Primary responsibility for investigating allegations of research misconduct belongs to

If you suspect that a colleague has engaged in research misconduct, you should report your suspicions. The general principle at work here is clear: research relies on self-regulation to detect and correct serious misbehavior. However, it is not always easy to follow this principle and 'blow the whistle' (as reporting is commonly described). There are potential negative consequences, which will be addressed at the end of this section.

Nội dung chính Show

• The basic principles
• 1. Individual report
• 2. Institutional review and finding
• Principles in practice
• The scenario
• Reporting your suspicions
• The next step
• The outcome
• Weaknesses with the system
• Who have the primary responsibility for reporting and investigating allegations of research misconduct?
• Who is responsible for reporting research misconduct?
• How do I report a research misconduct?
• Which of the following would an institution do when responding to an allegation of research misconduct?

For now, assume that you will report – but to whom? Consider the following question and select what you feel is the best option. Then continue for our own thoughts.

If you have good reason to suspect a colleague (or even your mentor) of serious research misconduct, to whom would you first report your suspicions?

Answer options:

• Your colleague or mentor: Because you think they should be given a chance to explain what they did. After all, you might be wrong. You wouldn't want to report them to someone else without first telling them.
• Your colleague's or mentor's superior: Because it isn't a good idea to go right to the top of any institution. There are chains of responsibility. It is best to begin with the person who is closest to the potential problem.
• Your institutional misconduct representative: Because you should report first to the individuals who have overall responsibility for research, particularly if there is someone who is appointed to deal with misconduct.
• The press: Because you can't trust your institution to take allegations seriously and you feel it is more likely that you will be punished for causing trouble. The best option is to leak the information to the press and let public pressure take its course.
• No one: Because, although you know you should report it, your career is too important to you.

Feedback:

If your institution or country has a research misconduct policy, you should follow it. U.S. policy generally recommends reporting to the institutional misconduct representative, usually known as the Research Integrity Officer (RIO), first.

More generally:

• Talking with the person suspected of misconduct first could complicate bringing charges later if evidence is destroyed or other action taken to cover up the misconduct.
• Superiors within the system are often not trained to handle cases properly.
• Your institutional misconduct representative (e.g. RIO) is usually trained to handle cases properly and protect all parties involved. If there is no trusted institutional official, having an informal mentor to consult before taking any action is usually a good idea.
• Reporting to the press or doing nothing are not recommended and risk backfiring. Whenever possible, have authorized individuals investigate before going public. They usually have a duty to protect those who report suspicions in good faith. If you're worried, seek advice from trusted colleagues to make sure you're making the right decision.

How do you think your peers' responses might compare to your own?

Consider the 'Your context' box at the end of this section to find out more about the policies that apply to you. You can explore these and others in more detail on the 'Guide to research policies and guidelines' page at the end of this course. Be particularly mindful of the definition of misconduct and to whom misconduct should be reported. Knowing your policies and getting good advice early is the best way to avoid making the wrong decision.

Glossary term - Research misconduct (as generally used in this course):
Behaviors that significantly compromise the accuracy of the research record or the proper professional conduct of research. You should be familiar with the specific government and institutional definitions that apply to your work.

The basic principles

While there are significant differences in the way countries and institutions define and respond to misconduct in research, overall there are similarities in approach, which can be summarized in three simple steps. The following section outlines these steps in more detail.

1. Individual report

The first stage is when an individual reports suspected misconduct. If you do this, you should take the following steps:

• Review any evidence you have to make sure you haven't misunderstood anything
• Protect your evidence
• Report your suspicions to the appropriate authority (e.g. the RIO)
• Consult with respected and trusted colleagues if you have doubts about reporting
• Maintain confidentiality.

2. Institutional review and finding

Before reporting details of the allegation, the institution should follow a clear and fair investigative procedure, generally conducted as follows:

• Receive and log all allegations
• Assess the likely truth of the allegation (inquiry)
• Formally review the evidence (investigation)
• Issue a report based on the investigation's findings.

3. Wrap up

Finally, decisions are made and followed through based on the investigation's findings. The process usually includes the following:

• Determine appropriate sanctions for anyone found to have committed misconduct
• Report findings to those who need to know or should know
• Take steps to restore the reputation of anyone found innocent
• Make sure the person who blew the whistle is protected from retaliation
• Correct the research record.

Principles in practice

Some allegations are easily resolved following this general procedure. Extensive plagiarism, for example, can be easily documented. As will be discussed in the section on plagiarism, there really are no excuses for copying someone else's work without giving credit.

Other types of misconduct, however, can be more difficult to identify and pursue. In the following section, consider the scenario, reflect on the questions and then continue to our suggestions.

The scenario

Something about a digital image a colleague presented in a seminar last week didn't look right. Fortunately a version of the presentation was circulated in advance, allowing you to call up the image and check with photo-processing software. Sure enough, the part that puzzled you was clearly copied and pasted into the image.

Is this a case of research misconduct?

