Sample records for committed research misconduct

  1. Males are overrepresented among life science researchers committing scientific misconduct.

    PubMed

    Fang, Ferric C; Bennett, Joan W; Casadevall, Arturo

    2013-01-22

    A review of the United States Office of Research Integrity annual reports identified 228 individuals who have committed misconduct, of which 94% involved fraud. Analysis of the data by career stage and gender revealed that misconduct occurred across the entire career spectrum from trainee to senior scientist and that two-thirds of the individuals found to have committed misconduct were male. This exceeds the overall proportion of males among life science trainees and faculty. These observations underscore the need for additional efforts to understand scientific misconduct and to ensure the responsible conduct of research. As many of humanity's greatest problems require scientific solutions, it is critical for the scientific enterprise to function optimally. Misconduct threatens the scientific enterprise by undermining trust in the validity of scientific findings. We have examined specific demographic characteristics of individuals found to have committed research misconduct in the life sciences. Our finding that misconduct occurs across all stages of career development suggests that attention to ethical aspects of the conduct of science should not be limited to those in training. The observation that males are overrepresented among those who commit misconduct implies a gender difference that needs to be better understood in any effort to promote research integrity.

  2. Males Are Overrepresented among Life Science Researchers Committing Scientific Misconduct

    PubMed Central

    Fang, Ferric C.; Bennett, Joan W.; Casadevall, Arturo

    2013-01-01

    ABSTRACT A review of the United States Office of Research Integrity annual reports identified 228 individuals who have committed misconduct, of which 94% involved fraud. Analysis of the data by career stage and gender revealed that misconduct occurred across the entire career spectrum from trainee to senior scientist and that two-thirds of the individuals found to have committed misconduct were male. This exceeds the overall proportion of males among life science trainees and faculty. These observations underscore the need for additional efforts to understand scientific misconduct and to ensure the responsible conduct of research. PMID:23341553

  3. Prevalence of scientific misconduct among a group of researchers in Nigeria.

    PubMed

    Okonta, Patrick; Rossouw, Theresa

    2013-12-01

    There is a dearth of information on the prevalence of scientific misconduct from Nigeria. This study aimed at determining the prevalence of scientific misconduct in a group of researchers in Nigeria. Factors associated with the prevalence were ascertained. A descriptive study of researchers who attended a scientific conference in 2010 was conducted using the adapted Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised (SMQ-R). Ninety-one researchers (68.9%) admitted having committed at least one of the eight listed forms of scientific misconduct. Disagreement about authorship was the most common form of misconduct committed (36.4%) while plagiarism was the least (9.2%). About 42% of researchers had committed falsification of data or plagiarism. Analysis of specific acts of misconduct showed that committing plagiarism was inversely associated with years in research (Fisher exact p-value = 0.02); falsifying data was related to perceived low effectiveness of the institution's rules and procedures for reducing scientific misconduct (X(2) = 6.44, p-value = 0.01); and succumbing to pressure from study sponsor to engage in unethical practice was related to sex of researcher (Fisher exact p-value = 0.02). The emergent data from this study is a cause for serious concern and calls for prompt intervention. The best response to reducing scientific misconduct will proceed from measures that contain both elements of prevention and enforcement. Training on research ethics has to be integrated into the curriculum of undergraduate and postgraduate students while provision should be made for in-service training of researchers. Penalties against acts of scientific misconduct should be enforced at institutional and national levels. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

  4. PREVALENCE OF SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT AMONG A GROUP OF RESEARCHERS IN NIGERIA

    PubMed Central

    OKONTA, PATRICK; ROSSOUW, THERESA

    2012-01-01

    Background There is a dearth of information on the prevalence of scientific misconduct from Nigeria. Objectives This study aimed at determining the prevalence of scientific misconduct in a group of researchers in Nigeria. Factors associated with the prevalence were ascertained. Method A descriptive study of researchers who attended a scientific conference in 2010 was conducted using the adapted Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire- Revised (SMQ-R). Results Ninety-one researchers (68.9%) admitted having committed at least one of the eight listed forms of scientific misconduct. Disagreement about authorship was the most common form of misconduct committed (36.4%) while plagiarism was the least (9.2%). About 42% of researchers had committed falsification of data or plagiarism. Analysis of specific acts of misconduct showed that committing plagiarism was inversely associated with years in research (Fisher exact p-value = 0.02); falsifying data was related to perceived low effectiveness of the institution’s rules and procedures for reducing scientific misconduct (X2 = 6.44, p-value = 0.01); and succumbing to pressure from study sponsor to engage in unethical practice was related to sex of researcher (Fisher exact p-value = 0.02). Conclusions The emergent data from this study is a cause for serious concern and calls for prompt intervention. The best response to reducing scientific misconduct will proceed from measures that contain both elements of prevention and enforcement. Training on research ethics has to be integrated into the curriculum of undergraduate and postgraduate students while provision should be made for in-service training of researchers. Penalties against acts of scientific misconduct should be enforced at institutional and national levels. PMID:22994914

  5. Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications.

    PubMed

    Stern, Andrew M; Casadevall, Arturo; Steen, R Grant; Fang, Ferric C

    2014-08-14

    The number of retracted scientific articles has been increasing. Most retractions are associated with research misconduct, entailing financial costs to funding sources and damage to the careers of those committing misconduct. We sought to calculate the magnitude of these effects. Data relating to retracted manuscripts and authors found by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) to have committed misconduct were reviewed from public databases. Attributable costs of retracted manuscripts, and publication output and funding of researchers found to have committed misconduct were determined. We found that papers retracted due to misconduct accounted for approximately $58 million in direct funding by the NIH between 1992 and 2012, less than 1% of the NIH budget over this period. Each of these articles accounted for a mean of $392,582 in direct costs (SD $423,256). Researchers experienced a median 91.8% decrease in publication output and large declines in funding after censure by the ORI. Copyright © 2014, Stern et al.

  6. Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications

    PubMed Central

    Stern, Andrew M; Casadevall, Arturo; Steen, R Grant; Fang, Ferric C

    2014-01-01

    The number of retracted scientific articles has been increasing. Most retractions are associated with research misconduct, entailing financial costs to funding sources and damage to the careers of those committing misconduct. We sought to calculate the magnitude of these effects. Data relating to retracted manuscripts and authors found by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) to have committed misconduct were reviewed from public databases. Attributable costs of retracted manuscripts, and publication output and funding of researchers found to have committed misconduct were determined. We found that papers retracted due to misconduct accounted for approximately $58 million in direct funding by the NIH between 1992 and 2012, less than 1% of the NIH budget over this period. Each of these articles accounted for a mean of $392,582 in direct costs (SD $423,256). Researchers experienced a median 91.8% decrease in publication output and large declines in funding after censure by the ORI. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02956.001 PMID:25124673

  7. 42 CFR 93.517 - The hearing.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing... committed research misconduct and if the HHS administrative actions, including any debarment or suspension... research misconduct and the proposed HHS administrative actions. The ALJ does not review the institution's...

  8. 42 CFR 93.517 - The hearing.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing... committed research misconduct and if the HHS administrative actions, including any debarment or suspension... research misconduct and the proposed HHS administrative actions. The ALJ does not review the institution's...

  9. 75 FR 4566 - Findings of Misconduct in Science

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2010-01-28

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Misconduct in Science... of HHS, issued a final notice of debarment based on the misconduct in science findings of the Office..., School of Nursing, TSU, committed misconduct in science and research misconduct in research supported by...

  10. 78 FR 5454 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2013-01-25

    ... committed research misconduct by falsifying Western blot images as well as quantitative and statistical data... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Rao M. Adibhatla, Ph.D., University...

  11. 75 FR 24703 - Findings of Misconduct in Science

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2010-05-05

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Misconduct in Science... of HHS, issued a final notice of debarment based on the misconduct in science findings of the Office... Retrovirology Pathogenesis Laboratory, UW, committed misconduct in science (scientific misconduct) in research...

  12. Life After Research Misconduct.

    PubMed

    Galbraith, Kyle L

    2017-02-01

    Research misconduct is a serious violation of a scientific community's ethical standards. Scientists who commit research misconduct typically face corrective actions from employers and funding agencies, as well as significant professional stigma. Unfortunately, there is little systematic data about the post-misconduct career of these guilty parties. Through a review of Office of Research Integrity (ORI) case summaries, I identified a pool of 284 researchers who engaged in research misconduct and were subject to ORI corrective actions. To assess the prevalence of post-misconduct research activities for these scientists, I searched publicly available databases and online resources for evidence of post-misconduct research activities (such as publications and federal research support). The data demonstrate that researchers often receive second chances as researchers, with indicators of post-misconduct research activities identified for 134 (47.18%) of the offending researchers. In addition, those researchers have received more than US$123 million in federal support for their post-misconduct research efforts.

  13. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data.

    PubMed

    Fanelli, Daniele

    2009-05-29

    The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy. Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys. To standardize outcomes, the number of respondents who recalled at least one incident of misconduct was calculated for each question, and the analysis was limited to behaviours that distort scientific knowledge: fabrication, falsification, "cooking" of data, etc... Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis. A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86-4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once--a serious form of misconduct by any standard--and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91-19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words "falsification" or "fabrication", and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others. Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

  14. How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

    PubMed Central

    Fanelli, Daniele

    2009-01-01

    The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy. Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys. To standardize outcomes, the number of respondents who recalled at least one incident of misconduct was calculated for each question, and the analysis was limited to behaviours that distort scientific knowledge: fabrication, falsification, “cooking” of data, etc… Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis. A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others. Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct. PMID:19478950

  15. Are Men More Likely than Women To Commit Scientific Misconduct? Maybe, Maybe Not

    PubMed Central

    Kaatz, Anna; Vogelman, Paul N.; Carnes, Molly

    2013-01-01

    ABSTRACT In their study published in January 2013 in mBio, Fang et al. reviewed records from the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and found more cases of scientific misconduct committed by men than women, particularly by faculty (F. C. Fang, J. W. Bennett, and A. Casadevall, mBio 4:1–3, 2013). Powerful social norms shape the way men and women behave, and implicit gender schemas can lead to different evaluation standards for men and women for tasks stereotypically linked to one gender. It is possible that norms for acceptable male and female behavior could lead to a lower threshold for men than women to engage in the risky behavior of scientific misconduct. It is also possible that women and men commit scientific fraud at the same rate but that, because crime is a male-gendered domain, evaluators require more proof of the criminal “competence” of women for an investigation to rise to the level of an ORI case or that female gender norms for likeability and a lower apology threshold more often prevent escalation of women’s fraud beyond a local level. Male scientists also have more opportunity to commit fraud than female scientists because they receive more NIH research funding—a finding that may also be influenced by gender schemas. We cannot conclude from the ORI data that men are more likely than women to risk the consequences of committing scientific misconduct simply because risk taking aligns with male gender stereotypes. Neither can we conclude that because men are more likely than women to commit fraud in other contexts, men are also more likely than women to commit scientific fraud. We can conclude, however, that scientific misconduct, regardless of who commits it, diminishes all who contribute to the scientific enterprise. PMID:23532977

  16. Research Misconduct in the Croatian Scientific Community: A Survey Assessing the Forms and Characteristics of Research Misconduct.

    PubMed

    Pupovac, Vanja; Prijić-Samaržija, Snježana; Petrovečki, Mladen

    2017-02-01

    The prevalence and characteristics of research misconduct have mainly been studied in highly developed countries. In moderately or poorly developed countries such as Croatia, data on research misconduct are scarce. The primary aim of this study was to determine the rates at which scientists report committing or observing the most serious forms of research misconduct, such as falsification , fabrication, plagiarism, and violation of authorship rules in the Croatian scientific community. Additionally, we sought to determine the degree of development and the extent of implementation of the system for defining and regulating research misconduct in a typical scientific community in Croatia. An anonymous questionnaire was distributed among 1232 Croatian scientists at the University of Rijeka in 2012/2013 and 237 (19.2 %) returned the survey. Based on the respondents who admitted having committed research misconduct, 9 (3.8 %) admitted to plagiarism, 22 (9.3 %) to data falsification, 9 (3.8 %) to data fabrication, and 60 (25.3 %) respondents admitted to violation of authorship rules. Based on the respondents who admitted having observed research misconduct of fellow scientists, 72 (30.4 %) observed plagiarism, 69 (29.1 %) observed data falsification, 46 (19.4 %) observed data fabrication, and 132 (55.7 %) respondents admitted having observed violation of authorship rules. The results of our study indicate that the efficacy of the system for managing research misconduct in Croatia is poor. At the University of Rijeka there is no document dedicated exclusively to research integrity, describing the values that should be fostered by a scientist and clarifying the forms of research misconduct and what constitutes a questionable research practice. Scientists do not trust ethical bodies and the system for defining and regulating research misconduct; therefore the observed cases of research misconduct are rarely reported. Finally, Croatian scientists are not formally educated about responsible conduct of research at any level of their formal education. All mentioned indicate possible reasons for higher rates of research misconduct among Croatian scientists in comparison with scientists in highly developed countries.

  17. Misconduct in research: a descriptive survey of attitudes, perceptions and associated factors in a developing country

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

    Background Misconduct in research tarnishes the reputation, credibility and integrity of research institutions. Studies on research or scientific misconduct are still novel in developing countries. In this study, we report on the attitudes, perceptions and factors related to the work environment thought to be associated with research misconduct in a group of researchers in Nigeria - a developing country. Method A survey of researchers attending a scientific conference was done using an adapted Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised (SMQ-R). Initial descriptive analysis of individual items using frequencies and proportions for all quantitative data was performed. Thereafter, Likert scale responses were transformed into dichotomous responses. Fisher exact test was performed for associations as appropriate. A two-tailed p-value of less than 0.05 was accepted as significant. Result Half of the respondents (50.4%) were aware of a colleague who had committed misconduct, defined as “non-adherence to rules, regulations, guidelines, and commonly accepted professional codes or norms”. Over 88% of the researchers were concerned about the perceived amount of misconduct prevalent in their institution and 96.2% believed that one or more forms of scientific misconduct had occurred in their workplace. More than half (52.7%) rated the severity of penalties for scientific misconduct in their work environment as low. Furthermore¸ the majority (56.1%) were of the view that the chance of getting caught for scientific misconduct in their work environment was low. Conclusion Researchers in Nigeria perceive that scientific misconduct is commonplace in their institutions, but are however worried about the negative effects of scientific misconduct on the credibility of scientific research. We recommend that researchers be empowered with the knowledge and virtues necessary for self-regulation that advance research integrity. Research institutions should however also step into their role of fostering a responsible research ethic and discouraging misconduct. PMID:24666413

  18. Misconduct in research: a descriptive survey of attitudes, perceptions and associated factors in a developing country.

    PubMed

    Okonta, Patrick I; Rossouw, Theresa

    2014-03-25

    Misconduct in research tarnishes the reputation, credibility and integrity of research institutions. Studies on research or scientific misconduct are still novel in developing countries. In this study, we report on the attitudes, perceptions and factors related to the work environment thought to be associated with research misconduct in a group of researchers in Nigeria - a developing country. A survey of researchers attending a scientific conference was done using an adapted Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised (SMQ-R). Initial descriptive analysis of individual items using frequencies and proportions for all quantitative data was performed. Thereafter, Likert scale responses were transformed into dichotomous responses. Fisher exact test was performed for associations as appropriate. A two-tailed p-value of less than 0.05 was accepted as significant. Half of the respondents (50.4%) were aware of a colleague who had committed misconduct, defined as "non-adherence to rules, regulations, guidelines, and commonly accepted professional codes or norms". Over 88% of the researchers were concerned about the perceived amount of misconduct prevalent in their institution and 96.2% believed that one or more forms of scientific misconduct had occurred in their workplace. More than half (52.7%) rated the severity of penalties for scientific misconduct in their work environment as low. Furthermore¸ the majority (56.1%) were of the view that the chance of getting caught for scientific misconduct in their work environment was low. Researchers in Nigeria perceive that scientific misconduct is commonplace in their institutions, but are however worried about the negative effects of scientific misconduct on the credibility of scientific research. We recommend that researchers be empowered with the knowledge and virtues necessary for self-regulation that advance research integrity. Research institutions should however also step into their role of fostering a responsible research ethic and discouraging misconduct.

  19. A Cross-Sectional Survey Study to Assess Prevalence and Attitudes Regarding Research Misconduct among Investigators in the Middle East.

    PubMed

    Felaefel, Marwan; Salem, Mohamed; Jaafar, Rola; Jassim, Ghufran; Edwards, Hillary; Rashid-Doubell, Fiza; Yousri, Reham; Ali, Nahed M; Silverman, Henry

    2018-03-01

    Recent studies from Western countries indicate significant levels of questionable research practices, but similar data from low and middle-income countries are limited. Our aims were to assess the prevalence of and attitudes regarding research misconduct among researchers in several universities in the Middle East and to identify factors that might account for our findings. We distributed an anonymous questionnaire to a convenience sample of investigators at several universities in Egypt, Lebanon, and Bahrain. Participants were asked to a) self-report their extent of research misconducts, as well as their knowledge of colleagues engaging in similar research misconducts and b) provide their extent of agreement with certain attitudes about research misconduct. We used descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate logistic regression statistics to analyze the data. Data from 278 participants showed a high prevalence of misconduct, as 59.4% of our respondents self-reported to committing at least one misbehaviors and 74.5% reported having knowledge of any misbehaviors among any of their colleagues. The most common type of self-report misconduct was "circumventing research ethics regulations" (50.5%) followed by "fabrication and falsification" (28.6%). A significant predictor of misconduct included a lack of "prior ethics training". Scientific misconduct represents a significant issue in several universities in the Middle East. The demonstration that a lack of "prior ethics training" was a significant predictor of misconduct should lead to educational initiatives in research integrity. Further studies are needed to confirm whether our results can be generalized to other universities in the Middle East.

  20. 32 CFR 776.68 - Reporting professional misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ... 32 National Defense 5 2011-07-01 2011-07-01 false Reporting professional misconduct. 776.68... ADVOCATE GENERAL Rules of Professional Conduct § 776.68 Reporting professional misconduct. (a) Reporting professional misconduct: (1) A covered attorney having knowledge that another covered attorney has committed a...

  1. 32 CFR 776.68 - Reporting professional misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ... 32 National Defense 5 2014-07-01 2014-07-01 false Reporting professional misconduct. 776.68... ADVOCATE GENERAL Rules of Professional Conduct § 776.68 Reporting professional misconduct. (a) Reporting professional misconduct: (1) A covered attorney having knowledge that another covered attorney has committed a...

  2. 32 CFR 776.68 - Reporting professional misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

    ... 32 National Defense 5 2012-07-01 2012-07-01 false Reporting professional misconduct. 776.68... ADVOCATE GENERAL Rules of Professional Conduct § 776.68 Reporting professional misconduct. (a) Reporting professional misconduct: (1) A covered attorney having knowledge that another covered attorney has committed a...

  3. 32 CFR 776.68 - Reporting professional misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... 32 National Defense 5 2013-07-01 2013-07-01 false Reporting professional misconduct. 776.68... ADVOCATE GENERAL Rules of Professional Conduct § 776.68 Reporting professional misconduct. (a) Reporting professional misconduct: (1) A covered attorney having knowledge that another covered attorney has committed a...

  4. 32 CFR 776.68 - Reporting professional misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... 32 National Defense 5 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Reporting professional misconduct. 776.68... ADVOCATE GENERAL Rules of Professional Conduct § 776.68 Reporting professional misconduct. (a) Reporting professional misconduct: (1) A covered attorney having knowledge that another covered attorney has committed a...

  5. 37 CFR 11.803 - Reporting professional misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... 37 Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights 1 2013-07-01 2013-07-01 false Reporting professional misconduct. 11.803 Section 11.803 Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK... professional misconduct. (a) A practitioner who knows that another practitioner has committed a violation of...

  6. 37 CFR 11.803 - Reporting professional misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ... 37 Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights 1 2014-07-01 2014-07-01 false Reporting professional misconduct. 11.803 Section 11.803 Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK... professional misconduct. (a) A practitioner who knows that another practitioner has committed a violation of...

  7. 78 FR 63007 - Suspended Counterparty Program

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2013-10-23

    ... which they are doing or have done business has committed fraud or other financial misconduct during the... may be issued if FHFA determines that the covered misconduct is of a type that would be likely to... financial misconduct within a specified time period. FHFA reviews the reports submitted by the regulated...

  8. Guidelines for Dealing with Faculty Conflicts of Commitment and Conflicts of Interest in Research.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Academic Medicine, 1990

    1990-01-01

    Incidents of scientists allowing personal or outside interests to cloud their professional judgment in conducting research are alarming and unacceptable. The Association of American Medical Colleges' Ad Hoc Committee on Misconduct and Conflict of Interest in Research offers a conceptual framework and defines institutional and individual…

  9. 75 FR 8171 - Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; Proposed System of Records and Routine Use Disclosures

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2010-02-23

    ... applicable to this system of records entitled, the Administrative Law Judge/Public Alleged Misconduct... committed misconduct; and Provide us with management information to document, monitor, and track complaints..., and to assist us in deterring recurring incidences of ALJ bias or misconduct. B. Collection and...

  10. Scientists Still Behaving Badly? A Survey Within Industry and Universities.

    PubMed

    Godecharle, Simon; Fieuws, Steffen; Nemery, Ben; Dierickx, Kris

    2017-10-02

    Little is known about research misconduct within industry and how it compares to universities, even though a lot of biomedical research is performed by-or in collaboration with-commercial entities. Therefore, we sent an e-mail invitation to participate in an anonymous computer-based survey to all university researchers having received a biomedical research grant or scholarship from one of the two national academic research funders of Belgium between 2010 and 2014, and to researchers working in large biomedical companies or spin-offs in Belgium. The validated survey included questions about various types of research misconduct committed by respondents themselves and observed among their colleagues in the last three years. Prevalences of misconduct were compared between university and industry respondents using binary logistic regression models, with adjustments for relevant personal characteristics, and with significance being accepted for p < 0.01. The survey was sent to 1766 people within universities and an estimated 255 people from industry. Response rates were 43 (767/1766) and 48% (123/255), and usable information was available for 617 and 100 respondents, respectively. In general, research misconduct was less likely to be reported by industry respondents compared to university respondents. Significant differences were apparent for one admitted action (gift authorship) and three observed actions (plagiarism, gift authorship, and circumventing animal-subjects research requirements), always with lower prevalences for industry compared to universities, except for plagiarism. This survey, based on anonymous self-report, shows that research misconduct occurs to a substantial degree among biomedical researchers from both industry and universities.

  11. Incorporating an Honor Code into an Information Assurance Program

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Livermore, Jeffrey A.

    2017-01-01

    Plagiarism and cheating is on the increase around the world. Academic misconduct hurts the student committing the offense, other students who know about the offense, the faculty, and the academic reputation of the school where the misconduct occurs. One of the steps that a school can take to fight academic misconduct is to incorporate an honor…

  12. The Interrelationship between Research Integrity, Conflict of Interest, and the Research Environment

    PubMed Central

    Grinnell, Frederick

    2014-01-01

    Quite distinct regulatory measures have been established to try to deal with research misconduct and conflict of interest. To decrease research misconduct, the emphasis has been on education aimed at promoting an understanding of and commitment to research integrity. To decrease the impact of conflict of interest, the emphasis has been on management of the research environment. In this essay I discuss the idea that research misconduct and its close relative “questionable research practices” should be framed in the context of conflict of interest. If we take seriously the implication of conflict of interest regulations that even a $5,000 financial interest might bias the design, conduct, or reporting of research, then how much more risk of bias will be in play when what is at stake is ongoing funding of short-term research grants on which a researcher’s salary and job depend? Education is important and necessary to promote research integrity but by itself will not be sufficient. Placing problems of research misconduct and questionable research practices in the context of conflict of interest makes it clear that we also will need to develop new approaches to manage the structure of the research environment. One example of such a management strategy would be for NIH to phase in a limit on the overall percentage of a faculty member’s salary permitted to be supported with NIH grant funds, complementing the already existing upper dollar limit that can be used for faculty salaries. PMID:25574270

  13. Academic Misconduct among Nursing Students: A Multivariate Investigation.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Daniel, Larry G.; And Others

    1994-01-01

    Using Maslow's Need-Goal Motivation Model, data from 190 nursing students showed moderately high correlation between perceptions of peers' maturity, commitment, and neutralizing attitude and perceptions of peers' engagement in academic misconduct. Neutralization (rationalizing behavior) was the strongest predictor. (SK)

  14. CrossCheck plagiarism screening : Experience of the Journal of Epidemiology

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Hashimoto, Katsumi

    Due to technological advances in the past two decades, researchers now have unprecedented access to a tremendous amount of useful information. However, because of the extreme pressure to publish, this abundance of information can sometimes tempt researchers to commit scientific misconduct. A serious form of such misconduct is plagiarism. Editors are always concerned about the possibility of publishing plagiarized manuscripts. The plagiarism detection tool CrossCheck allows editors to scan and analyze manuscripts effectively. The Journal of Epidemiology took part in a trial of CrossCheck, and this article discusses the concerns journal editors might have regarding the use of CrossCheck and its analysis. In addition, potential problems identified by CrossCheck, including self-plagiarism, are introduced.

