The Office of Research Integrity found in 2011 that Vipul Bhrigu, a postdoctoral researcher who sabotaged a colleague’s research materials, was guilty of misconduct. However, I argue that this judgment is ill-considered and sets a problematic precedent for future cases. I first discuss the current federal definition of research misconduct and representative cases of research misconduct. Then, because this case recalls a debate from the 1990s over what the definition of “ (...) class='Hi'>research misconduct” ought to be, I briefly recapitulate that history and reconsider the Bhrigu case in light of that history and in comparison to other cases involving tampering. Finally, I consider what the aim of a definition of research misconduct ought to be, and argue that the precedent set by the reasoning in this case is problematic. (shrink)

Sir,The case discussion by Rasmussen is very interesting (Rasmussen 2013). Rasmussen concluded that “argue that the precedent set by the reasoning in this case is problematic.” In fact, the final decision whether an accused case of misconduct is exactly guilty or not is very complicated. The decision has to follow the standard definition of misconduct. However, there are usually problems in decision. The question is whether the standard is problematic or the “user” or the ones who interpret (...) and make decision is problematic. There are many factors that can affect the final decision. First, the bias to decide “not guilty” is common. This might be a “false negative”. Sometimes, the accused person is a senior academic person or administrator, the bias can be seen (Joob and Wiwanitkit 2012). This is the rooted problem in many developing countries where the academic society is under standard (Joob and Wiwanitkit 2012). Second, the opposite bias can also be expected. This might be the case th. (shrink)

There is no consensus over the proper definition of ‘scientific misconduct.’ There are differences in opinion not only between countries but also between research institutions in the same country. This is unfortunate. Without a widely accepted definition it is difficult for scientists to adjust to new research milieux. This might hamper scientific innovation and make cooperation difficult. Furthermore, due to the potentially damaging consequences it is important to combat misconduct. But how frequent is it (...) and what measures are efficient? Without an appropriate definition there are no interesting answers to these questions. In order to achieve a high degree of consensus and to foster research integrity, the international dialogue over the proper definition of ‘scientific misconduct’ must be on going. Yet, the scientific community should not end up with the definition suggested by the Swedish Research Council. The definition the council advocates does not satisfy the ordinary language condition. That is, the definition is not consistent with how ‘scientific misconduct’ is used by scientists. I will show that this is due to the fact that it refers to false results. I generalise this and argue that no adequate definition of ‘scientific misconduct’ makes such a reference. (shrink)

Between 1993 and 2002, 39 clinical trial staff were investigated for scientific misconduct by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). Analysis of ORI case records reveals practices regarding workload, training and supervision that enable misconduct. Considering the potential effects on human subjects protection, quality and reliability of data, and the trustworthiness of the clinical research enterprise, regulations or guidance on use of clinical trial staff ought to be available. Current ORI regulations do not hold investigators or (...) institutions responsible for supervision and training of clinical trial staff. Given the important issues at stake, the definition of research misconduct should encompass the intentional or negligent mismanagement of scientific projects. Individual institutions and professional associations not only can but should adopt stricter standards of conduct than those reflected in federal regulations. (shrink)

The proportion of research misconduct cases among trainees in the biomedical sciences has risen, raising the question of why, and what are the responsibilities of research administrators and the research community to address this problem. Although there is no definitive research about causes, for trainees the relationship with a research mentor should play a major role in preventing actions that constitute research misconduct. Examination of the limited literature and of the number of (...) cases closed by the US Office of Research Integrity between 2009 and 2013 raises questions about the mentor-student relationship and what it should be accomplishing. But many gaps in policy and its implementation inhibit this role. There is no acknowledgement of mentorship in federal regulations and research on how to teach research integrity is woefully underdeveloped, especially for international trainees. And some institutional research integrity officers may have had little preparation for the role. (shrink)

Scientific journals may incur scientific error if articles are tainted by research misconduct. While some journals’ ethical policies, especially those on conflicts of interest, have improved over recent years, with some adopting a uniform approach, only around half of biomedical journals, principally those with higher impact factors, currently have formal misconduct policies, mainly for handling allegations. Worryingly, since a response to allegations would reasonably require an a priori definition, far fewer journals have publicly available definitions of (...) misconduct. While some journals and editors’ associations have taken significant steps to prevent and detect misconduct and respond to allegations, the content, visibility of and access to these policies varies considerably. In addition, while the lack of misconduct policies may prompt and maintain a de novo approach for journals, potentially causing stress, publication delays and even legal disputes, the lack of uniformity may be a matter of contention for research stakeholders such as editors, authors and their institutions, and publishers. Although each case may need an individual approach, I argue that posting highly visible, readily accessible, comprehensive, consistent misconduct policies could prevent the publication of fraudulent papers, increase the number of retractions of already published papers and, perhaps, reduce research misconduct. Although legally problematic, a concerted approach, with sharing of information between editors, which is clearly explained in journal websites, could also help. Ideally, journals, editors’ associations, and publishers should seek consistency and homogenise misconduct policies to maintain public confidence in the integrity of biomedical research publications. (shrink)

