Findings Of Misconduct Research Articles

From research misconduct to disciplinary sanction: an empirical examination of French higher education case law

Reporting and investigating research misconduct can lead to disciplinary proceedings being initiated, and ultimately to disciplinary sanctions being imposed on convicted scientists. The conversion of research misconduct findings into disciplinary sanctions is poorly understood. This article analyses all the disciplinary decisions handed down on appeal by the Conseil national de l'enseignement supérieur et de la recherche (CNESER) between 1991 and 2023, concerning breaches of research integrity by academics and doctoral students ( n = 333). Three findings are highlighted. Firstly, the article describes how the CNESER sanctioned research misconduct even before the notion of research integrity became part of French law, by monitoring scientists’ compliance with “deontological rules”. Secondly, we show that assessing disciplinary fault involves evaluating a much broader set of circumstances than the mere existence of research misconduct, which can explain why the latter do not result in disciplinary sanctions or lighter sanctions. Thirdly, the research highlights situations where research misconduct is intertwined with other allegations, blurring the relative importance of these motives in the awarding of disciplinary sanctions. The article concludes with a call for greater accessibility to the disciplinary decisions handed down by universities in the first instance, as a key next step in gaining a better understanding of the disciplinary response to research misconduct.

Defining “recklessness” in research misconduct proceedings

ABSTRACT To find research misconduct in research that has been supported by federal funds, an institution must determine that the misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. “Intentional” and “knowing” are straightforward standards. Yet “reckless” often mystifies institutions, which struggle to assess whether a respondent’s conduct should be deemed “reckless,” or merely negligent. This difficulty is most pronounced when allegations are lodged against the author under whose supervision the primary research was conducted – most often, the senior and/or corresponding author of a published paper who may not have been directly involved in performing the experiments or preparing the data under scrutiny. In these situations, investigation committees and the institutional “deciding official” must assess whether the supervising scientist is guilty of research misconduct – based on the theory that their supervision of the research and development of the publication containing falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized information was reckless – even if that person did not perform the experiment or assemble the research records in question. This paper seeks to provide a framework for evaluating the circumstances in which past supervisory conduct should be deemed “reckless” and thus a basis on which a finding of research misconduct may be made.

Journal editors and publishers’ legal obligations with respect to medical research misconduct

As the burden of misconduct in medical research is increasingly recognised, questions have been raised about how best to address this problem. Whilst there are existing mechanisms for the investigation and management of misconduct in medical literature, they are inadequate to deal with the magnitude of the problem. Journal editors and publishers play an essential role in protecting the veracity of the medical literature. Whilst ethical guidance for journal editors and publishers is important, it is not as readily enforceable as legal obligations might be. This article questions the legal obligations that might exist for journal editors and publishing companies with respect to ensuring the veracity of the published literature. Ultimately, there is no enforceable legal obligation in Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United States. In light of this, more robust mechanisms are needed to deliver greater confidence and transparency in the investigative process, the management of concerns or findings of misconduct and the need to cleanse the literature. We show that the law disincentivises journals and publishers from ensuring truth in their publications. There are harmful consequences for medical care and public confidence in the medical profession and health care system when the foundations of medical science are questionable.