  15. Personality Assessment Inventory scores as predictors of misconduct among sex offenders civilly committed as sexually violent predators.

    PubMed

    Boccaccini, Marcus T; Rufino, Katrina A; Jackson, Rebecca L; Murrie, Daniel C

    2013-12-01

    We examined the usefulness of scores on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991) in predicting treatment program violations among 76 sexual offenders civilly committed as sexually violent predators. Scores on the Borderline Features scale (area under the curve [AUC] = .69, p = .005) and Negative Relationships subscale (BOR-N: AUC = .71, p < .001) were the strongest predictors of misconduct, outperforming scores on scales designed to predict poor treatment amenability and antisocial behavior. Incremental validity analyses indicated that BOR scores made a significant contribution to the prediction of misconduct after controlling for scores on measures of overall self-reported distress (e.g., Mean Clinical Elevation, Negative Impression), which were also predictive of program violations. Overall, our findings point to the potential utility of integrating components of treatment for borderline personality disorder into sex offender treatment. (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved.

  16. Conviction Offense and Prison Violence: A Comparative Study of Murderers and Other Offenders

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Sorensen, Jon; Cunningham, Mark D.

    2010-01-01

    The characteristics of, and 2003 disciplinary data on, 51,527 inmates in the Florida Department of Corrections, including 9,586 inmates who had been convicted of some degree of homicide, were examined for rates and correlates of prison misconduct and violence. Disciplinary misconduct and institutional acts of violence committed by an admissions…

  17. Data-Intensive Science and Research Integrity.

    PubMed

    Resnik, David B; Elliott, Kevin C; Soranno, Patricia A; Smith, Elise M

    2017-01-01

    In this commentary, we consider questions related to research integrity in data-intensive science and argue that there is no need to create a distinct category of misconduct that applies to deception related to processing, analyzing, or interpreting data. The best way to promote integrity in data-intensive science is to maintain a firm commitment to epistemological and ethical values, such as honesty, openness, transparency, and objectivity, which apply to all types of research, and to promote education, policy development, and scholarly debate concerning appropriate uses of statistics.

  18. The Importance of Organizational Justice in Ensuring Research Integrity

    PubMed Central

    Martinson, Brian C.; Crain, A. Lauren; De Vries, Raymond; Anderson, Melissa S.

    2011-01-01

    The professional behavior of scientists, for good or ill, is likely associated with their perceptions of whether they are treated fairly in their work environments, including their academic department and university and by relevant regulatory bodies. These relationships may also be influenced by their own personal characteristics, such as being over-committed to their work, and by the interactions between these factors. Theory also suggests that such associations may be mediated by negative or positive affect. We examined these issues using data from a national, mail-based survey administered in 2006 and 2007 to 5,000 randomly selected faculty from biomedical and social science departments at 50 top-tier research universities in the United States. We found that perceptions of justice in one’s workplace (organizational justice) are positively associated with self-report of "ideal" behaviors and negatively associated with self-report of misbehavior and misconduct. In contrast, researchers who perceive that they are being unfairly treated are less likely to report engaging in "ideal" behaviors and more likely to report misbehavior and misconduct. Over-commitment to one’s work is also associated with negative affect and interacts with perceptions of unfair treatment in ways that are associated with higher self-report of misbehavior. Thus, perceptions of fair treatment in the work environment appear to play important roles in fostering — or undermining — research integrity. PMID:20831422

  19. 42 CFR 93.223 - Research misconduct proceeding.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Research misconduct proceeding. 93.223 Section 93... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Definitions § 93.223 Research misconduct proceeding. Research misconduct proceeding means any actions related to alleged research misconduct taken under this part, including but not...

  20. 42 CFR 93.223 - Research misconduct proceeding.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Research misconduct proceeding. 93.223 Section 93... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Definitions § 93.223 Research misconduct proceeding. Research misconduct proceeding means any actions related to alleged research misconduct taken under this part, including but not...

  1. 42 CFR 93.223 - Research misconduct proceeding.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Research misconduct proceeding. 93.223 Section 93... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Definitions § 93.223 Research misconduct proceeding. Research misconduct proceeding means any actions related to alleged research misconduct taken under this part, including but not...

  2. 42 CFR 93.223 - Research misconduct proceeding.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Research misconduct proceeding. 93.223 Section 93... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Definitions § 93.223 Research misconduct proceeding. Research misconduct proceeding means any actions related to alleged research misconduct taken under this part, including but not...

  3. 42 CFR 93.223 - Research misconduct proceeding.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Research misconduct proceeding. 93.223 Section 93... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Definitions § 93.223 Research misconduct proceeding. Research misconduct proceeding means any actions related to alleged research misconduct taken under this part, including but not...

  4. 48 CFR 935.070 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 5 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Research misconduct. 935... CONTRACTING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING 935.070 Research misconduct. (a) Applicability. The DOE research misconduct policy set forth at 10 CFR part 733 addresses research misconduct by individuals who...

  5. 48 CFR 935.070 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 5 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Research misconduct. 935... CONTRACTING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING 935.070 Research misconduct. (a) Applicability. The DOE research misconduct policy set forth at 10 CFR part 733 addresses research misconduct by individuals who...

  6. 48 CFR 935.070 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 5 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Research misconduct. 935... CONTRACTING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING 935.070 Research misconduct. (a) Applicability. The DOE research misconduct policy set forth at 10 CFR part 733 addresses research misconduct by individuals who...

  7. 48 CFR 935.070 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 5 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Research misconduct. 935... CONTRACTING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING 935.070 Research misconduct. (a) Applicability. The DOE research misconduct policy set forth at 10 CFR part 733 addresses research misconduct by individuals who...

  8. 48 CFR 935.070 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 5 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Research misconduct. 935... CONTRACTING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING 935.070 Research misconduct. (a) Applicability. The DOE research misconduct policy set forth at 10 CFR part 733 addresses research misconduct by individuals who...

  9. 7 CFR 3022.8 - Communication of research misconduct policies and procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Communication of research misconduct policies and...-FUNDED EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 3022.8 Communication of research misconduct policies... effectively communicate to their staffs policies and procedures relating to research misconduct, including the...

  10. 7 CFR 3022.8 - Communication of research misconduct policies and procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Communication of research misconduct policies and...-FUNDED EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 3022.8 Communication of research misconduct policies... effectively communicate to their staffs policies and procedures relating to research misconduct, including the...

  11. 7 CFR 3022.8 - Communication of research misconduct policies and procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Communication of research misconduct policies and...-FUNDED EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 3022.8 Communication of research misconduct policies... effectively communicate to their staffs policies and procedures relating to research misconduct, including the...

  12. 7 CFR 3022.8 - Communication of research misconduct policies and procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 15 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Communication of research misconduct policies and...-FUNDED EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 3022.8 Communication of research misconduct policies... effectively communicate to their staffs policies and procedures relating to research misconduct, including the...

  13. 42 CFR 93.103 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Research misconduct. 93.103 Section 93.103 Public... EFFECTS STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT General § 93.103 Research misconduct. Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or...

  14. 42 CFR 93.103 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Research misconduct. 93.103 Section 93.103 Public... EFFECTS STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT General § 93.103 Research misconduct. Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or...

  15. 42 CFR 93.103 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Research misconduct. 93.103 Section 93.103 Public... EFFECTS STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT General § 93.103 Research misconduct. Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or...

  16. 42 CFR 93.103 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Research misconduct. 93.103 Section 93.103 Public... EFFECTS STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT General § 93.103 Research misconduct. Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or...

  17. 42 CFR 93.103 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Research misconduct. 93.103 Section 93.103 Public... EFFECTS STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT General § 93.103 Research misconduct. Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or...

  18. 10 CFR 733.4 - Research misconduct requirements.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Research misconduct requirements. 733.4 Section 733.4 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.4 Research misconduct requirements. DOE intends to apply the research misconduct policy set forth in 65 FR 76260-76264 by including...

  19. 14 CFR § 1274.943 - Investigation of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 5 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Investigation of research misconduct. Â... of research misconduct. Investigation of Research Misconduct May 2005 Recipients of this cooperative agreement are subject to the requirements of 14 CFR part 1275, “Investigation of Research Misconduct.” [End...

  20. 14 CFR 1275.105 - Conduct of the OIG investigation of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... research misconduct. 1275.105 Section 1275.105 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 1275.105 Conduct of the OIG investigation of research misconduct. (a) The OIG shall make every reasonable effort to complete a NASA research misconduct investigation and issue...

  1. 42 CFR 93.404 - Findings of research misconduct and proposed administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Findings of research misconduct and proposed... PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.404 Findings of research misconduct and proposed...

  2. 42 CFR 93.104 - Requirements for findings of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Requirements for findings of research misconduct... HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT General § 93.104 Requirements for findings of research misconduct. A finding of research misconduct made under this part requires that— (a) There be a significant...

  3. 42 CFR 93.409 - Settlement of research misconduct proceedings.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Settlement of research misconduct proceedings. 93... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.409 Settlement of research misconduct proceedings. (a) HHS may settle a...

  4. 42 CFR 93.104 - Requirements for findings of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Requirements for findings of research misconduct... HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT General § 93.104 Requirements for findings of research misconduct. A finding of research misconduct made under this part requires that— (a) There be a significant...

  5. 42 CFR 93.404 - Findings of research misconduct and proposed administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Findings of research misconduct and proposed... PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.404 Findings of research misconduct and proposed...

  6. 42 CFR 93.404 - Findings of research misconduct and proposed administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Findings of research misconduct and proposed... PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.404 Findings of research misconduct and proposed...

  7. 42 CFR 93.403 - ORI review of research misconduct proceedings.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false ORI review of research misconduct proceedings. 93... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.403 ORI review of research misconduct proceedings. ORI may conduct reviews...

  8. 42 CFR 93.409 - Settlement of research misconduct proceedings.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Settlement of research misconduct proceedings. 93... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.409 Settlement of research misconduct proceedings. (a) HHS may settle a...

  9. 42 CFR 93.104 - Requirements for findings of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Requirements for findings of research misconduct... HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT General § 93.104 Requirements for findings of research misconduct. A finding of research misconduct made under this part requires that— (a) There be a significant...

  10. 42 CFR 93.409 - Settlement of research misconduct proceedings.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Settlement of research misconduct proceedings. 93... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.409 Settlement of research misconduct proceedings. (a) HHS may settle a...

  11. 10 CFR 733.4 - Research misconduct requirements.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Research misconduct requirements. 733.4 Section 733.4 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.4 Research misconduct requirements. DOE intends to apply the research misconduct policy set forth in 65 FR 76260-76264 by including...

  12. 42 CFR 93.104 - Requirements for findings of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Requirements for findings of research misconduct... HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT General § 93.104 Requirements for findings of research misconduct. A finding of research misconduct made under this part requires that— (a) There be a significant...

  13. 10 CFR 733.4 - Research misconduct requirements.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Research misconduct requirements. 733.4 Section 733.4 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.4 Research misconduct requirements. DOE intends to apply the research misconduct policy set forth in 65 FR 76260-76264 by including...

  14. 42 CFR 93.403 - ORI review of research misconduct proceedings.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false ORI review of research misconduct proceedings. 93... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.403 ORI review of research misconduct proceedings. ORI may conduct reviews...

  15. 42 CFR 93.403 - ORI review of research misconduct proceedings.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false ORI review of research misconduct proceedings. 93... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.403 ORI review of research misconduct proceedings. ORI may conduct reviews...

  16. 14 CFR 1275.105 - Conduct of the OIG investigation of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... research misconduct. 1275.105 Section 1275.105 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 1275.105 Conduct of the OIG investigation of research misconduct. (a) The OIG shall make every reasonable effort to complete a NASA research misconduct investigation and issue...

  17. 42 CFR 93.404 - Findings of research misconduct and proposed administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Findings of research misconduct and proposed... PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.404 Findings of research misconduct and proposed...

  18. 10 CFR 733.4 - Research misconduct requirements.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Research misconduct requirements. 733.4 Section 733.4 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.4 Research misconduct requirements. DOE intends to apply the research misconduct policy set forth in 65 FR 76260-76264 by including...

  19. 14 CFR 1275.105 - Conduct of the OIG investigation of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... research misconduct. 1275.105 Section 1275.105 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 1275.105 Conduct of the OIG investigation of research misconduct. (a) The OIG shall make every reasonable effort to complete a NASA research misconduct investigation and issue...

  20. 42 CFR 93.409 - Settlement of research misconduct proceedings.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Settlement of research misconduct proceedings. 93... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.409 Settlement of research misconduct proceedings. (a) HHS may settle a...

  1. 42 CFR 93.104 - Requirements for findings of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Requirements for findings of research misconduct... HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT General § 93.104 Requirements for findings of research misconduct. A finding of research misconduct made under this part requires that— (a) There be a significant...

  2. 42 CFR 93.403 - ORI review of research misconduct proceedings.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false ORI review of research misconduct proceedings. 93... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.403 ORI review of research misconduct proceedings. ORI may conduct reviews...

  3. 42 CFR 93.403 - ORI review of research misconduct proceedings.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false ORI review of research misconduct proceedings. 93... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.403 ORI review of research misconduct proceedings. ORI may conduct reviews...

  4. 10 CFR 733.4 - Research misconduct requirements.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Research misconduct requirements. 733.4 Section 733.4 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.4 Research misconduct requirements. DOE intends to apply the research misconduct policy set forth in 65 FR 76260-76264 by including...

  5. 42 CFR 93.404 - Findings of research misconduct and proposed administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Findings of research misconduct and proposed... PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.404 Findings of research misconduct and proposed...

  6. 42 CFR 93.409 - Settlement of research misconduct proceedings.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Settlement of research misconduct proceedings. 93... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.409 Settlement of research misconduct proceedings. (a) HHS may settle a...

  7. 14 CFR § 1275.105 - Conduct of the OIG investigation of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... research misconduct. § 1275.105 Section § 1275.105 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 1275.105 Conduct of the OIG investigation of research misconduct. (a) The OIG shall make every reasonable effort to complete a NASA research misconduct investigation and issue...

  8. 14 CFR 1275.105 - Conduct of the OIG investigation of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... misconduct. 1275.105 Section 1275.105 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 1275.105 Conduct of the OIG investigation of research misconduct. (a) The OIG shall make every reasonable effort to complete a NASA research misconduct investigation and issue a report...

  9. 14 CFR 1274.943 - Investigation of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 5 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Investigation of research misconduct. 1274... misconduct. Investigation of Research Misconduct May 2005 Recipients of this cooperative agreement are subject to the requirements of 14 CFR part 1275, “Investigation of Research Misconduct.” [End of provision...

  10. 14 CFR 1274.943 - Investigation of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 5 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Investigation of research misconduct. 1274... misconduct. Investigation of Research Misconduct May 2005 Recipients of this cooperative agreement are subject to the requirements of 14 CFR part 1275, “Investigation of Research Misconduct.” [End of provision...

  11. 14 CFR 1274.943 - Investigation of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 5 2011-01-01 2010-01-01 true Investigation of research misconduct. 1274... misconduct. Investigation of Research Misconduct May 2005 Recipients of this cooperative agreement are subject to the requirements of 14 CFR part 1275, “Investigation of Research Misconduct.” [End of provision...

  12. 14 CFR 1275.102 - OIG handling of research misconduct matters.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 5 2011-01-01 2010-01-01 true OIG handling of research misconduct matters... MISCONDUCT § 1275.102 OIG handling of research misconduct matters. (a) When an allegation is made to the OIG... research and whether the allegation, if true, falls within the definition of research misconduct in § 1275...

  13. 14 CFR 1275.102 - OIG handling of research misconduct matters.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 5 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false OIG handling of research misconduct matters... MISCONDUCT § 1275.102 OIG handling of research misconduct matters. (a) When an allegation is made to the OIG... research and whether the allegation, if true, falls within the definition of research misconduct in § 1275...

  14. 14 CFR 1275.102 - OIG handling of research misconduct matters.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 5 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false OIG handling of research misconduct matters... MISCONDUCT § 1275.102 OIG handling of research misconduct matters. (a) When an allegation is made to the OIG... research and whether the allegation, if true, falls within the definition of research misconduct in § 1275...

  15. 14 CFR 1275.102 - OIG handling of research misconduct matters.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 5 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false OIG handling of research misconduct matters... MISCONDUCT § 1275.102 OIG handling of research misconduct matters. (a) When an allegation is made to the OIG... research and whether the allegation, if true, falls within the definition of research misconduct in § 1275...

  16. 7 CFR 3022.3 - Inquiry, investigation, and adjudication.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... RESEARCH; RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 3022.3 Inquiry, investigation, and adjudication. A research institution... detection of research misconduct and for the inquiry, investigation, and adjudication of research misconduct... or apparent instance of research misconduct has substance. The responsibilities for adjudication must...

  17. 7 CFR 3022.3 - Inquiry, investigation, and adjudication.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... RESEARCH; RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 3022.3 Inquiry, investigation, and adjudication. A research institution... detection of research misconduct and for the inquiry, investigation, and adjudication of research misconduct... or apparent instance of research misconduct has substance. The responsibilities for adjudication must...

  18. 7 CFR 3022.3 - Inquiry, investigation, and adjudication.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... RESEARCH; RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 3022.3 Inquiry, investigation, and adjudication. A research institution... detection of research misconduct and for the inquiry, investigation, and adjudication of research misconduct... or apparent instance of research misconduct has substance. The responsibilities for adjudication must...

  19. An International Study of Research Misconduct Policies

    PubMed Central

    Resnik, David B.; Rasmussen, Lisa M.; Kissling, Grace E.

    2015-01-01

    Research misconduct is an international concern. Misconduct policies can play a crucial role in preventing and policing research misconduct, and many institutions have developed their own policies. While institutional policies play a key role in preventing and policing misconduct, national policies are also important to ensure consistent promulgation and enforcement of ethical standards. The purpose of this study was to obtain more information about research misconduct policies across the globe. We found that twenty-two of the top forty research and development funding countries (55%) had a national misconduct policy. Four countries (18.2%) are in the process of developing a policy, and four (18.2%) have a national research ethics code but no misconduct policy. All twenty-two countries (100%) with national policies included fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism in the definition of misconduct, but beyond that there was considerable diversity. Unethical authorship was mentioned in 54.6% of the misconduct definitions, followed by unethical publication practices (36.4%), conflict of interest mismanagement (36.4%), unethical peer review (31.8%), misconduct related to misconduct investigations (27.3%), poor record keeping (27.3%), other deception (27.3%), serious deviations (22.7%), violating confidentiality (22.7%), and human or animal research violations (22.7%). Having a national policy was positively associated with research and development funding ranking and intensiveness. To promote integrity in international research collaborations, countries should seek to harmonize and clarify misconduct definitions and develop procedures for adjudicating conflicts when harmonization does not occur. PMID:25928177

  20. An international study of research misconduct policies.

    PubMed

    Resnik, David B; Rasmussen, Lisa M; Kissling, Grace E

    2015-01-01

    Research misconduct is an international concern. Misconduct policies can play a crucial role in preventing and policing research misconduct, and many institutions have developed their own policies. While institutional policies play a key role in preventing and policing misconduct, national policies are also important to ensure consistent promulgation and enforcement of ethical standards. The purpose of this study was to obtain more information about research misconduct policies across the globe. We found that twenty-two of the top forty research and development funding countries (55%) had a national misconduct policy. Four countries (18.2%) are in the process of developing a policy, and four (18.2%) have a national research ethics code but no misconduct policy. All twenty-two countries (100%) with national policies included fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism in the definition of misconduct, but beyond that there was considerable diversity. Unethical authorship was mentioned in 54.6% of the misconduct definitions, followed by unethical publication practices (36.4%), conflict of interest mismanagement (36.4%), unethical peer review (31.8%), misconduct related to misconduct investigations (27.3%), poor record keeping (27.3%), other deception (27.3%), serious deviations (22.7%), violating confidentiality (22.7%), and human or animal research violations (22.7%). Having a national policy was positively associated with research and development funding ranking and intensiveness. To promote integrity in international research collaborations, countries should seek to harmonize and clarify misconduct definitions and develop procedures for adjudicating conflicts when harmonization does not occur.

  1. 14 CFR § 1275.102 - OIG handling of research misconduct matters.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 5 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false OIG handling of research misconduct matters... RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 1275.102 OIG handling of research misconduct matters. (a) When an allegation is made... misconduct in § 1275.101(a). Investigation of allegations which, if true, would constitute criminal offenses...

  2. The characteristics of psychiatrists disciplined by professional colleges in Canada.

    PubMed

    Alam, Asim; Kurdyak, Paul; Klemensberg, Jason; Griesman, Joshua; Bell, Chaim M

    2012-01-01

    The identification of health care professionals who are incompetent, impaired, exploitative or have criminal intent is important for public safety. It is unclear whether psychiatrists are more likely to commit medical misconduct offences than non-psychiatrists, and if the nature of these offences is different. The aim of this study was to compare the characteristics of psychiatrists disciplined in Canada and the nature of their offences and disciplinary sentences for the ten years from 2000 through 2009 to other physicians disciplined during that timeframe. Utilizing a retrospective cohort design, we constructed a database of all physicians disciplined by provincial licensing authorities in Canada for the ten years from 2000 through 2009. Demographic variables and information on type of misconduct violation and penalty imposed were also collected for each physician disciplined. We compared psychiatrists to non-psychiatrists for the various outcomes. There were 82 (14%) psychiatrists of 606 physicians disciplined in Canada in the ten years from 2000 through 2009, double the national proportion of psychiatrists. Of those disciplined psychiatrists, 8 (9.6%) were women compared to 29% in the national cohort. A total of 5 (6%) psychiatrists committed at least two separate offenses, accounting for approximately 11% of the total violations. A higher proportion of psychiatrists were disciplined for sexual misconduct (OR 3.62 [95% Confidence Interval [CI] 2.45-5.34]), fraudulent behavior (OR 2.32 [95% CI 1.20-4.40]) and unprofessional conduct (OR 3.1 [95% CI 1.95-4.95]). As a result, psychiatrists had between 1.85-4.35 greater risk of having disciplinary penalties in almost all categories in comparison to other physicians. Psychiatrists differ from non-psychiatrist physicians in the prevalence and nature of medical misconduct. Efforts to decrease medical misconduct by psychiatrists need to be conducted and systematically evaluated.

  3. The Essential Need for Research Misconduct Allegation Audits.

    PubMed

    Loikith, Lisa; Bauchwitz, Robert

    2016-08-01

    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.

  4. 14 CFR Appendix to Part 1275 - Research Misconduct

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 5 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Research Misconduct Appendix to Part 1275 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Pt. 1275, App. Appendix to Part 1275—Research Misconduct NASA Research Disciplines and Respective Associated Directorates...

  5. 14 CFR Appendix to Part 1275 - Research Misconduct

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 5 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Research Misconduct Appendix to Part 1275 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Pt. 1275, App. Appendix to Part 1275—Research Misconduct NASA Research Disciplines and Respective Associated Directorates...