In Research Misconduct Policy in Biomedicine: Beyond the Bad-Apple Approach, Barbara Redman recommends that policy perspectives on research misconduct extend beyond the individual wrongdoer to encompass institutional and broader contexts. She rails against what she sees as a pervasive focus on the misbehavior of individuals that neglects organizational and psychosocial aspects of bad conduct. Her primary targets are the misconduct policies of the U.S. federal government and research institutions. In the U.S., research (...) class='Hi'>misconduct policy is grounded in the federal definition of research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. The Office of Research.. (shrink)

BackgroundResearch on research integrity has tended to focus on frequency of research misconduct and factors that might induce someone to commit research misconduct. A definitive answer to the first question has been elusive, but it remains clear that any research misconduct is too much. Answers to the second question are so diverse, it might be productive to ask a different question: What about how research is done allows research misconduct to (...) occur?MethodsWith that question in mind, research integrity officers of the 62 members of the American Association of Universities were invited to complete a brief survey about their most recent instance of a finding of research misconduct. Respondents were asked whether one or more good practices of research were present in their case of research misconduct.ResultsTwenty-four of the respondents indicated they had dealt with at least one finding of research misconduct and answered the survey questions. Over half of these RIOs reported that their case of research misconduct had occurred in an environment in which at least nine of the ten listed good practices of research were deficient.ConclusionsThese results are not evidence for a causal effect of poor practices, but it is arguable that committing research misconduct would be more difficult if not impossible in research environments adhering to good practices of research. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Jahrbuch für Wissenschaft und Ethik Jahrgang: 18 Heft: 1 Seiten: 85-122.

This letter is a response to David Guston’s paper “Changing Explanatory Frameworks in the U.S. Government’s Attempt to Define Scientific Misconduct” which appeared in a special issue of Science and Engineering Ethics on Scientific Misconduct.

Nearly two decades of debate have not settled the definition of research misconduct. The literature provides four explanatory frameworks for misconduct. The paper examines these frameworks and maps them onto efforts by the U.S. Public Health Service to define research misconduct and subsequent responses to these efforts by the scientific community. The changing frameworks suggest that closure will not be achieved without an authoritative effort, which may occur through the Research Integrity Panel’s recent (...) attempt to create a government-wide definition. (shrink)

Over the past three decades, two separate federal regulatory structures have emerged, each seeking to assure separate aspects of the integrity and ethics of research conducted using federal funding. One set of regulations is described in the Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct and relates to research misconduct, defined as consisting of fabrication of data or results, falsification of data and results, or plagiarism, in accordance with the federal‐wide definition adopted by the Office (...) of Science and Technology Policy. The second set of regulations, set forth in the Department of Health and Human Services regulations on the protection of human subjects (known as the “Common Rule”), prescribes a set of ethical and procedural protections for research involving human subjects.These two sets of research regulations are distinguished from each other by having different foci of enforcement, priorities of protection, oversight officials, oversight procedures, seizure of evidence, standards of proof, expectations of privacy, and appeal procedures for researchers who are subject to adverse findings and penalties. These differences are significant and fundamental. They complicate the process of compliance for institutions and researchers, who are expected to adhere to both sets of standards for the same federally funded research activities in research with human subjects. Compliance is especially complicated when suspected violations of both sets of standards must be investigated and resolved concurrently. This document represents an effort to provide institutions and individuals with practical suggestions as they try to comply with both sets of regulations. (shrink)

To promote ethical conduct in science, government funding agencies, academic institutions, and professional journals have defined some types of seriously unethical behaviors as research misconduct and have developed policies and procedures for reporting, investigating, and adjudicating allegations of misconduct. Behaviors that are not as egregious as misconduct but are still regarded as unethical are called questionable research practices. Although there is considerable variation in research misconduct definitions used by different organizations and nations, most (...) of them classify data fabrication or falsification or plagiarism as misconduct. This chapter will distinguish between research misconduct, questionable research practices, and fraud; describe policies and procedures related to misconduct; review some famous cases of misconduct; examine the prevalence and causes of misconduct; and discuss ways of preventing misconduct. (shrink)

The purpose of this study is to encourage and highlight discussion on how to improve the teaching of research ethics in institutions of higher education in Malaysia. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 21 academics in a research-intensive university in Malaysia, interviewees agreed on the importance of emphasizing the subject of research ethics among students, as well as academics or researchers. This study reveals that participants felt that there is an urgent need to improve the current awareness and (...) knowledge of issues related to misconduct in research among students and academics. The results of this study indicate a need for better teaching on the subject of research ethics in order to prevent misconduct in research. Finally, it concludes with suggestions that there should be a clear definition of research misconduct, to include consequences when engaging in misconduct; a separate research ethics syllabus for pure and social sciences should be conducted; research ethics should be implemented as a core subject, and there should be an early intervention and continuous learning of research ethics, with an emphasis on ethics training. (shrink)

Why we have done this research and written this book -- Immoral panics -- A courageous proposal, but this would be a high risk study : ethics review procedures, risk and censorship -- Truths and stories -- Confused, angry and actually betrayed : it was time to get out -- Timpson versus Regina -- How do you tell teenage children that their father's been -- Accused of sexual abuse?? -- It didn't take long for the rumour mill to start (...) grinding -- Nobody can prove anything for definite -- Endwords. (shrink)

