I work for James Cook University, the educational institution that is the subject of this Wikipedia page. Based on the instructions I read on the Contact Us page, I would like to request that volunteer editors review these suggested changes. I believe these changes correct some substantial misinformation and in general, improve the quality of the page according to Wikipedia Policy. I will not edit them myself because I have a conflict of interest. Since these requests involve controversial matters, I believe they should not be addressed on the normal Request Edit queue.
1. Under section “Controversy”, please change title of current sub-section “Unfair dismissal” to “Unfair dismissal court case”
Reason? The current title misrepresents the state of the case. The Federal Court overturned the claim of unfair dismissal; in fact, the court ruled that the university did NOT unfairly dismiss Ridd[1](see more references and information below in requests #2 and #3.) I believe the new title “Unfair dismissal court case” is a more accurate, unbiased title and better adheres to Wikipedia policy re: WP: Neutral point of view.
2. In the “Unfair dismissal court case” sub-section of the “Controversy” section, please DELETE:
In September 2019, the university was ordered to pay $1.2 million in compensation to marine physicist Peter Ridd for being wrongly dismissed of employment, as ruled by the Federal Circuit Court.[2] It followed a ruling by the Federal Circuit Court that the actions of the university, including the repeated censure and ultimate dismissal, were unlawful. JCU had been found to be in violation of the Fair Work Act 2009.[3] The Justice of the Federal Circuit Court stated that the academic institution (JCU) failed to respect the rights to intellectual freedom as per the enterprise agreement.[4] Peter Ridd, a long-term professor whom had been the head of the physics department from 2009 to 2016, and head of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at JCU for 15 years, had been critical of the accuracy of studies by the JCU marine studies centre.[5][6]
In July 2020, the federal court overturned this decision, finding that Ridd's termination "did not breach the Fair Work Act 2009". JCU has "maintained it had never sought to silence Ridd, and his sacking was due to 'serious misconduct' and breaches of the university's code".[7] In February 2021, the High Court granted special leave for Peter Ridd to appeal the decision that would be heard by the High Court in June 2021.[8][9]
AND REPLACE IT WITH:
In September 2019, the university was ordered by the Federal Circuit Court to pay $1.2 million in compensation to marine physicist Peter Ridd for being wrongly dismissed of employment in violation of the Fair Work Act 2009.[10] [11] Ridd, a long-term professor whom had been the head of the physics department from 2009 to 2016, and head of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at JCU for 15 years, had been critical of the accuracy of studies by the JCU marine studies centre.[12][13]
JCU appealed the Federal Circuit Court’s decision, arguing his firing was lawful, in part, because Ridd repeatedly breached JCU’s Code of Conduct, including by denigrating a colleague and disclosing confidential information.[1] In July 2020, on appeal, the Full Federal Court found Ridd violated the university’s Code of Conduct[14] and that JCU did not breach the Fair Work Act..[1] In February 2021, the High Court granted special leave for Peter Ridd to appeal the decision that would be heard by the High Court in June 2021.[15][16]
Reason? First, the lower court’s ruling and the award have been overturned and that’s not in here. This paragraph reflects the latest ruling with multiple reliable sources. Second, especially since there is yet another appeal pending, this subsection is getting too long -- I have trimmed it a bit to temper WP: UNDUE WEIGHT relevant to the entire article.
Relevant text behind paywall in article for The Australian[1][17]
Peter Ridd, the Queensland physicist dismissed from James Cook University over criticisms he made about his colleagues’ research on climate change and the Great Barrier Reef, will have his case heard by the High Court.
3. In the “Reports of on-campus sexual harassment and assault” sub-section of the “Controversy” section, please add the following as a new third paragraph:
In February 2017, JCU appointed former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick to review the university’s sexual harassment and sexual assault policies.[18][19] As a result, the university revised its harassment and bullying policy, instituted a review of campus security, trained staff[19][18], and instituted an independent review into sexual harassment and assault throughout its residential colleges.[20] New policies include mandatory online training about sexual assault, sexual harassment, and consent for students and staff.[21]The university also implemented counselling for victims, and first responder training for staff.[22]
Reason? Updates with university’s response in order to offer a complete history of events to date and to avoid WP:BIASED; adds multiple WP:RS for the new information.