  6. Research misconduct oversight: defining case costs.

    PubMed

    Gammon, Elizabeth; Franzini, Luisa

    2013-01-01

    This study uses a sequential mixed method study design to define cost elements of research misconduct among faculty at academic medical centers. Using time driven activity based costing, the model estimates a per case cost for 17 cases of research misconduct reported by the Office of Research Integrity for the period of 2000-2005. Per case cost of research misconduct was found to range from $116,160 to $2,192,620. Research misconduct cost drivers are identified.

  7. 7 CFR 3022.6 - Notification of USDA of allegations of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... misconduct. 3022.6 Section 3022.6 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) OFFICE...-FUNDED EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 3022.6 Notification of USDA of allegations of research misconduct. (a) Research institutions that conduct USDA-funded extramural research must promptly notify OIG...

  8. 7 CFR 3022.6 - Notification of USDA of allegations of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... misconduct. 3022.6 Section 3022.6 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) OFFICE...-FUNDED EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 3022.6 Notification of USDA of allegations of research misconduct. (a) Research institutions that conduct USDA-funded extramural research must promptly notify OIG...

  9. 7 CFR 3022.6 - Notification of USDA of allegations of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... misconduct. 3022.6 Section 3022.6 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) OFFICE...-FUNDED EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 3022.6 Notification of USDA of allegations of research misconduct. (a) Research institutions that conduct USDA-funded extramural research must promptly notify OIG...

  10. 7 CFR 3022.6 - Notification of USDA of allegations of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... misconduct. 3022.6 Section 3022.6 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) OFFICE...-FUNDED EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 3022.6 Notification of USDA of allegations of research misconduct. (a) Research institutions that conduct USDA-funded extramural research must promptly notify OIG...

  11. 14 CFR Appendix to Part 1275 - Research Misconduct

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 5 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Research Misconduct Appendix to Part 1275 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Pt. 1275, App. Appendix to Part 1275—Research Misconduct NASA Research Disciplines and Respective Associated Enterprises 1...

  12. 14 CFR Appendix to Part 1275 - Research Misconduct

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 5 2011-01-01 2010-01-01 true Research Misconduct Appendix to Part 1275 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Pt. 1275, App. Appendix to Part 1275—Research Misconduct NASA Research Disciplines and Respective Associated Enterprises 1...

  13. 48 CFR 1252.235-70 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 5 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Research misconduct. 1252... Research misconduct. As prescribed in (TAR) 48 CFR 1235.7000, insert the following clause: Research... person who makes an allegation of research misconduct or the person who cooperates with an inquiry or...

  14. 48 CFR 1252.235-70 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 5 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Research misconduct. 1252... Research misconduct. As prescribed in (TAR) 48 CFR 1235.7000, insert the following clause: Research... person who makes an allegation of research misconduct or the person who cooperates with an inquiry or...

  15. 48 CFR 1252.235-70 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 5 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Research misconduct. 1252... Research misconduct. As prescribed in (TAR) 48 CFR 1235.7000, insert the following clause: Research... person who makes an allegation of research misconduct or the person who cooperates with an inquiry or...

  16. 14 CFR Appendix to Part 1275 - Research Misconduct

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 5 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Research Misconduct Appendix to Part 1275 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Pt. 1275, App. Appendix to Part 1275—Research Misconduct NASA Research Disciplines and Respective Associated Enterprises 1...

  17. 48 CFR 1252.235-70 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 5 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Research misconduct. 1252... Research misconduct. As prescribed in (TAR) 48 CFR 1235.7000, insert the following clause: Research... person who makes an allegation of research misconduct or the person who cooperates with an inquiry or...

  18. 46 CFR 122.910 - Suspension and revocation.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ..., certificate or registry, or merchant mariner's document who commits an act of misconduct, negligence, or incompetence, or who violates or fails to comply with this subchapter or any other law or regulation intending...

  19. 77 FR 33737 - Findings of Research Misconduct; Correction

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2012-06-07

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... of Research Misconduct.'' DATES: Effective Date: June 7, 2012. Applicability Date: The correction notice is applicable for the Findings of Research Misconduct notice published on May 31, 2012. FOR...

  20. 7 CFR 3022.4 - USDA Panel to determine appropriateness of research misconduct policy.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... misconduct policy. 3022.4 Section 3022.4 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued...-FUNDED EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 3022.4 USDA Panel to determine appropriateness of research misconduct policy. Before USDA will rely on a research institution to conduct an inquiry...

  1. 7 CFR 3022.4 - USDA Panel to determine appropriateness of research misconduct policy.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... misconduct policy. 3022.4 Section 3022.4 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued...-FUNDED EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 3022.4 USDA Panel to determine appropriateness of research misconduct policy. Before USDA will rely on a research institution to conduct an inquiry...

  2. 7 CFR 3022.4 - USDA Panel to determine appropriateness of research misconduct policy.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... misconduct policy. 3022.4 Section 3022.4 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued...-FUNDED EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 3022.4 USDA Panel to determine appropriateness of research misconduct policy. Before USDA will rely on a research institution to conduct an inquiry...

  3. 7 CFR 3022.4 - USDA Panel to determine appropriateness of research misconduct policy.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... misconduct policy. 3022.4 Section 3022.4 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued...-FUNDED EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 3022.4 USDA Panel to determine appropriateness of research misconduct policy. Before USDA will rely on a research institution to conduct an inquiry...

  4. 14 CFR 1274.943 - Investigation of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 5 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Investigation of research misconduct. 1274... AGREEMENTS WITH COMMERCIAL FIRMS Other Provisions and Special Conditions § 1274.943 Investigation of research misconduct. Investigation of Research Misconduct May 2005 Recipients of this cooperative agreement are...

  5. 14 CFR 1260.40 - Investigation of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 5 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Investigation of research misconduct. 1260... COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS General Provisions § 1260.40 Investigation of research misconduct. Investigation of Research Misconduct May 2005 Recipients of this grant or cooperative agreement are subject to the...

  6. 14 CFR 1260.40 - Investigation of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 5 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Investigation of research misconduct. 1260... COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS General Provisions § 1260.40 Investigation of research misconduct. Investigation of Research Misconduct May 2005 Recipients of this grant or cooperative agreement are subject to the...

  7. 42 CFR 93.316 - Completing the research misconduct process.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Completing the research misconduct process. 93.316... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of Institutions The Institutional Investigation § 93.316 Completing the research misconduct process. (a) ORI expects institutions to carry inquiries and...

  8. 42 CFR 93.316 - Completing the research misconduct process.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Completing the research misconduct process. 93.316... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of Institutions The Institutional Investigation § 93.316 Completing the research misconduct process. (a) ORI expects institutions to carry inquiries and...

  9. 42 CFR 93.316 - Completing the research misconduct process.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Completing the research misconduct process. 93.316... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of Institutions The Institutional Investigation § 93.316 Completing the research misconduct process. (a) ORI expects institutions to carry inquiries and...

  10. 14 CFR 1260.40 - Investigation of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 5 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Investigation of research misconduct. 1260... COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS General Provisions § 1260.40 Investigation of research misconduct. Investigation of Research Misconduct May 2005 Recipients of this grant or cooperative agreement are subject to the...

  11. 42 CFR 93.402 - ORI allegation assessments.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.402 ORI allegation assessments. (a) When ORI receives an allegation of research misconduct directly or becomes aware of an allegation or apparent instance of research misconduct, it may...

  12. 42 CFR 93.503 - Grounds for granting a hearing request.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS... findings of research misconduct or proposed administrative actions, including any debarment or suspension action. The respondent's general denial or assertion of error for each finding of research misconduct...

  13. 14 CFR 1260.40 - Investigation of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 5 2011-01-01 2010-01-01 true Investigation of research misconduct. 1260... COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS General Provisions § 1260.40 Investigation of research misconduct. Investigation of Research Misconduct May 2005 Recipients of this grant or cooperative agreement are subject to the...

  14. 42 CFR 93.316 - Completing the research misconduct process.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Completing the research misconduct process. 93.316... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of Institutions The Institutional Investigation § 93.316 Completing the research misconduct process. (a) ORI expects institutions to carry inquiries and...

  15. 42 CFR 93.316 - Completing the research misconduct process.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Completing the research misconduct process. 93.316... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of Institutions The Institutional Investigation § 93.316 Completing the research misconduct process. (a) ORI expects institutions to carry inquiries and...

  16. 42 CFR 93.503 - Grounds for granting a hearing request.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... findings of research misconduct or proposed administrative actions, including any debarment or suspension action. The respondent's general denial or assertion of error for each finding of research misconduct... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS...

  17. 42 CFR 93.500 - General policy.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions General... findings of research misconduct and HHS administrative actions, including debarment or suspension, arising... to contest ORI research misconduct findings and HHS administrative actions under this part, including...

  18. 42 CFR 93.500 - General policy.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions General... findings of research misconduct and HHS administrative actions, including debarment or suspension, arising... to contest ORI research misconduct findings and HHS administrative actions under this part, including...

  19. A Proposed Strategy for Research Misconduct Policy: A Review on Misconduct Management in Health Research System

    PubMed Central

    Djalalinia, Shirin; Owlia, Parviz; Malek Afzali, Hossein; Ghanei, Mostafa; Peykari, Niloofar

    2016-01-01

    Background: Today, with the rapid growth of scientific production, research misconduct has become a worldwide problem. This article is intended to introduce the successful experience on the management of research paper misconducts in the field of health research. Methods: Our aim was to design and develop the strategy for research misconduct policy. Focusing on the national regulatory system, we developed a hierarchical model for paper misconduct policy in all the medical sciences universities and their affiliated research units. Results: Through our regulatory policy for paper misconduct management, specific protocol was followed in the field of health research publications through which the capabilities of covering the four main elements of prevention, investigation, punishment, and correction have come together. Conclusions: Considering the proposed strategy, regarding the strengths and weaknesses, utilization of evaluation tool can be one of the best strategies to achieving the prospective of health research papers by 2025. PMID:27512558

  20. A Proposed Strategy for Research Misconduct Policy: A Review on Misconduct Management in Health Research System.

    PubMed

    Djalalinia, Shirin; Owlia, Parviz; Malek Afzali, Hossein; Ghanei, Mostafa; Peykari, Niloofar

    2016-01-01

    Today, with the rapid growth of scientific production, research misconduct has become a worldwide problem. This article is intended to introduce the successful experience on the management of research paper misconducts in the field of health research. Our aim was to design and develop the strategy for research misconduct policy. Focusing on the national regulatory system, we developed a hierarchical model for paper misconduct policy in all the medical sciences universities and their affiliated research units. Through our regulatory policy for paper misconduct management, specific protocol was followed in the field of health research publications through which the capabilities of covering the four main elements of prevention, investigation, punishment, and correction have come together. Considering the proposed strategy, regarding the strengths and weaknesses, utilization of evaluation tool can be one of the best strategies to achieving the prospective of health research papers by 2025.

  1. 48 CFR 952.235-71 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 5 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Research misconduct. 952... FORMS SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES Text of Provisions and Clauses 952.235-71 Research misconduct. As prescribed in 935.071, insert the following clause: Research Misconduct (JUL 2005) (a) The...

  2. 48 CFR 952.235-71 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 5 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Research misconduct. 952... FORMS SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES Text of Provisions and Clauses 952.235-71 Research misconduct. As prescribed in 935.071, insert the following clause: Research Misconduct (JUL 2005) (a) The...

  3. 48 CFR 952.235-71 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 5 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Research misconduct. 952... FORMS SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES Text of Provisions and Clauses 952.235-71 Research misconduct. As prescribed in 935.071, insert the following clause: Research Misconduct (JUL 2005) (a) The...

  4. 48 CFR 952.235-71 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 5 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Research misconduct. 952... FORMS SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES Text of Provisions and Clauses 952.235-71 Research misconduct. As prescribed in 935.071, insert the following clause: Research Misconduct (JUL 2005) (a) The...

  5. 14 CFR § 1260.40 - Investigation of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 5 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Investigation of research misconduct. Â... AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS General Provisions § 1260.40 Investigation of research misconduct. Investigation of Research Misconduct May 2005 Recipients of this grant or cooperative agreement are subject to...

  6. Dealing with misconduct in biomedical research: a review of the problems and the proposed methods for improvement.

    PubMed

    Kumar, Malhar N

    2009-11-01

    The increasing complexity of scientific research has been followed by increasing varieties of research misconduct. Dealing with misconduct involves the processes of detection, reporting, and investigation of misconduct. Each of these steps is associated with numerous problems which need to be addressed. Misconduct investigation should not stop with inquiries and disciplinary actions in specific episodes of misconduct. It is necessary to decrease the personal price paid by those who expose misconduct and to protect the personal and professional interests of honest researchers accused of misconduct unfairly or mistakenly. There is no dearth of suggestions to improve the objectivity and fairness of investigations. What is needed is the willingness to test the various options and implement the most suitable ones.

  7. In Their Own Words: Research Misconduct from the Perspective of Researchers in Malaysian Universities.

    PubMed

    Olesen, Angelina P; Amin, Latifah; Mahadi, Zurina

    2017-12-16

    Published data and studies on research misconduct, which focuses on researchers in Malaysia, is still lacking, therefore, we decided that this was an area for investigation. This study provides qualitative results for the examined issues through series of in-depth interviews with 21 researchers and lecturers in various universities in Malaysia. The aims of this study were to investigate the researchers' opinions and perceptions regarding what they considered to be research misconduct, their experience with such misconduct, and the factors that contribute to research misconduct. Our findings suggest that the most common research misconducts that are currently being witnessed in Malaysian universities are plagiarism and authorship disputes, however, researchers seldom report incidents of research misconduct because it takes too much time, effort and work to report them, and some are just afraid of repercussions when they do report it. This suggests possible loopholes in the monitoring system, which may allow some researchers to bypass it and engage in misconduct. This study also highlights the structural and individual factors as the most influential factors when it comes to research misconduct besides organizational, situational and cultural factors. Finally, this study highlights the concerns of all participants regarding the 'publish or perish' pressure that they believe would lead to a hostile working environment, thus enhancing research misconduct, as researchers tend to think about their own performance rather than that of whole team or faculty. Consequently this weakens the interpersonal relationships among researchers, which may compromise the teaching and supervision of junior researchers and research students.

  8. Misconduct versus honest error and scientific disagreement.

    PubMed

    Resnik, David B; Stewart, C Neal

    2012-01-01

    Researchers sometimes mistakenly accuse their peers of misconduct. It is important to distinguish between misconduct and honest error or a difference of scientific opinion to prevent unnecessary and time-consuming misconduct proceedings, protect scientists from harm, and avoid deterring researchers from using novel methods or proposing controversial hypotheses. While it is obvious to many researchers that misconduct is different from a scientific disagreement or simply an inadvertent mistake in methods, analysis or misinterpretation of data, applying this distinction to real cases is sometimes not easy. Because the line between misconduct and honest error or a scientific dispute is often unclear, research organizations and institutions should distinguish between misconduct and honest error and scientific disagreement in their policies and practices. These distinctions should also be explained during educational sessions on the responsible conduct of research and in the mentoring process. When researchers wrongfully accuse their peers of misconduct, it is important to help them understand the distinction between misconduct and honest error and differences of scientific judgment or opinion, pinpoint the source of disagreement, and identify the relevant scientific norms. They can be encouraged to settle the dispute through collegial discussion and dialogue, rather than a misconduct allegation.

  9. Misconduct versus Honest Error and Scientific Disagreement

    PubMed Central

    Resnik, David B.; Stewart, C. Neal

    2012-01-01

    Researchers sometimes mistakenly accuse their peers of misconduct. It is important to distinguish between misconduct and honest error or a difference of scientific opinion to prevent unnecessary and time-consuming misconduct proceedings, protect scientists from harm, and avoid deterring researchers from using novel methods or proposing controversial hypotheses. While it is obvious to many researchers that misconduct is different from a scientific disagreement or simply an inadvertent mistake in methods, analysis or misinterpretation of data, applying this distinction to real cases is sometimes not easy. Because the line between misconduct and honest error or a scientific dispute is often unclear, research organizations and institutions should distinguish between misconduct and honest error and scientific disagreement in their policies and practices. These distinctions should also be explained during educational sessions on the responsible conduct of research and in the mentoring process. When researchers wrongfully accuse their peers of misconduct, it is important to help them understand the distinction between misconduct and honest error and differences of scientific judgment or opinion, pinpoint the source of disagreement, and identify the relevant scientific norms. They can be encouraged to settle the dispute through collegial discussion and dialogue, rather than a misconduct allegation. PMID:22268506

  10. Evolving research misconduct policies and their significance for physical scientists

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Dooley, James J.; Kerch, Helen M.

    2000-03-01

    Scientific misconduct includes the fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) of concepts, data or ideas; some institutions in the United States have expanded this concept to include "other serious deviations (OSD) from accepted research practice." It is the absence of this OSD clause that distinguishes scientific misconduct policies of the past from the "research misconduct" policies that should be the basis of future federal policy in this area. This paper introduces a standard for judging whether an action should be considered research misconduct as distinguished from scientific misconduct: by this standard, research misconduct must involve activities unique to the practice of science and must have the potential to negatively affect the scientific record. Although the number of cases of scientific misconduct is uncertain (only the NIH and the NSF keep formal records), the costs are high in terms of the integrity of the scientific record, diversions from research to investigate allegations, ruined careers of those eventually exonerated, and erosion of public confidence in science. Existing scientific misconduct policies vary from institution to institution and from government agency to government agency; some have highly developed guidelines that include OSD, others have no guidelines at all. One result has been that the federal False Claims Act has been used to pursue allegations of scientific misconduct. As a consequence, such allegations have been adjudicated in federal courts, rather than judged by scientific peers. The federal government is now establishing a first-ever research misconduct policy that would apply to all research funded by the federal government regardless of which agency funded the research or whether the research was carried out in a government, industrial or university laboratory. Physical scientists, who up to now have only infrequently been the subject of scientific misconduct allegations, must none! theless become active in the debate over research misconduct policies and how they are implemented since they will now be explicitly covered by this new federal wide policy.

  11. 42 CFR 93.317 - Retention and custody of the research misconduct proceeding record.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Retention and custody of the research misconduct... PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of Institutions Other Institutional Responsibilities § 93.317 Retention and custody of the research misconduct proceeding record. (a...

  12. 42 CFR 93.317 - Retention and custody of the research misconduct proceeding record.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Retention and custody of the research misconduct... PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of Institutions Other Institutional Responsibilities § 93.317 Retention and custody of the research misconduct proceeding record. (a...

  13. 42 CFR 93.317 - Retention and custody of the research misconduct proceeding record.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Retention and custody of the research misconduct... PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of Institutions Other Institutional Responsibilities § 93.317 Retention and custody of the research misconduct proceeding record. (a...

  14. 42 CFR 93.317 - Retention and custody of the research misconduct proceeding record.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Retention and custody of the research misconduct... PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of Institutions Other Institutional Responsibilities § 93.317 Retention and custody of the research misconduct proceeding record. (a...

  15. 42 CFR 93.317 - Retention and custody of the research misconduct proceeding record.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Retention and custody of the research misconduct... PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of Institutions Other Institutional Responsibilities § 93.317 Retention and custody of the research misconduct proceeding record. (a...

  16. 42 CFR 93.407 - HHS administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.407 HHS administrative actions. (a) In response to a research misconduct proceeding... Subparts 9.4 and 309.4, or both. (b) In connection with findings of research misconduct, HHS also may seek...

  17. Promoting research integrity in Africa: an African voice of concern on research misconduct and the way forward.

    PubMed

    Kombe, Francis; Anunobi, Eucharia Nkechinyere; Tshifugula, Nyanyukweni Pandeni; Wassenaar, Douglas; Njadingwe, Dimpho; Mwalukore, Salim; Chinyama, Jonathan; Randrianasolo, Bodo; Akindeh, Perpetua; Dlamini, Priscilla S; Ramiandrisoa, Felasoa Noroseheno; Ranaivo, Naina

    2014-12-01

    African researchers and their collaborators have been making significant contributions to useful research findings and discoveries in Africa. Despite evidence of scientific misconduct even in heavily regulated research environments, there is little documented information that supports prevalence of research misconduct in Africa. Available literature on research misconduct has focused on the developed world, where credible research integrity systems are already in place. Public attention to research misconduct has lately increased, calling for attention to weaknesses in current research policies and regulatory frameworks. Africa needs policies, structural and governance systems that promote responsible conduct of research. To begin to offset this relative lack of documented evidence of research misconduct, contributors working in various research institutions from nine African countries agreed to share their experiences to highlight problems and explore the need to identify strategies to promote research integrity in the African continent. The experiences shared include anecdotal but reliable accounts of previously undocumented research misconduct, including some 'normal misbehavior' of frontline staff in those countries. Two broad approaches to foster greater research integrity are proposed including promotion of institutional and individual capacity building to instil a culture of responsible research conduct in existing and upcoming research scientist and developing deterrent and corrective policies to minimize research misconduct and other questionable research practices. By sharing these experiences and through the strategies proposed, the authors hope to limit the level of research misconduct and promote research integrity in Africa. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

  18. PROMOTING RESEARCH INTEGRITY IN AFRICA: AN AFRICAN VOICE OF CONCERN ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT AND THE WAY FORWARD

    PubMed Central

    Kombe, Francis; Anunobi, Eucharia Nkechinyere; Tshifugula, Nyanyukweni Pandeni; Wassenaar, Douglas; Njadingwe, Dimpho; Mwalukore, Salim; Chinyama, Jonathan; Randrianasolo, Bodo; Akindeh, Perpetua; Dlamini, Priscilla S.; Ramiandrisoa, Felasoa Noroseheno; Ranaivo, Naina

    2013-01-01

    African researchers and their collaborators have been making significant contributions to useful research findings and discoveries in Africa. Despite evidence of scientific misconduct even in heavily regulated research environments, there is little documented information that supports prevalence of research misconduct in Africa. Available literature on research misconduct has focused on the developed world, where credible research integrity systems are already in place. Public attention to research misconduct has lately increased, calling for attention to weaknesses in current research policies and regulatory frameworks. Africa needs policies, structural and governance systems that promote responsible conduct of research. To begin to offset this relative lack of documented evidence of research misconduct, contributors working in various research institutions from nine African countries agreed to share their experiences to highlight problems and explore the need to identify strategies to promote research integrity in the African continent. The experiences shared include anecdotal but reliable accounts of previously undocumented research misconduct, including some ‘normal misbehavior’ of frontline staff in those countries. Two broad approaches to foster greater research integrity are proposed including promotion of institutional and individual capacity building to instil a culture of responsible research conduct in existing and upcoming research scientist and developing deterrent and corrective policies to minimize research misconduct and other questionable research practices. By sharing these experiences and through the strategies proposed, the authors hope to limit the level of research misconduct and promote research integrity in Africa. PMID:23594261

  19. Research coordinators' experiences with scientific misconduct and research integrity.

    PubMed

    Habermann, Barbara; Broome, Marion; Pryor, Erica R; Ziner, Kim Wagler

    2010-01-01

    Most reports of scientific misconduct have been focused on principal investigators and other scientists (e.g., biostatisticians) involved in the research enterprise. However, by virtue of their position, research coordinators are often closest to the research field where much of misconduct occurs. The purpose of this study was to describe research coordinators' experiences with scientific misconduct in their clinical environment. The descriptive design was embedded in a larger cross-sectional national survey. A total of 266 respondents, predominately registered nurses, who answered "yes" to having firsthand knowledge of scientific misconduct in the past year, provided open-ended question responses. Content analysis was conducted by the research team, ensuring agreement of core categories and subcategories of misconduct. Research coordinators most commonly learned about misconduct via firsthand witness of the event, with the principal investigator being the person most commonly identified as the responsible party. Five major categories of misconduct were identified: protocol violations, consent violations, fabrication, falsification, and financial conflict of interest. In 70% of cases, the misconduct was reported. In most instances where misconduct was reported, some action was taken. However, in approximately 14% of cases, no action or investigation ensued; in 6.5% of cases, the coordinator was fired or he or she resigned. This study demonstrates the need to expand definitions of scientific misconduct beyond fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism to include other practices. The importance of the ethical climate in the institution in ensuring a safe environment to report and an environment where evidence is reviewed cannot be overlooked.