Research misconduct has been thoroughly discussed in the literature, but mainly in terms of definitions and prescriptions for proper conduct. Even when case studies are cited, they are generally used as a repository of “lessons learned.” What has been lacking from this conversation is how the lessons of responsible conduct of research are imparted in the first place to graduate students, especially those in technical fields such as engineering. Nor has there been much conversation about who is (...) responsible for what in training students in Responsible Conduct of Research or in allocating blame in cases of misconduct. This paper explores three seemingly disparate cases of misconduct—the 2004 plagiarism scandal at Ohio University; the famous Robert Millikan article of 1913, in which his reported data selection did not match his notebooks; and the 1990 fabrication scandal in Dr. Leroy Hood’s research lab. Comparing these cases provides a way to look at the relationship between the graduate student (or trainee) and his/her advisor (a relationship that has been shown to be the most influential one for the student) as well as at possibly differential treatment for established researchers and researchers-in-training, in cases of misconduct. This paper reflects on the rights and responsibilities of research advisers and their students and offers suggestions for clarifying both those responsibilities and the particularly murky areas of research-conduct guidelines. (shrink)

The debate about the definition of scientific miscon duct is being revisited by the scientific community in response to the Commission on Research Integrity's recommendation for a new definition. Scientists and lawyers are debating whether scientific misconduct should include acts that are not unique to the scientific community and do not affect the research. Falsification of credentials is one form of such misconduct.The Office of Research Integrity and the National Science Foundation, the two (...) federal agencies primarily responsible for developing policies on scientific misconduct, have struggled to define scientific rnisconduct and to decide which forms of professional misconduct do and do not fall within the definition. Although falsification of credentials is not unique to the scientific community, OR1 and NSF have determined that when researchers lie about their credentials, such conduct may constitute scientific misconduct. The question is why this form of professional misconduct has been labeled scientific misconduct when it occurs in a research setting, and whether any distinction exists between this white coat crime and white collar crime. (shrink)

The debate about the definition of scientific miscon duct is being revisited by the scientific community in response to the Commission on Research Integrity's recommendation for a new definition. Scientists and lawyers are debating whether scientific misconduct should include acts that are not unique to the scientific community and do not affect the research. Falsification of credentials is one form of such misconduct.The Office of Research Integrity and the National Science Foundation, the two (...) federal agencies primarily responsible for developing policies on scientific misconduct, have struggled to define scientific rnisconduct and to decide which forms of professional misconduct do and do not fall within the definition. Although falsification of credentials is not unique to the scientific community, OR1 and NSF have determined that when researchers lie about their credentials, such conduct may constitute scientific misconduct. The question is why this form of professional misconduct has been labeled scientific misconduct when it occurs in a research setting, and whether any distinction exists between this white coat crime and white collar crime. (shrink)

20 years ago, the Report of the Commission on Research Integrity was submitted to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and to House and Senate Committees. As directed in enabling legislation, the Commission had provided recommendations on a new definition of research misconduct, oversight of scientific practices, and development of a regulation to protect whistleblowers. Reflecting the ethos of the time, the Commission recommended that institutions receiving Public Health Service research funding (...) should provide oversight of all but the most egregious misconduct. The suggested definition of research misconduct was organized around misappropriation, interference and misrepresentation, which would have addressed collaborative/authorship disputes and sabotage in scientific laboratories, both of which remain unaddressed in current policy. The Commission also recommended the Whistleblower Bill of Rights and Responsibilities which would have authorized remedies for whistleblowers who experienced retaliation and sanctions against retaliators. Response from the scientific community was highly critical, and none of the Commission’s recommendations was accepted. No new body has examined issues within the Commission’s charge, there has been no significant Congressional or public pressure to do so, institutions have not been able to sustain standards that would have avoided current concerns about bias and irreproducibility in research, and there is still no entity in science capable of addressing issues assigned to the Commission and other urgent issues. (shrink)

Research misconduct is an alarming concern worldwide, and especially in Italy, where there is no formal training of young researchers in responsible research practices. The main aim of this study was to map the perceptions and attitudes about RM in a sample of young researchers attending a one-week intensive course on methodology, ethics and integrity in biomedical research, held at the University of Insubria. To this end, we administered the Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire to all attendees (...) at the beginning of the course. Thereafter, SMQ-R was re-administered at the end, to assess the impact of the course on the responsiveness of study participants, which is intended as the frequency of responses other than “don’t know”. Results show that respondents rate as high their own understanding about rules and procedures related to scientific misconduct, as well as the effectiveness of their institution’s measures for reducing it. Most of them perceive as low the chances of getting caught for RM. Some respondents believe that cases of misconduct occur in their workplace and that the integrity of a research is not solely the responsibility of the principal investigator. Among the main factors contributing to research misconduct, the need for publications, unclear definition of what constitutes misconduct and pressure for external funding do stand out. Respondents are concerned about the amount of misconduct and express a pressing need for training on research ethics. Remarkably, the responsiveness of participants tends to increase with course attendance. This finding may be useful to support education programmes devoted to research methodology, ethics and integrity among young researchers. (shrink)

Irresponsible research practices damaging the value of science has been an increasing concern among researchers, but previous work failed to estimate the prevalence of all forms of irresponsible research behavior. Additionally, these analyses have not included articles published in the last decade from 2011 to 2020. This meta-analysis provides an updated meta-analysis that calculates the pooled estimates of research misconduct and questionable research practices, and explores the factors associated with the prevalence of these issues. The (...) estimates, committing RM concern at least 1 of FFP and QRPs concern 1 or more QRPs, were 2.9% and 12.5%, respectively. In addition, 15.5% of researchers witnessed others who had committed at least 1 RM, while 39.7% were aware of others who had used at least 1 QRP. The results document that response proportion, limited recall period, career level, disciplinary background and locations all affect significantly the prevalence of these issues. This meta-analysis addresses a gap in existing meta-analyses and estimates the prevalence of all forms of RM and QRPs, thus providing a better understanding of irresponsible research behaviors. (shrink)