The Concept of Dishonesty in British Medical Discipline

The Concept of Dishonesty in British Medical Discipline

Risks of the Metaverse: A VRChat Study Case

This paper examines the potential social risks of the metaverse. Previous research has found that video games, including Virtual Reality (VR) ones, can be associated with violence normalization and objectification of women. Moreover, some studies have suggested that gaming platforms even serve as tools for extremist groups to recruit and radicalize vulnerable people. Nonetheless, these risks have not been further studied in the context of the metaverse. This research analyzed relevant cases from different gaming platforms including Meta Horizon Worlds. Moreover, the game VRChat was studied due to the similarities it has with the metaverse in terms of design and features. An evaluation of VRChat's user experience was carried out through an analysis of its most popular reviews. Though no signs of radicalization were found, an important number of these reviews expressed sentiments such as loneliness and depression, which make people more vulnerable to be radicalized. Additionally, a tendency for online harassment and sexual deviance was found in the game since 2018 and remained persistent to date. For further insight into the sexual misconduct findings, an interview was conducted with psychiatrist and sexuality expert, Dr. Zenteno. This research found that the game developers of VRChat have not done enough to address sexual misconduct effectively and protect its most vulnerable users. This research concluded that due to the lack of incentives that game developers have to regulate their platforms themselves for social good, further intervention of all the stakeholders involved is needed. This includes policymakers, parents, legal guardians, and educators.

Turn-it-out? Reframing the Academic Integrity Conversation in Online Legal Education

The challenge of academic integrity in online study is not a new phenomenon. For undergraduate law students, a finding of academic misconduct is especially serious, having ramifications for student eligibility to be admitted to legal practice. To date, higher education strategies to address plagiarism, contract cheating, and collusion have predominantly focused on detection methodology / technology via assessment. Reconceptualising the challenge of academic integrity in online learning requires an iterative understanding of the motivations of online learners, informed by the unique engagement challenges associated with adult online learning. Arguably, the ‘battle’ for integrity can never be won via increased detection and punitive measures; rather a focus on fostering student desire to act with integrity, by helping learners to connect academic integrity with their emerging professional identity is key. This connection must be supported by profession-facing teaching and assessment design, with facilitated learning relationships that build skills and confidence.

Authorship Issues When Articles are Retracted Due to Research Misconduct and Then Resubmitted.

In the last 20years, there has been a sharp increase in the incidence of retractions of articles published in scientific journals, the majority of which are due to research misconduct. In some cases, researchers have revised and republished articles that were retracted due to misconduct, which raises some novel questions concerning authorship. Suppose that an article is retracted because one of the authors fabricated or falsified some data, but the researchers decide to salvage the useable data, make appropriate revisions, and resubmit the article for publication. If the person who committed misconduct has made a significant contribution to the research reported in therevised paper, should they be named as an author to recognize this contribution or should they be denied authorship because they committed misconduct? This is a challenging issue because it involves the confluence of two research ethics domains that are usually dealt with separately, i.e., resolution of authorship disputes and adjudication of misconduct findings, as well as potential conflicts among norms that underlie authorship practices and misconduct adjudication. In this paper, we (1) describe some actual cases involving articles that were retracted for misconduct and republished; (2) review policies from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Committee on Publication Ethics, and top fifteen biomedical journals to determine whether they provide adequate guidance for cases like these; and (3) analyze the ethical and policy issues that may arise in these situations.

Auditors’ Negligence and Professional Misconduct in India: A Struggle for a Consistent Legal Standard

Gross negligence is a severe form of negligence. Its severity has been characterized using the presence of a mental element or mens rea accompanying the negligent act. Within the context of professional negligence, gross negligence is important as it constitutes professional misconduct. For auditors, a finding of professional misconduct through disciplinary proceedings can result in suspension or expulsion from the profession. In India, gross negligence is regularly used in disciplinary proceedings against auditors and also by the Securities and Exchange Board to determine whether an auditor has violated any securities regulations. Given the implications of a finding of gross negligence on the practice of an auditor, this paper seeks to discuss this Indian legal standard in detail. Using the statutory framework that governs auditors as a backdrop, this paper examines all reported High Court decisions from the 1950s till 2019 along with decisions of the Securities and Exchange Board with regards to an auditor’s duties. We find that the approach used to discern the existence of gross negligence across these decisions has been inconsistent. In the absence of any precedent from the Supreme Court of India that details what comprises gross negligence in the context of auditors, this inconsistent approach poses a problem. This paper offers a starting point for a discussion to minimize the uncertainty currently associated with auditors’ liability for professional misconduct, especially hoping to assist the newly established National Financial Reporting Authority in its decision-making process.