  20. 76 FR 33763 - Findings of Misconduct in Science/Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2011-06-09

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Misconduct in Science/Research Misconduct AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given... of the Secretary of HHS, issued a final notice of debarment based on the misconduct in science and...

  1. 42 CFR 93.410 - Final HHS action with no settlement or finding of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... research misconduct. 93.410 Section 93.410 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND... FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.410 Final HHS action with no settlement or...

  2. 42 CFR 93.410 - Final HHS action with no settlement or finding of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... research misconduct. 93.410 Section 93.410 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND... FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.410 Final HHS action with no settlement or...

  3. 42 CFR 93.411 - Final HHS action with settlement or finding of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... research misconduct. 93.411 Section 93.411 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND... FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.411 Final HHS action with settlement or finding...

  4. 42 CFR 93.411 - Final HHS action with settlement or finding of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... research misconduct. 93.411 Section 93.411 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND... FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.411 Final HHS action with settlement or finding...

  5. 42 CFR 93.410 - Final HHS action with no settlement or finding of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... research misconduct. 93.410 Section 93.410 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND... FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.410 Final HHS action with no settlement or...

  6. 42 CFR 93.411 - Final HHS action with settlement or finding of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... research misconduct. 93.411 Section 93.411 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND... FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.411 Final HHS action with settlement or finding...

  7. 42 CFR 93.411 - Final HHS action with settlement or finding of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... research misconduct. 93.411 Section 93.411 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND... FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.411 Final HHS action with settlement or finding...

  8. 42 CFR 93.410 - Final HHS action with no settlement or finding of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... research misconduct. 93.410 Section 93.410 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND... FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.410 Final HHS action with no settlement or...

  9. 42 CFR 93.411 - Final HHS action with settlement or finding of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... research misconduct. 93.411 Section 93.411 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND... FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.411 Final HHS action with settlement or finding...

  10. 42 CFR 93.410 - Final HHS action with no settlement or finding of research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... research misconduct. 93.410 Section 93.410 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND... FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.410 Final HHS action with no settlement or...

  11. Scientific misconduct: also an issue in nursing science?

    PubMed

    Fierz, Katharina; Gennaro, Susan; Dierickx, Kris; Van Achterberg, Theo; Morin, Karen H; De Geest, Sabina

    2014-07-01

    Scientific misconduct (SMC) is an increasing concern in nursing science. This article discusses the prevalence of SMC, risk factors and correlates of scientific misconduct in nursing science, and highlights interventional approaches to foster good scientific conduct. Using the "Fostering Research Integrity in Europe" report of the European Science Foundation as a framework, we reviewed the literature in research integrity promotion. Although little empirical data exist regarding prevalence of scientific misconduct in the field of nursing science, available evidence suggests a similar prevalence as elsewhere. In studies of prospective graduate nurses, 4% to 17% admit data falsification or fabrication, while 8.8% to 26.4% report plagiarizing material. Risk factors for SMC exist at the macro, meso, and micro levels of the research system. Intervention research on preventing scientific misconduct in nursing is limited, yet findings from the wider field of medicine and allied health professions suggest that honor codes, training programs, and clearly communicated misconduct control mechanisms and misconduct consequences improve ethical behavior. Scientific misconduct is a multilevel phenomenon. Interventions to decrease scientific misconduct must therefore target every level of the nursing research systems. Scientific misconduct not only compromises scientific integrity by distorting empirical evidence, but it might endanger patients. Because nurses are involved in clinical research, raising their awareness of scientifically inappropriate behavior is essential. © 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International.

  12. The case of Vipul Bhrigu and the federal definition of research misconduct.

    PubMed

    Rasmussen, Lisa M

    2014-06-01

    The Office of Research Integrity found in 2011 that Vipul Bhrigu, a postdoctoral researcher who sabotaged a colleague's research materials, was guilty of misconduct. However, I argue that this judgment is ill-considered and sets a problematic precedent for future cases. I first discuss the current federal definition of research misconduct and representative cases of research misconduct. Then, because this case recalls a debate from the 1990s over what the definition of "research misconduct" ought to be, I briefly recapitulate that history and reconsider the Bhrigu case in light of that history and in comparison to other cases involving tampering. Finally, I consider what the aim of a definition of research misconduct ought to be, and argue that the precedent set by the reasoning in this case is problematic.

  13. Truths, lies, and statistics.

    PubMed

    Thiese, Matthew S; Walker, Skyler; Lindsey, Jenna

    2017-10-01

    Distribution of valuable research discoveries are needed for the continual advancement of patient care. Publication and subsequent reliance of false study results would be detrimental for patient care. Unfortunately, research misconduct may originate from many sources. While there is evidence of ongoing research misconduct in all it's forms, it is challenging to identify the actual occurrence of research misconduct, which is especially true for misconduct in clinical trials. Research misconduct is challenging to measure and there are few studies reporting the prevalence or underlying causes of research misconduct among biomedical researchers. Reported prevalence estimates of misconduct are probably underestimates, and range from 0.3% to 4.9%. There have been efforts to measure the prevalence of research misconduct; however, the relatively few published studies are not freely comparable because of varying characterizations of research misconduct and the methods used for data collection. There are some signs which may point to an increased possibility of research misconduct, however there is a need for continued self-policing by biomedical researchers. There are existing resources to assist in ensuring appropriate statistical methods and preventing other types of research fraud. These included the "Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature", also known as the SAMPL guidelines, which help scientists determine the appropriate method of reporting various statistical methods; the "Strengthening Analytical Thinking for Observational Studies", or the STRATOS, which emphases on execution and interpretation of results; and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which was created in 1997 to deliver guidance about publication ethics. COPE has a sequence of views and strategies grounded in the values of honesty and accuracy.

  14. Does Exonerating an Accused Researcher Restore the Researcher's Credibility?

    PubMed

    Greitemeyer, Tobias; Sagioglou, Christina

    2015-01-01

    Scientific misconduct appears to be on the rise. However, an accused researcher may later be exonerated. The present research examines to what extent participants adhere to their attitude toward a researcher who allegedly committed academic misconduct after learning that the researcher is innocent. In two studies, participants in an exoneration and an uncorrected accusation condition learned that the ethics committee of a researcher's university demanded the retraction of one of the researcher's articles, whereas participants in a control condition did not receive this information. As intended, this manipulation led to a more favorable attitude toward the researcher in the control compared to the exoneration and the uncorrected accusation conditions (pre-exoneration attitude). Then, participants in the exoneration condition learned that the researcher was exonerated and that the article was not retracted. Participants in the uncorrected accusation and the control condition were not informed about the exoneration. Results revealed that the exoneration effectively worked, in that participants in the exoneration condition had a more favorable attitude (post-exoneration attitude) toward the researcher than did participants in the uncorrected accusation condition. Moreover, the post-exoneration attitude toward the researcher was similar in the exoneration and the control conditions. Finally, in the exoneration condition only, participants' post-exoneration attitude was more favorable than their pre-exoneration attitude. These findings suggest that an exoneration of an accused researcher restores the researcher's credibility.

  15. 42 CFR 93.406 - Final HHS actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues... prescribed in § 93.501, the ORI finding of research misconduct is the final HHS action on the research misconduct issues and the HHS administrative actions become final and will be implemented, except that the...

  16. 42 CFR 93.501 - Opportunity to contest findings of research misconduct and administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... misconduct and administrative actions. 93.501 Section 93.501 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT... RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions General Information § 93.501 Opportunity to...

  17. 42 CFR 93.501 - Opportunity to contest findings of research misconduct and administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... misconduct and administrative actions. 93.501 Section 93.501 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT... RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions General Information § 93.501 Opportunity to...

  18. 42 CFR 93.306 - Using a consortium or other person for research misconduct proceedings.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... misconduct proceedings. 93.306 Section 93.306 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND... FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of Institutions Compliance and Assurances § 93.306 Using a consortium or other person for research misconduct proceedings. (a) An...

  19. 42 CFR 93.306 - Using a consortium or other person for research misconduct proceedings.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... misconduct proceedings. 93.306 Section 93.306 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND... FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of Institutions Compliance and Assurances § 93.306 Using a consortium or other person for research misconduct proceedings. (a) An...

  20. 42 CFR 93.501 - Opportunity to contest findings of research misconduct and administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... misconduct and administrative actions. 93.501 Section 93.501 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT... RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions General Information § 93.501 Opportunity to...

  1. 42 CFR 93.501 - Opportunity to contest findings of research misconduct and administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... misconduct and administrative actions. 93.501 Section 93.501 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT... RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions General Information § 93.501 Opportunity to...

  2. 42 CFR 93.306 - Using a consortium or other person for research misconduct proceedings.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... misconduct proceedings. 93.306 Section 93.306 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND... FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of Institutions Compliance and Assurances § 93.306 Using a consortium or other person for research misconduct proceedings. (a) An...

  3. 42 CFR 93.306 - Using a consortium or other person for research misconduct proceedings.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... misconduct proceedings. 93.306 Section 93.306 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND... FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of Institutions Compliance and Assurances § 93.306 Using a consortium or other person for research misconduct proceedings. (a) An...

  4. 42 CFR 93.501 - Opportunity to contest findings of research misconduct and administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... misconduct and administrative actions. 93.501 Section 93.501 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT... RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions General Information § 93.501 Opportunity to...

  5. 42 CFR 93.306 - Using a consortium or other person for research misconduct proceedings.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... misconduct proceedings. 93.306 Section 93.306 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND... FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of Institutions Compliance and Assurances § 93.306 Using a consortium or other person for research misconduct proceedings. (a) An...

  6. Research Coordinators Experiences with Scientific Misconduct and Research Integrity

    PubMed Central

    Habermann, Barbara; Broome, Marion; Pryor, Erica R.; Ziner, Kim Wagler

    2010-01-01

    Background Most reports of scientific misconduct have been focused on principal investigators and other scientists (e.g., biostatisticians) involved in the research enterprise. However, by virtue of their position, research coordinators are often closest to the research field where much of misconduct occurs. Objective To describe research coordinators’ experiences with scientific misconduct in their clinical environment. Design The descriptive design was embedded in a larger, cross-sectional national survey. A total of 266 respondents, predominately registered nurses, who answered yes to having first hand knowledge of scientific misconduct in the past year provided open-ended question responses. Methods Content analysis was conducted by the research team, ensuring agreement of core categories and subcategories of misconduct. Findings Research coordinators most commonly learned about misconduct via first-hand witness of the event, with the principal investigator being the person most commonly identified as the responsible party. Five major categories of misconduct were identified: protocol violations, consent violations, fabrication, falsification, and financial conflict of interest. In 70% of cases, the misconduct was reported. In the majority of instances where misconduct was reported, some action was taken. However, in approximately 14% of cases, no action or investigation ensued; in 6.5% of cases the coordinator was either fired or resigned. Conclusions The study demonstrates the need to expand definitions of scientific misconduct beyond fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism to include other practices. The importance of the ethical climate in the institution in ensuring a safe environment to report and an environment where evidence is reviewed cannot be overlooked. PMID:20010045

  7. [Research Misconduct in Japan and How It Is Covered by the Media].

    PubMed

    Enoki, Eisuke

    2018-01-01

    　Cases of research misconduct (fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism) have been increasing worldwide, including in Japan. In particular, since 2006, many cases of research misconduct have been reported in Japan, and these cases have also been covered by the media. The 2014 case of the withdrawal of articles on STAP cells followed a rare course in which research misconduct became a full-blown social phenomenon. In recent years, even the University of Tokyo has experienced reported cases of research misconduct. In this report, I would like to introduce some representative cases of research misconduct in the field of life sciences over the past decade. These examples include studies conducted at Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine (2006), Osaka University Graduate School of Frontier Bioscience (2006), Ryukyu University School of Medicine (2010), Toho University School of Medicine (2012), The University of Tokyo Institute of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (2013), and several cases outside of Japan. I will discuss what researchers should do to reduce the incidence of research misconduct. In addition, I will discuss how these cases were covered by the media, because the public's impression of research misconduct is formed by media coverage.

  8. Scientific misconduct and research integrity for the bench scientist.

    PubMed

    Pascal, C B

    2000-09-01

    This paper describes the role of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), a component of the Public Health Service (PHS), in defining scientific misconduct in research supported with PHS funds and in establishing standards for responding to allegations of misconduct. The principal methods by which ORI exercises its responsibilities in this area are defining what types of behaviors undertaken by research investigators constitute misconduct, overseeing institutional efforts to investigate and report misconduct, and recommending to the Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH) PHS administrative actions when misconduct is identified. ORI also takes affirmative steps to promote research integrity through education, training, and other initiatives. The role of the research institution in responding to misconduct and promoting research integrity is complementary and overlapping with ORI's efforts but, as the employer of research investigators and front-line manager of the research, the institution has a greater opportunity to promote the highest standards of integrity in the day-to-day conduct of research. Finally, legal precedent established through civil litigation has played an important role in defining the standards that apply in determining when a breach of research integrity has occurred.

  9. 42 CFR 63.9 - How may NIH terminate awards?

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... committed misconduct in science, is ineligible, or has materially failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the award or to carry out the purpose for which the award was made; or (c) If the awardee is...

  10. 42 CFR 93.405 - Notifying the respondent of findings of research misconduct and HHS administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... misconduct and HHS administrative actions. 93.405 Section 93.405 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE... RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.405 Notifying the respondent of...

  11. 42 CFR 93.405 - Notifying the respondent of findings of research misconduct and HHS administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... misconduct and HHS administrative actions. 93.405 Section 93.405 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE... RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.405 Notifying the respondent of...

  12. 42 CFR 93.405 - Notifying the respondent of findings of research misconduct and HHS administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... misconduct and HHS administrative actions. 93.405 Section 93.405 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE... RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.405 Notifying the respondent of...

  13. 42 CFR 93.405 - Notifying the respondent of findings of research misconduct and HHS administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... misconduct and HHS administrative actions. 93.405 Section 93.405 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE... RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.405 Notifying the respondent of...

  14. 42 CFR 93.405 - Notifying the respondent of findings of research misconduct and HHS administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... misconduct and HHS administrative actions. 93.405 Section 93.405 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE... RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.405 Notifying the respondent of...

  15. Data audit as a way to prevent/contain misconduct.

    PubMed

    Shamoo, Adil E

    2013-01-01

    Research misconduct is frequently in the media headlines. There is consensus among leading experts on research integrity that the prevalence of misconduct in research is at least 1%, and shoddy work may even go over 5%. Unfortunately, misconduct in research impacts all walks of life from drugs to human subject protections, innovations, economy, policy, and even our national security. The main method of detecting research misconduct depends primarily on whistleblowers. The current regulations are insufficient since dependence on whistleblowers manifests itself as an accidental hit or miss. No other endeavor in our society depends on such a poor system of discovery of misconduct to remedy it. Nearly a quarter of a century ago, I proposed data audit as a means to prevent/contain research misconduct. The audit has to protect the creative process and be non-obtrusive. Data audit evaluates the degree of correspondence of published data with the source data. The proposed data audit does not require any changes in the way researchers carry out their work.

  16. 48 CFR 1235.7000 - Contract clause.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... OF CONTRACTING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING Research Misconduct 1235.7000 Contract clause. The contracting officer shall insert the clause at (TAR) 48 CFR 1252.235-70, Research Misconduct, in... Policy on Research Misconduct,” dated February 2002. ...

  17. 48 CFR 1235.7000 - Contract clause.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... OF CONTRACTING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING Research Misconduct 1235.7000 Contract clause. The contracting officer shall insert the clause at (TAR) 48 CFR 1252.235-70, Research Misconduct, in... Policy on Research Misconduct,” dated February 2002. ...

  18. 48 CFR 1235.7000 - Contract clause.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... OF CONTRACTING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING Research Misconduct 1235.7000 Contract clause. The contracting officer shall insert the clause at (TAR) 48 CFR 1252.235-70, Research Misconduct, in... Policy on Research Misconduct,” dated February 2002. ...

  19. 48 CFR 1235.7000 - Contract clause.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... OF CONTRACTING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING Research Misconduct 1235.7000 Contract clause. The contracting officer shall insert the clause at (TAR) 48 CFR 1252.235-70, Research Misconduct, in... Policy on Research Misconduct,” dated February 2002. ...

  20. 7 CFR 3022.9 - Documents required.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... AGRICULTURE RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS CONDUCTING USDA-FUNDED EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 3022.9... the following documents related to an allegation of research misconduct at the research institution... used to gather and evaluate information pertinent to the alleged misconduct during inquiry and...

  1. 14 CFR 1275.101 - Definitions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 1275.101 Definitions. (a) Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research misconduct does not include honest error or...

  2. 14 CFR 1275.101 - Definitions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 1275.101 Definitions. (a) Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research misconduct does not include honest error or...

  3. 14 CFR 1275.101 - Definitions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 1275.101 Definitions. (a) Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research misconduct does not include honest error or...

  4. Research Misconduct and the Physical Sciences

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    HM Kerch; JJ Dooley

    Research misconduct includes the fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) of concepts or ideas; some institutions have expanded this concept to include ''other serious deviations (OSD) from accepted research practice.'' An action can be evaluated as research misconduct if it involves activities unique to the practice of science and could negatively affect the scientific record. Although the number of cases of research misconduct is uncertain (formal records are kept only by the NIH and the NSF), the costs are high in integrity of the scientific record, diversions from research to investigate allegations, ruined careers of those eventually exonerated, and erosion ofmore » public confidence in science. Currently, research misconduct policies vary from institution to institution and from government agency to government agency; some have highly developed guidelines that include OSD, others have no guidelines at ail. One result has been that the federal False Claims Act has been used to pursue allegations of research misconduct and have them adjudicated in the federal court, rather than being judged by scientific peers. The federal government will soon establish a first-ever research misconduct policy that would apply to all research funded by the federal government regardless of what agency funded the research or whether the research was carried out in a government, industrial or university laboratory. Physical scientists, who up to now have only infrequently been the subject or research misconduct allegations, must none-the-less become active in the debate over research misconduct policies and how they are implemented since they will now be explicitly covered by this new federal wide policy.« less

  5. The Characteristics of Psychiatrists Disciplined by Professional Colleges in Canada

    PubMed Central

    Alam, Asim; Kurdyak, Paul; Klemensberg, Jason; Griesman, Joshua; Bell, Chaim M.

    2012-01-01

    Background The identification of health care professionals who are incompetent, impaired, exploitative or have criminal intent is important for public safety. It is unclear whether psychiatrists are more likely to commit medical misconduct offences than non-psychiatrists, and if the nature of these offences is different. Aim The aim of this study was to compare the characteristics of psychiatrists disciplined in Canada and the nature of their offences and disciplinary sentences for the ten years from 2000 through 2009 to other physicians disciplined during that timeframe. Methods Utilizing a retrospective cohort design, we constructed a database of all physicians disciplined by provincial licensing authorities in Canada for the ten years from 2000 through 2009. Demographic variables and information on type of misconduct violation and penalty imposed were also collected for each physician disciplined. We compared psychiatrists to non-psychiatrists for the various outcomes. Results There were 82 (14%) psychiatrists of 606 physicians disciplined in Canada in the ten years from 2000 through 2009, double the national proportion of psychiatrists. Of those disciplined psychiatrists, 8 (9.6%) were women compared to 29% in the national cohort. A total of 5 (6%) psychiatrists committed at least two separate offenses, accounting for approximately 11% of the total violations. A higher proportion of psychiatrists were disciplined for sexual misconduct (OR 3.62 [95% Confidence Interval [CI] 2.45–5.34]), fraudulent behavior (OR 2.32 [95% CI 1.20–4.40]) and unprofessional conduct (OR 3.1 [95% CI 1.95–4.95]). As a result, psychiatrists had between 1.85–4.35 greater risk of having disciplinary penalties in almost all categories in comparison to other physicians. Conclusion Psychiatrists differ from non-psychiatrist physicians in the prevalence and nature of medical misconduct. Efforts to decrease medical misconduct by psychiatrists need to be conducted and systematically evaluated. PMID:23209779

  6. 7 CFR 3022.5 - Reservation of right to conduct subsequent inquiry, investigation, and adjudication.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... USDA-FUNDED EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 3022.5 Reservation of right to conduct..., investigation, and adjudication into allegations of research misconduct at a research institution conducting... research misconduct procedures in place, the research institution conducting the extramural research at...

  7. 7 CFR 3022.5 - Reservation of right to conduct subsequent inquiry, investigation, and adjudication.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... USDA-FUNDED EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 3022.5 Reservation of right to conduct..., investigation, and adjudication into allegations of research misconduct at a research institution conducting... research misconduct procedures in place, the research institution conducting the extramural research at...

  8. 78 FR 79460 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2013-12-30

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Baoyan Xu, M.D., Ph.D., National... University, Chonqing, China, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by intramural research at...

  9. 76 FR 80371 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2011-12-23

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Gerald Lushington, Ph.D., Kansas... Modeling Lab, KU, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by National Center for Research...

  10. 75 FR 53303 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2010-08-31

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) and the Assistant Secretary for Health have taken final action in the following..., engaged in research misconduct in research supported by National Institute of Environmental Health...

  11. 75 FR 39530 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2010-07-09

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) and the Assistant Secretary for Health have taken final action in the following... Medical Genetics, UP School of Veterinary Medicine, engaged in research misconduct in research supported...

  12. 78 FR 60873 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2013-10-02

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Nitin Aggarwal, Ph.D., Medical... Graduate Student, MCW, and former Assistant Scientist, UW, engaged in research misconduct in research...

  13. Researchers experience of misconduct in research in Malaysian higher education institutions.

    PubMed

    Olesen, Angelina Patrick; Amin, Latifah; Mahadi, Zurina

    2018-01-01

    This article offers a qualitative analysis of research misconduct witnessed by researchers during their careers, either by research students or fellow researchers, when conducting or supervising research in their respective departments. Interviews were conducted with 21 participants from various research backgrounds and with a range of research experience, from selected universities in Malaysia. Our study found that misbehavior such as manipulating research data, misrepresentation of research outcomes, plagiarism, authorship disputes, breaching of research protocols, and unethical research management was witnessed by participants among junior and senior researchers, albeit for different reasons. This indicates that despite the steps taken by the institutions to monitor research misconduct, it still occurs in the research community in Malaysian institution of higher education. Therefore, it is important to admit that misconduct still occurs and to create awareness and knowledge of it, particularly among the younger generation of researchers. The study concludes that it is better for researchers to be aware of the behaviors that are considered misconduct as well as the factors that contribute to misconduct to solve this problem.

  14. 76 FR 64947 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2011-10-19

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. ACTION: Notice. Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research... Manojlovic, former graduate student, Department of Chemistry, UP, engaged in research misconduct in research...

  15. 77 FR 76491 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2012-12-28

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Shuang-Qing Zhang, Ph.D., Texas Tech... Sciences, TTUHSC, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by National Institute of General...

  16. 75 FR 18836 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2010-04-13

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) and the Assistant Secretary for Health have taken final action in the following.... Emily M. Horvath, former graduate student, IU, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by...

  17. 78 FR 8148 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2013-02-05

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Bryan William Doreian, Ph.D., Case...), engaged in research misconduct in research supported by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI...

  18. 78 FR 941 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2013-01-07

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Paul J. Muchowski, Ph.D., The J..., engaged in research misconduct in research supported by National Institute of Neurological Diseases and...

  19. 78 FR 67363 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2013-11-12

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Hao Wang, M.D., Ph.D., Western..., WU, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by National Institute of Allergy and...

  20. 77 FR 76491 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2012-12-28

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Martin Biosse-Duplan, D.D.S., Ph.D... Research Fellow, Department of Oral Medicine, Infection, and Immunity, HSDM, engaged in research misconduct...

  1. 77 FR 40059 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2012-07-06

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Sinae Kim, Ph.D., Emory University..., Department of Medicine, EU, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by National Heart, Lung, and...