Within recent years, scientific misconduct has become an increasingly important topic, not only in the scientific community, but in the general public as well. Spectacular cases have been extensively covered in the news media, such as the cases of the Korean stem cell researcher Hwang, the German nanoscientist Schön, or the Norwegian cancer researcher Sudbø. In Science's latest annual "breakthrough of the year" report from December 2006, the descriptions of the year's hottest breakthroughs were accompanied by a similar description (...) of "the breakdown of the year: scientific fraud". Official guidelines for dealing with scientific misconduct were introduced in the 1990s. At this time, research agencies, universities and other research institutions around the world developed guidelines for good scientific practice and formed committees to handle cases of scientific misconduct. In this process it was widely debated how to define scientific misconduct. Most definitions centered on falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (the so-called FFP definition), but suggestions were also made for definitions that were broader and more open-ended, such as the 1995 suggestion from the US Commission of Research Integrity to replace FFP with misappropriation, interference and misrepresentation (the so-called MIM definition). The MIM definition was not adopted in the US, but MIM-like definitions have been adopted in several other countries. In this paper, I shall describe these MIM-related definitions of scientific misconduct and analyze the arguments that have been advanced in their favor. I shall discuss some of the difficulties inherent in the MIM-related definitions, such as the distinction between misrepresentation and mistake, and the demarcation of misrepresentation in areas characterized by uncertainty or by diverging research paradigms. I shall illustrate the problems inherent in the MIM-definition through a particular case: the ruling of the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) about Bjørn Lomborg's best-selling book The Skeptical Environmentalist in which he argued that contrary to what was claimed in the “litany” of the environmentalists, the state of the environment is getting better rather than worse. Lomborg was reported to the DCSD by several environmental scientists, and this controversial case from 2003 ended with a verdict that characterized Lomborg’s conclusions as misrepresentations, but acquitted Lomborg of misconduct due to his ignorance. I shall analyze this verdict and the problems it reveals with respect to the MIM-related definitions of misconduct. (shrink)

Despite the ever increasing collaboration between industry and universities, the previous empirical studies on research integrity and misconduct excluded participants of biomedical industry. Hence, there is a lack of empirical data on how research managers and biomedical researchers active in industry perceive the issues of research integrity and misconduct, and whether or not their perspectives differ from those of researchers and research managers active in universities. If various standards concerning research integrity and (...) class='Hi'>misconduct are upheld between industry and universities, this might undermine research collaborations. Therefore we performed a qualitative study by conducting 22 semi-structured interviews in order to investigate and compare the perspectives and attitudes concerning the issues of research integrity and misconduct of research managers and biomedical researchers active in industry and universities. Our study showed clear discrepancies between both groups. Diverse strategies in order to manage research misconduct and to stimulate research integrity were observed. Different definitions of research misconduct were given, indicating that similar actions are judged heterogeneously. There were also differences at an individual level, whether the interviewees were active in industry or universities. Overall, the management of research integrity proves to be a difficult exercise, due to many diverse perspectives on several essential elements connected to research integrity and misconduct. A management policy that is not in line with the vision of the biomedical researchers and research managers is at risk of being inefficient. (shrink)

Practical issues throughout scientific research can be found to have an ethical aspect. There is a gray area in which scientific error (“honest error”) may be difficult to distinguish from unacceptably poor research practice or an unethical failure to follow scientific norms. Further, there is no clear margin between deceptive practices which are widely accepted and those which must be considered fraudulent. Practical problems arise in matters of data management and presentation, authorship, publication practices, “grantsmanship”, and rights of (...) research trainees, as well as the well-recognized areas of human and animal experimentation. Beyond the gray areas, the legal definition of research misconduct is discussed in relation to research fraud, and the latest proposed definition of the Commission on Research Integrity is briefly reviewed. It is noted that the standards of ethical research are changing. Finally, there is a comment on the idea of institutional integrity in research, and the critical role of the mentor in transmitting research standards to the next generation. (shrink)

Substantial progress in handling scientific misconduct cases has been made since the first cases were investigated by the NIH Office of Scientific Integrity in 1989. The successor Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has simultaneously reduced the backlog of cases and increased the professionalism with which they are handled. However, a spate of lawsuits against universities, particularly those brought under the federal False Claims Act, threatens to undermine the ORI by encouraging use of the courts as an alternate route (...) for resolving claims of research misconduct. Next steps should include establishing a government-wide definition of scientific misconduct, providing immunity from lawsuits for institutions that follow proper procedures in investigating charges of scientific misconduct, and participating in the development of international guidelines for maintaining scientific integrity. (shrink)