Our suggestion:
Perhaps. If the colleague was presenting research results and made no mention of the copy-and-paste manipulation, he or she was dishonest and could be accused of fabrication or falsification. Fabrication and falsification, or some wording that implies dishonestly manipulating data, is included in most definitions of research misconduct. In this case, however, the rules for what one can and cannot do to digital images can be vague (this will be discussed in the section on data). You are right to be suspicious but you cannot be certain.

So what should you do?

Reporting your suspicions

You now know that it is generally recommended that you should report your suspicions to the person or office in your institution (or in some cases within your country) charged with investigating misconduct. There are different ways to meet this responsibility. You could:

• Send an anonymous note with some or all of the evidence you have
• Make a phone call and convey your suspicions anonymously
• Meet with the integrity officer and present the information that you have
• Convey your suspicions in writing along with any supporting evidence you have.

Which course of action is proper?

Our suggestion:
Expectations for reporting vary from institution to institution. Some institutions place the burden for bringing initial allegations on the whistleblower and will only proceed if they are written down and supported by some evidence. Other institutions will respond to anonymous allegations. Find out what your institution requires before proceeding to report. Be mindful of the fact that not all allegations of misconduct are brought in good faith. You must provide enough information for the person receiving the allegations to have reasonable suspicions.

The next step

When an allegation of misconduct lands on the desk of a research integrity officer, what would you expect to happen next?

• The accused person is contacted immediately to make him or her aware of the allegations?
• The allegation is reported to a government agency?
• The research integrity officer sets up a committee to investigate the allegations?

Our suggestion:
Actually, none of these. Not every seemingly wrong behavior is research misconduct. For official action to follow, the misbehavior must fall within an official definition of misconduct. That's why the definition of misconduct is so important. Misconduct is also not generally reported to government agencies if there is no government funding or violation of government rules. The research integrity officer must review the allegations and make decisions on what official course of action to follow.

The outcome

If the photo manipulation in this case might be research misconduct, who ultimately decides whether misconduct has been committed?

• The research integrity officer?
• A committee?
• The government?

The answer to this question depends on the applicable misconduct policy. Generally, the process follows the pattern outlined here.

• An individual or special committee carries out an initial inquiry to determine whether the case needs to be pursued. If it does, then...
• An official committee is established to investigate the allegations and conclude whether misconduct was committed. If the committee concludes that misconduct was committed, then...
• Someone independent of the investigation committee reviews the finding and recommends a course of action, which could range from exoneration to some punishment, including job termination. If some punishment is recommended, then in some cases...
• The accused has a right to appeal to some other authority. However, appeal is not always an option. When the appeal process has been exhausted, then...
• Appropriate follow-up action is taken, such as restoring the reputation of a falsely accused researcher, protecting the career of someone who blew the whistle or retracting faulty research publications. Then...
• The case is closed.

Weaknesses with the system

This is the way allegations of misconduct should be handled. The system works well in many cases, but it has some significant weaknesses. In the following section, consider the five weaknesses listed and the five measures that could help to overcome them. Decide which weakness corresponds to which measure and make a note of your thoughts, then continue to our guideline answer.

Weaknesses

• Failure to discover
• Under-reporting
• Improper investigations
• Institutional cover-up
• Failure to correct research record

Measures

• Mandatory reporting and oversight by government agencies or independent national misconduct organizations
• Better instruction for reviewers and more conscientious review
• More encouragement by administrators and peers to report suspected misconduct
• Strengthened or more effective guidelines for making and listing retractions
• Better instruction, training and support for investigating committees

Our answers:

• Failure to discover – better instruction for reviewers and more conscientious review
• Under-reporting – more encouragement by administrators and peers to report suspected misconduct
• Improper investigations – better instruction, training and support for investigating committees
• Institutional cover-up – mandatory reporting and oversight by government agencies or independent national misconduct organizations
• Failure to correct research record – strengthened or more effective guidelines for making and listing retractions

Over the last two decades, significant strides have been made in improving definitions and developing procedures for responding to misconduct in research. Even so, the systems in place for reporting and responding to misconduct have numerous shortcomings. For various reasons:

• Researchers are reluctant to report misconduct when they suspect it
• Some research institutions are not aggressive in pursuing allegations
• Whistleblowers are not always adequately protected
• Institutional and national policies are inconsistent and not as effective as they could be.

You can help to address some of these problems if you keep in mind that, as a researcher, you have two fundamental responsibilities:

• To know and avoid behaviors that your institution, your country and your peers consider serious misbehavior
• To know what to do if you suspect misconduct and act accordingly.

Making the decision to report someone, particularly a friend or colleague, is not an easy one and can have personal consequences. In the box at the end of this section, some researchers share their advice on facing this difficult situation. It will be easier to face situations such as this if you work in a supportive research environment and have trusted and experienced mentors and colleagues, as discussed in the next section.

Locate and familiarize yourself with your institution's misconduct and whistleblowing policies, and any national frameworks or policies on misconduct. Find out, too, who your institution's research integrity officer is.

Allegation: An assertion that something has happened. When someone makes an allegation, they need to have proof to support their claim – they should present their evidence when they report their suspicions.

Inquiry: A phase of gathering information in order to assess the seriousness of the allegation. The inquiry will determine whether a formal investigation is necessary.

