin on September 7, 2018 | Keywords: , , ,

Apparently, there are some editors of academic journals who will readily send manuscripts out to “non-preferred reviewers” - the specific people that authors specify who they don’t want to receive the paper for review. I think this is all kinds of messed up. Is this a simple, clear-cut issue? Well, no.... More

Apparently, there are some editors of academic journals who will readily send manuscripts out to “non-preferred reviewers” - the specific people that authors specify who they don’t want to receive the paper for review. I think this is all kinds of messed up. Is this a simple, clear-cut issue? Well, no. There are a lot of factors at work on the surface, and a lot going on under the surface that the involved parties might not be aware of. However, notwithstanding the complexity of the issues at hand, it’s hard for me to imagine a circumstance where this kind of action would be advisable (and I’d like to be clear that this is a practice that I do not engage in).

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Water Warrior Marc Edwards Warns of Scientific Dark Age if Science Goes “Post Truth” – Radio IQ (Robbie Harris | July 2018

Blowing the lid off the Flint Michigan water pollution crisis was a watershed moment in this country. It began as a crusade, first, just to prove there was a problem and ultimately, for public officials to address it. But its leader, Marc Edwards, an environmental scientist at Virginia Tech, sees... More

Blowing the lid off the Flint Michigan water pollution crisis was a watershed moment in this country. It began as a crusade, first, just to prove there was a problem and ultimately, for public officials to address it. But its leader, Marc Edwards, an environmental scientist at Virginia Tech, sees a larger public issue bubbling just under the surface and he’s speaking out about it. Marc Edwards is concerned about lead in America’s water, but he’s even more worried about scientific ethics and how government responds, or doesn’t, when whistle blowers speak truth to power.

Read the rest of this discussion piece and listen to the programme

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Repressive Experiences ‘Rare but Real’ in China Studies – INSIDE Higher Ed (Elizabeth Redden | September 2018)

Published/Released on September 04, 2018 | Posted by Admin on September 4, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

More

First-of-its-kind survey of China scholars seeks to quantify just how frequently they encounter repressive actions by the Chinese state intended to stop or circumscribe their research. A majority say self-censorship is a problem. Anecdotes abound of scholars who write on controversial subjects being denied visas to enter China, having difficulty accessing archives on the mainland or being “taken for tea” by Chinese police or security officials during the course of their fieldwork. But just how common are these kinds of experiences? A survey of more than 500 China scholars discussed Saturday at the American Political Science Association’s annual meeting in Boston finds that such “repressive research experiences are a rare but real phenomenon” in the China studies field and “collectively present a barrier to the conduct of research in China.” Researchers found that about 9 percent of China scholars report having been “taken for tea” by Chinese government authorities within the past 10 years, to be interviewed or warned about their research; 26 percent of scholars who conduct archival research report being denied access; and 5 percent report difficulties obtaining a visa. A majority of researchers believe their research is either somewhat sensitive (53 percent) or very sensitive (14 percent). Sixty-eight percent of scholars say that self-censorship is a problem for the China studies field.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Financial Ties That Bind: Studies Often Fall Short On Conflict-Of-Interest Disclosures – KHN (Rachel Bluth | August 2018)

Papers in medical journals go through rigorous peer review and meticulous data analysis. Yet many of these articles are missing a key piece of information: the financial ties of the authors. Nearly two-thirds of the 100 physicians who rake in the most money from 10 device manufacturers failed to disclose a... More

Papers in medical journals go through rigorous peer review and meticulous data analysis. Yet many of these articles are missing a key piece of information: the financial ties of the authors. Nearly two-thirds of the 100 physicians who rake in the most money from 10 device manufacturers failed to disclose a conflict of interest in their academic writing in 2016, according to a study published Wednesday in JAMA Surgery.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


The ethics of computer science: this researcher has a controversial proposal – Nature (Elizabeth Gibney | July 2018)

Published/Released on July 26, 2018 | Posted by Admin on September 3, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Nature talks to Brent Hecht, who says peer reviewers must ensure that researchers consider negative societal consequences of their work. In the midst of growing public concern over artificial intelligence (AI), privacy and the use of data, Brent Hecht has a controversial proposal: the computer-science community... More