Relevant text behind paywall from the first cited Townsville Bulletin article: [23]
One of the recommendations in the resulting report, released in July last year, was an independent review into sexual harassment and assault within the residential colleges. At the time it was expected the review would take place before the end of the year.
A JCU spokesman confirmed an external consultant had been appointed and the review had started.
Relevant text behind paywall from the second cited Townsville Bulletin article:[24]
Compulsory online training about sexual assault, sexual harassment and consent is also being conducted at all residential JCU colleges.
The mandatory training for staff and students is part of the considerations of the Broderick Review Implementation Working Group.
4. Please DELETE the entire content of the sub-sections "Scientific Miscoduct" and "Claims of Scientific Fraud"
Scientific misconduct
An investigation by the UK scientific journal Nature published on 8 January 2020, found that eight JCU studies on the effect of climate change on coral reef fish, one of the studies of which was authored by the JCU educated discredited scientist Oona Lönnstedt, had a 100 percent replication failure and thus none of the findings of the original eight studies were found to be correct.[25] Concerns raised about a study Lönnstedt published while at JCU included an improbable number of lionfish claimed to have been used in this study, and images of 50 fish provided which clearly appeared to include multiple images of some biological specimens, and two images that had been flipped making two fish appear to be four.[26][27]
A further investigative team of seven scientists led by an aquatic physiologist from Victoria's Deakin University conducted an investigation into the discredited scientist educated at JCU between 2010 and 2014, biologist Oona Lönnstedt, who was undertaking PhD studies at the Queensland institution.[28] The investigation was launched after Dr Lönnstedt had been found guilty of fabricating data underpinning a study at a Swedish university following her departure from JCU.[28]
Claims of scientific fraud
In May 2021, the American publication Science Magazine had made claims in relation to scientific fraud involving 22 papers linked to James Cook University’s Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. The Australian Research Council, the US National Science Foundation and JCU had been asked to investigate the allegations. The article supported by the international Science Fund for Investigative Reporting, is the culmination of years of research and contested claims over how fish behaviour is changed by rising levels of carbon dioxide in the oceans. Researchers claimed to have evidence of manipulation in publicly available raw data files for two papers, one published in Science Magazine, the other in Nature Climate Change, combined with large and “statistically impossible” effects from CO2 reported in many of the other papers.[29][30]
Reason? These sub-sections are the only research from university staff discussed in this entire article. It more properly belongs in articles about these topics, such as Ocean acidification or Effects of climate change on oceans. Or on Wikipedia pages about the relevant researchers. Pages about universities would becomes many tens of thousands of words long, or more, if all disputes regarding academic research were laid in detail. This is not consistent with best practices as can be seen on WP: FA such as Duke University, Texas A&M University and Georgetown University
Furthermore, the sections are ideologically-driven and use non-RS opinion sources to bias the content. They do not have a WP:NPOV, or include opposing viewpoints WP:DUE. Specific problems with existing “Scientific misconduct” section include:
- Paragraph One - First sentence: The sole source used here is an opinion column/blog by James Delingpole. It is published in the Spectator, which Wikipedia has definitely determined should by judged as WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Delingpole is described by the Spectator as a blogger (and his articles come complete with a cartoon of him above the headline) and also the executive editor at Breitbart London , is a banned source as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, As such, under WP:RSOPINION the blog post should not be used to establish any facts - especially here, where it is purporting to summarize a complex scientific study from Nature (journal).
- Second sentence: The first source of the second sentence, JoNova is a blog for a person, not a Reliable Source. The second source, The Australian is a RS, however, it refers to a) an investigative panel at JCU that exonerated Lönnstedt after the publication of this after and b) findings in Biology Letters that were later retracted after Biology Letter found no problems with the research or findings, only that a collage image was published in errors. So it is an incomplete record.