  2. 76 FR 62807 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2011-10-11

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Shamarendra Sanyal, PhD Duke..., former postdoctoral scholar, Duke, engaged in research misconduct by falsifying data in a grant...

  3. 7 CFR 550.34 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 6 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Research misconduct. 550.34 Section 550.34 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF... Program Management § 550.34 Research misconduct. (a) The Cooperator bears the primary responsibility for...

  4. 77 FR 52034 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2012-08-28

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Findings of Research Misconduct AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI... fellow, Department of Developmental and Stem Cell Biology, Joslin, engaged in research misconduct in...

  5. 7 CFR 550.34 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 6 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Research misconduct. 550.34 Section 550.34 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF... Program Management § 550.34 Research misconduct. (a) The Cooperator bears the primary responsibility for...

  6. 7 CFR 550.34 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 6 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Research misconduct. 550.34 Section 550.34 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF... Program Management § 550.34 Research misconduct. (a) The Cooperator bears the primary responsibility for...

  7. 7 CFR 550.34 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 6 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Research misconduct. 550.34 Section 550.34 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF... Program Management § 550.34 Research misconduct. (a) The Cooperator bears the primary responsibility for...

  8. 78 FR 47699 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2013-08-06

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Pratima Karnik, Ph.D., Case Western... Professor, Department of Dermatology, Case Western Reserve University (CWRU), engaged in research misconduct...

  9. 7 CFR 550.34 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 6 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Research misconduct. 550.34 Section 550.34 Agriculture Regulations of the Department of Agriculture (Continued) AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF... Program Management § 550.34 Research misconduct. (a) The Cooperator bears the primary responsibility for...

  10. Differing Perceptions Concerning Research Integrity Between Universities and Industry: A Qualitative Study.

    PubMed

    Godecharle, Simon; Nemery, Benoit; Dierickx, Kris

    2017-09-14

    Despite the ever increasing collaboration between industry and universities, the previous empirical studies on research integrity and misconduct excluded participants of biomedical industry. Hence, there is a lack of empirical data on how research managers and biomedical researchers active in industry perceive the issues of research integrity and misconduct, and whether or not their perspectives differ from those of researchers and research managers active in universities. If various standards concerning research integrity and misconduct are upheld between industry and universities, this might undermine research collaborations. Therefore we performed a qualitative study by conducting 22 semi-structured interviews in order to investigate and compare the perspectives and attitudes concerning the issues of research integrity and misconduct of research managers and biomedical researchers active in industry and universities. Our study showed clear discrepancies between both groups. Diverse strategies in order to manage research misconduct and to stimulate research integrity were observed. Different definitions of research misconduct were given, indicating that similar actions are judged heterogeneously. There were also differences at an individual level, whether the interviewees were active in industry or universities. Overall, the management of research integrity proves to be a difficult exercise, due to many diverse perspectives on several essential elements connected to research integrity and misconduct. A management policy that is not in line with the vision of the biomedical researchers and research managers is at risk of being inefficient.

  11. 76 FR 76732 - Agency Information Collection Request; 60-Day Public Comment Request

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2011-12-08

    ... on Research Misconduct (42 CFR part 93)--OMB No 0937-0198-Extension--Office of Research Integrity... Annual Report on Possible Research Misconduct (Annual Report) form is to provide data on the amount of research misconduct activity occurring in institutions conducting PHS supported research. In addition this...

  12. Research misconduct definitions adopted by U.S. research institutions.

    PubMed

    Resnik, David B; Neal, Talicia; Raymond, Austin; Kissling, Grace E

    2015-01-01

    In 2000, the U.S. federal government adopted a uniform definition of research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP), which became effective in 2001. Institutions must apply this definition of misconduct to federally-funded research to receive funding. While institutions are free to adopt definitions of misconduct that go beyond the federal standard, it is not known how many do. We analyzed misconduct policies from 183 U.S. research institutions and coded them according to thirteen different types of behavior mentioned in the misconduct definition. We also obtained data on the institution's total research funding and public vs. private status, and the year it adopted the definition. We found that more than half (59%) of the institutions in our sample had misconduct policies that went beyond the federal standard. Other than FFP, the most common behaviors included in definitions were "other serious deviations" (45.4%), "significant or material violations of regulations" (23.0%), "misuse of confidential information" (15.8%), "misconduct related to misconduct" (14.8%), "unethical authorship other than plagiarism" (14.2%), "other deception involving data manipulation" (13.1%), and "misappropriation of property/theft" (10.4%). Significantly more definitions adopted in 2001 or later went beyond the federal standard than those adopted before 2001 (73.2% vs. 26.8%), and significantly more definitions adopted by institutions in the lower quartile of total research funding went beyond the federal standard than those adopted by institutions in the upper quartiles. Public vs. private status was not significantly associated with going beyond the federal standard.

  13. 77 FR 22320 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2012-04-13

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Peter J. Francis, M.D., Ph.D... Dr. Peter J. Francis, Associate Professor, Casey Eye Institute, OHSU, engaged in research misconduct...

  14. Evaluation of Department of Defense Compliance with Criminal History Data Reporting Requirements

    DTIC Science & Technology

    2015-02-12

    controlled substances 116 Riot or breach of peace 118 Murder 119 Manslaughter 119a Death or injury of an unborn child (added on July 9, 2010) 120 Rape and...carnal knowledge (for offenses committed prior to October 1, 2007) 120 Rape , sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct (for offenses committed on or...manslaughter, rape , robbery, sodomy, arson, burglary, or housebreaking c. Bribery and graft d. Burning with intent to defraud e. Child endangerment (for

  15. 45 CFR 689.1 - Definitions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 689.1 Definitions. The following definitions apply to this part: (a) Research misconduct means fabrication..., mathematics, and education and results from such proposals. (b) Research misconduct does not include honest...

  16. 45 CFR 689.1 - Definitions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 689.1 Definitions. The following definitions apply to this part: (a) Research misconduct means fabrication..., mathematics, and education and results from such proposals. (b) Research misconduct does not include honest...

  17. 45 CFR 689.1 - Definitions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 689.1 Definitions. The following definitions apply to this part: (a) Research misconduct means fabrication..., mathematics, and education and results from such proposals. (b) Research misconduct does not include honest...

  18. 45 CFR 689.1 - Definitions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 689.1 Definitions. The following definitions apply to this part: (a) Research misconduct means fabrication..., mathematics, and education and results from such proposals. (b) Research misconduct does not include honest...

  19. 10 CFR 600.31 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Research misconduct. 600.31 Section 600.31 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (CONTINUED) ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE RULES General § 600.31 Research misconduct. (a) A recipient is responsible for maintaining the integrity of research of any kind under an...

  20. 10 CFR 600.31 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Research misconduct. 600.31 Section 600.31 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (CONTINUED) ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE RULES General § 600.31 Research misconduct. (a) A recipient is responsible for maintaining the integrity of research of any kind under an...

  1. 10 CFR 600.31 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Research misconduct. 600.31 Section 600.31 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (CONTINUED) ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE RULES General § 600.31 Research misconduct. (a) A recipient is responsible for maintaining the integrity of research of any kind under an...

  2. 10 CFR 600.31 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Research misconduct. 600.31 Section 600.31 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (CONTINUED) ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE RULES General § 600.31 Research misconduct. (a) A recipient is responsible for maintaining the integrity of research of any kind under an...

  3. 75 FR 49935 - Notice of Request for Public Comment

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2010-08-16

    ... answered from Research Integrity Officer (RIOs) when deciding to file an allegation of research misconduct... (whistleblowers) and potential complainants ask RIOs at different stages of the research misconduct allegation... to resolve allegations of research misconduct. They need to know the steps involved in the process...

  4. 14 CFR 1275.107 - Adjudication.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 1275.107... forth the Agency's findings as to whether research misconduct has occurred and recommending appropriate administrative actions that may be undertaken by NASA in response to research misconduct determined to have...

  5. 14 CFR 1275.100 - Purpose and scope.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ....100 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 1275.100... Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for the handling of allegations of research misconduct... research misconduct by a person or institution has occurred in proposing, performing, reviewing, or...

  6. 14 CFR 1275.107 - Adjudication.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 1275.107... forth the Agency's findings as to whether research misconduct has occurred and recommending appropriate administrative actions that may be undertaken by NASA in response to research misconduct determined to have...

  7. 14 CFR 1275.100 - Purpose and scope.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ....100 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 1275.100... Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for the handling of allegations of research misconduct... research misconduct by a person or institution has occurred in proposing, performing, reviewing, or...

  8. 14 CFR 1275.107 - Adjudication.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 1275.107... forth the Agency's findings as to whether research misconduct has occurred and recommending appropriate administrative actions that may be undertaken by NASA in response to research misconduct determined to have...

  9. 14 CFR 1275.100 - Purpose and scope.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ....100 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 1275.100... Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for the handling of allegations of research misconduct... research misconduct by a person or institution has occurred in proposing, performing, reviewing, or...

  10. 14 CFR 1275.107 - Adjudication.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 1275.107... forth the Agency's findings as to whether research misconduct has occurred and recommending appropriate administrative actions that may be undertaken by NASA in response to research misconduct determined to have...

  11. 42 CFR 93.319 - Institutional standards.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... standards for research misconduct under this part. Therefore, an institution may find conduct to be actionable under its standards even if the action does not meet this part's definition of research misconduct... RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of Institutions Other Institutional Responsibilities § 93.319...

  12. 42 CFR 93.319 - Institutional standards.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... standards for research misconduct under this part. Therefore, an institution may find conduct to be actionable under its standards even if the action does not meet this part's definition of research misconduct... RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of Institutions Other Institutional Responsibilities § 93.319...

  13. Assessing the Prevalence of Publication Misconduct among Iranian Authors Using a Double List Experiment.

    PubMed

    Hadji, Maryam; Asghari, Fariba; Yunesian, Masoud; Kabiri, Payam; Fotouhi, Akbar

    2016-07-01

    This study was done to determine the prevalence of publication misconduct among Iranian authors. Data were collected through an email survey of corresponding authors of papers published in Iranian journals indexed in Scopus during 2009-2011. Using the double list experiment, these individuals were indirectly questioned about committing one of the five misconducts including duplicate publication, falsification, guest authorship, plagiarism, and fabrication over the past year. The survey was sent to 2321 individuals; 100 emails bounced, and of the remaining, 813 (36.60%) people responded to the questions. The prevalence rates were 4.15% for fabrication, 4.90% for plagiarism, 18.10% for guest authorship, 12.65% for falsification of the study methods, and -5.40% for duplicate publication. Among respondent 56.50% trusted the method and confidentiality of the survey and 6.50% did not trust the method or confidentiality at all. We found that the double list experiment method is simple and reliable for use in the academic community, and it can be conducted easily in an e-survey. According to our results, the most common misconducts among Iranian authors are guest authorship and falsification of the methodology. In light of the negative and maleficent impact of publication misconduct in the scientific society, we recommend raising awareness and educating authors and investigators in this regard. To determine the accuracy of the method used in this study, further studies on publication misconduct using a control group and direct questioning, as well as other indirect methods are suggested.

  14. Evolving Research Misconduct Policies and Their Significance for Physical Scientists

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Kerch, Helen M.; Dooley, James J.

    2001-03-01

    As a substantial supporter of research, the federal government has a clear role in developing policies that insure both the integrity of the scientific record and the fair and uniform treatment of investigators supported by all federal agencies. To this end, the federal government has established a first-ever research misconduct policy that would apply to all research funded by the federal government. The new federal policy includes a common definition of research misconduct and principles for assurance and oversight. While physical scientists have infrequently been the subject of research misconduct allegations, they will be explicitly covered by this new federal policy. The purpose of this talk is to relate the key issues in the research misconduct debate and to discuss the ramifications of a federal-wide policy on the physical sciences community.

  15. 45 CFR 689.7 - Pending proposals and awards.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... MISCONDUCT § 689.7 Pending proposals and awards. (a) Upon learning of alleged research misconduct OIG will... or allegation of research misconduct nor a pending inquiry or investigation will normally delay...

  16. 45 CFR 689.7 - Pending proposals and awards.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... MISCONDUCT § 689.7 Pending proposals and awards. (a) Upon learning of alleged research misconduct OIG will... or allegation of research misconduct nor a pending inquiry or investigation will normally delay...

  17. 45 CFR 689.7 - Pending proposals and awards.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... MISCONDUCT § 689.7 Pending proposals and awards. (a) Upon learning of alleged research misconduct OIG will... or allegation of research misconduct nor a pending inquiry or investigation will normally delay...

  18. 45 CFR 689.7 - Pending proposals and awards.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... MISCONDUCT § 689.7 Pending proposals and awards. (a) Upon learning of alleged research misconduct OIG will... or allegation of research misconduct nor a pending inquiry or investigation will normally delay...

  19. 45 CFR 689.7 - Pending proposals and awards.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... MISCONDUCT § 689.7 Pending proposals and awards. (a) Upon learning of alleged research misconduct OIG will... or allegation of research misconduct nor a pending inquiry or investigation will normally delay...

  20. [Research misconduct: Knowledge, actions and attitudes of PhD candidates].

    PubMed

    Hofmann, Bjørn; Holm, Søren

    2016-09-01

    BACKGROUND Increasing attention is being paid to research misconduct in academic journals and in the media, but we know relatively little about its extent or attitudes to research misconduct, or how these are changing. This study therefore aims to investigate PhD candidates' knowledge, own actions and attitudes to specific forms of research misconduct.MATERIAL AND METHOD In autumn 2015, an anonymous questionnaire survey was distributed to all participants in the introductory course for PhD candidates at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo.RESULTS Altogether 77 PhD candidates (79 %) responded to the questionnaire. A total of 62 % conducted clinical research and 25 % conducted basic research. Around one in four had heard about serious forms of research misconduct in the previous year, and around 4 % were aware of various forms of serious research misconduct in their own department in the previous year. Compared to earlier studies, an increasing number (16 %) responded that they had been subjected to unethical pressure with regard to inclusion or order of authors. Approximately two-thirds were uncertain of whether their department had written policies for academic conduct. One-third of PhD candidates did not disassociate themselves from actions that are generally viewed as scientific misconduct. One-tenth thought it acceptable to falsify or fabricate data in order to expedite publication, one-fifth did not object to taking the credit for others' ideas, and almost half did not believe it was wrong to attempt a number of methods of analysis until one arrived at a significant answer.INTERPRETATION PhD candidates at the Faculty of Medicine were aware of research misconduct, both generally and from their own department. They themselves reported some type of scientific misconduct, and a large majority were uncertain of their department's guidelines. Some of the candidates also accepted several forms of research misconduct.

  1. 14 CFR 1275.103 - Role of awardee institutions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... Section 1275.103 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT... prevention and detection of research misconduct and for the inquiry, investigation, and adjudication of research misconduct alleged to have occurred in association with their own institutions, although NASA has...

  2. 14 CFR 1275.103 - Role of awardee institutions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... Section 1275.103 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT... prevention and detection of research misconduct and for the inquiry, investigation, and adjudication of research misconduct alleged to have occurred in association with their own institutions, although NASA has...

  3. 14 CFR 1275.103 - Role of awardee institutions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... Section 1275.103 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT... prevention and detection of research misconduct and for the inquiry, investigation, and adjudication of research misconduct alleged to have occurred in association with their own institutions, although NASA has...

  4. 14 CFR § 1275.107 - Adjudication.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ....107 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 1275.107... forth the Agency's findings as to whether research misconduct has occurred and recommending appropriate administrative actions that may be undertaken by NASA in response to research misconduct determined to have...

  5. 14 CFR 1275.103 - Role of awardee institutions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... Section 1275.103 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT... prevention and detection of research misconduct and for the inquiry, investigation, and adjudication of research misconduct alleged to have occurred in association with their own institutions, although NASA has...

  6. Medical research misconduct need regulatory reforms.

    PubMed

    Bedi, Neeraj

    2014-10-01

    The medical research misconduct has become a global problem. Except from countries like the USA, China, and Germany the exact figures of misconduct are not available. The research misconduct include fabricating the data, falsifying data, and plagiarism. The irresponsible research practices are publishing research data more than once, conflicts of interest is not declared, selective reporting of data and including an author who has not contributed at all and many more. About 2% of scientists have been found to admit the fabricating the data and 33% researchers were involved in irresponsible research practices. There is no formal regulatory programs available to monitor the research projects. Few developed countries like the USA, Germany, and China tried to develop programs which can monitor the medical research misconduct. There is a need to develop a regulatory system at national and institutional level to regulate the research activity to ensure that good ethical and scientific standards are practiced by medical researchers.

  7. The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles.

    PubMed

    Hesselmann, Felicitas; Graf, Verena; Schmidt, Marion; Reinhart, Martin

    2017-10-01

    Retractions of scientific articles are becoming the most relevant institution for making sense of scientific misconduct. An increasing number of retracted articles, mainly attributed to misconduct, is currently providing a new empirical basis for research about scientific misconduct. This article reviews the relevant research literature from an interdisciplinary context. Furthermore, the results from these studies are contextualized sociologically by asking how scientific misconduct is made visible through retractions. This study treats retractions as an emerging institution that renders scientific misconduct visible, thus, following up on the sociology of deviance and its focus on visibility. The article shows that retractions, by highlighting individual cases of misconduct and general policies for preventing misconduct while obscuring the actors and processes through which retractions are effected, produce highly fragmented patterns of visibility. These patterns resemble the bifurcation in current justice systems.

  8. Evaluating U.S. medical schools' efforts to educate faculty researchers on research integrity and research misconduct policies and procedures.

    PubMed

    Titus, Sandra Larsen

    2014-01-01

    This paper examines how well U.S. medical school institutions are doing to promote research integrity. It is an important question to ask in order to determine whether there are sufficient and adequate protections in place to protect the U.S. Public Health Service's (PHS) resources devoted to medical research. This paper focuses on 5,100 medical school researchers' knowledge of what constitutes research misconduct as well as their willingness to report it to the research integrity officer (RIO) and educate their Ph.D. trainees. We learned that 5.6% of researchers could correctly distinguish seven or more of the nine scenarios that depicted likely research misconduct, as defined by the PHS regulations, from scenarios describing other ethical issues. Instead, researchers had expansive definitions and often inappropriately identified infractions such as conflicts of interest, Institutional Review Board (IRB) violations, and other breaches in ethical standards to be research misconduct. In addition, researchers who correctly identified four instances of likely research misconduct in the test items were highly unlikely to report their observations to a RIO. Researchers also provided insight on the factors they believe influence their decision making process of whether to report research misconduct. In addition, this paper also reports on the guidance that faculty said they provided their trainees on research misconduct issues. We conclude with a discussion and recommendations on what institutional leaders might consider doing in order to enhance their research integrity efforts and protect their institution's reputation.

  9. Plagiarism and registered health professionals: navigating the borderlands between scholarly and professional misconduct.

    PubMed

    Wardle, Jon

    2013-12-01

    As access to published materials becomes more readily available, the ability to plagiarise material, deliberately or unwittingly has become easier than ever. This article explores important recent decisions in Australia and the United Kingdom regarding registered health practitioners who have engaged in plagiarism, both related and unrelated to their clinical practice, and explores the ways in which regulatory authorities in these countries have viewed scholarly misconduct committed by registered health professionals. This article also examines the implications of plagiarism for the registered health professions, and makes suggestions for strategies to reduce its influence and incidence in modern clinical practice.

  10. 77 FR 51933 - Privacy Act; Implementation

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2012-08-28

    ...), is implementing a new system of records, 09-25-0223, ``NIH Records Related to Research Misconduct... protect the integrity of NIH research misconduct proceedings and to protect the identity of confidential... implementing a new system of records called, ``NIH Records Related to Research Misconduct Proceedings'' (09- 25...

  11. 14 CFR 1275.106 - Administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 1275.106 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 1275... that an institutional official other than those guilty of research misconduct certify the accuracy of... institution to ensure that steps have been taken to prevent repetition of the research misconduct. (3) Group...

  12. 14 CFR 1275.106 - Administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 1275.106 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 1275... that an institutional official other than those guilty of research misconduct certify the accuracy of... institution to ensure that steps have been taken to prevent repetition of the research misconduct. (3) Group...

  13. 14 CFR § 1275.106 - Administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... § 1275.106 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT... that an institutional official other than those guilty of research misconduct certify the accuracy of... institution to ensure that steps have been taken to prevent repetition of the research misconduct. (3) Group...

  14. 14 CFR 1275.106 - Administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 1275.106 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 1275... that an institutional official other than those guilty of research misconduct certify the accuracy of... institution to ensure that steps have been taken to prevent repetition of the research misconduct. (3) Group...

  15. 14 CFR 1275.106 - Administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 1275.106 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 1275... that an institutional official other than those guilty of research misconduct certify the accuracy of... institution to ensure that steps have been taken to prevent repetition of the research misconduct. (3) Group...

  16. 14 CFR § 1275.100 - Purpose and scope.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ...§ 1275.100 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 1275... National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for the handling of allegations of research misconduct... research misconduct by a person or institution has occurred in proposing, performing, reviewing, or...

  17. 42 CFR 93.511 - Prehearing conferences.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing Process § 93.511 Prehearing conferences. (a) The ALJ must schedule an initial prehearing..., specification of disputes of fact and their materiality to the ORI findings of research misconduct and any HHS...

  18. 48 CFR 1201.602-3 - Ratification of unauthorized commitments.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... procurement decisions shall be made only by Government officials having authority to carry out such acquisitions. Procurement decisions made by other than authorized personnel are contrary to Departmental policy and may be considered matters of serious misconduct on the part of the employee making an unauthorized...

  19. Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases: guidance from the committee on publication ethics (cope).

    PubMed

    Wager, Elizabeth; Kleinert, Sabine

    2012-09-01

    Institutions and journals both have important duties relating to research and publication misconduct. Institutions are responsible for the conduct of their researchers and for encouraging a healthy research environment. Journals are responsible for the conduct of their editors, for safeguarding the research record, and for ensuring the reliability of everything they publish. It is therefore important for institutions and journals to communicate and collaborate effectively on cases relating to research integrity. To achieve this, we make the following recommendations. Institutions should: have a research integrity officer (or office) and publish their contact details prominently; inform journals about cases of proven misconduct that affect the reliability or attribution of work that they have published; respond to journals if they request information about issues, such as disputed authorship, misleading reporting, competing interests, or other factors, including honest errors, that could affect the reliability of published work; initiate inquiries into allegations of research misconduct or unacceptable publication practice raised by journals; have policies supporting responsible research conduct and systems in place for investigating suspected research misconduct.Journals should: publish the contact details of their editor-in-chief who should act as the point of contact for questions relating to research and publication integrity; inform institutions if they suspect misconduct by their researchers, and provide evidence to support these concerns; cooperate with investigations and respond to institutions' questions about misconduct allegations; be prepared to issue retractions or corrections (according to the COP E guidelines on retractions) when provided with findings of misconduct arising from investigations; have policies for responding to institutions and other organizations that investigate cases of research misconduct.

  20. Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

    PubMed

    Wager, Elizabeth; Kleinert, Sabine

    2012-06-01

    Institutions and journals both have important duties relating to research and publication misconduct. Institutions are responsible for the conduct of their researchers and for encouraging a healthy research environment. Journals are responsible for the conduct of their editors, for safeguarding the research record, and for ensuring the reliability of everything they publish. It is therefore important for institutions and journals to communicate and collaborate effectively on cases relating to research integrity. To achieve this, we make the following recommendations. Institutions should: • have a research integrity officer (or office) and publish their contact details prominently; • inform journals about cases of proven misconduct that affect the reliability or attribution of work that they have published; • respond to journals if they request information about issues, such as disputed authorship, misleading reporting, competing interests, or other factors, including honest errors, that could affect the reliability of published work; • initiate inquiries into allegations of research misconduct or unacceptable publication practice raised by journals; • have policies supporting responsible research conduct and systems in place for investigating suspected research misconduct. Journals should: • publish the contact details of their editor-in-chief who should act as the point of contact for questions relating to research and publication integrity; • inform institutions if they suspect misconduct by their researchers, and provide evidence to support these concerns; • cooperate with investigations and respond to institutions' questions about misconduct allegations; • be prepared to issue retractions or corrections (according to the COPE guidelines on retractions) when provided with findings of misconduct arising from investigations; • have policies for responding to institutions and other organizations that investigate cases of research misconduct. Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

  1. Predicting self-reported research misconduct and questionable research practices in university students using an augmented Theory of Planned Behavior

    PubMed Central

    Rajah-Kanagasabai, Camilla J.; Roberts, Lynne D.

