Allegations Of Research Misconduct Research Articles

What do Retraction Notices Reveal About Institutional Investigations into Allegations Underlying Retractions?

Academic journal publications may be retracted following institutional investigations that confirm allegations of research misconduct. Retraction notices can provide insight into the role institutional investigations play in the decision to retract a publication. Through a content analysis of 7,318 retraction notices published between 1927 and 2019 and indexed by the Web of Science, we found that most retraction notices (73.7%) provided no information about institutional investigations that may have led to retractions. A minority of the retraction notices (26.3%) mentioned an institutional investigation either by journal authorities (12.1%), research performing organizations (10.3%), joint institutions (1.9%), research integrity and ethics governing bodies (1.0%), third-party institutions (0.5%), unspecified institutions (0.4%), or research funding organizations (0.1%). Comparing retraction notices issued before and after the introduction of retraction guidelines by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in 2009 revealed that those published after the guidelines’ publication were more likely to report investigations by journal authorities. Comparing retraction notices from different disciplines revealed that those from social sciences and the humanities were more likely to disclose investigations by research performing organizations than those from biomedical and natural sciences. Based on these findings, we suggest that the COPE retraction guidelines in the future make it mandatory to disclose in retraction notices institutional investigations leading to retractions.

Research misconduct complaints and institutional logics: The case of Hans Eysenck and the British Psychological Society.

A formal complaint was lodged with the British Psychological Society in 1995 that alleged serious scientific misconduct by Hans J Eysenck. The complaint referred to research into the links between personality traits and the causes, prevention and treatment of cancer and heart disease. Using a framework of institutional logics, we criticise the Society’s decision not to hear this complaint at a full disciplinary hearing. We urge the BPS to investigate this complaint afresh. We also support calls for the establishment of an independent National Research Integrity Ombudsperson to deal more effectively with allegations of research misconduct.

Defining and Handling Research Misconduct: A Comparison Between Chinese and European Institutional Policies.

Research institutions are responsible for promoting research integrity and handling allegations of research misconduct. Due to various cultural and social contexts, institutional policies from different cultural backgrounds exhibit many differences, such as their primary concern and mechanisms for dealing with allegations of research misconduct. This comparative study analyses research misconduct policies from 21 Chinese and 22 European universities. The results show that definitions of research misconduct from all retrieved policies go beyond fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism but include different types of questionable research practices. Their procedures for handling research misconduct differ in, for example, confidentiality and disclosure of conflict of interest. Differences can also be found in their governance approaches ("bottom-up" versus "top-down").

Toward global standardization of conducting fair investigations of allegations of research misconduct

ABSTRACT In the United States, through nation-wide discussions, the procedures for handling allegations of research misconduct are now well established. Procedures are geared toward carefully treating both complainants and respondents fairly in accordance with the US framework. Other countries, which have their own cultural and legal framework, also need fair and legally compatible procedures for conducting investigations of allegations of research misconduct. Given the rapid growth of international collaboration in research, it is desirable to have a global standard, or common ground, for misconduct investigations. Institutions need clear guidance on important subjects such as what information should be included in the investigation reports, how the investigation committee should be organized once research misconduct allegation has been received, how to conduct the investigation, how the data and information obtained should be taken as evidence for vs. against misconduct, and what policies the investigation committee should follow. We explore these issues from the viewpoint of members of committees investigating accusations of research misconduct (hereafter referred to as “investigation committees”) as well as persons overseeing the committees in Japan. We hope to engender productive discussions among experts in misconduct investigations, leading to a formulation of international standards for such investigation.

Should research misconduct be criminalized?

For more than 25 years, research misconduct (research fraud) is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP)—although other research misbehaviors have been also added in codes of conduct and legislations. A critical issue in deciding whether research misconduct should be subject to criminal law is its definition, because not all behaviors labeled as research misconduct qualifies as serious crime. But assuming that all FFP is fraud and all non-FFP not is far from obvious. In addition, new research misbehaviors have recently been described, such as prolific authorship, and fake peer review, or boosted such as duplication of images. The scientific community has been largely successful in keeping criminal law away from the cases of research misconduct. Alleged cases of research misconduct are usually looked into by committees of scientists usually from the same institution or university of the suspected offender in a process that often lacks transparency. Few countries have or plan to introduce independent bodies to address research misconduct; so for the coming years, most universities and research institutions will continue handling alleged research misconduct cases with their own procedures. A global operationalization of research misconduct with clear boundaries and clear criteria would be helpful. There is room for improvement in reaching global clarity on what research misconduct is, how allegations should be handled, and which sanctions are appropriate.

ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS IN FOSTERING RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND COMBATING RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

Efforts have been taken by various institutions to deal with research misconduct. Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan has blacklisted few researchers/faculty members who were involved in plagiarism. However; research integrity is not limited to handling research frauds, fabrication, falsification and plagiarism and punishing the culprits. Research integrity needs the development and implementation of policies and procedures for responsible conduct of research in accordance with professional standards. Institutions must create systems, which can ensure adherence to the ethical norms of research, use of robust study designs, strong data management, honest and accurate dissemination of study results and mechanisms to deal with allegations of research misconduct through a transparent process.

RETRACTED: IP1867B suppresses the insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF1R) ablating epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor resistance in adult high grade gliomas.

This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief due to concerns regarding the legitimacy of images and data presented in the paper. Though a corrigendum (Can. Lett. Vol. 469, 2020, pages 524-535) was previously published to address some of these concerns, this corrigendum has also been found to contain errors and therefore cannot stand. Specific concerns are listed below. The Editor and Publisher received a letter from the University of Portsmouth alerting us to an investigation into alleged research misconduct. The University concluded their investigation with external experts and determined that misconduct did take place in relation to the research involved in this paper. Upon our separate investigation, it has been determined that the paper headline relies on showing that there was considerable reduction of IGF1R, IL6R and EGFR post treatment in all cell lines. During review, it was determined that this cannot be concluded from the presented data. For example, in SEBTA-003 the EGFR levels go up and there is no difference in IGFR1. It is apparent from Fig 4d that in the SEBTA-003 cell line the EGFR level does not go down, which is stated in the Results section on page 32, it is rather going up. The data for IGFR1 are inconclusive and there are concerns regarding the blot. The general implications would be that the effects of the drug IP1867B does not seem to be the same for all tested cell lines, and this should have been discussed in detail by the authors. Additionally, in subsequent experiments (Fig.4g and h) the SEBTA-003 cell line (no reduction of EGFR, rather increased expression) and the other 3 cell lines (reduction of EGFR) show similar responses. This is particularly evident in Fig.4g: Two cell lines are compared, SEBTA-003 (increased EGFR expression) and UP-029 (decreased EGFR expression), both behave similarly after exposure to drugs. The corrigendum (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2019.10.002) issue is with respect to the Supplemental Figure6i EGFR, particularly panel IP1867B. The Corrigendum states that the left part is a cut out of the very right part. If so, the bands for IP1867B should show the same staining pattern - but they do not. Also, in the Corrigendum, there are incorrect mentions between day 14 in the Figureand day 19 in the Figurelegend. All authors were informed of the retraction in advance. Drs. Pritchard and Duckworth agreed to the retraction. The corresponding author, Dr Hill, did not agree to the retraction. No response had been received from Drs. Mihajluk, Simms, Reay, Madureira, Howarth, Murray, Nasser and Pilkinton at the time of the retraction being published.

The strikethrough: an approach to regulatory writing and professional discipline

This paper attends to writing practices by way of examining how a professional regulator engages with research activities conducted by doctors. In order to explore regulatory responses to alleged research misconduct, I use a specific calligraphic practice shared by researchers and regulators. The paper shows that taking this calligraphic practice as an analytical focus can offer surprising dividends to the study of regulation across fields. Via the practice of strikethrough, the General Medical Council effectuates three gestures as it engages with research activities: display, authentication and isolation. Understanding them requires asking what literal and metaphorical meanings travel in the strikethrough.

Retraction.