In recent years, programs for training in research ethics have become widespread, but very little has been done to assess the effectiveness of this training. Because initial studies have failed to demonstrate a positive impact of research ethics training, this project defined two new outcome variables to be tested in a sample of graduate students at the University of California, San Diego. Trainees were surveyed to assess the role of ethics training in altering their perceptions about their own (...) standards, or their knowledge of options available to them if faced with ethical problems that might arise in conducting and reporting research. In response to a mailing of 505 anonymous questionnaires, 283 replies were received. Similar to previous studies, perceptions of standards were not significantly affected by hours spent in informal discussions about research ethics, in attending courses on research ethics, or in discussions of case studies. However, self-reported knowledge of options for facing research ethics problems was significantly increased in association with increased hours of discussion, class time, or case study discussion. Taken together, this study emphasizes the need for increased attention to the definition and assessment of the goals of research ethics training. (shrink)

Background Behavior is known as misconduct when individuals do not adhere to ethical standards, rules, or regulations. Several factors lead to misconduct, including the lack of understanding of what misconduct is among undergraduate students. However, misconduct as a concept needs more clarity and specificity. Objective This study aimed to examine the concept of misconduct from the literature and establish an operational definition for application to nursing education. Research design A concept analysis using Rodger’s (...) evolutionary view was used to analyze the literature from the disciplines of: academics, business, law, and religious perspectives. Findings and discussion An operational definition was developed based on the multidisciplinary concept analysis. A concept map was designed to help visualize the antecedents, attributes, and consequences and to assist in the conceptualization of misconduct. Implications for nursing science, administration, and education are provided. Conclusion Understanding misconduct is necessary for nurse educators to ensure ethical practice within the academic context. (shrink)

This monograph contributes to the scientific misconduct debate from an oblique perspective, by analysing seven novels devoted to this issue, namely: Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis (1925), The affair by C.P. Snow (1960), Cantor’s Dilemma by Carl Djerassi (1989), Perlmann’s Silence by Pascal Mercier (1995), Intuition by Allegra Goodman (2006), Solar by Ian McEwan (2010) and Derailment by Diederik Stapel (2012). Scientific misconduct, i.e. fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, but also other questionable research practices, have become a focus of concern (...) for academic communities worldwide, but also for managers, funders and publishers of research. The aforementioned novels offer intriguing windows into integrity challenges emerging in contemporary research practices. They are analysed from a continental philosophical perspective, providing a stage where various voices, positions and modes of discourse are mutually exposed to one another, so that they critically address and question one another. They force us to start from the admission that we do not really know what misconduct is. Subsequently, by providing case histories of misconduct, they address integrity challenges not only in terms of individual deviance but also in terms of systemic crisis, due to current transformations in the ways in which knowledge is produced. Rather than functioning as moral vignettes, the author argues that misconduct novels challenge us to reconsider some of the basic conceptual building blocks of integrity discourse. (shrink)

BackgroundPlagiarism is considered as serious research misconduct, together with data fabrication and falsification. However, little is known about biomedical researchers’ views on plagiarism. Moreover, it has been argued – based on limited empirical evidence – that perceptions of plagiarism depend on cultural and other determinants. The authors explored, by means of an online survey among 46 reputable universities in Europe and China, how plagiarism is perceived by biomedical researchers in both regions.MethodsWe collected work e-mail addresses of biomedical researchers (...) identified through the websites of 13 reputable universities in Europe and 33 reputable universities in China and invited them to participate in an online anonymous survey. Our questionnaire was designed to assess respondents’ views about plagiarism by asking whether they considered specific practices as plagiarism. We analyzed if respondents in China and Europe responded differently, using logistic regression analysis with adjustments for demographic and other relevant factors.ResultsThe authors obtained valid responses from 204 researchers based in China (response rate 2.1%) and 826 researchers based in Europe (response rate 5.6%). Copying text from someone else’s publication without crediting the source, using idea(s) from someone else’s publication without crediting the source and republishing one’s own work in another language without crediting the source were considered as plagiarism by 98, 67 and 64%, respectively. About one-third of the respondents reported to have been unsure whether they had been plagiarizing.Overall, the pattern of responses was similar among respondents based in Europe and China. Nevertheless, for some items significant differences did occur in disadvantage of Chinese respondents.ConclusionsFindings indicate that nearly all biomedical researchers understand (and disapprove of) the most obvious forms of plagiarism, but uncertainties and doubts were apparent for many aspects. And the minority of researchers who did not recognize some types of plagiarism as plagiarism was larger among China-based respondents than among Europe-based respondents. The authors conclude that biomedical researchers need clearer working definitions of plagiarism in order to deal with grey zones. (shrink)

In 1985, after nearly a decade of inconclusive professional response to public concern about misconduct in research, Congress passed legislation requiring action. Subsequent to this legislation, federal agencies and research universities adopted policies for responding to allegations of misconduct in research. Conferences, sessions at professional meetings, and special publications were organized. New educational initiatives were begun, many in response to a 1989 National Institutes of Health/ Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration requirement to include (...) ethics instruction in training grants. Notwithstanding a few key unresolved issues, such as the lack of a uniform federal definition of misconduct in research, the years since 1985 have witnessed a marked change in the professional response to misconduct in research. This paper evaluates the change since 1985 from the perspective of three key goals: 1) confronting misconduct, 2) promoting integrity and 3) ensuring integrity. While significant progress has been made in achieving the first two goals, the third remains largely unaddressed. The latter is due to the fact that researchers have not been interested in studying the integrity of their own profession. It is therefore suggested that studies are needed of routine or normal research practices and their impact on integrity for use in making decisions about research conduct policy. (shrink)