    2015-01-01

    This study examined the utility of the Theory of Planned Behavior model, augmented by descriptive norms and justifications, for predicting self-reported research misconduct and questionable research practices in university students. A convenience sample of 205 research active Western Australian university students (47 male, 158 female, ages 18–53 years, M = 22, SD = 4.78) completed an online survey. There was a low level of engagement in research misconduct, with approximately one in seven students reporting data fabrication and one in eight data falsification. Path analysis and model testing in LISREL supported a parsimonious two step mediation model, providing good fit to the data. After controlling for social desirability, the effect of attitudes, subjective norms, descriptive norms and perceived behavioral control on student engagement in research misconduct and questionable research practices was mediated by justifications and then intention. This revised augmented model accounted for a substantial 40.8% of the variance in student engagement in research misconduct and questionable research practices, demonstrating its predictive utility. The model can be used to target interventions aimed at reducing student engagement in research misconduct and questionable research practices. PMID:25983709

  2. Predicting self-reported research misconduct and questionable research practices in university students using an augmented Theory of Planned Behavior.

    PubMed

    Rajah-Kanagasabai, Camilla J; Roberts, Lynne D

    2015-01-01

    This study examined the utility of the Theory of Planned Behavior model, augmented by descriptive norms and justifications, for predicting self-reported research misconduct and questionable research practices in university students. A convenience sample of 205 research active Western Australian university students (47 male, 158 female, ages 18-53 years, M = 22, SD = 4.78) completed an online survey. There was a low level of engagement in research misconduct, with approximately one in seven students reporting data fabrication and one in eight data falsification. Path analysis and model testing in LISREL supported a parsimonious two step mediation model, providing good fit to the data. After controlling for social desirability, the effect of attitudes, subjective norms, descriptive norms and perceived behavioral control on student engagement in research misconduct and questionable research practices was mediated by justifications and then intention. This revised augmented model accounted for a substantial 40.8% of the variance in student engagement in research misconduct and questionable research practices, demonstrating its predictive utility. The model can be used to target interventions aimed at reducing student engagement in research misconduct and questionable research practices.

  3. 10 CFR 733.8 - Contracting officer procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.8 Contracting officer procedures. Upon receipt of an allegation of research misconduct by referral under § 733.7, the contracting officer should, by... assistance recipient to act on the allegation consistent with the Research Misconduct requirements in the...

  4. 10 CFR 733.8 - Contracting officer procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.8 Contracting officer procedures. Upon receipt of an allegation of research misconduct by referral under § 733.7, the contracting officer should, by... assistance recipient to act on the allegation consistent with the Research Misconduct requirements in the...

  5. 10 CFR 733.8 - Contracting officer procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.8 Contracting officer procedures. Upon receipt of an allegation of research misconduct by referral under § 733.7, the contracting officer should, by... assistance recipient to act on the allegation consistent with the Research Misconduct requirements in the...

  6. 10 CFR 733.8 - Contracting officer procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.8 Contracting officer procedures. Upon receipt of an allegation of research misconduct by referral under § 733.7, the contracting officer should, by... assistance recipient to act on the allegation consistent with the Research Misconduct requirements in the...

  7. 10 CFR 733.8 - Contracting officer procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.8 Contracting officer procedures. Upon receipt of an allegation of research misconduct by referral under § 733.7, the contracting officer should, by... assistance recipient to act on the allegation consistent with the Research Misconduct requirements in the...

  8. 42 CFR 93.516 - Standard and burden of proof.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... that are relevant to a decision to impose HHS administrative actions following a research misconduct... RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing Process § 93.516 Standard and burden of proof. (a) Standard of proof. The standard of...

  9. 42 CFR 93.300 - General responsibilities for compliance.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of Institutions Compliance and Assurances § 93.300 General... addressing allegations of research misconduct that meet the requirements of this part; (b) Respond to each allegation of research misconduct for which the institution is responsible under this part in a thorough...

  10. 42 CFR 93.516 - Standard and burden of proof.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... that are relevant to a decision to impose HHS administrative actions following a research misconduct... RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing Process § 93.516 Standard and burden of proof. (a) Standard of proof. The standard of...

  11. [Recent Progress in Promoting Research Integrity].

    PubMed

    Tanaka, Satoshi

    2018-01-01

    　An increasing number of cases of research misconduct and whistle-blowing in the fields of medicine and life sciences has created public concern about research integrity. In Europe and the United States, there has been a large focus on poor reproducibility in life science research, and poor reproducibility is largely associated with research misconduct. Research integrity is equally crucial in the pharmaceutical sciences, which play an important role in medical and life sciences. Individual cases of research misconduct have not been investigated in detail in Japan, because it was generally believed that only researchers with strong or strange personalities would participate in misconduct. However, a better understanding of research misconduct will enable more in-depth discussions about research integrity, which is now known to be closely associated with normal research activities. Here I will introduce information on various contemporary activities being performed to create a sound research environment, drawn from practices in universities, pharmaceutical companies, and government agencies. I will also discuss ways in which individual researchers can promote research integrity.

  12. The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles

    PubMed Central

    Hesselmann, Felicitas; Graf, Verena; Schmidt, Marion; Reinhart, Martin

    2016-01-01

    Retractions of scientific articles are becoming the most relevant institution for making sense of scientific misconduct. An increasing number of retracted articles, mainly attributed to misconduct, is currently providing a new empirical basis for research about scientific misconduct. This article reviews the relevant research literature from an interdisciplinary context. Furthermore, the results from these studies are contextualized sociologically by asking how scientific misconduct is made visible through retractions. This study treats retractions as an emerging institution that renders scientific misconduct visible, thus, following up on the sociology of deviance and its focus on visibility. The article shows that retractions, by highlighting individual cases of misconduct and general policies for preventing misconduct while obscuring the actors and processes through which retractions are effected, produce highly fragmented patterns of visibility. These patterns resemble the bifurcation in current justice systems. PMID:28943647

  13. 10 CFR 733.1 - Purpose.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.1 Purpose. The purpose of this part is to set forth a general statement of policy on the treatment of allegations of research misconduct consistent with Federal Policy on Research Misconduct established by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy on December 6...

  14. 10 CFR 733.1 - Purpose.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.1 Purpose. The purpose of this part is to set forth a general statement of policy on the treatment of allegations of research misconduct consistent with Federal Policy on Research Misconduct established by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy on December 6...

  15. 77 FR 29348 - Agency Information Collection Request; 30-Day Public Comment Request

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2012-05-17

    ...: Public Health Service Polices on Research Misconduct (42 CFR part 93)--OMB No 0937-0198-Extension--Office... collection. The purpose of the Annual Report on Possible Research Misconduct (Annual Report) form is to provide data on the amount of research misconduct activity occurring in institutions conducting PHS...

  16. 10 CFR 733.1 - Purpose.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.1 Purpose. The purpose of this part is to set forth a general statement of policy on the treatment of allegations of research misconduct consistent with Federal Policy on Research Misconduct established by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy on December 6...

  17. 10 CFR 733.1 - Purpose.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.1 Purpose. The purpose of this part is to set forth a general statement of policy on the treatment of allegations of research misconduct consistent with Federal Policy on Research Misconduct established by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy on December 6...

  18. 77 FR 30004 - Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Statement of Organization, Functions, and...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2012-05-21

    ... human subjects; (13) Proposes findings of research misconduct and administrative actions in response to allegations of research misconduct involving research conducted or supported by the PHS OPDIVs, including reversal of an institution's no misconduct finding or opening of a new investigation; (14) Provides...

  19. 42 CFR 93.504 - Grounds for dismissal of a hearing request.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... research misconduct and any administrative actions, including debarment and suspension actions, in the... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing Process § 93.504 Grounds for dismissal of a hearing request. (a) The ALJ must...

  20. 42 CFR 93.504 - Grounds for dismissal of a hearing request.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... research misconduct and any administrative actions, including debarment and suspension actions, in the... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing Process § 93.504 Grounds for dismissal of a hearing request. (a) The ALJ must...

  1. 42 CFR 93.514 - Amendment to the charge letter.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing Process § 93.514 Amendment to the charge letter. (a) The ORI may amend the findings of research misconduct up to 30 days before the scheduled hearing. (b) The ALJ may not...

  2. 42 CFR 93.514 - Amendment to the charge letter.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing Process § 93.514 Amendment to the charge letter. (a) The ORI may amend the findings of research misconduct up to 30 days before the scheduled hearing. (b) The ALJ may not...

  3. European Universities' Guidance on Research Integrity and Misconduct.

    PubMed

    Aubert Bonn, Noémie; Godecharle, Simon; Dierickx, Kris

    2017-02-01

    Research integrity is imperative to good science. Nonetheless, many countries and institutions develop their own integrity guidance, thereby risking incompatibilities with guidance of collaborating institutions. We retrieved guidance for academic integrity and misconduct of 18 universities from 10 European countries and investigated accessibility, general content, principles endorsed, and definitions of misconduct. Accessibility and content differ substantially between institutions. There are general trends of common principles of integrity and definitions of misconduct, yet differences remain. Parallel with previous research, we distinguish different approaches in integrity guidance; one emphasizes broad values of integrity, and the other details negative behaviors of misconduct. We propose that a balance between both approaches is necessary to preserve trust, meaning, and realism of guidance on research integrity.

  4. 45 CFR 689.5 - Initial NSF handling of misconduct matters.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... 45 Public Welfare 3 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Initial NSF handling of misconduct matters. 689.5... FOUNDATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 689.5 Initial NSF handling of misconduct matters. (a) NSF staff who learn of alleged misconduct will promptly and discreetly inform OIG or refer informants to OIG. (b) The identity of...

  5. 45 CFR 689.5 - Initial NSF handling of misconduct matters.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 45 Public Welfare 3 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Initial NSF handling of misconduct matters. 689.5... FOUNDATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 689.5 Initial NSF handling of misconduct matters. (a) NSF staff who learn of alleged misconduct will promptly and discreetly inform OIG or refer informants to OIG. (b) The identity of...

  6. 45 CFR 689.5 - Initial NSF handling of misconduct matters.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... 45 Public Welfare 3 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Initial NSF handling of misconduct matters. 689.5... FOUNDATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 689.5 Initial NSF handling of misconduct matters. (a) NSF staff who learn of alleged misconduct will promptly and discreetly inform OIG or refer informants to OIG. (b) The identity of...

  7. 45 CFR 689.5 - Initial NSF handling of misconduct matters.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... 45 Public Welfare 3 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Initial NSF handling of misconduct matters. 689.5... FOUNDATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 689.5 Initial NSF handling of misconduct matters. (a) NSF staff who learn of alleged misconduct will promptly and discreetly inform OIG or refer informants to OIG. (b) The identity of...

  8. 45 CFR 689.5 - Initial NSF handling of misconduct matters.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... 45 Public Welfare 3 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Initial NSF handling of misconduct matters. 689.5... FOUNDATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 689.5 Initial NSF handling of misconduct matters. (a) NSF staff who learn of alleged misconduct will promptly and discreetly inform OIG or refer informants to OIG. (b) The identity of...

  9. A Comparative Study on Scientific Misconduct between Korean and Japanese Science Gifted Students

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Lee, Jiwon; Kim, Jung Bog; Isozaki, Tetsuo

    2017-01-01

    The scientific integrity, perceptions of scientific misconduct, and students' needs in the research ethics education of Korean and Japanese gifted students were analyzed to address three questions. First, how well do students practice research ethics in their research? Second, how do students perceive scientists' misconduct? Third, do students…

  10. 78 FR 39184 - Privacy Act, Exempt Record System; Implementation

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2013-07-01

    ... Related to Research Misconduct Proceedings, HHS/FDA/OC, 09-10-0020. Title 45 PART 5b--PRIVACY ACT... protect the integrity of FDA's scientific research misconduct proceedings and to protect the identity of... Research Misconduct Proceedings, HHS/FDA/OC,'' under subsections (k)(2) and (k)(5) of the Privacy Act (5 U...

  11. 14 CFR 1275.100 - Purpose and scope.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 1275.100 Purpose and... and Space Administration (NASA) for the handling of allegations of research misconduct. Specifically... misconduct by a person or institution has occurred in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting results...

  12. Plagiarism Continues to Affect Scholarly Journals.

    PubMed

    Hong, Sung Tae

    2017-02-01

    I have encountered 3 cases of plagiarism as editor of the Journal of Korean Medical Science (JKMS). The first one was copying figures from a JKMS article without citation, the second was submission of a copied manuscript of a published article to JKMS, and the third was publishing a copied JKMS article in another journal. The first and third cases violated copyrights of JKMS, but the violating journals made no action on the misconduct. The second and third cases were slightly modified copies of the source articles but similarity check by the Crosscheck could not identify the text overlap initially and after one year reported 96% overlap for the second case. The similarity of the third case was reported 3%. The Crosscheck must upgrade its system for better reliable screening of text plagiarism. The copy of the second case was committed by a corrupt Chinese editing company and also by some unethical researchers. In conclusion, plagiarism still threatens the trustworthiness of the publishing enterprises and is a cumbersome burden for editors of scholarly journals. We require a better system to increase the vigilance and to prevent the misconduct.

  13. Plagiarism Continues to Affect Scholarly Journals

    PubMed Central

    2017-01-01

    I have encountered 3 cases of plagiarism as editor of the Journal of Korean Medical Science (JKMS). The first one was copying figures from a JKMS article without citation, the second was submission of a copied manuscript of a published article to JKMS, and the third was publishing a copied JKMS article in another journal. The first and third cases violated copyrights of JKMS, but the violating journals made no action on the misconduct. The second and third cases were slightly modified copies of the source articles but similarity check by the Crosscheck could not identify the text overlap initially and after one year reported 96% overlap for the second case. The similarity of the third case was reported 3%. The Crosscheck must upgrade its system for better reliable screening of text plagiarism. The copy of the second case was committed by a corrupt Chinese editing company and also by some unethical researchers. In conclusion, plagiarism still threatens the trustworthiness of the publishing enterprises and is a cumbersome burden for editors of scholarly journals. We require a better system to increase the vigilance and to prevent the misconduct. PMID:28049227

  14. 7 CFR 3022.2 - Procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... AGRICULTURE RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS CONDUCTING USDA-FUNDED EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 3022.2... research misconduct that ensure: (a) Appropriate separations of responsibility for inquiry, investigation...

  15. 7 CFR 3022.2 - Procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... AGRICULTURE RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS CONDUCTING USDA-FUNDED EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 3022.2... research misconduct that ensure: (a) Appropriate separations of responsibility for inquiry, investigation...

  16. 7 CFR 3022.2 - Procedures.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... AGRICULTURE RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS CONDUCTING USDA-FUNDED EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 3022.2... research misconduct that ensure: (a) Appropriate separations of responsibility for inquiry, investigation...

  17. Research Misconduct Definitions Adopted by U.S. Research Institutions

    PubMed Central

    Resnik, David B.; Neal, Talicia; Raymond, Austin; Kissling, Grace E.

    2014-01-01

    In 2000, the US federal government adopted a uniform definition of research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP), which became effective in 2001. Institutions must apply this definition of misconduct to federally-funded research to receive funding. While institutions are free to adopt definitions of misconduct that go beyond the federal standard, it is not known how may do. We analyzed misconduct policies from 183 US research institutions and coded them according to thirteen different types of behavior mentioned in the misconduct definition. We also obtained data on the institution’s total research funding and public vs. private status, and the year it adopted the definition. We found that more than half (59%) of the institutions in our sample had misconduct policies that went beyond the federal standard. Other than FFP, the most common behaviors included in definitions were “other serious deviations” (45.4%), “significant or material violations of regulations” (23.0%), “misuse of confidential information” (15.8%), “misconduct related to misconduct” (14.8%), “unethical authorship other than plagiarism” (14.2%), “other deception involving data manipulation” (13.1%), and “misappropriation of property/theft” (10.4%). Significantly more definitions adopted in 2001 or later went beyond the federal standard than those adopted before 2001 (73.2% vs. 26.8%), and significantly more definitions adopted by institutions in the lower quartile of total research funding went beyond the federal standard than those adopted by institutions in the upper quartiles. Public vs. private status was not significantly associated with going beyond the federal standard. PMID:25275621

  18. 45 CFR 689.4 - Role of awardee institutions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... MISCONDUCT § 689.4 Role of awardee institutions. (a) Awardee institutions bear primary responsibility for prevention and detection of research misconduct and for the inquiry, investigation, and adjudication of alleged research misconduct. In most instances, NSF will rely on awardee institutions to promptly: (1...

  19. 45 CFR 689.4 - Role of awardee institutions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... MISCONDUCT § 689.4 Role of awardee institutions. (a) Awardee institutions bear primary responsibility for prevention and detection of research misconduct and for the inquiry, investigation, and adjudication of alleged research misconduct. In most instances, NSF will rely on awardee institutions to promptly: (1...

  20. 78 FR 2892 - Privacy Act, Exempt Record System; Withdrawal

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2013-01-15

    ... scientific research misconduct proceedings records from certain requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974 in order to protect records compiled in the course of misconduct inquiries and investigations, and to... rule to exempt scientific research misconduct proceedings records from certain requirements of the...

  1. 45 CFR 689.4 - Role of awardee institutions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... MISCONDUCT § 689.4 Role of awardee institutions. (a) Awardee institutions bear primary responsibility for prevention and detection of research misconduct and for the inquiry, investigation, and adjudication of alleged research misconduct. In most instances, NSF will rely on awardee institutions to promptly: (1...

  2. 14 CFR § 1275.103 - Role of awardee institutions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... MISCONDUCT § 1275.103 Role of awardee institutions. (a) The awardee institutions have the primary responsibility for prevention and detection of research misconduct and for the inquiry, investigation, and adjudication of research misconduct alleged to have occurred in association with their own institutions...

  3. 45 CFR 689.4 - Role of awardee institutions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... MISCONDUCT § 689.4 Role of awardee institutions. (a) Awardee institutions bear primary responsibility for prevention and detection of research misconduct and for the inquiry, investigation, and adjudication of alleged research misconduct. In most instances, NSF will rely on awardee institutions to promptly: (1...

  4. 45 CFR 689.4 - Role of awardee institutions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... MISCONDUCT § 689.4 Role of awardee institutions. (a) Awardee institutions bear primary responsibility for prevention and detection of research misconduct and for the inquiry, investigation, and adjudication of alleged research misconduct. In most instances, NSF will rely on awardee institutions to promptly: (1...

  5. Research Ethics: Researchers Consider How Best to Prevent Misconduct in Research in Malaysian Higher Learning Institutions Through Ethics Education.

    PubMed

    Olesen, Angelina Patrick; Amin, Latifah; Mahadi, Zurina

    2018-05-01

    The purpose of this study is to encourage and highlight discussion on how to improve the teaching of research ethics in institutions of higher education in Malaysia. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 21 academics in a research-intensive university in Malaysia, interviewees agreed on the importance of emphasizing the subject of research ethics among students, as well as academics or researchers. This study reveals that participants felt that there is an urgent need to improve the current awareness and knowledge of issues related to misconduct in research among students and academics. The results of this study indicate a need for better teaching on the subject of research ethics in order to prevent misconduct in research. Finally, it concludes with suggestions that there should be a clear definition of research misconduct, to include consequences when engaging in misconduct; a separate research ethics syllabus for pure and social sciences should be conducted; research ethics should be implemented as a core subject, and there should be an early intervention and continuous learning of research ethics, with an emphasis on ethics training.

  6. How pharmaceutical industry employees manage competing commitments in the face of public criticism.

    PubMed

    Lipworth, Wendy; Montgomery, Kathleen; Little, Miles

    2013-10-01

    The pharmaceutical industry has been criticised for pervasive misconduct. These concerns have generally resulted in increasing regulation. While such regulation is no doubt necessary, it tends to assume that everyone working for pharmaceutical companies is equally motivated by commerce, without much understanding of the specific views and experiences of those who work in different parts of the industry. In order to gain a more nuanced picture of the work that goes on in the "medical affairs" departments of pharmaceutical companies, we conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with professionals working in medical departments of companies in Sydney, Australia. We show that this group of pharmaceutical professionals are committed to their responsibilities both to patients, research participants, and the public and to their companies. Despite the discrepancies between these commitments, our participants did not express much cognitive dissonance, and this appeared to stem from their use of two dialectically related strategies, one of which embraces commerce and the other of which resists the commercial imperative. We interpret these findings through the lens of institutional theory and consider their implications for pharmaceutical ethics and governance.

  7. Exploring Academic Misconduct: Some Insights into Student Behaviour

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Perry, Bob

    2010-01-01

    Academic research and newspaper stories suggest that academic misconduct, including plagiarism, is on the increase. This apparent increase coupled with new internet enterprises selling "pass" papers and customized research are worrying trends. Academic misconduct is deeply harmful in a number of ways by devaluing awards, frustrating…

  8. Scientific Misconduct.

    PubMed

    Gross, Charles

    2016-01-01

    Scientific misconduct has been defined as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. Scientific misconduct has occurred throughout the history of science. The US government began to take systematic interest in such misconduct in the 1980s. Since then, a number of studies have examined how frequently individual scientists have observed scientific misconduct or were involved in it. Although the studies vary considerably in their methodology and in the nature and size of their samples, in most studies at least 10% of the scientists sampled reported having observed scientific misconduct. In addition to studies of the incidence of scientific misconduct, this review considers the recent increase in paper retractions, the role of social media in scientific ethics, several instructional examples of egregious scientific misconduct, and potential methods to reduce research misconduct.

  9. Are We Educating Educators about Academic Integrity? A Study of UK Higher Education Textbooks

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Ransome, Josie; Newton, Philip M.

    2018-01-01

    A substantial proportion of university students report committing plagiarism and related forms of misconduct. An academic integrity-focused approach to addressing plagiarism emphasises the promotion of positive values alongside education of staff and students about good, and bad, practice in writing, studying and assessment design. The concept was…

  10. 77 FR 37105 - National Standards To Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2012-06-20

    .... The goal is to keep inmates at high risk of victimization away from those at high risk of committing... nonconsensual sexual acts involving injury, force, or high incidence. Next, the RIA estimates how much monetary... monetizable benefit to an adult of avoiding the highest category of prison sexual misconduct (nonconsensual...

  11. 42 CFR 93.408 - Mitigating and aggravating factors in HHS administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Misconduct Issues § 93.408 Mitigating and aggravating factors in HHS... action is commensurate with the seriousness of the misconduct, and the need to protect the health and...

  12. Improving biomedical journals' ethical policies: the case of research misconduct.

    PubMed

    Bosch, Xavier

    2014-09-01

    Scientific journals may incur scientific error if articles are tainted by research misconduct. While some journals' ethical policies, especially those on conflicts of interest, have improved over recent years, with some adopting a uniform approach, only around half of biomedical journals, principally those with higher impact factors, currently have formal misconduct policies, mainly for handling allegations. Worryingly, since a response to allegations would reasonably require an a priori definition, far fewer journals have publicly available definitions of misconduct. While some journals and editors' associations have taken significant steps to prevent and detect misconduct and respond to allegations, the content, visibility of and access to these policies varies considerably. In addition, while the lack of misconduct policies may prompt and maintain a de novo approach for journals, potentially causing stress, publication delays and even legal disputes, the lack of uniformity may be a matter of contention for research stakeholders such as editors, authors and their institutions, and publishers. Although each case may need an individual approach, I argue that posting highly visible, readily accessible, comprehensive, consistent misconduct policies could prevent the publication of fraudulent papers, increase the number of retractions of already published papers and, perhaps, reduce research misconduct. Although legally problematic, a concerted approach, with sharing of information between editors, which is clearly explained in journal websites, could also help. Ideally, journals, editors' associations, and publishers should seek consistency and homogenise misconduct policies to maintain public confidence in the integrity of biomedical research publications. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

  13. Image manipulation as research misconduct.

    PubMed

    Parrish, Debra; Noonan, Bridget

    2009-06-01

    A growing number of research misconduct cases handled by the Office of Research Integrity involve image manipulations. Manipulations may include simple image enhancements, misrepresenting an image as something different from what it is, and altering specific features of an image. Through a study of specific cases, the misconduct findings associated with image manipulation, detection methods and those likely to identify such manipulations, are discussed. This article explores sanctions imposed against guilty researchers and the factors that resulted in no misconduct finding although relevant images clearly were flawed. Although new detection tools are available for universities and journals to detect questionable images, this article explores why these tools have not been embraced.