Nature talks to Brent Hecht, who says peer reviewers must ensure that researchers consider negative societal consequences of their work. In the midst of growing public concern over artificial intelligence (AI), privacy and the use of data, Brent Hecht has a controversial proposal: the computer-science community should change its peer-review process to ensure that researchers disclose any possible negative societal consequences of their work in papers, or risk rejection. Hecht, a computer scientist, chairs the Future of Computing Academy (FCA), a group of young leaders in the field that pitched the policy in March. Without such measures, he says, computer scientists will blindly develop products without considering their impacts, and the field risks joining oil and tobacco as industries whose researchers history judges unfavourably. The FCA is part of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) in New York City, the world’s largest computing society. It, too, is making changes to encourage researchers to consider societal impacts: on 17 July, it published an updated version of its ethics code, last redrafted in 1992. The guidelines call on researchers to be alert to how their work can influence society, take steps to protect privacy and continually reassess technologies whose impact will change over time, such as those based in machine learning.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(EU) Dutch publishing giant cuts off researchers in Germany and Sweden – Nature (Holly Else | July 2018)

Published/Released on July 19, 2018 | Posted by Admin on September 3, 2018 | Keywords: , , , ,

Negotiations with Elsevier have stalled over open-access deals.

Elsevier last week stopped thousands of scientists in Germany from reading its recent journal articles, as a row escalates over the cost of a nationwide open-access agreement. The move comes just two weeks after researchers in Sweden lost access to the most recent Elsevier research papers, when negotiations on its contract broke down over the same issue. Negotiators on both sides in Germany now seem to be waiting for the other to blink, says Joseph Esposito, a publishing consultant in New York City. The highly public nature of the stand-off means that "any deal Elsevier does with them becomes the de facto deal for the entire world," he adds.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

View full details | Go to resource


(US) Hidden conflicts? Pharma payments to FDA advisers after drug approvals spark ethical concerns – Science (Charles Piller & Jia You | July 2018)

Published/Released on September 05, 2018 | Posted by Admin on September 2, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

On a sweltering July day in 2010, seven medical researchers and one patient advocate gathered in a plush Marriott hotel in College Park, Maryland, to review a promising drug designed to prevent heart attacks and strokes by limiting blood clotting. The panel is one of dozens of advisory committees... More

On a sweltering July day in 2010, seven medical researchers and one patient advocate gathered in a plush Marriott hotel in College Park, Maryland, to review a promising drug designed to prevent heart attacks and strokes by limiting blood clotting. The panel is one of dozens of advisory committees that vote each year on whether the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should approve a therapy for the U.S. market. That day, panel members heard presentations on the drug's preclinical and clinical data from agency staff and AstraZeneca in Cambridge, U.K., its maker and one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies. The occasion sparked little drama. In the cool refuge of the conference room, advisers politely questioned company scientists and complimented their work. By day's end, the panel voted seven to one to approve. FDA, as usual, later signed off. The drug, ticagrelor, marketed under the name Brilinta, sold rapidly, emerging as a billion-dollar blockbuster. It cuts risk of death from vascular causes, heart attacks, and strokes modestly more than its chief competitor—and currently costs 25 times as much. FDA, headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland, uses a well-established system to identify possible conflicts of interest before such advisory panels meet. Before the Brilinta vote, the agency mentioned no financial conflicts among the voting panelists, who included four physicians. As Brilinta's sales took off later, however, AstraZeneca and firms selling or developing similar cardiovascular therapies showered the four with money for travel and advice. For example, those companies paid or reimbursed cardiologist Jonathan Halperin of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City more than $200,000 for accommodations, honoraria, and consulting from 2013 to 2016. During that period, Halperin got $7500 from AstraZeneca to study Brilinta, and the company separately declared nearly $2 million in "associated research" payments tied to him. Brilinta fits a pattern of what might be called pay-later conflicts of interest, which have gone largely unnoticed—and entirely unpoliced. In examining compensation records from drug companies to physicians who advised FDA on whether to approve 28 psychopharmacologic, arthritis, and cardiac or renal drugs between 2008 and 2014, Science found widespread after-the-fact payments or research support to panel members. The agency's safeguards against potential conflicts of interest are not designed to prevent such future financial ties.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Publish peer reviews – Nature (Jessica K. Polka, et al | August 2018)

Published/Released on August 29, 2018 | Posted by Admin on August 31, 2018 | Keywords: , , , ,

Jessica K. Polka and colleagues call on journals to sign a pledge to make reviewers’ anonymous comments part of the official scientific record. Long shrouded in secrecy, the contents of peer review are coming into the open. In the past decade, outlets such as eLife, F1000Research,... More