- Paragraph Two. This is an accurate summary of a RS, Times Higher Education. However: 1) substantial findings not discussed in this article, or following this article, exonerated the researcher in question, Oona Lönnstedt, as described in my suggested substituted language (Biology Letter correction; JCU panel finding; Uppsala University finding); 2) while the news source is allowed to be biased, Wikipedia prohibits carrying over these opinions into a Wikipedia article. WP: BIASED Rather the facts should be presented with a WP:NPOV. The second paragraph carries over biased language from the source such as “discredited” and “found guilty” that are not NPOV. The specific panel the article from JCU that the article announces is being formed later found no wrongdoing on the part of Oona Lönnstedt, as described in my proposed new sub-section.
Below I have created NPOV, well-sourced alternative versions of these sub-sections, with neutral headlines, so independent reviewers can see how distorted the current sections are:
Ocean Acidification Research
Beginning in 2009, marine scientists, including JCU Professor Philip Munday, published several studies[31][32] on the effects of ocean acidification on fish behavior, including studies which showed that increased carbon dioxide levels in the ocean would impact small fish from being able to defend themselves against large predators.[33][34]
In January 2020, the UK journal Nature published a paper from several scientists who said they were unable to replicate several studies on the effect of elevated carbon dioxide levels on fish.[35][33] In October 2020, 13 researchers from six countries, including Munday, published their rebuttal in Nature.[36][34]
The team laid out 16 differences in methodology between their original experiments and the attempt to replicate their work. Some of the differences included using different fish species, different life stages and ecological histories, conducting experiments in water affected by a heatwave, and diluting predators’ smell.[34]
Oona Lönnstedt Research
Between 2010 and 2013, JCU PhD student Oona Lönnstedt co-authored several research papers while at the university, including a paper about the effects of carbon dioxide on small fish.[37][38]
In 2017, some of Lönnstedt’s work was disputed in the journal Biology Letters[39], questioning the number of fish she caught and the number used in her experiments.[40] In 2019, Biology Letters said an independent expert found no problems with the research and findings in Lönnstedt’s article, although it said an accompanying collage photograph used for illustrative purposes but not related to the actual findings, was published in error.[41][42] Science magazine, though, published an article, that also questioned Lönnstedt’s lionfish research[43], saying the results resembled those of a 2016 article[44] co-authored by her which Science later retracted.[45] although an investigation by Uppsala University, which she attended at the time, found no wrongdoing by and said she had been maligned by two scientists challenging her work.[42]
Her 2013 study [cite] was one of the eight JCU papers cited in a January 2020 article in the journal Nature[35] as among those the authors could not replicate; the original authors later rebutted the claim in October 2020, saying the new studies were conducted under very different conditions.[36]
In 2019, JCU established an external review panel into research conducted by Lönnstedt at the university.[46] In August 2020, the panel released its findings, concluding that Lönnstedt did not engage in research misconduct.[37] Some scientists, including Timothy Clark, a marine biologist at Deakin University, and ecologist Dominique Roche, questioned the results of the investigation, saying external allegations and witnesses were not allowed.[37]
HOWEVER, rather than use these sub-sections, I believe best practice is just to delete content about academic disputes.
Relevant text behind paywall from Times Higher Education[47]
James Cook University said it has appointed an external panel to look for evidence of misconduct in the research conducted by marine biologist Oona Lönnstedt between 2010 and 2014, when she was undertaking PhD studies at the Queensland institution.
Relevant text behind paywall from Times Higher Education: [48]
James Cook University said it has appointed an external panel to look for evidence of misconduct in the research conducted by marine biologist Oona Lönnstedt between 2010 and 2014, when she was undertaking PhD studies at the Queensland institution.
A research fraudster educated at James Cook University committed no misconduct while she was at the Queensland institution, an independent panel has found, but critics said questions around the record of fish ecologist Oona Lönnstedt have not been resolved.