Retraction: "Chronic NMDA administration to rats up-regulates frontal cortex cytosolic phospholipase A2 and its transcription factor, activator protein-2" by Rao JS, Ertley RN, Rapoport SI, Bazinet RP, Lee HJ. The above article from Journal of Neurochemistry, published online on 13 April 2007 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) and in volume 102, issue 6, pp. 1918-1927, has been retracted by agreement between the corresponding author Stanley Rapoport, co-author Richard Bazinet, the Journal's Editor-in-Chief Jörg Schulz, and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. The Editorial Office was contacted by the author Stanley Rapoport with the request to retract this and a related publication (see below), informing the Editor-in-Chief that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had found Dr.Jagadeesh S. Rao guilty of research misconduct by falsifying data in the referenced paper. The Editorial Office was forwarded a letter signed by investigation committee members on behalf of NIH and NIA, which states: "[…] The National Institutes of Health (NIH) investigated allegations of research misconduct involving the falsification of data in "Chronic NMDA administration to rats up-regulates frontal cortex cytosolic phospholipase A2 and its transcription factor, activator protein-2." Jagadeesh S. Rao, Renee N. Ertley, Stanley I. Rapoport, Richard P. Bazinet, and Ho-Joo Lee. J. Neurochemistry 102, 1918-1927, 2007. Based on the unanimous decision of a five member committee, composed of NIH investigators, NIH found that Dr. Jagadeesh Rao, corresponding author, knowingly and intentionally committed research misconduct by falsifying data in Figures 3 and 5 in the manuscript listed above. Dr. Rao was solely responsible for the falsification and all other authors were uninvolved. The report was submitted to the HHS Office of Research Integrity for its review. Because Dr. Rao was the corresponding author, Dr. Stanley I. Rapoport, Senior Advisor for the former Laboratory of Brain Physiology and Metabolism Section, is acting for Dr. Rao, who was his representative, and approves this request to retract this publication using the recommended language, in italics above." A related paper has also been retracted: Keleshian VL, Modi HR, Rapoport SI, Rao JS. (2013) Aging is associated with altered inflammatory, arachidonic acid cascade, and synaptic markers, influenced by epigenetic modifications, in the human frontal cortex. J. Neurochem. 125: 63-73. References Keleshian V. L., Modi H. R., Rapoport S. I. and Rao J. S. (2013) Aging is associated with altered inflammatory, arachidonic acid cascade, and synaptic markers, influenced by epigenetic modifications, in the human frontal cortex. J. Neurochem. 125, 63-73. Rao J. S., Ertley R. N., Rapoport S. I., Bazinet R. P. and Lee H. J. (2007) Chronic NMDA administration to rats up-regulates frontal cortex cytosolic phospholipase A2 and its transcription factor, activator protein-2. J. Neurochem. 102, 1918-1927.

Retraction.

Retraction: "Aging is associated with altered inflammatory, arachidonic acid cascade, and synaptic markers, influenced by epigenetic modifications, in the human frontal cortex" by Keleshian VL, Modi HR, Rapoport SI, Rao JS. The above article from Journal of Neurochemistry, published online on 17 February 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) and in volume 121, issue 1, pp. 63-73, has been retracted by agreement between the corresponding author Stanley Rapoport, the Journal's Editor-in-Chief, Jörg Schulz, and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. The Editorial Office was contacted by the author Stanley Rapoport with the request to retract this and a related publication (see below), informing the Editor-in-Chief that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had found Dr.Jagadeesh S. Rao guilty of research misconduct by falsifying data in the referenced paper. The Editorial Office was forwarded a letter, signed by investigation committee members on behalf of NIH and NIA, which states: "[…] The National Institutes of Health (NIH) investigated allegations of research misconduct involving the falsification of data in "Aging is associated with altered inflammatory, arachidonic acid cascade, and synaptic markers, influenced by epigenetic modifications, in the human frontal cortex." Keleshian VL, Modi HR, Rapoport SI, Rao JS. Journal of Neurochemistry 2013 Apr; 125(1): 63-73. Based on the unanimous decision of a five member committee, composed of NIH investigators, NIH found that Dr. Jagadeesh Rao, corresponding author, knowingly and intentionally committed research misconduct by falsifying data in Figures 1A, 1G, 3G, and 4D in the manuscript(s) listed above. Dr. Rao was solely responsible for the falsification and all other authors were uninvolved. The report was submitted to the HHS Office of Research Integrity for its review. Because Dr. Rao was the corresponding author, Dr. Stanley I. Rapoport, Senior Advisor for the former Laboratory of Brain Physiology and Metabolism Section, is acting for Dr. Rao, who was his representative, and approves this request to retract this publication using the recommended language, in italics above." A related paper has also been retracted: Rao JS, Ertley RN, Rapoport SI, Bazinet RP, Lee HJ. (2007) Chronic NMDA administration to rats up-regulates frontal cortex cytosolic phospholipase A2 and its transcription factor, activator protein-2. J. Neurochem. 102: 1918-1927. References Keleshian V. L., Modi H. R., Rapoport S. I. and Rao J. S. (2013) Aging is associated with altered inflammatory, arachidonic acid cascade, and synaptic markers, influenced by epigenetic modifications, in the human frontal cortex. J. Neurochem. 125, 63-73. Rao J. S., Ertley R. N., Rapoport S. I., Bazinet R. P. and Lee H. J. (2007) Chronic NMDA administration to rats up-regulates frontal cortex cytosolic phospholipase A2 and its transcription factor, activator protein-2. J. Neurochem. 102, 1918-1927.