Survey study of research integrity officers\u2019 perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct

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 (RIOs) 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 (e.g., openness and transparency, keeping good research records) were present in their case of research misconduct.ResultsTwenty-four (24) of the respondents (39% response rate) 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.

Auditors’ Negligence and Professional Misconduct in India: A Struggle for a Consistent Legal Standard

Gross negligence is a severe form of negligence. Its severity has been characterized using the presence of a mental element or mens rea accompanying the negligent act. Within the context of professional negligence, gross negligence is important as it constitutes professional misconduct. For auditors, a finding of professional misconduct through disciplinary proceedings can result in suspension or expulsion from the profession. The Securities and Exchange Board of India also uses this concept to determine whether an auditor has violated any securities regulations. Given the implications of a finding of gross negligence on the practice of an auditor, this paper seeks to examine the legal standard in detail. The paper examines all reported High Court decisions from 1950s till 2019 and finds that the standards applied by the High Courts have been inconsistent. In the absence of any precedent from the Supreme Court of India that details what comprises gross negligence in the context of auditors, the inconsistent approach of the High Courts poses a problem. The Supreme Court decision in the P.K. Mukherjee case (1968) dealt with an auditor’s misconduct, however, it did not examine the question of gross negligence. This paper offers a starting point for a discussion to minimize the uncertainty currently associated with auditors’ liability for professional misconduct, especially hoping to assist the newly established the National Financial Reporting Authority in its decision-making process.

The Curtis Flowers Saga: A Failure of Prosecutorial Accountability

The job of a prosecutor is to both “do justice” and advocate for the state. Our justice system ensures that they are able to perform this dual duty free from public criticism through the doctrines of prosecutorial discretion and immunity. These doctrines allow prosecutors to exercise great power with very little consequence. They decide whether to charge, what to charge, how many charges to bring, and at what level. They negotiate plea agreements with impunity. And when they are caught behaving badly — withholding evidence, asking improper questions, making prejudicial statements during closing argument, or even using strikes to remove all the persons of color from a jury — most face no consequences at all. In fact, they often get a chance to try again. This can be seen most recently through the multiple trials of Curtis Flowers, a man who has been tried, retried, and retried again on the same charges by the same prosecutor six different times. Appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have found that Doug Evans, the prosecutor in that case, has engaged in misconduct. At various points he has made improper statements during trial, withheld evidence, and most damningly, struck all or most of the black members of multiple juries in violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Batson v. Kentucky. And yet, though Mr. Flowers is now out on bail, his future still depends on a decision by prosecutor Doug Evans, the same man who engaged in misconduct in at least four out of the previous six trials. This paper will analyze the current state of prosecutorial accountability, different forms of prosecutorial misconduct, the checks that currently exist, and why those checks tend to be ineffective. It will do so through the lens of the Curtis Flowers case. It will analyze how and why District Attorney Doug Evans was able to retry the case six times, even after multiple appellate court findings of prosecutorial misconduct and Batson violations. Finally, this paper will conclude with an argument for a simple, albeit partial solution: once a prosecutor is found guilty of serious misconduct in a case, he must recuse himself and his entire office from re-arguing the case. This will help to ensure a defendant’s right to a fair trial without overturning past jurisprudence or punish a prosecutor too harshly for a “technical error.” It will also give prosecutors incentive to act ethically if they want to win the case.

Characteristics of Lawyers Who Are Subject to Complaints and Misconduct Findings

Regulators of the legal profession are charged with protecting the public by ensuring lawyers are fit to practice law. However, their approach tends to be reactive and case based, focusing on the resolution of individual complaints. Regulators generally do not seek to identify patterns and trends across their broader caseloads and the legal profession as a whole. Using administrative data routinely collected by the main regulator of the legal profession in Victoria, Australia, we characterized complaints lodged between 2005 and 2015 and the lawyers against whom they were made. We also analyzed risk factors for complaints and misconduct findings. We found that the odds of being subject to a complaint were higher among lawyers who were male, older, had trust account authority, and whose legal practices were smaller, in nonurban locations, and incorporated. A deeper understanding of these risk factors could support efforts to improve professional standards and reform regulatory practices.