Thank you for your consideration. Mrssquiggle (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- This request is way longer than I'm able to go through right now, but at a very quick glance over the page, having a 5-subsection controversy section populated entirely with controversies since the 2010s seems recentist in the extreme and very likely undue. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Mrssquiggle, while I'm inclined to agree with Sdkb that the section on controversies is probably undue, I am a bit troubled by an employee of the university asking Wikipedia to make such significant edits (particularly if you are, or are under the instruction of, university management - note that you don't have to confirm that either way) - I'm very mindful of WP:NOTCENSORED. The Ridd v JCU case is quite high profile (it has been raised as an "academic free speech" test case since it started - once the High Court hears it and makes a decision it will probably deserve its own article), so at the very least I'd be inclined to keep that part, but I agree it's slightly inaccurate (e.g. it wasn't an unfair dismissal case at all - it's about whether the intellectual freedom clause in the University's enterprise agreement was breached, and what damages, etc. resulted from that) so it's reasonable to make some changes to correct that part at least. Deus et lex (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've now redone the section on Ridd's case. Hopefully that resolves issues 1 and 2 from your perspective. Deus et lex (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Deus et lex: Thank you for your help with this article. Would you mind taking another look at request #2? The article doesn’t give the specifics of why the university said it dismissed Ridd, which should be given greater weight and detail, especially since the most recent full court of the Federal Court of Australia ruling sides with the university. I’d suggest adding the following sentence as the last sentence of the first paragraph in the “Peter Ridd Sacking” sub-section: “JCU appealed the Federal Circuit Court’s decision, arguing his firing was lawful, in part, because Ridd repeatedly breached JCU’s Code of Conduct, including by denigrating a colleague and disclosing confidential information.[1] Mrssquiggle (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding the other concerns: (3) I've added the review of sexual harassment/assault and its outcomes; (4) I've deleted the sections on scientific misconduct and fraud. (A quick check of articles about some other Australian universities found they didn't even have controversy sections, let alone such detailed descriptions of academic fraud. If anyone wants to reinstate these details, they belong elsewhere with links from this article if needed.) Meticulo (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Instead of deleting unfavourable information, it would be preferred to add the counter text to the article cited in addition as aforementioned. It would appear as though there is a cover up of the information otherwise when it is deleted in an unwarranted manner, of which the information is relevant and appropriately cited according to the Wikipedia guidelines.Joinwiki230 (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Mrssquiggle, Joinwiki230, I've edited the sexual assault section. Please let me know if you consider there's any problems as it now stands. Meticulo (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
References
Nugent, Victoria (10 July 2018). "Uni studies sex attack policies". Townsville Bulletin. News Corp Australia.
Nugent, Victoria (10 July 2018). "Uni studies sex attack policies". Townsville Bulletin. News Corp Australia.
Munday, Philip L.; Dixson, Danielle L.; Welch, Megan J.; Chivers, Douglas P.; Domenici, Paolo; Grosell, Martin; Heuer, Rachael M.; Jones, Geoffrey P.; McCormick, Mark I.; Meekan, Mark; Nilsson, Göran E.; Ravasi, Timothy; Watson, Sue-Ann (21 October 2020). "Methods matter in repeating ocean acidification studies". Nature. 586: E20–E24. Retrieved 3 April 2021.
- @Deus et lex: The Peter Ridd appeal has been decided by the full high court. I thought you might want to independently confirm. For your convenience and consideration, here is proposed language for the last sentence of the final paragraph of “Peter Ridd” sub-section in Controversy.
On October 13, 2021 the High Court unanimously dismissed the appeal brought by Ridd.[1][2] The High Court in its judgement said that Ridd’s termination was justified by 18 findings of serious misconduct, none of which were protected by the intellectual freedom clause of the university’s enterprise agreement.[1]
- Just one other thought: since at the end of the day, he failed to prove his accusations to the satisfaction of the court, this section seems too long to me. Maybe it should be shortened? The accusations and lower court rulings are disproportionately heavily weighted, I think, given the outcome. Do you have any thoughts?
- Maybe for WP: Impartial and WP: Balance, Wikipedia should at least note in the first sentence of the sub-section - following “...commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court against the university…” - that these proceedings were “, ultimately unsuccessful when appealed to the full High Court in 2021[1],....” Thank you for your consideration in this matter.Mrssquiggle (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Mrssquiggle: - that's not an accurate summary of what the High Court found. The High Court found that JCU did breach its enterprise agreement in 2015, but as Ridd had run the case on an "all-or-nothing basis" in arguing that the termination was ultimately also a breach of the academic freedom clause, the High Court disagreed on that point (it found that the breach of the confidentiality provisions were justified) and dismissed the case. Deus et lex (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=logo}