Investigation: A phase of reviewing evidence and relevant documents and interviewing people involved in order to determine the truth of the allegation and to decide whether disciplinary measures should be imposed.

Findings: The results of the investigation. This includes judgments about the extent to which the researcher deviated from accepted practice and whether the researcher was aware of this deviation, as well as an assessment of the evidence presented.

Fabrication: Inventing data or results and recording and/or reporting them.

Falsification: Manipulating data, methods or equipment. Falsification refers to any alteration, addition or omission which leads to an inaccurate or incomplete representation in the research record.

Whistleblower: An individual who makes allegations about misconduct, either internally (e.g. to an institution's research integrity officer) or externally (e.g. to the press or to the public).

Research Integrity Officer: A person appointed by their institution to handle allegations of misconduct. RIOs are typically responsible for overseeing the inquiry and investigation phases and for ensuring that everyone involved is treated fairly.

Manipulated digital images

This article from the Journal of Cell Biology gives some examples of manipulated digital images: http://jcb.rupress.org/content/166/1/11

Dealing with financial misconduct

Click on the links below to read about a suspected case of financial misconduct and plagiarism, and some of the long-term consequences for how research misconduct is handled:

• The case of Daniel Kwok: www.kelowna.com/forums/topic/funding-freeze-prof-daniel-kwoks-spending-has-run-afoul-of-canadas-research-council
• Some longer-term consequences: www.nature.com/news/2010/101021/full/news.2010.555.html

In the following video transcript, some researchers share advice on whistleblowing, and how institutions can ensure that whistleblowers are better protected.

Media - Video

Do you think you would report misconduct if you came across it?

Nathan Tykocki, 5th year PhD student, Michigan State University: I really haven't yet experienced where I could think of something a researcher was doing that was overtly improper, but I would like to think that if I had, I would have the courage and the integrity of myself to report that, because all of us as scientists pay the price, every time someone does something that they shouldn't, in terms of research integrity.

What advice would you give to young researchers who are considering blowing the whistle on a case of misconduct they have observed?

Dr. Melissa S. Anderson, Professor of Higher Education, University of Minnesota: Well, first it's very important to understand that you have to have good records. You have to be able to verify what's going on. What did you actually see? Who was involved? When did it happen? Where did it happen? What was your role in that situation? You have to have written records on all of those points. It's also important to make sure that you're protecting the integrity of your own research, to make sure that your own research is not implicated in what's going wrong.

Dr. Miguel Roig, Professor, St. John's University: Reporting research misconduct is probably one of the most difficult things for a researcher to do. I haven't had the opportunity to do so, but I do caution students, for example, or junior researchers, to be very, very careful in how they go about reporting misconduct, because the consequences can be dire if you're a junior researcher, and even if you're a student.

Dr. Nick Steneck, Director of the Research Ethics and Integrity Program of the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research, University of Michigan: I give quite a few talks, particularly to younger researchers, on research integrity. It's very rare when I give a talk like that that someone doesn't come up to me afterwards and say, 'I have this situation, or a friend of mine has this situation, and we're not sure what to do about it.' The worst one is a junior person who's in the position of knowing that a mentor or someone that's above them has committed misconduct, and realising that if they report it, it could be the end of their career, at this point, they're not going to get the recommendations that they want. So what do you tell someone at that point? The answers are, number one, you're in a difficult situation, so you need to seek advice from others. You need help from others. Usually the best place to go is to the research integrity officer on campus, and get their advice. It's always good to have someone else that you rely on as a mentor outside your main field that you can go to and talk to. And you need to then balance your professional responsibilities with your personal responsibilities. I certainly wouldn't say to someone under any circumstance, 'You must report misconduct.' That, there are other things you have to take into consideration. But you have a strong professional responsibility to do that, and you should try to find a way in which you can do it that won't directly harm you.

Who have the primary responsibility for reporting and investigating allegations of research misconduct?

It is the responsibility of each Investigator who participates in research at the NIH, no matter what their career stage, to maintain exemplary standard of intellectual honesty in formulating or conducting research and to report any suspected research misconduct to the NIH Agency Research Integrity Officer (ARIO).

Who is responsible for reporting research misconduct?

Research institutions will notify the funding agency (or agencies in some cases) of an allegation of research misconduct if (1) the allegation involves Federally funded research (or an application for Federal funding) and meets the Federal definition of research misconduct given above, and (2) if the institution's ...

How do I report a research misconduct?

Reporting Scientific Misconduct If a reader believes that there could be an ethical problem with a published manuscript, the first step would be to contact the editors of the journal where it appeared. Editors must take all allegations of misconduct seriously and have the responsibility to look into the case.

Which of the following would an institution do when responding to an allegation of research misconduct?

In responding to an allegation, an institution must provide the following:.

notification of receipt of an allegation,.

confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible,.

an opportunity to comment on allegations and findings,.

a copy of the inquiry report for comment,.

Who is responsible for investigating research misconduct?

Who has the primary responsibility for reporting and investigating allegations of research misconduct?

What belongs to research misconduct?

How research misconduct is handled?