Jessica K. Polka and colleagues call on journals to sign a pledge to make reviewers’ anonymous comments part of the official scientific record. Long shrouded in secrecy, the contents of peer review are coming into the open. In the past decade, outlets such as eLife, F1000Research, Royal Society Open Science, Annals of Anatomy, Nature Communications, PeerJand EMBO Press have begun to publish referee reports. Publishers including Copernicus, BMJ and BMC (the latter is owned by Springer Nature) have been doing so for even longer (see ‘Revealing peer review’). Last year, the organizers of Peer Review Week embraced the topic in a broader discussion of transparency. We are representatives of two biomedical funders — the UK Wellcome Trust and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) in Chevy Chase, Maryland — and ASAPbio, a non-profit organization that encourages innovation in life-sciences publishing. We are convinced that publishing referee reports would better inform authors and readers, improve review practices and boost trust in science. Right now, less than 3% of scientific journals allow peer reviews to be published (see go.nature.com/2weh6vn). To increase these numbers, our organizations held a meeting in February this year of around 90 invitees from the life sciences, predominantly from North America and Europe. Scientific authors, reviewers and readers participated, along with journal editors and leaders of granting agencies. We took care to include conservative voices, but the nature of the meeting attracted people ready for change. The ideas in this article were honed at that event, with later assistance from HHMI president Erin O’Shea; molecular biologist Needhi Bhalla at the University of California, Santa Cruz; Kenneth Gibbs, director of postgraduate training at the US National Institute of General Medical Sciences; and researcher Tony Ross-Hellauer at Know-Center in Graz, Austria.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Dropping the Hammer – Predatory Publishers Get Pounded by Regulators and the Press – Scholarly Kitchen (July 2018)

View full details | Go to resource


(China) New policy aims to free scientists to focus on research, avoid jumping through hoops – ECNS.CN (Li Yan | July 2018)

Published/Released on July 19, 2018 | Posted by Admin on August 29, 2018 | Keywords: , , , ,

Chinese scientific researchers are to be evaluated on the valuable contributions they make to their field rather than their number of published papers or academic credentials, according to a new policy issued by China's top officials. [colored_box]The new policy is considered by experts to be the first volley of China's... More

Chinese scientific researchers are to be evaluated on the valuable contributions they make to their field rather than their number of published papers or academic credentials, according to a new policy issued by China's top officials. [colored_box]The new policy is considered by experts to be the first volley of China's resistance to efforts by the U.S. to suppress its high-tech development. . The policy is aimed at stimulating innovation and vitality, and building a positive environment for scientists so they can better focus on their research and pursue excellence. . The policy was issued jointly by the General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the General Office of the State Council. . It is the highest-profile policy ever issued about scientific research, He Defang, director of the policy division of the Ministry of Science and Technology, said during a press conference earlier this month. . The evaluation of researchers will mainly depend on the actual influence of their scientific achievements, while other factors such as the number of published research papers and educational achievements will serve as less important performance indicators, the policy said. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details


Australian researchers ‘vulnerable’ under new code of conduct – Nature INDEX (Smriti Mallapaty | June 2018)

Published/Released on June 20, 2018 | Posted by Admin on August 27, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Australian academics say the country’s new research code of conduct is open to abuse by institutions, which are expected to investigate themselves. The code removes the requirement for an independent inquiry into serious cases of misconduct. Academics are concerned that without an independent body holding institutions accountable, researchers will be... More

Australian academics say the country’s new research code of conduct is open to abuse by institutions, which are expected to investigate themselves. The code removes the requirement for an independent inquiry into serious cases of misconduct. Academics are concerned that without an independent body holding institutions accountable, researchers will be denied a fair investigation and public confidence in research could suffer. “Self-regulation just doesn’t work; conflicts of interests are bound to occur,” says cell biologist, David Vaux, deputy director of science integrity and ethics at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research. Researchers can request the Australian Research Integrity Committee to conduct reviews of investigations and make recommendations to the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the Australian Research Council (ARC), but the committee lacks transparency and authority, says Vaux. Its focus will be on processes, not outcomes, he says.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Mallapaty, S (2018) Australian researchers ‘vulnerable’ under new code of conduct: Lack of independent oversight in examining alleged breaches leaves academics at the whim of institutions. Nature Index. 20 June 2018 https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/australian-researchers-vulnerable-under-new-code-of-conduct Less

View full details | Go to resource


(UK) British universities fail at research integrity self-regulation – Nature INDEX (Dalmeet Singh Chawla | July 2018)

Published/Released on July 11, 2018 | Posted by Admin on August 26, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

One-quarter of surveyed institutions admit to not complying with guidelines.