  14. Perceptions of Chinese Biomedical Researchers Towards Academic Misconduct: A Comparison Between 2015 and 2010.

    PubMed

    Liao, Qing-Jiao; Zhang, Yuan-Yuan; Fan, Yu-Chen; Zheng, Ming-Hua; Bai, Yu; Eslick, Guy D; He, Xing-Xiang; Zhang, Shi-Bing; Xia, Harry Hua-Xiang; He, Hua

    2018-04-01

    Publications by Chinese researchers in scientific journals have dramatically increased over the past decade; however, academic misconduct also becomes more prevalent in the country. The aim of this prospective study was to understand the perceptions of Chinese biomedical researchers towards academic misconduct and the trend from 2010 to 2015. A questionnaire comprising 10 questions was designed and then validated by ten biomedical researchers in China. In the years 2010 and 2015, respectively, the questionnaire was sent as a survey to biomedical researchers at teaching hospitals, universities, and medical institutes in mainland China. Data were analyzed by the Chi squared test, one-way analysis of variance with the Tukey post hoc test, or Spearman's rank correlation method, where appropriate. The overall response rates in 2010 and 2015 were 4.5% (446/9986) and 5.5% (832/15,127), respectively. Data from 15 participants in 2010 were invalid, and analysis was thus performed for 1263 participants. Among the participants, 54.7% thought that academic misconduct was serious-to-extremely serious, and 71.2% believed that the Chinese authorities paid no or little attention to the academic misconduct. Moreover, 70.2 and 65.2% of participants considered that the punishment for academic misconduct at the authority and institution levels, respectively, was not appropriate or severe enough. Inappropriate authorship and plagiarism were the most common forms of academic misconduct. The most important factor underlying academic misconduct was the academic assessment system, as judged by 50.7% of the participants. Participants estimated that 40.1% (39.8 ± 23.5% in 2010; 40.2 ± 24.5% in 2015) of published scientific articles were associated with some form of academic misconduct. Their perceptions towards academic misconduct had not significantly changed over the 5 years. Reform of the academic assessment system should be the fundamental approach to tackling this problem in China.

  15. Scientific misconduct: a perspective from India.

    PubMed

    Sabir, Husain; Kumbhare, Subhash; Parate, Amit; Kumar, Rajesh; Das, Suroopa

    2015-05-01

    Misconduct in medical science research is an unfortunate reality. Science, for the most part, operates on the basis of trust. Researchers are expected to carry out their work and report their findings honestly. But, sadly, that is not how science always gets done. Reports keep surfacing from various countries about work being plagiarised, results which were doctored and data fabricated. Scientific misconduct is scourge afflicting the field of science, unfortunately with little impact in developing countries like India especially in health care services. A recent survey and a meta-analysis suggest that the few cases that do float up represents only tip of a large iceberg. This paper therefore highlights reasons for misconduct with steps that can be taken to reduce misconduct. Also the paper throws light on Indian scenario in relation to misconduct.

  16. Cross-cultural perspectives of scientific misconduct.

    PubMed

    Momen, Hooman; Gollogly, Laragh

    2007-09-01

    The increasing globalization of scientific research lends urgency to the need for international agreement on the concepts of scientific misconduct. Universal spiritual and moral principles on which ethical standards are generally based indicate that it is possible to reach international agreement on the ethical principles underlying good scientific practice. Concordance on an operational definition of scientific misconduct that would allow independent observers to agree which behaviour constitutes misconduct is more problematic. Defining scientific misconduct to be universally recognized and universally sanctioned means addressing the broader question of ensuring that research is not only well-designed - and addresses a real need for better evidence - but that it is ethically conducted in different cultures. An instrument is needed to ensure that uneven ethical standards do not create unnecessary obstacles to research, particularly in developing countries.

  17. 78 FR 23255 - Findings of Misconduct in Science/Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2013-04-18

    .../Research Misconduct AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given... Attorney for the District of Columbia in Bois v. HHS, et al., Civil Action no. 11-cv-1563, which was... proceedings regarding Finding 2. On March 30, 2012, HHS filed a Motion for Reconsideration before Judge Berman...

  18. Curbing misconduct in the pharmaceutical industry: insights from behavioral ethics and the behavioral approach to law.

    PubMed

    Feldman, Yuval; Gauthier, Rebecca; Schuler, Troy

    2013-01-01

    Two insights of psychology on which we would like to draw are that people react to law in more complex ways than rational-choice models assume and that good people sometimes do bad things. With that starting point, this article provides a behavioral perspective on some of the factors that policymakers seeking to reduce the level of misconduct in the pharmaceutical industry should consider. Effective regulation and enforcement need to address the following questions: Who are the regulation's targeted actors - researchers or executives? Are the regulations directed toward research or marketing activities? Is the misconduct a product of explicit rational choice or implicit processes of which the actor is unaware? Is it reasonable to address all types of misconduct using the same approach? Certain misconduct - particularly by researchers - is due to automatic, intuitive, and unconscious decisions and needs to be addressed through different means than those used to address misconduct due to controlled, deliberate decisions. This article therefore recommends using different sorts of regulation depending on the context. It suggests more tailored enforcement mechanisms that will be sensitive to the pharmaceutical researchers' unique work motivations and to their awareness or lack of awareness of their own misconduct. © 2013 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Inc.

  19. Research misconduct and data fraud in clinical trials: prevalence and causal factors.

    PubMed

    George, Stephen L

    2016-02-01

    The disclosure of cases of research misconduct in clinical trials, conventionally defined as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism, has been a disturbingly common phenomenon in recent years. Such cases can potentially harm patients enrolled on the trials in question or patients treated based on the results of those trials and can seriously undermine the scientific and public trust in the validity of clinical trial results. Here, I review what is known about the prevalence of research misconduct in general and the contributing or causal factors leading to the misconduct. The evidence on prevalence is unreliable and fraught with definitional problems and with study design issues. Nevertheless, the evidence taken as a whole seems to suggest that cases of the most serious types of misconduct, fabrication and falsification (i.e., data fraud), are relatively rare but that other types of questionable research practices are quite common. There have been many individual, institutional and scientific factors proposed for misconduct but, as is the case with estimates of prevalence, reliable empirical evidence on the strength and relative importance of these factors is lacking. However, it seems clear that the view of misconduct as being simply the result of aberrant or self-delusional personalities likely underestimates the effect of other important factors and inhibits the development of effective prevention strategies.

  20. The Swedish Research Council's definition of 'scientific misconduct': a critique.

    PubMed

    Salwén, Håkan

    2015-02-01

    There is no consensus over the proper definition of 'scientific misconduct.' There are differences in opinion not only between countries but also between research institutions in the same country. This is unfortunate. Without a widely accepted definition it is difficult for scientists to adjust to new research milieux. This might hamper scientific innovation and make cooperation difficult. Furthermore, due to the potentially damaging consequences it is important to combat misconduct. But how frequent is it and what measures are efficient? Without an appropriate definition there are no interesting answers to these questions. In order to achieve a high degree of consensus and to foster research integrity, the international dialogue over the proper definition of 'scientific misconduct' must be on going. Yet, the scientific community should not end up with the definition suggested by the Swedish Research Council. The definition the council advocates does not satisfy the ordinary language condition. That is, the definition is not consistent with how 'scientific misconduct' is used by scientists. I will show that this is due to the fact that it refers to false results. I generalise this and argue that no adequate definition of 'scientific misconduct' makes such a reference.

  1. How Do Young Children Misbehave in the Grocery Store and in the School? The Preschoolers' Perspective.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Tisak, Marie S.; Tisak, John; Goldstein, Sara E.

    2001-01-01

    Assessed young children's perceptions about what misconduct behaviors peers are likely to commit at school and the grocery store. Found more moral than conventional misbehaviors were generated; moral acts were expected more often at school whereas conventional misbehaviors were expected in both contexts; and expectations of peers' misbehaviors…

  2. Using the Theory of Planned Behavior and Cheating Justifications to Predict Academic Misconduct

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Stone, Thomas H.; Jawahar, I. M.; Kisamore, Jennifer L.

    2009-01-01

    Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to show that academic misconduct appears to be on the rise; some research has linked academic misconduct to unethical workplace behaviors. Unlike previous empirically-driven research, this theory-based study seeks to examine the usefulness of a modification of Ajzen's theory of planned behavior to predict…

  3. Research misconduct: time for a re-think?

    PubMed

    Breen, K J

    2016-06-01

    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. © 2016 Royal Australasian College of Physicians.

  4. Scientific integrity in Brazil.

    PubMed

    Lins, Liliane; Carvalho, Fernando Martins

    2014-09-01

    This article focuses on scientific integrity and the identification of predisposing factors to scientific misconduct in Brazil. Brazilian scientific production has increased in the last ten years, but the quality of the articles has decreased. Pressure on researchers and students for increasing scientific production may contribute to scientific misconduct. Cases of misconduct in science have been recently denounced in the country. Brazil has important institutions for controlling ethical and safety aspects of human research, but there is a lack of specific offices to investigate suspected cases of misconduct and policies to deal with scientific dishonesty.

  5. [How to avoid research misconduct - recommendations for surgeons].

    PubMed

    Pitak-Arnnop, P; Schouman, T; Bertrand, J-C; Hervé, C

    2008-01-01

    Research misconduct is defined by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh as any behaviour by a researcher, whether intentional or not, that fails to scrupulously respect high scientific and ethical standards. Various types of research misconduct include fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism, problematic data presentation or analysis, failure to obtain ethical approval by a research ethics committee or to obtain the subject's informed consent, inappropriate claims of authorship, duplicated publication, and undisclosed conflicts of interest. These can result in patient injury, deterioration of the patient-physician relationship, loss of public trust in biomedical research, as well as pollution/degradation of the medical literature. Surgical research malfeasance has been underreported, and no practical guidelines for good research and publication have appeared to date in French surgical journals. In an attempt to uphold the scientific integrity of our profession, we discuss research misconduct and emphasise preventive measures and considerations for surgeons.

  6. [Handling of misconduct in Swedish research must be improved. More strict investigative procedures, tougher punishments and withdrawals are required].

    PubMed

    Linder, Stig

    2015-12-15

    Scientific misconduct constitutes a severe threat to research. Procedures to handle misconduct must therefore be both efficient and precise. In Sweden, suspected cases of misconduct are handled by the universities themselves. Investigations are generally performed by appointed scientists, leading to unnecessary discussions of the validity of the conclusions made. Sweden has a Central Ethical Review Board but this is infrequently used by the universities. It is an absolute requirement for a university to withdraw incorrect publications from the literature but regulations in this area are lacking in Sweden. The extraordinarily strong legal status of graduate students at Swedish universities leads to slow and costly investigations. Even when found to be guilty of misconduct, students are allowed to defend their PhD theses. In conclusion, there is a large potential for improvement of the regulations and routines for handling scientific misconduct in Sweden.

  7. 42 CFR 93.201 - Allegation.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Definitions § 93.201 Allegation. Allegation means a disclosure of possible research misconduct...

  8. 42 CFR 93.518 - Witnesses.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing...

  9. Misconduct Policies in High-Impact Biomedical Journals

    PubMed Central

    Bosch, Xavier; Hernández, Cristina; Pericas, Juan M.; Doti, Pamela; Marušić, Ana

    2012-01-01

    Background It is not clear which research misconduct policies are adopted by biomedical journals. This study assessed the prevalence and content policies of the most influential biomedical journals on misconduct and procedures for handling and responding to allegations of misconduct. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study of misconduct policies of 399 high-impact biomedical journals in 27 biomedical categories of the Journal Citation Reports in December 2011. Journal websites were reviewed for information relevant to misconduct policies. Results Of 399 journals, 140 (35.1%) provided explicit definitions of misconduct. Falsification was explicitly mentioned by 113 (28.3%) journals, fabrication by 104 (26.1%), plagiarism by 224 (56.1%), duplication by 242 (60.7%) and image manipulation by 154 (38.6%). Procedures for responding to misconduct were described in 179 (44.9%) websites, including retraction, (30.8%) and expression of concern (16.3%). Plagiarism-checking services were used by 112 (28.1%) journals. The prevalences of all types of misconduct policies were higher in journals that endorsed any policy from editors’ associations, Office of Research Integrity or professional societies compared to those that did not state adherence to these policy-producing bodies. Elsevier and Wiley-Blackwell had the most journals included (22.6% and 14.8%, respectively), with Wiley journals having greater a prevalence of misconduct definition and policies on falsification, fabrication and expression of concern and Elsevier of plagiarism-checking services. Conclusions Only a third of top-ranking peer-reviewed journals had publicly-available definitions of misconduct and less than a half described procedures for handling allegations of misconduct. As endorsement of international policies from policy-producing bodies was positively associated with implementation of policies and procedures, journals and their publishers should standardize their policies globally in order to increase public trust in the integrity of the published record in biomedicine. PMID:23284820

  10. Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals.

    PubMed

    Bosch, Xavier; Hernández, Cristina; Pericas, Juan M; Doti, Pamela; Marušić, Ana

    2012-01-01

    It is not clear which research misconduct policies are adopted by biomedical journals. This study assessed the prevalence and content policies of the most influential biomedical journals on misconduct and procedures for handling and responding to allegations of misconduct. We conducted a cross-sectional study of misconduct policies of 399 high-impact biomedical journals in 27 biomedical categories of the Journal Citation Reports in December 2011. Journal websites were reviewed for information relevant to misconduct policies. Of 399 journals, 140 (35.1%) provided explicit definitions of misconduct. Falsification was explicitly mentioned by 113 (28.3%) journals, fabrication by 104 (26.1%), plagiarism by 224 (56.1%), duplication by 242 (60.7%) and image manipulation by 154 (38.6%). Procedures for responding to misconduct were described in 179 (44.9%) websites, including retraction, (30.8%) and expression of concern (16.3%). Plagiarism-checking services were used by 112 (28.1%) journals. The prevalences of all types of misconduct policies were higher in journals that endorsed any policy from editors' associations, Office of Research Integrity or professional societies compared to those that did not state adherence to these policy-producing bodies. Elsevier and Wiley-Blackwell had the most journals included (22.6% and 14.8%, respectively), with Wiley journals having greater a prevalence of misconduct definition and policies on falsification, fabrication and expression of concern and Elsevier of plagiarism-checking services. Only a third of top-ranking peer-reviewed journals had publicly-available definitions of misconduct and less than a half described procedures for handling allegations of misconduct. As endorsement of international policies from policy-producing bodies was positively associated with implementation of policies and procedures, journals and their publishers should standardize their policies globally in order to increase public trust in the integrity of the published record in biomedicine.

  11. Investigating the Reliability and Factor Structure of Kalichman's "Survey 2: Research Misconduct" Questionnaire: A Post Hoc Analysis Among Biomedical Doctoral Students in Scandinavia.

    PubMed

    Holm, Søren; Hofmann, Bjørn

    2017-10-01

    A precondition for reducing scientific misconduct is evidence about scientists' attitudes. We need reliable survey instruments, and this study investigates the reliability of Kalichman's "Survey 2: research misconduct" questionnaire. The study is a post hoc analysis of data from three surveys among biomedical doctoral students in Scandinavia (2010-2015). We perform reliability analysis, and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis using a split-sample design as a partial validation. The results indicate that a reliable 13-item scale can be formed (Cronbach's α = .705), and factor analysis indicates that there are four reliable subscales each tapping a different construct: (a) general attitude to misconduct (α = .768), (b) attitude to personal misconduct (α = .784), (c) attitude to whistleblowing (α = .841), and (d) attitude to blameworthiness/punishment (α = .877). A full validation of the questionnaire requires further research. We, nevertheless, hope that the results will facilitate the increased use of the questionnaire in research.

  12. The characteristics of physicians disciplined by professional colleges in Canada.

    PubMed

    Alam, Asim; Klemensberg, Jason; Griesman, Joshua; Bell, Chaim M

    2011-01-01

    The identification of health care professionals who are incompetent, impaired, uncaring or have criminal intent has received increasing attention in recent years. These individuals are often subject to disciplinary action by professional licensing authorities. To date, no national data exist for Canadian physicians disciplined for professional misconduct. We sought to describe the characteristics of physicians disciplined by Canadian professional licensing authorities. We constructed a database of physicians disciplined by provincial licensing authorities during the years 2000 to 2009. Comparisons were made with the general population of physicians licensed in Canada. Data on demographic characteristics, type of misconduct and penalty imposed were collected for each disciplined physician. A total of 606 identifiable physicians were disciplined by their professional college during the years 2000 to 2009. The proportion of licensed physicians who were disciplined in a given year ranged from 0.06% to 0.11%. Fifty-one of the disciplined physicians committed 64 repeat offences, accounting for a total of 113 (19%) offences. Most of the disciplined physicians were independent practitioners (99%), male (92%) and trained in Canada (67%). The most common specialties of physicians subject to disciplinary action were family medicine (62%), psychiatry (14%) and surgery (9%). For disciplined physicians, the average number of years from medical school graduation to disciplinary action was 28.9 (standard deviation [SD] = 11.3). The 3 most frequent violations were sexual misconduct (20%), failure to meet a standard of care (19%) and unprofessional conduct (16%). The 3 most frequently imposed penalties were fines (27%), suspensions (19%) and formal reprimands (18%). A small proportion of registered physicians in Canada were disciplined by their medical licensing authorities. Sexual misconduct was the most common disciplined offence. The standardization of provincial reporting along with the creation of a national database of physician offenders would facilitate more comparable public reporting as well as further research and educational initiatives.

  13. The characteristics of physicians disciplined by professional colleges in Canada

    PubMed Central

    Alam, Asim; Klemensberg, Jason; Griesman, Joshua; Bell, Chaim M

    2011-01-01

    Background The identification of health care professionals who are incompetent, impaired, uncaring or have criminal intent has received increasing attention in recent years. These individuals are often subject to disciplinary action by professional licensing authorities. To date, no national data exist for Canadian physicians disciplined for professional misconduct. We sought to describe the characteristics of physicians disciplined by Canadian professional licensing authorities. Methods We constructed a database of physicians disciplined by provincial licensing authorities during the years 2000 to 2009. Comparisons were made with the general population of physicians licensed in Canada. Data on demographic characteristics, type of misconduct and penalty imposed were collected for each disciplined physician. Results A total of 606 identifiable physicians were disciplined by their professional college during the years 2000 to 2009. The proportion of licensed physicians who were disciplined in a given year ranged from 0.06% to 0.11%. Fifty-one of the disciplined physicians committed 64 repeat offences, accounting for a total of 113 (19%) offences. Most of the disciplined physicians were independent practitioners (99%), male (92%) and trained in Canada (67%). The most common specialties of physicians subject to disciplinary action were family medicine (62%), psychiatry (14%) and surgery (9%). For disciplined physicians, the average number of years from medical school graduation to disciplinary action was 28.9 (standard deviation [SD] = 11.3). The 3 most frequent violations were sexual misconduct (20%), failure to meet a standard of care (19%) and unprofessional conduct (16%). The 3 most frequently imposed penalties were fines (27%), suspensions (19%) and formal reprimands (18%). Interpretation A small proportion of registered physicians in Canada were disciplined by their medical licensing authorities. Sexual misconduct was the most common disciplined offence. The standardization of provincial reporting along with the creation of a national database of physician offenders would facilitate more comparable public reporting as well as further research and educational initiatives. PMID:22567070

  14. 7 CFR 3022.7 - Notification of ARIO during an inquiry or investigation.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ...-FUNDED EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 3022.7 Notification of ARIO during an inquiry or... violations of civil or criminal law. (b) If research misconduct proceedings reveal behavior that may be...

  15. Academic misconduct in nursing students: behaviors, attitudes, rationalizations, and cultural identity.

    PubMed

    McCrink, Andrea

    2010-11-01

    The purpose of this study was to gain knowledge about academic misconduct in associate degree nursing students enrolled in two nursing programs in the northeastern United States. Study respondents (n = 193) identified the frequency of engagement in behaviors of misconduct in both the classroom and clinical setting and their attitudes toward the identified behaviors of misconduct, neutralization behaviors, ethical standards of the nursing profession, and the ethic of caring within the nursing profession. Findings were consistent with previous research on academic misconduct in baccalaureate nursing students. Analysis of self-reported cultural identities refuted the prevailing literature on academic misconduct across differing cultures and nations. Copyright 2010, SLACK Incorporated.

  16. Writing a Scientific Paper III. Ethical Aspects

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Sterken, C.

    2011-07-01

    The main theme of this paper is truthful communication of scientific results. Therefore, concepts of truth, error, quality and value are elaborated. The following bibliometric parameters are explained: the journal impact factor, the journal cited half-life, and the journal immediacy index, as well as paper counts, citation rates, citation index and the Hirsch index. These bibliometric indices and indicators are illustrated with examples derived from bibliometric analyses of the astronomical literature. Scientific misconduct in the broadest sense is discussed by category: researcher misconduct, author misconduct, referee and grant-reviewer misconduct. But also publisher misconduct, editorial misconduct and mismanagement, and research supervisor misbehavior are dealt with. The overall signatures of scientific misconduct are focused on, as well as the causes and the cures. This is followed by a Section devoted to whistleblowing. The biases of bibliometric indices, and the use and abuse of bibliometrics are illustrated. Moreover, suggestions for remediating the present defective system of bibliometric measurement and evaluation are worked out. Finally, the hopes and concerns of our students - either expressed during or after the lectures, or through subsequent private contacts - are passed on.

  17. 42 CFR 93.509 - Computation of time.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... EFFECTS STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing...

  18. How Should Journal Editors Respond to Cases of Suspected Misconduct?

    PubMed Central

    Wager, Elizabeth

    2014-01-01

    Journals and institutions have important complementary roles to play in cases of suspected research and publication misconduct. Journals should take responsibility for everything they publish and should alert institutions to cases of possible serious misconduct but should not attempt to investigate such cases. Institutions should take responsibility for their researchers and for investigating cases of possible misconduct and for ensuring journals are informed if they have published unreliable or misleading articles so that these can be retracted or corrected. Journals and institutions should have policies in place for handling such cases and these policies should respect their different roles. PMID:25574266

  19. Incarceration, restitution, and lifetime debarment: legal consequences of scientific misconduct in the Eric Poehlman case: Commentary on: "Scientific forensics: how the office of research integrity can assist institutional investigations of research misconduct during oversight review".

    PubMed

    Tilden, Samuel J

    2010-12-01

    Following its determination of a finding of scientific misconduct the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) will seek redress for any injury sustained. Several remedies both administrative and statutory may be available depending on the strength of the evidentiary findings of the misconduct investigation. Pursuant to federal regulations administrative remedies are primarily remedial in nature and designed to protect the integrity of the affected research program, whereas statutory remedies including civil fines and criminal penalties are designed to deter and punish wrongdoers. This commentary discusses the available administrative and statutory remedies in the context of a specific case, that of former University of Vermont nutrition researcher Eric Poehlman, and supplies a possible rationale for the legal result.

  20. 42 CFR 93.505 - Rights of the parties.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... EFFECTS STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing...

  1. 42 CFR 93.507 - Ex parte communications.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing Process § 93.507 Ex parte communications. (a) No party, attorney, or other party...

  2. 76 FR 47589 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2011-08-05

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Sheng Wang, PhD, Boston University School of Medicine Cancer Research Center: Based on the Respondent's acceptance of ORI's research...

