Findings Of Research Misconduct Research Articles

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.

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.

Retraction Statement: "High-Volumetric Performance Aligned Nano-Porous Microwave Exfoliated Graphite Oxide-based Electrochemical Capacitors" and "Aligned Nano-Porous Microwave Exfoliated Graphite Oxide Ionic Actuators with High Strain and Elastic Energy Density".

These articles first published on 15 August 2013 and 21 August 2013 on the Wiley Online Library have been retracted at the request of the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) of The Pennsylvania State University, in agreement with the corresponding authors, the journal's Editor-in-Chief, and Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, because portions of the reported results cannot be considered reliable or reproducible. Following an investigation by the RIO of The Pennsylvania State University, it was found that the data in Figure 2a,b and Figure S1a,b (Supporting Information) of the article with DOI: 10.1002/adma.201301243, and Figure S3 (Supporting Information) of the article with DOI: 10.1002/adma.201301370 were falsified. Data regarding the carbon electrode material, A-aMEGO, reported to have a density of 1.15 g cm-3 , in the article with DOI: 10.1002/adma.201301243, were falsified. The RIO of The Pennsylvania State University confirms that the investigation found that the mentioned data were falsified by the first author. No findings of research misconduct were made against the co-authors of these publications. [1] M. Ghaffari, Y. Zhou, H. Xu, M. Lin, T. Y. Kim, R. S. Ruoff, Q. M. Zhang, Adv. Mater. 25: 2013, 4879. doi:10.1002/adma.201301243 [2] M. Ghaffari, W. Kinsman, Y. Zhou, S. Murali, Q. Burlingame, M. Lin, R. S. Ruoff, Q. M. Zhang, Adv. Mater. 25: 2013, 6277. doi:10.1002/adma.201301370.

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.

Closing the barn door: Coping with findings of research misconduct by trainees in the biomedical sciences

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 (fabrication, falsification and plagiarism). Examination of the limited literature and of the number of cases closed by the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI) 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.

The third-party notification dilemma. Commentary.

AbstractIn their report in this supplement on research regulatory systems, Barbara Bierer and Mark Barnes note that, when research misconduct has been detected but not yet proven, the individual with institutional responsibility for oversight of research misconduct investigations “may determine that notification of relevant journals or professional societies and correction or full retraction of implicated papers or presentations is appropriate. In those cases, even when a finding of research misconduct per se has not been made or has not been explicitly stated, the journal, professional society, and their readers or members may draw their own conclusions as to what led to the retraction or correction.” This statement highlights an aspect of the reviewed regulatory schemes that creates vulnerability for institutions of higher education subject to the regulations: while, as the authors suggest, it may be “appropriate” to notify third parties (that is, journals, professional societies, and other academic institutions) of suspected research misconduct, there is no regulatory obligation to provide such a notification, and, in fact, providing early (or any) notification is contrary to the confidentiality provisions of the research misconduct regulations. Moreover, the institution—and individuals acting on behalf of the institution—may face legal exposure for notifying outside entities.