Research Integrity
Questionable publishers – A Research Integrity resource
A lot is said about questionable publishers or predatory publishers, but what are we talking about, have there been changes, and does the message need to be different depending upon the career stage of our audience?
The AHRECS web elf – A Research Integrity and Human Research Ethics image
It’s always fun to enjoy a little joke at your own expense in a professional development activity/resource. Gary, who is an avid fantasy and sci-fi nut, came up with the idea for this image himself and liaised with our artist. This is one of the growing gallery of cartoon images (without the watermark) and resources available from https://www.ahrecs.vip and https://www.patreon.com/ahrecs.
Publish unethical research? – A Research Integrity discussion activity
Research integrity discussion activity inspired by the CRISPR Babies case
Institutional conflict-of-interest policies at US academic research institutions, Resnik D.B, Ariansen, MS, Jamal, J. and Kissling, G.E. Commentary by Prof. Colin Thomson – A Research Integrity Commentary
Commentary by Prof. Colin Thomson AM on this 2016 paper about institutional conflicts of interest policies (or lack thereof) at US research institutions. This informative …
Implementing the Australian Code (2018) – A research integrity resource
A comprehensive resource (including 44 short audios spoken by Prof. Mark Israel) about the Australian Code (2018).
Solving a puzzle and end of year message (2018)
A cartoon image that was our well wishes at the end of 2018 and could be used in your professional development activities.
A rose thorn by any other name? – A Research Integrity Commentary
Commentary on why questionable publishers might be a more accurate term than predatory publishers.
Illegitimate publishers (cheeky graphic)
Regardless of whether you call them questionable publishers, pay-to-play publishers or vanity publishers, we need to talk about them in our research integrity professional development efforts. While more entrenched in our thinking, the term predatory publishers no longer accurately reflects the dynamic of ‘shady’ research publishing. This cheeky graphic can be a lighthearted intro to this important topic.
Archived Posts
What constitutes “quality” in preclinical biological studies? – A research integrity commentary
Commentary by Nik Zeps on ‘Guest Post: Interesting Versus True? Measuring Transparency and Reproducibility of Biomedical Articles’, Scholarly Kitchen