In this paper, we explore different possible explanations for research misconduct (especially falsification and fabrication), and investigate whether they are compatible. We suggest that to explain research misconduct, we should pay attention to three factors: (1) the beliefs and desires of the misconductor, (2) contextual affordances, (3) and unconscious biases or influences. We draw on the three different narratives (individual, institutional, system of science) of research misconduct as proposed by Sovacool to review six different (...) explanations. Four theories start from the individual: Rational Choice theory, Bad Apple theory, General Strain Theory and Prospect Theory. Organizational Justice Theory focuses on institutional factors, while New Public Management targets the system of science. For each theory, we illustrate the kinds of facts that must be known in order for explanations based on them to have minimal plausibility. We suggest that none can constitute a full explanation. Finally, we explore how the different possible explanations interrelate. We find that they are compatible, with the exception of explanations based on Rational Choice Theory and Prospect Theory respectively, which are incompatible with one another. For illustrative purposes we examine the case of Diederik Stapel. (shrink)

This paper identifies three distinct narratives concerning scientific misconduct: a narrative of “individual impurity” promoted by those wishing to see science self-regulated; a narrative of “institutional impropriety” promoted by those seeking greater external control of science; and a narrative of “structural crisis” among those critiquing the entire process of research itself. The paper begins by assessing contemporary definitions and estimates of scientific misconduct. It emphasizes disagreements over such definitions and estimates as a way to tease out tension (...) and controversy over competing visions of scientific research. It concludes by noting that each narrative suggests a different approach for resolving misconduct, and that the difference inherent in these views may help explain much of the discord concerning unethical behavior in the scientific community. (shrink)

In recent years, there has been much discussion over how to assure scientific integrity. It has become clear that a few scientists have fraudulently collected or reported data, conducted harmful or unethical experiments, or practiced “unscientific” procedure. What are regulative bodies to do? The approach has been to define research misconduct and then use that definition to assess scientific practice.[1] But just how to define research misconduct and hence, regulate the conduct of scientists in (...) class='Hi'>research? The debate that resulted in response to this question, and that led ultimately to the new federal definition (42CFR50), has both theoretical and political underpinnings. The political underpinnings have been greatly discussed. But the theoretical underpinnings (and their connection to the political) have not. To give a definition of “good” versus “bad” science requires some understanding of the scientific process itself. So theoretical ideas about what constitutes good or bad science—ideas that influence and help shape our ideas and applications of research misconduct definitions—have political implications for the regulation of science. However, as the debates within both the scientific and philosophical communities have made clear, there are significant limits to any appropriate legislation of what counts as “good” science. A definition of research misconduct (or “bad” science) that spells out the nature of science too stringently may stifle scientific innovation. Consider the case of sociobiology when it was first introduced in the 1970’s. The idea is to account for social behavior of various species (including Homo sapiens) in terms of evolutionary biology. To take one example from sociobiology, the greater tendency of males toward rape is to be explained in terms of the evolutionary advantage for the male’s genes. Not surprisingly, sociobiology met with great controversy; some considered it an inappropriate application of biological principles to the social-interpretive-human domain. Still, few did or would suggest that it is the province of any regulatory body to silence the advocates of the new field. We will endorse and reinforce the standard arguments that the scientific process is too complicated to provide mechanical rules of conduct.. (shrink)

Several studies on research misconduct have already explored and discussed its potential occurrence in universities across different countries. However, little is known about this issue in Spain, a paradigmatic context due to its consolidated scientific evaluation system, which relies heavily on metrics. The present article attempts to fill this gap in the literature through an empirical study undertaken in a specific university: Universitat Jaume I (Castelló). The study was based on a survey with closed and open questions; almost (...) half the total population of the university’s researchers participated (505 out of 1030, i.e. 49.03%), yielding a representative sample of different academic career stages and areas of knowledge. Results show that 71.68% (n = 362) of the respondents consider at least one form of misconduct to be proliferating in their area of knowledge at the national level. This figure falls to 48.95% (n = 247) in reference to misconduct in their own institution. The most frequently reported types of misconduct linked to life with colleagues are especially the use of personal influence (in evaluation or review processes); lax supervision of doctoral theses; and the abuse of power over people in lower positions. Personal ambitions and pressure from the evaluation system are regarded as the most influential causes of misconduct proliferation, according to academics at this Spanish university. (shrink)

The prevalence and characteristics of research misconduct have mainly been studied in highly developed countries. In moderately or poorly developed countries such as Croatia, data on research misconduct are scarce. The primary aim of this study was to determine the rates at which scientists report committing or observing the most serious forms of research misconduct, such as falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, and violation of authorship rules in the Croatian scientific community. Additionally, we sought to determine (...) the degree of development and the extent of implementation of the system for defining and regulating research misconduct in a typical scientific community in Croatia. An anonymous questionnaire was distributed among 1232 Croatian scientists at the University of Rijeka in 2012/2013 and 237 returned the survey. Based on the respondents who admitted having committed research misconduct, 9 admitted to plagiarism, 22 to data falsification, 9 to data fabrication, and 60 respondents admitted to violation of authorship rules. Based on the respondents who admitted having observed research misconduct of fellow scientists, 72 observed plagiarism, 69 observed data falsification, 46 observed data fabrication, and 132 respondents admitted having observed violation of authorship rules. The results of our study indicate that the efficacy of the system for managing research misconduct in Croatia is poor. At the University of Rijeka there is no document dedicated exclusively to research integrity, describing the values that should be fostered by a scientist and clarifying the forms of research misconduct and what constitutes a questionable research practice. Scientists do not trust ethical bodies and the system for defining and regulating research misconduct; therefore the observed cases of research misconduct are rarely reported. Finally, Croatian scientists are not formally educated about responsible conduct of research at any level of their formal education. All mentioned indicate possible reasons for higher rates of research misconduct among Croatian scientists in comparison with scientists in highly developed countries. (shrink)