The Essential Need for Research Misconduct Allegation Audits.

Nearly 90 % of allegations of biomedical research misconduct in the United States are dismissed by responsible institutions without any faculty assessment or auditable record. Recently, members of the U.S. Congress have complained that the penalties for those against whom findings of research misconduct are made are too light and that too few grant funds associated with research misconduct have been recovered for use by other researchers and taxpayers. Here we discuss the laws that empower federal agencies that can oversee investigations of biomedical research misconduct: the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), both located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Research misconduct investigations pertaining to U.S. physical sciences funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) are overseen by the NSF’s OIG. While OIGs may provide some improvement over the ORI in the handling of research misconduct, we have found that a much more serious flaw exists which undermines an ability to conduct performance audits of the effectiveness by which allegations of research misconduct are handled in the United States. Specifically, sufficient data do not need to be retained by U.S. research institutions funded by HHS or NSF to allow effective audit of why allegations of research misconduct are dismissed before being seen by faculty inquiry or investigative committees. U.S. federal Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS/Yellow Book), if applied to the research misconduct oversight process, would allow a determination of whether the handling of allegations of biomedical research misconduct actually functions adequately, and if not, how it might be improved. In particular, we propose that independent, external peer review under GAGAS audit standards should be instituted without delay in assessing the performance of ORI, or any other similarly tasked federal agency, in handling allegations of research misconduct.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9798-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Research misconduct: time for a re-think?

The incidence of research misconduct appears to be increasing, drawing attention in the general media and academic literature. Concerns have been expressed about probable under-reporting, harms arising, lack of an agreed international definition, welfare of whistleblowers and the adequacy of the investigation processes and any subsequent sanctions. A fully satisfactory approach to prevention, detection, investigation and adjudication has yet to emerge. While the definition of research misconduct contained in the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research is comprehensive, universities and other research institutions at times struggle in their task of investigating and adjudicating allegations of research misconduct. A more centralised, independent process of oversight and monitoring of this role played by the universities and institutions would help support those institutions and help maintain community confidence in the research endeavour.

Ethics and the Responsible Conduct of Research in the Chemical Community: The Unique Role and Challenges of the News Media

Journalists who cover scientific research, including chemistry research, have an obligation to report on alleged cases of research misconduct when knowledge of these surface. New Government definitions of research misconduct, beginning in the late 1990s with the Clinton Administration, have helped scientists, policymakers, as well as journalists sort out and make sense of alleged research misconduct. Journalistic reporting on research misconduct includes many challenges: gathering information from sources who are intimidated or afraid to speak, strict adherence to journalist ethics that take on a new dimension when careers, reputations, and research funding are at stake; efforts by government and institutional bureaucrats to dampen or thwart legitimate news coverage. The Internet, blogging, and social media have added still more complexity and ethical quandaries to this blend. The author, News Editor of Chemical & Engineering News published by the American Chemical Society, provides examples from his own career and that of colleagues. He suggests that an enhanced spirit of understanding and cooperation between journalists and members of the scientific community can lead to avenues of open discussion of research misconduct—discussions that might prevent and mitigate the very real damage caused by bad actors in science who betray themselves, their peers, and the body of modern day scientific knowledge when they make the decision to march into the darkness of dishonesty, plagiarism, or falsification.