The United Kingdom should establish a committee to monitor efforts by the nation’s universities to properly conduct misconduct investigations, a parliamentary inquiry recommends. [colored_box]The guidance follows a new report... More

One-quarter of surveyed institutions admit to not complying with guidelines.

The United Kingdom should establish a committee to monitor efforts by the nation’s universities to properly conduct misconduct investigations, a parliamentary inquiry recommends. [colored_box]The guidance follows a new report released on 11 July, revealing that one in four UK universities does not comply with research integrity guidelines released six years ago. Their failure to adhere makes it difficult to determine the scale of the problem. . “Establishing a new national Research Integrity Committee is crucial,” says committee chairman and member of parliament, Norman Lamb. “It’s not a good look for the research community to be dragging its heels on this, particularly given research fraud can quite literally become a matter of life and death.” .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(UK) UK House of Commons committee wants to make sure “university investigations into research misconduct are handled appropriately” – Retraction Watch (C. K. Gunsalus | July 2018)

Published/Released on July 10, 2018 | Posted by Admin on August 25, 2018 | Keywords: , ,

View full details | Go to resource


A survey on data reproducibility and the effect of publication process on the ethical reporting of laboratory research (Papers: Delphine R Boulbes, et al | 2018)

Published/Released on April 11, 2018 | Posted by Admin on August 24, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Abstract Purpose: The successful translation of laboratory research into effective therapies is dependent upon the validity of peer-reviewed publications. However, several publications in recent years suggested that published scientific findings could only be reproduced 11-45% of the time. Multiple surveys attempted to elucidate the fundamental causes... More

Abstract Purpose: The successful translation of laboratory research into effective therapies is dependent upon the validity of peer-reviewed publications. However, several publications in recent years suggested that published scientific findings could only be reproduced 11-45% of the time. Multiple surveys attempted to elucidate the fundamental causes of data irreproducibility and underscored potential solutions; more robust experimental designs, better statistics, and better mentorship. However, no prior survey has addressed the role of the review and publication process on honest reporting. Experimental Design: We developed an anonymous online survey intended for trainees involved in bench research. The survey included questions related to mentoring/career development, research practice, integrity and transparency, and how the pressure to publish, and the publication process itself influence their reporting practices. Results: Responses to questions related to mentoring and training practices were largely positive, although an average of ~25% didn't seem to receive optimal mentoring. 39.2% revealed having been pressured by a principle investigator or collaborator to produce "positive" data. 62.8% admitted that the pressure to publish influences the way they report data. The majority of respondents did not believe that extensive revisions significantly improved the manuscript while adding to the cost and time invested. Conclusions: This survey indicates that trainees believe that the pressure to publish impacts honest reporting, mostly emanating from our system of rewards and advancement. The publication process itself impacts faculty and trainees and appears to influence a shift in their ethics from honest reporting ("negative data") to selective reporting, data falsification, or even fabrication.

Boulbes, D. R., et al. (2018). "A survey on data reproducibility and the effect of publication process on the ethical reporting of laboratory research." Clinical Cancer Research. http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2018/04/11/1078-0432.CCR-18-0227

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Denialism on the Rocks: It Just Got a Lot Harder to Pretend that Predatory Publishing Doesn’t Matter – Scholarly Kitchen (Rick Anderson | August 2018)

Published/Released on August 07, 2018 | Posted by Admin on August 23, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

If you don’t want *predatory publishing to tarnish the open access (OA) movement, you basically have two choices: an easy but ineffective one, and a difficult but more effective one. The easy but ineffective strategy is to deny that predatory publishing is a real issue and try to stop people... More

If you don’t want *predatory publishing to tarnish the open access (OA) movement, you basically have two choices: an easy but ineffective one, and a difficult but more effective one. The easy but ineffective strategy is to deny that predatory publishing is a real issue and try to stop people talking about it. The difficult but (at least potentially) effective strategy is to do something about the problem of predatory publishing.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Medical ethicist: “I now understand that I should not have been re-using material” – Retraction Watch (Alison McCook | July 2018)

Published/Released on July 20, 2018 | Posted by Admin on August 20, 2018 | Keywords: , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Are you liable for misconduct by scientific collaborators? What a recent court decision could mean for scientists – Retraction Watch (Richard Goldstein | August 2018)