Research misconduct remains an important problem in health research despite decades of local, national, regional, and international efforts to eliminate it. The ultimate goal of every health research project, irrespective of setting, is to produce trustworthy findings to address local as well as global health issues. To be able to lead or participate meaningfully in international research collaborations, individual and institutional capacities for research integrity are paramount. Accordingly, this paper concerns itself not only with (...) individuals’ research skills but also with institutional and national policies and governance. Such policies and governance provide an ethical scaffold for the production of knowledge and structure incentives. This paper’s operational definition of research therefore draws from Institute of Medicine’s articulation of health research as an inquiry that aims to produce knowledge about the structure, processes, or effects of personal health services; and from an existing health systems framework. The paper reviews the research regulatory environment and the ethics apparatus in Ghana, and describes a project jointly undertaken by Ghanaian researchers in collaboration with New York University to assess the perceived adequacy of current institutional practices, opportunities, and incentives for promoting RI. (shrink)

We have national guidelines for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland. The guidelines have been formulated and updated by the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK). In this article, we introduce and evaluate the national RCR guidelines. We also present statistics of alleged and proven RCR violation cases and frequency of appeals to TENK on the decisions or procedures of the primary institutions. In addition, we analyze the (...) available data on seven investigated cases in more detail. Positive aspects in the Finnish system are a fairly good infrastructure to investigate suspected RCR violations and a wide concept of RCR violations, which consists of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, misappropriation, and other misbehaviors. However, the guidelines contain poorly elaborated definitions, do not treat the complainant and the suspect in an equal way, and need to be revised. Confusion about the concepts and criteria of the RCR violations seems to be common in primary institutions and among the complainants. Even if research institutions and universities have officially adhered to the national RCR guidelines, slipping from the guidelines occurs quite commonly. All these factors lead to frequent dissatisfaction with the decisions or procedures applied, high rate of appeals to TENK, and far from optimal functionality of the system. (shrink)

This article is concerned with a discussion of the plausibility of the claim that GM technology has the potential to provide the hungry with sufficient food for subsistence. Following a brief outline of the potential applications of GM in this context, a history of the green revolution and its impact will be discussed in relation to the current developing world agriculture situation. Following a contemporary analysis of malnutrition, the claim that GM technology has the potential to provide the hungry with (...) sufficient nourishment will be discussed within the domain of moral philosophy to determine whether there exists a moral obligation to pursue this end if and only if the technology proves to be relatively safe and effective. By using Peter Singer’s duty of moral rescue, I argue that we have a moral duty to assist the third world through the distribution of such GM plants. I conclude the paper by demonstrating that my argument can be supported by applying a version of the Precautionary Principle on the grounds that doing nothing might be worse for the current situation. (shrink)

In a survey on research misconduct, roughly 20% of the respondents admitted that they have submitted federal grant proposals that include scholars as research participants even though those scholars were not expected to contribute to the research effort. This manuscript argues that adding such false investigators is illegal, violating multiple federal statutes including the False Statements Act, the False Claims Act, and False, Fictitious, or Fraudulent Claims. Moreover, it is not only the offending academics and the (...) false investigators that face civil and criminal penalties because administrators may also be liable if they sign off on proposals and are in a position to know that false investigators might be included. Policy recommendations that should reduce the use of false investigators include changing institutional cultures, better training and oversight of the responsible conduct of research, and, most importantly, making all grant reviews double blind. (shrink)

This case looks at the question of how to consider obligations of confidentiality by a mental health professional who works for an institution and learns that a student has been using a drug intended for an animal research project. Dr. Paul Appelbaum, MD, a psychiatrist at Columbia University, examines the issue of the limits of confidentiality. Nicholas Steneck, PhD, a scholar in research misconduct at the University of Michigan, explores the obligations to report research misconduct. (...) Walter Limehouse, MD, an ethicist at the Medical University of South Carolina, considers the systems issues raised by this case and offers some suggestions that might change the institutional environment. (shrink)

As the research integrity officer at my university for two years, I handled eight allegations of plagiarism. These eight cases show that initial appearances can be mistaken, that policies for handling allegations of research misconduct cannot cover every contingency, and that many cases can be resolved collegially without resort to formal procedures.

Developing World Bioethics, Volume 22, Issue 2, Page 76-85, June 2022.

