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.

Interviewing vulnerable people – a University of Sheffield case study

The following is an extract from an article by Professor Jerry Wellington of the University of Sheffield in February 2014 (with emphasis added): Interviewing Vulnerable People in a Funded Evaluation This scenario is designed to present two ethical dilemmas which can occur during fieldwork: can researchers always produce the 'hard data' required by funding bodies? And can interviewers draw a line between a research interview and a counselling session? I was asked to be part of a research team to evaluate a National project aimed

Useful resource: Association for Research Ethics (AfRE) ‘Case of the Month’

The Association for Research Ethics (AfRE) publishes a 'Case of the Month' on its website ( This may be a useful resource for legal researchers seeking guidance on the ethical issues to take into account.  

Conflict of interest and suppression of legitimate results by a sponsor – a COPE case study

One case study from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website ( The journal is operated by institute A, and the editor is an employee of institute A. A manuscript was submitted late in 2014 by authors from institute B, a similar type of organisation in the same country. The manuscript was reviewed by two referees who both recommended publication following minor revision. One of the reviewers noted that the abstract contained a vague statement related to the effectiveness of a treatment for a major

Leak of a confidential draft by a peer reviewer – a COPE case study

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has shared a case study on its website regarding the leak of a confidential draft by a peer reviewer ( Shortly before publication, I received an email from the authors of a systematic review telling me that a version of the paper as first submitted to the journal for peer review had appeared on the website of a campaign group based in the USA. It was clear that the version of the document posted on the website was the

‘Want a favourable peer review? Buy one.’

The following is an extract from an article ('Want a favorable peer review? Buy one') by Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus which appeared on the STAT News website (21 April 2016): The EditPub site (which seemed on Thursday to be no longer up and running), is almost entirely in Chinese, but its homepage bills it as a “service center for scientific research.” Its existence came to light earlier this month after the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology retracted a 2015 article by a group from

Legitimate authorship – a survey of educational researchers in Hong Kong

Professor Bruce Macfarlane conducted research into the perceptions among educational researchers in Hong Kong of the ethics of multiple authorship (namely what constitutes legitimate authorship). In October/November 2014, a link to an online questionnaire was sent by e-mail to academic staff with professorial and research track positions in Schools or Faculties of Education in Hong Kong. 108 responses were collected, representing a response rate of 36.1% of the 299 education academics employed in Schools or Faculties of Education in Hong Kong. Case studies in the

R (BAT) v DOH – a landmark judgment on research integrity

On 19 May 2016, Mr Justice Green handed down his judgment in the English High Court case of R. (on the application of British American Tobacco UK Ltd & Others) v Secretary of State for Health [2016] EWHC 1169 (Admin) in which the claimant tobacco companies challenged the legality of the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015. This decision is significant as Mr Justice Green discusses the way in which the Court, in the context of a judicial review, should evaluate expert evidence in

Responsibility towards research participants: HKU and other policies

When conducting research involving human participants, it is important to carry out the research in a manner that respects the dignity of the human participants. This is particularly relevant for those conducting empirical legal research, as well as research in the area of behavioural law and economics. HKU Policy on Research Integrity ('Principles of Research Integrity', Section 1):  All researchers have a duty to care for the human participants ... under study. HKU Policy on Research Integrity ('Responsible conduct of research', Section 2.1):   The

Conflict of interest: HKU and other policies

The HKU Policy on Research Integrity covers conflict of interest in the following sections: Section 1 ('Principles of Research Integrity'): In pursuing their research activities, members of the University should adhere to good research practices; and should not be engaged in research misconduct such as ... non-disclosure of potential conflict of interest. Section 2.2 ('Publication-related conduct'): Where appropriate and with their permission, names of individuals or organisations which have made significant contributions to the research and the roles they played in the project should be acknowledged in publications.  These include

HKU Policy on Research Integrity: Authorship Criteria

The HKU Policy on Research Integrity covers authorship criteria in the following sections: Section 1 ('Principle of Research Integrity'): All members of the University must observe the highest standards of professional conduct and must comply with the following principles of research integrity in pursuing their research activities: [...] fairness in giving credit and appropriate acknowledgement [...] [All researchers] must be fair in giving credit for the work of other researchers who participate in the research. [...] In pursing their research activities, members of the University