Published/Released on August 13, 2018 | Posted by Admin on August 19, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Retraction Watch readers may have followed our coverage of the case of Christian Kreipke, a former Wayne State researcher who was recently barred from U.S. Federal funding for five years. That punishment followed years of allegations and court cases, along with half a... More

Retraction Watch readers may have followed our coverage of the case of Christian Kreipke, a former Wayne State researcher who was recently barred from U.S. Federal funding for five years. That punishment followed years of allegations and court cases, along with half a dozen retractions. The case has been complicated, to say the least, and led to a 126-page decision by a judge last month. Here, Boston-based attorney Richard Goldstein, who represented the scientist in Bois v. HHS, the first case to overturn a funding ban by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI), tries to explain what it could all mean. [colored_box]Can you commit research misconduct if you fail to detect false data from another scientist? . The answer is yes and here’s how it can happen. . You work in a well-regarded laboratory that receives government funding. You are frequently a principal investigator (PI) and a lead author. The lab suffered from some disorganization so when you took over, you demanded quality work and hired a new lab administrator. . Things are generally good but life in the laboratory is demanding.  The size of the lab makes it impossible for you to validate every piece of data.  So, you often have to trust that a colleague’s work is reliable and truthful, including from collaborators at other facilities.  Funding, as always, is a problem, which means you can’t buy enough equipment and data security software; tracking who did what is difficult.  Some lab employees (inherited from your predecessor) have professional or ‘personnel’ issues and you suspect some will leave the laboratory. And of course, there is growing pressure to publish, attend conferences, make new findings, and to keep the funding stream going.  There is never enough time. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Douglas Todd: B.C. economist in grim battle against deceptive scholarship – Vancouver Sun (Douglas Todd | August 2018)

Derek Pyne, a Thompson Rivers University economist, is among the global academics determined to expose deceptive academic journals, sometimes at a risk to their careers.

We’ve all heard about fake news. Now we have deceptive scholarship.

A determined B.C.... More

Derek Pyne, a Thompson Rivers University economist, is among the global academics determined to expose deceptive academic journals, sometimes at a risk to their careers.

We’ve all heard about fake news. Now we have deceptive scholarship.

A determined B.C. economics professor has journeyed into the heart of a dark world where academics seeking to advance their careers have had hundreds of thousands of their articles published for a fee in journals that either deserve suspicion or are outright phoney. In academia, where the admonition to “publish or perish” is not an empty threat, it is often difficult for scholars to have their research published in legitimate journals, let alone top ones. But it’s becoming increasingly common for academics to get articles produced in questionable journals, just by forking over $100 to $2,500 Cdn. Derek Pyne, a Thompson Rivers University economist who was granted tenure in 2015, is among the global academics who are exposing the deceptive journals, sometimes at a risk to their careers. Experts say these journals are chipping away at scientific, medical and educational credibility — and wasting the money of the taxpayers who largely finance public colleges and universities. 

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Todd, D. (2018) B.C. economist in grim battle against deceptive scholarship: Derek Pyne, a Thompson Rivers University economist, is among the global academics determined to expose deceptive academic journals, sometimes at a risk to their careers. Vancouver Sun. August 13, 2018 https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/b-c-economist-locked-in-grim-battle-against-deceptive-scholarship

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Disgraced trachea surgeon – and six co-authors – found responsible for misconduct – Science (Alison Abbott | June 2018)

Studies co-authored by Paolo Macchiarini misrepresented patients’ conditions, according to the Karolinska Institute. The Karolinska Institute in Stockholm has declared seven researchers responsible for scientific misconduct in a case involving six research articles co-authored by disgraced thoracic surgeon... More

Studies co-authored by Paolo Macchiarini misrepresented patients’ conditions, according to the Karolinska Institute. The Karolinska Institute in Stockholm has declared seven researchers responsible for scientific misconduct in a case involving six research articles co-authored by disgraced thoracic surgeon Paolo Macchiarini. [colored_box]It says that Macchiarini, who transplanted synthetic windpipes into three patients at the Karolinska University Hospital between 2011 and 2013, held the ultimate responsibility for the papers. The institute’s investigation found that the studies included “fabricated and distorted descriptions of the patients’ conditions”, and lacked the justification that the patients were given the treatment as a last resort. The experimental surgery failed. . The president of the Karolinska Institute, Ole Petter Ottersen, has called for the papers to be retracted. The outcome overturns a 2015 decision from an investigation under the previous president, which stated that Macchiarini had not committed misconduct in these papers. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Sexual misconduct in academia: reassessing the past – Times Higher Education (‘Collaborators’ | May 2018)

