Investigations Of Research Misconduct Research Articles

Research Misconduct Investigations in China's Science Funding System.

As stewards of public money, government funding agencies have the obligation and responsibility to uphold the integrity of funded research. Despite an increasing amount of empirical studies examining research-related misconduct, a majority of these studies focus on retracted publications. How agencies spot funding-relevant wrongdoing and what sanctions the offenders face remain largely unexplored. This is particularly true for public funding agencies in emerging science powers. To amend this oversight, we retrieved and analyzed all publicized investigation results from China's largest basic research funding agency over the period from 2005 to 2021. Our findings reveal that both the "police patrol" and "fire alarm" approaches are used to identify misconduct and deter funding-related fraud in China. The principal triggers for investigations are journal article retractions, whistleblowing, and plagiarism detection software. Among the six funding-related misconduct types publicized and punished, the top three are: (1) fraudulent papers, (2) information fabrication and/or falsification in the research proposal, and (3) proposal plagiarism. The most common administrative sanctions are debarment and reclamation of grants. This article argues that more systematic research and cooperation among stakeholders is needed to cultivate research integrity in emerging science powers like China. Specific training and education should be provided for young scientists to help them avoid the pitfall of academic misconduct.

Retraction for Gupta et al., volume 297, 2009, p. H627-H636.

RetractionRetraction for Gupta et al., volume 297, 2009, p. H627–H636Published Online:17 Feb 2021https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.00294.2009_RETRetracted articleMoreSectionsPDF (98 KB)Download PDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInEmail Gupta S, Maitra R, Young D, Gupta A, Sen S. Silencing the myotrophin gene by RNA interference leads to the regression of cardiac hypertrophy. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 297: H627–H636, 2009; doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00294.2009. The American Physiological Society is retracting this article because of concerns of inappropriate image manipulation in Figs. 1, 5, and 6. An investigation of research misconduct was conducted by the Cleveland Clinic. Cleveland Clinic’s Board of Governors/Medical Executive Committee concurred with the investigation’s finding that it is more likely than not that one or more of the images in this publication have been falsified. The authors disagree with the findings of the Cleveland Clinic’s Board of Governors/Medical Executive Committee and the decision of the journal to retract the article. The authors stand by the results and conclusions of this article and state that no data in their article were compromised by any means.This article has no references to display. Previous Back to Top FiguresReferencesRelatedInformationRelated articlesSilencing the myotrophin gene by RNA interference leads to the regression of cardiac hypertrophy 01 Aug 2009American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology More from this issue > Volume 320Issue 3March 2021Pages H1020-H1020 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2021 the American Physiological Societyhttps://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.00294.2009_RETPubMed33595375History Published online 17 February 2021 Published in print 1 March 2021 Metrics Downloaded 453 times

Retraction for Sarkar et al., volume 287, 2004, p. H107-H117.

RetractionRetraction for Sarkar et al., volume 287, 2004, p. H107–H117Published Online:17 Feb 2021https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.00763.2003_RETRetracted articleMoreSectionsPDF (99 KB)Download PDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInEmail Sarkar S, Vellaichamy E, Young D, Sen S. Influence of cytokines and growth factors in ANG II-mediated collagen upregulation by fibroblasts in rats: role of myocytes. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 287: H107–H117, 2004. First published April 1, 2004; doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00763.2003. The American Physiological Society is retracting this article because of concerns of inappropriate image manipulation in Figs. 2, 3, 4, and 7. An investigation of research misconduct was conducted by the Cleveland Clinic. Cleveland Clinic’s Board of Governors/Medical Executive Committee concurred with the investigation’s finding that it is more likely than not that one or more of the images in this publication have been falsified. The authors disagree with the findings of the Cleveland Clinic’s Board of Governors/Medical Executive Committee and the decision of the journal to retract the article. The authors stand by the results and conclusions of this article and state that no data in their article were compromised by any means.This article has no references to display. Previous Back to Top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedInformationRelated articlesInfluence of cytokines and growth factors in ANG II-mediated collagen upregulation by fibroblasts in rats: role of myocytes 01 Jul 2004American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology More from this issue > Volume 320Issue 3March 2021Pages H1018-H1018 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2021 the American Physiological Societyhttps://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.00763.2003_RETPubMed33595374History Published online 17 February 2021 Published in print 1 March 2021 Metrics Downloaded 528 times

What’s new copycat?

In Finland, all higher education institutions are committed to following a national policy to deal with suspected violations of good scientific practice. All suspicions of research misconduct are dealt with at the local level in the institution. If “the person alleged of misconduct or the instigator of the allegation” is dissatisfied with the decision, s/he may request a statement from the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (2012, 36). The system has been claimed to be unique in the world. The responsibility of research misconduct investigations being on local level has led to a situation where the rector of the institution is responsible of the decisions resulting in differencesin local decisions, processes and definitions of plagiarism (Moore 2019).
 The data for this conference paper consist of 13 statements requested from Finnish National Boardon Research Integrity. All requests of statements dealt with suspicions of plagiarism in students’ Master’s theses. Thematic content analysis is used to typify first the interpretations of plagiarism and the investigation processes in institutions. The main result is that plagiarism is defined or denied on the local level and there is no need to comply with national or international definitionsof plagiarism. The national guidelines can be interpreted in creative ways: administrative and legal rhetoric is used to state that a thesis older than two years is not to be investigated at all, the instigator of the suspicion is not a party in a plagiarism case and therefore documentation of the investigation process can be kept internal. Secondary source plagiarism can be seen as plagiarism,but it can also be accepted as normal thesis writing. The national guidelines are interpreted differently resulting in creative, diverse and unequal interpretations of plagiarism.

