Academics

Home/Tag:Academics

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 (http://publicationethics.org/case/online-posting-confidential-draft-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

Categories: Case Studies, Duty of Care, Publication-related Conduct|Tags: , |

‘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

Categories: Case Studies, Objectivity|Tags: , |

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

Categories: Acknowledgement, Case Studies, Improper Ascription of Authorship|Tags: , |

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Authorship Criteria

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (jointly published by the European Science Foundation and ALL European Academies (ALLEA), and to which the HKU Policy on Research Integrity makes reference) states the following: Fairness, in providing proper references and giving due credits to the work of others, in treating colleagues with integrity and honesty. (emphasis added) It is unacceptable to claim or grant undeserved authorship and to deny deserved authorship, or to inadequately allocate credit. Unjustified claimed authorship and ghost authorship are forms of

Categories: Acknowledgement, Improper Ascription of Authorship, Policies, Publication-related Conduct, Research Misconduct|Tags: , , |

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

Categories: Abuse of Data, Disclosure of Conflict of Interest, Good Research Practices, Non-Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest, Objectivity|Tags: , , , |

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

Categories: Care and Safety, Duty of Care, Policies, Principles of Research Integrity, Responsible Conduct of Research|Tags: , , , |

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

Categories: Disclosure of Conflict of Interest, Non-Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest, Objectivity, Policies, Principles of Research Integrity|Tags: , |

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

Categories: Accountability, Acknowledgement, Improper Ascription of Authorship, Policies, Principles of Research Integrity, Publication-related Conduct|Tags: , , |