Published/Released on May 17, 2018 | Posted by Admin on August 16, 2018 | Keywords: , , , ,

The #MeToo movement has cast historical behaviour and curricula in a new, shadowy light. Four writers give us their perspectives

More than six months after the Harvey Weinstein scandal catapulted sexual harassment to the top of the cultural agenda, academia is among the industries... More

The #MeToo movement has cast historical behaviour and curricula in a new, shadowy light. Four writers give us their perspectives

More than six months after the Harvey Weinstein scandal catapulted sexual harassment to the top of the cultural agenda, academia is among the industries still grappling with the extent of the problem that it faces, and what to do about it. [colored_box]The #TimesUpAcademia (https://twitter.com/hashtag/timesupacademia) Twitter campaign launched last month by the Scotland-based journalist Vonny Leclerc elicited a considerable response. An open-source document created late last year by former US academic Karen Kelsky contains nearly 2,500 reports of sexual misconduct in mostly US and Canadian universities. And a survey by the UK’s National Union of Students, published in April, found that although most students objected to sexual approaches from academics, fewer than one in 10 reported it when it occurred. . In response to the NUS survey, campaign organisation the 1752 Group, which was closely involved in the survey, said that UK universities’ current disciplinary procedures are unfit for purpose, and it called on them to “introduce professional boundaries that clearly define the expected relationship between a staff member and a student”, that “reect the complexities of power and consent in the teaching relationship” and that punish transgressors. .

Read the rest of this discussion piece <Subscription required>...

Less

View full details | Go to resource


India cracks down on plagiarism at universities – Science (Shekhar Chandra | August 2018)

But some researchers say new rules don’t go far enough.

India has for the first time introduced regulations to detect and punish acts of plagiarism at universities. Punishments for researchers or students caught breaking the rules range from requiring that a manuscript be withdrawn... More

But some researchers say new rules don’t go far enough.

India has for the first time introduced regulations to detect and punish acts of plagiarism at universities. Punishments for researchers or students caught breaking the rules range from requiring that a manuscript be withdrawn to sacking or expulsion, depending on the extent of the plagiarism. The regulations define plagiarism as “taking someone else’s work or idea and passing them as one’s own”, and will apply to the 867 universities and their affiliated institutions that report to the nation’s education regulator, the University Grants Commission (UGC). The UGC announced on 3 August that the rules came into effect retroactively from 23 July. Previously, punishments for researchers caught plagiarizing were left to the discretion of the institution. The new rules also make it mandatory for institutions to use plagiarism-detection software, such as Turnitin, on students’ theses and researchers’ manuscripts. Currently, only some universities use detection software.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Inside India’s fake research paper shops: pay, publish, profit – The Indian EXPRESS (Shyamlal Yadav | July 2018)

View full details | Go to resource


Deception, distrust and disrespect – Karolinska Institutet: President’s Blog (Ole Petter Ottersen | May 2018)

Recently a person with the name Lars Andersson published an article on HPV vaccination in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics. The title page (now revised by the editor) stated that the author was affiliated with Karolinska Institutet. When the article was brought to our attention we quickly concluded... More

Recently a person with the name Lars Andersson published an article on HPV vaccination in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics. The title page (now revised by the editor) stated that the author was affiliated with Karolinska Institutet. When the article was brought to our attention we quickly concluded that no such affiliation exists. This person is not employed by KI, nor associated with KI in any other capacity. [colored_box] At first glance this is primarily a story about deception – about a person that abuses the name and status of a leading university to get his article into a peer-reviewed journal. And yes, Lars Andersson turns out to be a pseudonym. We do not know the identity of this person that falsely claims to be a researcher at KI. . So is this just a story about a willful deception on the part of a single, yet unidentified person? .

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(UK) We need more investigations into research misconduct – The Guardian (Norman Lamb MP | July 2018)

Published/Released on July 11, 2018 | Posted by Admin on August 12, 2018

Why I’m calling for watchdog to help rid research of malpractice and fraud

Last year the Guardian reported on the case of Paulo Macchiarini, an Italian surgeon working in Sweden, who was “hailed for turning... More

Why I’m calling for watchdog to help rid research of malpractice and fraud

Last year the Guardian reported on the case of Paulo Macchiarini, an Italian surgeon working in Sweden, who was “hailed for turning the dream of regenerative medicine into a reality – until he was exposed as a con artist and false prophet”. The Swedish Central Ethics Review Board concluded recently that six papers should be retracted as they falsely claimed that the artificia