Recommendations for the Investigation of Research Misconduct

Recommendations for the Investigation of Research Misconduct

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.

Retraction Note to: Preference for immediate reinforcement over delayed reinforcement: relation between delay discounting and health behavior.

Retraction Note to: J Behav Med (2013) 36:34–43DOI 10.1007/s10865-012-9399-z. At the request of Kevin Larkin, this article has been retracted due to research misconduct of Shane Melanko. Mister Melanko was solely responsible for the actions that resulted in the retraction of this article, and Dr. Larkin was unaware of his actions until after the article was published. No other published work was implicated during the investigation of research misconduct, and any data collected by Mr. Melanko for other studies have been discarded and will not be analyzed or published. The online version of the original article can be found under doi:10.1007/s10865-012-9399-z. The first retraction note of the article can be found under doi:10.1007/s10865-014-9602-5.

Integrity in Postgraduate Research: The Student Voice.

There is a limited understanding of the student perspective of integrity in postgraduate research. This is of concern given that 'research trainees' may have a vulnerable position in formal investigations of research misconduct. This paper analyses qualitative data drawn from an Australian online academic integrity survey in a mixed methods research study. This analysis complements the quantitative survey data analysed earlier and sought to explore factors contributing to postgraduate research students' satisfaction with policy and process, the ways institutions can support students' understandings and practice, suggestions for improving breach processes, and students' concerns. We found that integrity training and modelling of ethical behaviour by staff were key factors contributing to students' satisfaction. Students would have liked more 'hands-on' integrity training, accompanied by consistent and transparent enforcement of policy. Respondents expressed concern about the credibility of research output and educational standards. We call for recommendations from the extensive literature on academic integrity policy and practice to be extended to the postgraduate research sphere.

Historical Model for Editor and Office of Research Integrity Cooperation in Handling Allegations, Investigation, and Retraction in a Contentious (Abbs) Case of Research Misconduct

Cooperation between a journal editor and the federal Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in addressing investigations of research misconduct, each performing their own responsibilities while keeping each other informed of events and evidence, can be critical to the professional and regulatory resolution of a case. This paper describes the history of one of ORI’s most contentious investigations that involved falsification of research on Parkinson’s disease patients by James Abbs, Professor of Neurology, University of Wisconsin, published in the journal Neurology, which was handled cooperatively by the authors, who were the chief ORI investigator and the Editor-in-Chief of Neurology, respectively.

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.

Scientific Forensics: How the Office of Research Integrity can Assist Institutional Investigations of Research Misconduct During Oversight Review

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.

Procedure for investigation of research misconduct – active treatment or sham intervention?

Procedure for investigation of research misconduct – active treatment or sham intervention?

Procedural due process in the investigation of research misconduct

Procedural due process in the investigation of research misconduct

Australia needs an office of academic integrity

Institutions investigating allegations of research misconduct are vulnerable to claims that their processes are inadequate or that they have an institutional conflict of interest. The Office of Research Integrity in the United States sets down standards for and reviews the adequacy of investigations of research misconduct by institutions; recognises that internal politics and the involvement of non-experts can lead to honest mistakes being regarded as serious misconduct; requires complainants and investigators to act "in good faith"; and reduces damaging publicity when complaints are misconceived or false. Australia needs an office of academic integrity to ensure that all complaints are thoroughly investigated; the investigative procedures meet international standards; fair processes are provided for complainants and respondents; and institutions are protected from claims of "cover-up" and institutional conflict of interest.

Protecting the Voices of Our Research

Although discussion of composition research methods over the last 10 years has culminated in Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) guidelines, these guidelines do not include procedures for verifying qualitative data. Such procedures would entail having a third party check to some degree that the researcher spent the time claimed at the site and that the subjects did what was described and said what was quoted in the published research. This commentary reviews federal policies on research misconduct and government and professional association responses to data faking, noting the additional danger of incompetent investigations of research misconduct. Arguing that the discipline should take appropriate measures to verify qualitative data, I recommend a two-tiered approach.

Due process in investigations of research misconduct.

This report reviews federal regulations regarding research misconduct and argues that accused scientists should be guaranteed more procedural safeguards during investigations of alleged misconduct....

Fraud and misconduct in clinical research

Contributors Preface SECTION 1: SETTING THE SCENE 1. The concept of scientific dishonesty: Ethics, value systems, and research - Povl Riis 2. Ethical issues in the publication process - Richard Smith 3. What is research misconduct? - Drummond Rennie and C Kristina Gunsalus SECTION 2: THE HISTORICAL ASPECTS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT 4. An interpretive history of research misconduct policy in the USA and Canada - Nicholas H Steneck 5. Historical aspects of research misconduct: Europe - Frank Wells SECTION 3: THE PREVENTION OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT 6. The promotion of good publication practice - Elizabeth Wager 7. Monitoring medical research: Better to prevent than to cure? - Helena van den Dungen 8. The role of research ethics committees - John Saunders SECTION 4: APPROACHES TO THE DETECTION OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT 9. The role of the whistleblower - Sabine Kleinert 10. The role of the peer review process - Ana Marusic 11. Can statistical analysis reveal research misconduct? - Stephen Evans 12. The role of electronic tracking in monitoring data output in clinical trials - Erick Gaussens, Pierre-Henri Bertoye, and Jean-Marc Husson 13. The role of monitoring of research for compliance and detecting misconduct - Michael R Hamrell 14. The role of routine enhanced audit - Nicky Dodsworth SECTION 5: INVESTIGATION OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT 15. Handling whistleblowers: Bane and boon - C Kristina Gunsalus and Drummond Rennie 16. Conduct of an inquiry into alleged misconduct - Jane Barrett SECTION 6: THE WAY FORWARD 17. The role of national advisory bodies - Michael Farthing Index