Cornell nutrition scientist resigns after retractions and research misconduct finding

Cornell nutrition scientist resigns after retractions and research misconduct finding

On Some Possible Ramifications of the “Microplastics in Fish” Case

Cases of research misconduct in the ecological and environmental sciences appear to be relatively rare. A controversial paper published in Science in 2016 documenting the effects of microplastics on the feeding and innate behaviours of fish larvae has recently been retracted, with the authors found guilty of scientific misconduct. In addition to the expected fallout, such as individual and institutional reputational damage from a research misconduct finding, this case has two possibly wider-ranging ramifications. Firstly, there may be a presumptive notion that a strong negative effect could be more successfully published than a neutral effect. This presumption would belie the true stringency and rigor of research adopted by workers in the field. Secondly, the case may have a negative impact on the public's perception of and trust in legitimate and good science that addresses critical environmental issues, such as anthropogenic climate change.

Cancer researcher at The Ohio State University resigns following multiple misconduct findings

Cancer researcher at The Ohio State University resigns following multiple misconduct findings

NSF addresses sexual harassment by grantees

The U.S. National Science Foundation will require universities to report grant recipients whom they have found guilty of sexual harassment, the agency announced on Feb. 8. Under a new condition of the award, institutions receiving NSF support are required to report any finding of sexual or other harassment involving grant personnel—including principal investigators—as well as the placement of any individuals on administrative leave relating to a harassment investigation or finding. In response to those reports, NSF can now apply the same sanctions to findings of sexual harassment that it does to findings of research misconduct. That can include suspending or terminating a grant. “NSF doesn’t tolerate sexual harassment or any form of harassment at grantee institutions or field sites, or anywhere that science is done,” says France A. Cordova, NSF’s director. Cordova says that although NSF does not include sexual harassment in the definition of research misconduct, it does consider

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND ENGINEERING INTERNS: THREE CASES FOR DISCUSSION

A key phrase in discipline findings of professional misconduct is "The engineer knew or ought to have known". By virtue of being members of the engineering profession, Engineers are expected to demonstrate both technical competence and professionalism. The three cases in this paper look at professionalism from the standpoint of trust from the perspective of the regulator, the client, and peers.When that trust is broken, complaints against the engineer can ensue and unless the member has worked with the investigation committee or been investigated before, it is unlikely that they would know the disciplinary process and the scope within which they operate.This paper is aimed at fostering classroom discussions about the ethical situations Engineering Interns could find themselves in and offers ideas on how the investigation/discipline process can be brought to the classroom.

Likely outside pressure casts doubt on sexual misconduct finding

Likely outside pressure casts doubt on sexual misconduct finding

Lawsuits & Rulings

Athletics: Coach's alleged dereliction of duty keeps former player's suit alive Due Process: Absence of factual allegations dooms expelled student's suit Sexual Misconduct: Possibility of outside pressure casts doubt on sexual misconduct finding

Characteristics of Lawyers Who are Subject to Complaints and Misconduct Findings

Regulators of the legal profession are charged with protecting the public by ensuring lawyers are fit to practice law. However, their approach tends to be reactive and case based, focusing on the resolution of individual complaints. Regulators generally do not seek to identify patterns and trends across their broader caseloads and the legal profession as a whole. Using administrative data routinely collected by the main regulator of the legal profession in Victoria, Australia, we characterized complaints lodged between 2005 and 2015 and the lawyers against whom they were made. We also analyzed risk factors for complaints and misconduct findings. We found that the odds of being subject to a complaint were higher among lawyers who were male, older, had trust account authority, and whose legal practices were smaller, in nonurban locations, and incorporated. A deeper understanding of these risk factors could support efforts to improve professional standards and reform regulatory practices.