Dexter Leung

Home/Dexter Leung

About Dexter Leung

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far Dexter Leung has created 31 blog entries.

Should you accept a funding opportunity limited by conditions imposed by the sponsor?

Professor Peter Miller and others apply the PERIL analysis to determine if a funding opportunity which is accompanied by conditions should be accepted. Case study: PERIL analysis of a funding opportunity limited by conditions imposed by a collaborating organisation A residential rehabilitation charity approaches you to collaborate in an application to fund doctoral research into the long-term effect of its project. The charity reports that it has been involved in research previously and has found it beneficial. The methodology is discussed and agreed. The application

Should you accept research funding from a tobacco company?

Peter Miller and others apply the PERIL analysis proposed by Peter Adams to determine if research funding offered by a tobacco company should be accepted. Case study: Funding opportunity from a tobacco company A university-based School of Medicine distributes an email announcing to all faculty and staff the availability of a new research funding opportunity. The announcement reads: "Please see the link below for an available funding opportunity from the Philip Morris External Research Foundation". The website invited scientists to submit funding proposals to Philip

Categories: Case Studies, Duty of Care|Tags: |

The importance of formal procedures to deal with allegations of research misconduct

Professor Richard Epstein (University of Chicago Law School) has written an article in which he emphasises the importance of "established and settled institutional arrangements" (rather than "sloppy and ad hoc procedures") to investigate allegations of research misconduct in each university. Epstein points out that there should be no appearance of bias by the person(s) responsible for the investigation. Referring to his own experience in shaping the procedures at the University of Chicago, he writes that: "in order to avoid any risk of bias, the appointment of the

Useful resource: Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI)

CITI (Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative) is an online research integrity and ethics training resource available to HKU staff and research postgraduate students (RPGs). Six courses are available to HKU staff and RPGs: Responsible Conduct of Research for Clinical Investigators Social and Behavioural Responsible Conduct of Research Course Physical Science/Non-Clinical Responsible Conduct of Research Humanities Responsible Conduct of Research Course Responsible Conduct of Research for Engineers and Architects Responsible Conduct of Research for Research Services Staff Information on how to access CITI as a HKU staff member/RPG

How should researchers procure goods and services?

Prof. Mark Israel (Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services) has kindly given permission for this hypothetical case study to be reproduced. Simon has been awarded a grant by the UGC. The research will require him to purchase services from interpreters, travel agents, and employ research assistants. He suspects that he might get the best deal from his wife's translation agency, his brother's travel agency, and the daughter of a senior manager at the UGC, who topped the class in the relevant area, is looking for

Should you accept conference honoraria/travel funding from a sponsor?

Professor Peter Miller (School of Psychology, Deakin University) and others argue in an article that researchers should be aware that their objectivity might be compromised if they accept honoraria and travel funds from a sponsor that funds industry-favourable research. Also, they highlight the opportunities to fraternise with industry executives at such conferences. They give the example of the alcohol industry sponsoring academics to attend conferences, at which industry executives have the opportunity to meet researchers. Miller and others argue that, because the alcohol industry funds

Should you peer review an article written by a former colleague?

Prof. Mark Israel (Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services) has kindly given permission for this hypothetical case study to be reproduced. Karen is asked by a journal to review an article written by a former colleague. They have not co-authored together, though they did discuss doing so once. They are both in the same very narrow field of specialisation and have found themselves repeatedly competing for the same jobs around the world. This article appears to be covering similar ground to the work Karen recently

Is peer review confidentiality overridden when the author is suspected of misconduct?

The following case study was published by the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics): Editor A wrote to editor B, indicating that one of the reviewers of a paper submitted to Journal A contained material that had been submitted at about the same time to Journal B. Editor A requested a copy of the paper submitted to Journal B. Editor B responded, confirming that the paper in question had been submitted to Journal B (submission date two weeks earlier than the paper submitted to Journal A),

What is ‘salami-slicing’ and is it acceptable?

The Office of Research Integrity's Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research (which is referred to in Section 2 of the HKU Policy on Research Integrity) explains the phenomenon commonly known as 'salami-slicing' as follows: "Salami publication (sometimes called bologna or trivial publication) is the practice of dividing one significant piece of research into a number of small experiments (least publishable units or LPUs), simply to increase the number of publications. This practice may distort the value of the work by increasing the number of studies

How to decide whether to accept sponsorship funding: PERIL analysis

In an article published in 2007, Peter Adams proposed a decision-making framework known as 'PERIL'. Peter Miller summarises Adams' PERIL framework as follows: Purpose refers to the degree to which purposes are divergent between funder and recipient. For example, if the primary purpose of the recipient is the advancement of public good, receiving funds from dangerous consumption industries such as tobacco, alcohol and gambling will probably conflict with this purpose. Similarly, the risk is mitigated partially if the funder has a clear public good role.