No One Likes a Snitch.

Whistleblowers remain essential as complainants in allegations of research misconduct. Frequently internal to the research team, they are poorly protected from acts of retribution, which may deter the reporting of misconduct. In order to perform their important role, whistleblowers must be treated fairly. Draft regulations for whistleblower protection were published for public comment almost a decade ago but never issued (Dahlberg 2013). In the face of the growing challenge of research fraud, we suggest vigorous steps, to include: organizational responsibility to certify the accuracy of research including audit, required whistleblower action in the face of imminent or grave harm to subjects, strengthened legal protections against retaliation including prompt enactment of Federal whistleblower protections and consideration of criminalizing the most egregious cases of research misconduct.

Retraction: p53 Regulates Cellular Resistance to Complement Lysis through Enhanced Expression of CD59

The article titled “p53 Regulates Cellular Resistance to Complement Lysis through Enhanced Expression of CD59,” which was published in the February 15, 2006, issue of Cancer Research (1), is being retracted at the request of the authors following the release of the conclusions of an internal investigation panel established by Cardiff University to examine allegations of research misconduct in the preparation of the manuscript. The panel found evidence of splicing or pasting affecting Figs. 1B and 4A, without indication that this had been done. The panel feels that although these image manipulations cannot be characterized as “fabrication” because there is no reason to doubt the validity of the underlying science in the article, they represent unacceptable practice when submitting a manuscript for publication. Dr. R.M. Donev accepted full responsibility for these actions. The panel concluded that none of the other coauthors of this manuscript knew, or had reason to suspect, that the data presented in the manuscript had been manipulated by Dr. R.M. Donev. Four of the five authors agreed to this Retraction. Attempts to contact the first author, Rossen M. Donev, were unsuccessful.

A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature.

BackgroundThe number of retracted scholarly articles has risen precipitously in recent years. Past surveys of the retracted literature each limited their scope to articles in PubMed, though many retracted articles are not indexed in PubMed. To understand the scope and characteristics of retracted articles across the full spectrum of scholarly disciplines, we surveyed 42 of the largest bibliographic databases for major scholarly fields and publisher websites to identify retracted articles. This study examines various trends among them.ResultsWe found, 4,449 scholarly publications retracted from 1928–2011. Unlike Math, Physics, Engineering and Social Sciences, the percentages of retractions in Medicine, Life Science and Chemistry exceeded their percentages among Web of Science (WoS) records. Retractions due to alleged publishing misconduct (47%) outnumbered those due to alleged research misconduct (20%) or questionable data/interpretations (42%). This total exceeds 100% since multiple justifications were listed in some retraction notices. Retraction/WoS record ratios vary among author affiliation countries. Though widespread, only miniscule percentages of publications for individual years, countries, journals, or disciplines have been retracted. Fifteen prolific individuals accounted for more than half of all retractions due to alleged research misconduct, and strongly influenced all retraction characteristics. The number of articles retracted per year increased by a factor of 19.06 from 2001 to 2010, though excluding repeat offenders and adjusting for growth of the published literature decreases it to a factor of 11.36.ConclusionsRetracted articles occur across the full spectrum of scholarly disciplines. Most retracted articles do not contain flawed data; and the authors of most retracted articles have not been accused of research misconduct. Despite recent increases, the proportion of published scholarly literature affected by retraction remains very small. Articles and editorials discussing retractions, or their relation to research integrity, should always consider individual cases in these broad contexts. However, better mechanisms are still needed for raising researchers’ awareness of the retracted literature in their field.