Laboratory safety regulations have been traditionally viewed by its learners and practitioners as a matter of law and policy, which simply requires compliance. A compliance mindset tends be passive and dissociates individuals (or even institutions) from the important reasons and principles underlying the safety rules and regulations, leading to disinterestedness and disdain. I posit that laboratory safety regulations would need to be crafted, presented and taught in a manner that is coupled to, or at least with an emphasis on, (...) class='Hi'>research ethics. Learners and practitioners of laboratory safety must be led to fully grasp the ethical underpinnings of the rules and regulations, however perceivably cumbersome or inconvenient the latter may seem. In extended definitions beyond the classical fabrication, falsification and plagiarism, laboratory safety violation (LSV) should indeed be considered a form of research misconduct (RM). A full appreciation of the ethical principles underlying laboratory safety regulations would intuitively make LSVs morally impermissible, and as such defiance would be morally unacceptable. Importantly, LSVs framed as moral transgressions would be equally applied to all perpetrators in terms of culpability regardless of one’s endowment and power status. LSV perpetrators should thus also be punishable in accordance with the federal or institutional laws or bylaws of research ethics and integrity. Pedagogical and content modifications to laboratory safety education to adequately reflect a research ethics emphasis, as well as promotion of epistemic acuity in this regard, would be desirable. (shrink)

Journals and publishers are increasingly using artificial intelligence (AI) to screen submissions for potential misconduct, including plagiarism and data or image manipulation. While using AI can enhance the integrity of published manuscripts, it can also increase the risk of false/unsubstantiated allegations. Ambiguities related to journals’ and publishers’ responsibilities concerning fairness and transparency also raise ethical concerns. In this Topic Piece, we offer the following guidance: (1) All cases of suspected misconduct identified by AI tools should be carefully reviewed (...) by humans to verify accuracy and ensure accountability; (2) Journals/publishers that use AI tools to detect misconduct should use only well-tested and reliable tools, remain vigilant concerning forms of misconduct that cannot be detected by these tools, and stay abreast of advancements in technology; (3) Journals/publishers should inform authors about irregularities identified by AI tools and give them a chance to respond before forwarding allegations to their institutions in accordance with Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines; (4) Journals/publishers that use AI tools to detect misconduct should screen all relevant submissions and not just random/purposefully selected submissions; and (5) Journals should inform authors about their definition of misconduct, their use of AI tools to detect misconduct, and their policies and procedures for responding to suspected cases of misconduct. (shrink)

This book offers a scientific whistleblower’s perspective on current implementation of federal research misconduct regulations. It provides a narrative of general interest that relates current cases of research ethics to philosophical, historical and sociological accounts of fraud in scientific research. The evidence presented suggests that the problems of falsification and fabrication remain as great as ever, but hidden because the current system puts universities in charge of investigations and permits them to use confidentiality regulations to hide (...) the outcomes of investigations. The book documents the significant conflict of interest that arises because federal regulation gives universities the responsibility to conduct investigations of their own faculty with severely limited oversight. The book is intended for young research scientists or anyone who wishes to understand the challenges faced by scientists in the workplace today. The central thread in the book is an exclusive account of an experienced research scientist who was the first to expose the facts that led to the longest running research misconduct investigation in the history of the National Science Foundation. (shrink)

The Division of Investigative Oversight within the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) is responsible for conducting oversight review of institutional inquiries and investigations of possible research misconduct. It is also responsible for determining whether Public Health Service findings of research misconduct are warranted. Although ORI findings rely primarily on the scope and quality of the institution’s analyses and determinations, ORI often has been able to strengthen the original findings by employing a variety of analytical (...) methods, often computer based. Although ORI does not conduct inquiries or investigations, it has broad authority to provide assistance to institutions at all stages of their reviews of allegations. This assistance can range from providing advice on best practices, to legal assistance, to suggestions for how best to investigate specific allegations. When asked, ORI can also conduct certain forensic analyses, such as a statistical examination of questioned digits or a simple examination of a questioned figure in Photoshop. ORI will not provide opinions or render judgment on such analyses while the institution is still conducting its investigation. Such analyses can be done without knowing much else about the case. (shrink)

From a national U.S. sample of senior academic biochemists, ninety-four indicated that they personally knew of an incident of scientific wrongdoing. Among these individuals, less formal actions against an offending individual were endorsed when either actions were believed to have the potential to publicly embarrass the offending individual, or the actions might adversely affect the professional career of the whistleblower. These relationships remain significant after controlling for professional status, career age, and current level of formal departmental administrative responsibility. Study limitations (...) and implications are discussed. (shrink)

Empirical studies have revealed a disturbing prevalence of research misconduct in a wide variety of disciplines, although not, to date, in the areas of ethics and philosophy. This study aims to provide empirical evidence on perceptions of how serious a problem research misconduct is in these two disciplines in Spain, particularly regarding the effects that the model used to evaluate academics’ research performance may have on their ethical behaviour. The methodological triangulation applied in the study (...) combines a questionnaire, a debate at the annual meeting of scientific association, and in-depth interviews. Of the 541 questionnaires sent out, 201 responses were obtained, with a significant difference in the participation of researchers in philosophy and in ethics ; 26 researchers took part in the debate and 14 interviews were conducted. The questionnaire results reveal that 91.5% of the respondents considered research misconduct to be on the rise; 63.2% considered at least three of the fraudulent practices referred to in the study to be commonplace, and 84.1% identified two or more such practices. The researchers perceived a high prevalence of duplicate publication and self-plagiarism, use of personal influence and citation manipulation, in contrast to a low perceived incidence of data falsification or fabrication. The debate and the interviews corroborated these data. Researchers associated the spread of these misconducts with the research evaluation model applied in Spain. (shrink)