Auditing published papers (part I)

After they have been published, I audit research papers. 

Image by @freepik

Why? How does that work? 😕

A new revised version of The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECCRI) has been produced by Allea, and recognised by the European Commission, one of the world's largest research funding bodies.

This revision focuses on a heightened awareness of issues pertaining to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI), but also the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and even Open Science.

I know.. too much legal speak, too many acronyms... 😬

So, let me sum it up for you. 🔊

All institutions, organizations, and individuals that engage in or interact with research must always abide by the principles of:

  • Honesty

  • Respect  

  • Reliability  

  • Accountability 


Simple enough, right? Humm..

I analyse papers that have been flagged as "of concern". 😟

The issues I most commonly see have to do with lack of funding or data availability statements, inappropriate citations, and lack of clarity regarding the purpose of the study.

The most severe cases lack statements regarding ethical approval for studies involving people or animals, and/or informed consent to participate or publish. 😒

When authors can not provide these elements after they have been contacted by the publisher, the paper will be retracted.

If wilful misconduct is found, the paper will be retracted.

You get the gist... If you are serious about your research, get serious about your writing.

Good writing can appease a lot of these issues.

 

So, the ECCRI we were talking about above 👆

I'll focus mainly on what's important for publications:

  • Formal agreement on the sequence of authorship and acknowledgement of those that do not qualify for authorship

  • Disclosure of conflicts of interest and sources of funding.

  • Authors will be given credit if corrections are issued when prompted by a post-publication audit.

  • Negative results are results. Always submit them for publication.

  • Be clear regarding your assumptions, remaining uncertainties, and knowledge gaps. 

  • These criteria will be upheld in preprint servers as well as in all other publication forms.

 

Stay tuned for part II, where I'll talk about peer reviewing in research.

Comments

Post a Comment

Leave a comment!

How to spot fake reviewers: a beginner's guide

Image
For those unfamiliar with or new to academic publishing, peer review manipulation is hard to spot. This is mainly because most peer review reports are still confidential documents that stay buried deep in academic journal's editorial offices. As long as this continues to be the default, recognising good and bad peer reviews is difficult enough... now we have to worry about fake peer review as well?! 😒 Well, yes. Yes, we do. The peer review process in academic publishing is unlike any other. The style and content of a manuscript are criticized, as are the thought processes that birthed it. Everything from word choice to significance of the research focus is under scrutiny. In traditional peer review formats, reviewers recommend that manuscripts be accepted or rejected. This much power may make some less scrupulous people guiddy... or yearning to rig the system. The refereeing work that is supposed to be one of the garantors of research integrity is itself highly susceptible to ma
Read more

IMHO: why open science should adopt double anonymous peer review

Image
Let's get opinionated... Peer review is still the cornerstone of quality research. This has been repeated by so many during #PeerReviewWeek2023 , it almost lost its meaning to me. I participated in this conversation wholeheartedly, as a freelancer with a variety of roles, from content review to integrity audits.  I’m no longer in academia, but I did my stint there: it’s hard to imagine that many PhD students and postdocs get excited by performing their first peer review. It often results from an invitation trickle-down and, although it can be regarded as a learning opportunity, peer review is hard, time-consuming, unpaid, and often unrecognized work. Open participation is often regarded by researchers as the fairer, more constructive and productive process, leading to improvement in the quality of the finished version of the works. This is the iterative version of having a preprint published in a stable server, with access to all versions of the work, and “comments on”.   The
Read more