INVESTIGATION NSF probe clears climate science researcher of misconduct allegations

Investigators at the National Science Foundation have exonerated climate scientist Michael E. Mann of allegations of research misconduct, Mann’s employer, Pennsylvania State University, said in an Aug. 23 statement. Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, has been a target of climate-change skeptics. The developer of the once-contested “hockey stick” graph of temperature fluctuations over the past millennium, Mann is one of the scientists whose e-mail messages were hacked from the University of East Anglia, in England, and made public in late 2009. Critics cite these e-mails, some of them controversial, as evidence that Mann manipulated data. “No direct evidence has been presented that indicates the Subject [Mann] fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results,” reads the NSF Inspector General’s report , which is available on the agency’s website. Mann’s statistical methods are still being scrutinized, the report says, but this scientific debate doesn’t const...

Assessing the Preparedness of Research Integrity Officers (RIOs) to Appropriately Handle Possible Research Misconduct Cases

Institutions receiving federal funding for research from the U.S.Public Health Service need to have policies and procedures to both prevent research misconduct and to adjudicate it when it occurs. The person who is designated to handle research misconduct is typically referred to as the research integrity officer (RIO). In this interview study we report on 79 RIOs who describe how they would handle allegations of research misconduct. Their responses were compared to two expert RIOs. The responses to the allegations in the scenarios demonstrated that RIOs are not uniformly well prepared to handle activities associated with reported allegations of research misconduct. We recommend greater preparation through directed training, use of check lists of possible behaviors necessary to consider when situations arise, being involved in a network of RIOs so one can discuss options, and the possible need to certify RIOs.

A Tale of Two Perspectives: Regulation Versus Self-Regulation. A Financial Reporting Approach (from Sarbanes–Oxley) for Research Ethics

Reports of research fraud have raised concerns about research integrity similar to concerns raised about financial accounting fraud. We propose a departure from self-regulation in that researchers adopt the financial accounting approach in establishing trust through an external validation process, in addition to the reporting entities and the regulatory agencies. The general conceptual framework for reviewing financial reports, utilizes external auditors who are certified and objective in using established standards to provide an opinion on the financial reports. These standards have become both broader in scope and increasingly specific as to what information is reported and the methodologies to be employed. We believe that the financial reporting overhaul encompassed in the US Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which aims at preventing accounting fraud, can be applied to scientific research in 4 ways. First, Sarbanes-Oxley requires corporations to have a complete set of internal accounting controls. Research organizations should use appropriate sampling techniques and audit research projects for conformity with the initial research protocols. Second, corporations are required to have the chief financial officer certify the accuracy of their financial statements. In a similar way, each research organization should have their vice-president of research (or equivalent) certify the research integrity of their research activities. In contrast, the primary responsibility of the existing Research Integrity Officers is to handle allegations of research misconduct, an after-the-fact activity. Third, generally accepted auditing standards specify the appropriate procedures for external review of a corporation's financial statements. For similar reasons, the research review process would also require corresponding external auditing standards. Finally, these new requirements would be implemented in stages, with the largest 14 research organizations that receive 25% of the total National Institutes of Health funding, adopting these research oversight enhancements first.

Education Research and Human Subject Protection: Crossing the IRB Quagmire

Stamina and mental fortitude are necessary attributes for the present-day researcher seeking approval from his institution’s human subjects protection review board (IRB). Both popular media and respected journals continue to report extremely rare but serious harms to research subjects as well as overly bureaucratic IRB responses. This leads to a pervasive perception of IRB overregulation yet underprotection of human subjects. Although the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) reports that 70% of allegations of research misconduct are ultimately not substantiated, the risk of suspension or disruption of research during an investigation, in addition to the possibility of damaging reputations and future funding, creates a national climate of anxiety among researchers and ensures continuation of excessive scrutiny of research processes. In fact, deficiencies detected by OHRP are primarily failures of documentation or failure to follow required procedures, not claims of harm to persons or unethical conduct. However, a recent article by members of the National Institutes of Health and OHRP emphasizes that current regulations do permit significant streamlining of ethical review. Options including exemption or expedited review are underutilized: in the past, 25%–77% of United States IRBs were found to review more rigorously than regulations required. These streamlined processes are particularly relevant to medical education research.