Researcher responsibilities

describing the most common cognitive distortions

Acting on ‘soft’ research misconduct – A Research Integrity commentary

In this commentary sheet we discuss what some have termed ‘soft misconduct’ and five ways in which institutions can deal with them. Others have reasonably observed that they are just research misconduct and should be investigated and punished as such.  While this might indeed be the case, until national research integrity codes (such as the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research) list these behaviours as being research misconduct, institutions will need to deal with them with their own policies and procedures.

A funny cartoon about using a Goldberg machine to chase a non-responsive researcher.

Chasing a non-responsive researcher – A Human Research Ethics commentary

This Human Research Ethics commentary reflects on useful approaches to researchers who fail to respond to requests.  This includes failure to respond to research ethics review feedback, failure to respond to requests for ethical conduct reports and failure to respond to other requests from the research ethics committee.  Hopefully, your institutional approach will be a little bit more practical than the Goldberg machine in this humorous Don Mayne cartoon.

A cover image for the talk by Nik to the Victoria Ethics Network

Human research ethics and risk, the role of research ethics committees – A Human Research Ethics talk

This is a recording of a Victoria Ethics Network session facilitated by Prof. Nik Zeps, a senior consultant of AHRECS. He is speaking about the role of HRECs with regard to risks, benefits and their weighing. A very handy one hour ten minute talk by an experienced practitioner, who has both served on the committee that drafted the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and has served/chaired numerous research ethics committees.