  3. 45 CFR 689.3 - Actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 689.3... period that an institutional official other than those guilty of misconduct certify the accuracy of... individual or institution to ensure that steps have been taken to prevent repetition of the misconduct. (iii...

  4. 45 CFR 689.3 - Actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 689.3... period that an institutional official other than those guilty of misconduct certify the accuracy of... individual or institution to ensure that steps have been taken to prevent repetition of the misconduct. (iii...

  5. 45 CFR 689.3 - Actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 689.3... period that an institutional official other than those guilty of misconduct certify the accuracy of... individual or institution to ensure that steps have been taken to prevent repetition of the misconduct. (iii...

  6. Perspective: research misconduct: the search for a remedy.

    PubMed

    Kornfeld, Donald S

    2012-07-01

    Research misconduct-fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism-is an insidious problem in the scientific community today with the capacity to harm science, scientists, and the public. Federal agencies require that research trainees complete a course designed to deter such behavior, but the author could find no evidence to suggest that this effort has been effective. In fact, research shows that most cases of misconduct continue to go unreported.The author conducted a detailed examination of 146 individual Office of Research Integrity reports from 1992 to 2003 and determined that these acts of misconduct were the results of individual psychological traits and the circumstances in which the researchers found themselves. Therefore, a course in research misconduct, such as is now federally mandated, should not be expected to have a significant effect. However, a course developed specifically for support staff, who currently do not receive such training, might prove effective.Improving the quality of mentoring is essential to meaningfully deal with this issue. Therefore, the quality of mentorship should be a factor in the evaluation of training grants for funding. In addition, mentors should share responsibility for their trainees' published work. The whistleblower can also play a significant role in this effort. However, the potential whistleblower is deterred by a realistic fear of retaliation. Therefore, institutions must establish policies that acknowledge the whistleblower's contribution to the integrity of science and provide truly effective protection from retaliation. An increase in whistleblowing activity would provide greater, earlier exposure of misconduct and serve as a deterrent.

  7. 77 FR 46438 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2012-08-03

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Mepur H. Ravindranath, Ph.D., John... H. Ravindranath, former Director of the Laboratory of Glycoimmunotheraphy, JWCI, engaged in research...

  8. 75 FR 18837 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2010-04-13

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) and the Assistant Secretary for Health have taken final action in the following... Boris Cheskis, Ph.D., former senior scientist, Discovery Research, Women's Health, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals...

  9. 42 CFR 93.101 - Purpose.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES HEALTH ASSESSMENTS AND HEALTH EFFECTS STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT General... Office of Research Integrity (ORI), and institutions in responding to research misconduct issues; (b...

  10. 42 CFR 93.101 - Purpose.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES HEALTH ASSESSMENTS AND HEALTH EFFECTS STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT General... Office of Research Integrity (ORI), and institutions in responding to research misconduct issues; (b...

  11. 75 FR 73084 - Findings of Misconduct in Science

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2010-11-29

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Misconduct in Science..., former graduate student, Department of Chemistry, CU, engaged in misconduct in science in research funded by National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant...

  12. 7 CFR 3022.10 - Reporting to USDA.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... MISCONDUCT § 3022.10 Reporting to USDA. Following completion of an investigation into allegations of research misconduct, the institution conducting extramural research must provide to the ARIO a copy of the evidentiary...

  13. 42 CFR 93.522 - Filing post-hearing briefs.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing Process § 93.522 Filing post-hearing briefs. (a) After the hearing and under a schedule...

  14. 42 CFR 93.522 - Filing post-hearing briefs.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing Process § 93.522 Filing post-hearing briefs. (a) After the hearing and under a schedule...

  15. Responsible science: Ensuring the integrity of the research process, volume 1

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    This report thoughtfully examines the challenges posed in ensuring that the search for truth reflects adherence to ethical standards. In recent years, we have learned, sometimes painfully, that not all scientists adhere to this obligation. Reports of falsified research results and plagiarism involving both junior and senior scientists have stimulated doubts and criticism about the ways in which misconduct in science is addressed by the research community. Misconduct in science is now being publicly examined in all of its aspects; how misconduct is defined, the process by which misconduct is discovered, and procedures for judging innocence or guilt and assessing penalties. Also being explored are the appropriate roles of individuals, research institutions, journals, government research agencies, and the legal system. Issues of misconduct and integrity in science present complex questions. These issues require the sustained attention of all members of the research community as well as of leaders in the public and private sector who are concerned with safeguarding the health of science. In this regard ensuring the integrity of the research process is similar to assuring safety in the workplace: it is a process that requires continued participation from all levels of the entire research enterprise--the practitioners, the host institutions, the sponsors in government, and the legislators who provide the funds.

  16. 77 FR 125 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2012-01-03

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Mahesh Visvanathan, Ph.D., Kansas... additional analysis conducted by ORI in its oversight review, ORI found that Dr. Mahesh Visvanathan, Research...

  17. 76 FR 23599 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2011-04-27

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Vipul Bhrigu, PhD, University of... School (UMMS) and additional analysis conducted by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) during its...

  18. 77 FR 5254 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2012-02-02

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Calleen S. Zach, Creighton... Office of Research Integrity (ORI) during its oversight review, ORI found that Ms. Calleen S. Zach...

  19. 77 FR 69627 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2012-11-20

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Eric J. Smart, Ph.D., University of... Professor of Pediatrics and Physiology, Department of Pediatrics and Physiology, UK, engaged in research...

  20. 76 FR 61361 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2011-10-04

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Scott Weber, Ed.D., MSN, University of Pittsburgh: Based on the letters from the Research Integrity Officer at the University of...

  1. 78 FR 72892 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2013-12-04

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Timothy Sheehy, B.A., BSc., SAIC-Frederick, Inc. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David E. Wright, Ph.D., Director, Office of Research...

  2. 42 CFR 93.521 - Correction of the transcript.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing Process § 93.521 Correction of the transcript. (a) At any time, but not later than the...

  3. 42 CFR 93.513 - Submission of witness lists, witness statements, and exhibits.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing Process § 93.513 Submission of witness lists...

  4. 42 CFR 93.513 - Submission of witness lists, witness statements, and exhibits.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing Process § 93.513 Submission of witness lists...

  5. 77 FR 51954 - Privacy Act; Implementation

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2012-08-28

    ... Misconduct Proceedings, HHS/NIH.'' HHS is exempting this system of records from certain requirements of the Privacy Act to protect the integrity of NIH research misconduct proceedings and to protect the identity of... Misconduct Proceedings'' (09- 25-0223). This system of records is part of NIH's implementation of its...

  6. 75 FR 77641 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2010-12-13

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Sagar S. Mungekar, PhD, New York... University School of Medicine (NYUSOM) and the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) found that Sagar S...

  7. 42 CFR 93.108 - Confidentiality.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... EFFECTS STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH... in research misconduct proceedings is limited, to the extent possible, to those who need to know, consistent with a thorough, competent, objective and fair research misconduct proceeding, and as allowed by...

  8. 42 CFR 93.210 - Good faith.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH... allegation or cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding is not in good faith if made with knowing or... a committee member means cooperating with the research misconduct proceeding by carrying out the...

  9. 42 CFR 93.210 - Good faith.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH... allegation or cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding is not in good faith if made with knowing or... a committee member means cooperating with the research misconduct proceeding by carrying out the...

  10. 42 CFR 93.108 - Confidentiality.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... EFFECTS STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH... in research misconduct proceedings is limited, to the extent possible, to those who need to know, consistent with a thorough, competent, objective and fair research misconduct proceeding, and as allowed by...

  11. 42 CFR 93.520 - The record.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing... at any time. (d) The DAB may return original research records and other similar items to the parties...

  12. 42 CFR 93.520 - The record.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing... at any time. (d) The DAB may return original research records and other similar items to the parties...

  13. Teacher Sexual Misconduct: Grooming Patterns and Female Offenders

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Knoll, James

    2010-01-01

    Educator sexual misconduct has received increasing attention over the past decade. The attention has exposed a number of concerning issues, including a lack of formal research in the area and difficulties in recognizing and prosecuting cases. Public responses to high profile cases of sexual misconduct involving female teachers suggest that…

  14. 14 CFR 1275.104 - Conduct of Inquiry by the OIG.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... Section 1275.104 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT... policies. (c) When alleged misconduct may involve a crime, the OIG shall determine whether any criminal..., documents and files maintained by the OIG during the course of an inquiry or investigation of misconduct...

  15. 14 CFR 1275.104 - Conduct of Inquiry by the OIG.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... Section 1275.104 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT... policies. (c) When alleged misconduct may involve a crime, the OIG shall determine whether any criminal..., documents and files maintained by the OIG during the course of an inquiry or investigation of misconduct...

  16. 14 CFR 1275.104 - Conduct of Inquiry by the OIG.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... Section 1275.104 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT... policies. (c) When alleged misconduct may involve a crime, the OIG shall determine whether any criminal..., documents and files maintained by the OIG during the course of an inquiry or investigation of misconduct...

  17. 14 CFR 1275.104 - Conduct of Inquiry by the OIG.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... Section 1275.104 Aeronautics and Space NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT... policies. (c) When alleged misconduct may involve a crime, the OIG shall determine whether any criminal..., documents and files maintained by the OIG during the course of an inquiry or investigation of misconduct...

  18. Seeking an international dialogue on research integrity.

    PubMed

    Aschwanden, Christie

    2007-10-05

    Scientific misconduct is a global problem, yet protocols for addressing it remain highly fragmented and uneven. A conference held last month in Lisbon aimed to encourage international efforts to promote research integrity and to prevent misconduct.

  19. Disciplinary responses to misconduct among female prison inmates with mental illness, substance use disorders, and co-occurring disorders.

    PubMed

    Houser, Kimberly; Belenko, Steven

    2015-03-01

    Most female inmates have mental health, substance use, or co-occurring disorders (CODs), which can create greater difficulty adjusting to incarceration and higher rates of prison misconduct. The response of prison officials to institutional misbehaviors has important implications for female inmates' experiences while incarcerated, their likelihood of parole, and the clinical course of their condition. This article examined whether disciplinary actions are more severe for women with CODs. Data were provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections for all female state prison inmates incarcerated between January 1, 2007, and July 30, 2009 (N = 2,279). The final sample of 211 women included those who had committed a minor misconduct during their incarceration. Disorder categories were created based on intake assessments, and multivariate models were estimated to determine the effect of disorder category on whether the prison imposed a severe or minor disciplinary response to the misconduct. The odds of receiving severe disciplinary responses to minor misconduct was significantly greater for women with CODs than those with the singular disorders of mental illness or substance abuse disorders, or those with no disorders. Findings suggest correctional institutions are responding in a punitive manner to the symptomatic manifestations of CODs in female inmates. These findings suggest the importance of screening instruments in correctional settings that assess for the presence of dual disorders. In addition, correctional administrators must implement training protocols for correctional officers and staff on the complexity of CODs and the ability to identify behavioral and emotional symptoms associated with this vulnerable subset of the offender population. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).

  20. 75 FR 49357 - United States Department of Agriculture Research Misconduct Regulations for Extramural Research

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2010-08-13

    ... DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Chief Financial Officer 7 CFR Part 3022 RIN 0524-AA34 United States Department of Agriculture Research Misconduct Regulations for Extramural Research AGENCY... Financial Officer (OCFO) is establishing U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulations implementing the...

  1. 77 FR 32116 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2012-05-31

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Juan Ma, Ph.D., Brigham and Women's... gathered by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) during its oversight review, ORI found that Dr. Juan Ma...

  2. 78 FR 77467 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2013-12-23

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Dong-Pyou Han, Ph.D., Iowa State... conducted by ORI, ORI and ISU found that Dr. Dong-Pyou Han, former Research Assistant Professor, Department...

  3. 76 FR 23600 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2011-04-27

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Junghee J. Shin, PhD, New York... additional analysis by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in its oversight review, the U.S. Public Health...

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

    PubMed

    Schulz, William G

    2015-01-01

    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.

  5. Ethical conduct for research : a code of scientific ethics

    Treesearch

    Marcia Patton-Mallory; Kathleen Franzreb; Charles Carll; Richard Cline

    2000-01-01

    The USDA Forest Service recently developed and adopted a code of ethical conduct for scientific research and development. The code addresses issues related to research misconduct, such as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting research results, as well as issues related to professional misconduct, such...

  6. Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity.

    PubMed

    Fanelli, Daniele; Costas, Rodrigo; Larivière, Vincent

    2015-01-01

    The honesty and integrity of scientists is widely believed to be threatened by pressures to publish, unsupportive research environments, and other structural, sociological and psychological factors. Belief in the importance of these factors has inspired major policy initiatives, but evidence to support them is either non-existent or derived from self-reports and other sources that have known limitations. We used a retrospective study design to verify whether risk factors for scientific misconduct could predict the occurrence of retractions, which are usually the consequence of research misconduct, or corrections, which are honest rectifications of minor mistakes. Bibliographic and personal information were collected on all co-authors of papers that have been retracted or corrected in 2010-2011 (N=611 and N=2226 papers, respectively) and authors of control papers matched by journal and issue (N=1181 and N=4285 papers, respectively), and were analysed with conditional logistic regression. Results, which avoided several limitations of past studies and are robust to different sampling strategies, support the notion that scientific misconduct is more likely in countries that lack research integrity policies, in countries where individual publication performance is rewarded with cash, in cultures and situations were mutual criticism is hampered, and in the earliest phases of a researcher's career. The hypothesis that males might be prone to scientific misconduct was not supported, and the widespread belief that pressures to publish are a major driver of misconduct was largely contradicted: high-impact and productive researchers, and those working in countries in which pressures to publish are believed to be higher, are less-likely to produce retracted papers, and more likely to correct them. Efforts to reduce and prevent misconduct, therefore, might be most effective if focused on promoting research integrity policies, improving mentoring and training, and encouraging transparent communication amongst researchers.

  7. 42 CFR 93.106 - Evidentiary standards.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... EFFECTS STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH... under this part. (a) Standard of proof. An institutional or HHS finding of research misconduct must be... of proof for making a finding of research misconduct. The destruction, absence of, or respondent's...

  8. 42 CFR 93.106 - Evidentiary standards.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... EFFECTS STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH... under this part. (a) Standard of proof. An institutional or HHS finding of research misconduct must be... of proof for making a finding of research misconduct. The destruction, absence of, or respondent's...

  9. 76 FR 63621 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2011-10-13

    ... Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Nicola Solomon, Ph.D., University of... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct... (UMMS) and a preliminary analysis conducted by ORI, ORI found that Dr. Nicola Solomon, former...

  10. Research Misconduct in National Science Foundation Funded Research: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of 2007-2011 Research Awards

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Masters, Elizabeth A.

    2013-01-01

    Research is an important aspect of academic institutions as it brings funding, reputation, and other benefits to the associated establishment. Research misconduct in the form of plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification can occur in association with research, along with subsequent penalties. The problem of the poorly established prevalence of the…

  11. Peer Groups as a Context for School Misconduct: The Moderating Role of Group Interactional Style.

    PubMed

    Ellis, Wendy; Zarbatany, Lynne; Chen, Xinyin; Kinal, Megan; Boyko, Lisa

    2018-01-01

    Peer group interactional style was examined as a moderator of the relation between peer group school misconduct and group members' school misconduct. Participants were 705 students (M age  = 11.59 years, SD = 1.37) in 148 peer groups. Children reported on their school misconduct in fall and spring. In the winter, group members were observed in a limited-resource task and a group conversation task, and negative and positive group interactional styles were assessed. Multilevel modeling indicated that membership in groups that were higher on school misconduct predicted greater school misconduct only when the groups were high on negative or low on positive interactional style. Results suggest that negative laughter and a coercive interactional style may intensify group effects on children's misconduct. © 2017 The Authors. Child Development © 2017 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.

  12. AGU's new task force on scientific ethics and integrity begins work

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Gleick, Peter; Townsend, Randy

    2011-11-01

    In support of the new strategic plan, AGU has established a new task force to review, evaluate, and update the Union's policies on scientific misconduct and the process for investigating and responding to allegations of possible misconduct by AGU members. As noted by AGU president Michael McPhaden, "AGU can only realize its vision of `collaboratively advancing and communicating science and its power to ensure a sustainable future' if we have the trust of the public and policy makers. That trust is earned by maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity in all that we do. The work of the Task Force on Scientific Ethics is essential for defining norms of professional conduct that all our members can aspire to and that demonstrate AGU's unwavering commitment to excellence in Earth and space science."

  13. Comparison of Academic Misconduct across Disciplines--Faculty and Student Perspectives

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Khalid, Adeel

    2015-01-01

    Academic misconduct by students in higher education is a fact and is a challenge to the integrity of higher education and its reputation. Furthermore such misconduct is counterproductive to the ethics component of higher education. The purpose of this research is to explore, investigate and compile the anecdotal accounts of academic misconduct…

  14. Assessing Graduate Education Students' Propensity toward Academic Misconduct.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Ferrell, Charlotte M.; Ferguson, William F.

    Researchers have often noted the desirability of investigating the incidence of academic misconduct of college students who will be in employment fields requiring a high level of competence and/or a high level of personal integrity, such as elementary school and secondary school teachers. The Academic Misconduct Survey (AMS) developed by Charlotte…

  15. 42 CFR 93.100 - General policy.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT General § 93.100 General policy. (a) Research misconduct involving PHS support is contrary to the... of research, and to the conservation of public funds. (b) The U.S. Department of Health and Human...

  16. 42 CFR 93.100 - General policy.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT General § 93.100 General policy. (a) Research misconduct involving PHS support is contrary to the... of research, and to the conservation of public funds. (b) The U.S. Department of Health and Human...

  17. 42 CFR 93.25 - Organization of this part.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 93.25 Organization of this part. This part is subdivided into five subparts. Each subpart contains information related to a broad topic or specific audience with special responsibilities... Research Integrity. E Information on how to contest ORI research misconduct findings and HHS administrative...

  18. 42 CFR 93.25 - Organization of this part.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 93.25 Organization of this part. This part is subdivided into five subparts. Each subpart contains information related to a broad topic or specific audience with special responsibilities... Research Integrity. E Information on how to contest ORI research misconduct findings and HHS administrative...

  19. 42 CFR 93.25 - Organization of this part.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 93.25 Organization of this part. This part is subdivided into five subparts. Each subpart contains information related to a broad topic or specific audience with special responsibilities... Research Integrity. E Information on how to contest ORI research misconduct findings and HHS administrative...

  20. 42 CFR 93.25 - Organization of this part.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 93.25 Organization of this part. This part is subdivided into five subparts. Each subpart contains information related to a broad topic or specific audience with special responsibilities... Research Integrity. E Information on how to contest ORI research misconduct findings and HHS administrative...

  1. Research Integrity/Misconduct Policies of Canadian Universities

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Schoenherr, Jordan; Williams-Jones, Bryn

    2011-01-01

    In a context of increasing attention to issues of scientific integrity in university research, it is important to reflect on the governance mechanisms that universities use to shape the behaviour of students, researchers, and faculty. This paper presents the results of a study of 47 Canadian university research integrity/misconduct (RIM) policies:…

  2. The Quest for Clarity in Research Integrity: A Conceptual Schema.

    PubMed

    Shaw, David

    2018-03-28

    Researchers often refer to "research integrity", "scientific integrity", "research misconduct", "scientific misconduct" and "research ethics". However, they may use some of these terms interchangeably despite conceptual distinctions. The aim of this paper is to clarify what is signified by several key terms related to research integrity, and to suggest clearer conceptual delineation between them. To accomplish this task, it provides a conceptual analysis based upon definitions and general usage of these phrases and categorization of integrity-breaching behaviours in literature and guidelines, including clarification of the different domains and agents involved. In the first part of the analysis, following some initial clarifications, I explore the distinction between internal and external rules of integrity. In the second part, I explore the distinction between integrity and lack of misconduct, before suggesting a recategorisation of different types of integrity breach. I conclude that greater clarity is needed in the debate on research integrity. Distinguishing between scientific and research integrity, reassessing the relative gravity of different misbehaviours in light of this distinction, and recognising all intentional breaches of integrity as misconduct may help to improve guidelines and education.

  3. Household food insecurity during childhood and adolescent misconduct.

    PubMed

    Jackson, Dylan B; Vaughn, Michael G

    2017-03-01

    A large body of research has found that household food insecurity can interfere with the healthy development of children. The link between household food insecurity during childhood and misbehaviors during adolescence, however, is not commonly explored. The objective of the current study is to assess whether household food insecurity across childhood predicts four different forms of misconduct during early adolescence. Data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999 (ECLS-K), a nationally representative sample of U.S. children, were employed in the present study. Associations between household food insecurity during childhood and adolescent misconduct were examined using Logistic and Negative Binomial Regression. Analyses were performed separately for males and females. The results revealed that household food insecurity and food insecurity persistence were predictive of most forms of misconduct for males, and were consistently predictive of engagement in multiple forms of misconduct and a greater variety of forms of misconduct for males. For females, however, household food insecurity generally failed to predict adolescent misconduct. The behavioral development of males during adolescence appears to be sensitive to the presence and persistence of household food insecurity during childhood. Future research should seek to replicate and extend the present findings to late adolescence and adulthood. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  4. Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity

    PubMed Central

    Fanelli, Daniele; Costas, Rodrigo; Larivière, Vincent

    2015-01-01

    The honesty and integrity of scientists is widely believed to be threatened by pressures to publish, unsupportive research environments, and other structural, sociological and psychological factors. Belief in the importance of these factors has inspired major policy initiatives, but evidence to support them is either non-existent or derived from self-reports and other sources that have known limitations. We used a retrospective study design to verify whether risk factors for scientific misconduct could predict the occurrence of retractions, which are usually the consequence of research misconduct, or corrections, which are honest rectifications of minor mistakes. Bibliographic and personal information were collected on all co-authors of papers that have been retracted or corrected in 2010-2011 (N=611 and N=2226 papers, respectively) and authors of control papers matched by journal and issue (N=1181 and N=4285 papers, respectively), and were analysed with conditional logistic regression. Results, which avoided several limitations of past studies and are robust to different sampling strategies, support the notion that scientific misconduct is more likely in countries that lack research integrity policies, in countries where individual publication performance is rewarded with cash, in cultures and situations were mutual criticism is hampered, and in the earliest phases of a researcher’s career. The hypothesis that males might be prone to scientific misconduct was not supported, and the widespread belief that pressures to publish are a major driver of misconduct was largely contradicted: high-impact and productive researchers, and those working in countries in which pressures to publish are believed to be higher, are less-likely to produce retracted papers, and more likely to correct them. Efforts to reduce and prevent misconduct, therefore, might be most effective if focused on promoting research integrity policies, improving mentoring and training, and encouraging transparent communication amongst researchers. PMID:26083381

  5. Scientific dishonesty—a nationwide survey of doctoral students in Norway

    PubMed Central

    2013-01-01

    Background The knowledge of scientific dishonesty is scarce and heterogeneous. Therefore this study investigates the experiences with and the attitudes towards various forms of scientific dishonesty among PhD-students at the medical faculties of all Norwegian universities. Method Anonymous questionnaire distributed to all post graduate students attending introductory PhD-courses at all medical faculties in Norway in 2010/2011. Descriptive statistics. Results 189 of 262 questionnaires were returned (72.1%). 65% of the respondents had not, during the last year, heard or read about researchers who committed scientific dishonesty. One respondent had experienced pressure to fabricate and to falsify data, and one had experienced pressure to plagiarize data. On average 60% of the respondents were uncertain whether their department had a written policy concerning scientific conduct. About 11% of the respondents had experienced unethical pressure concerning the order of authors during the last 12 months. 10% did not find it inappropriate to report experimental data without having conducted the experiment and 38% did not find it inappropriate to try a variety of different methods of analysis to find a statistically significant result. 13% agreed that it is acceptable to selectively omit contradictory results to expedite publication and 10% found it acceptable to falsify or fabricate data to expedite publication, if they were confident of their findings. 79% agreed that they would be willing to report misconduct to a responsible official. Conclusion Although there is less scientific dishonesty reported in Norway than in other countries, dishonesty is not unknown to doctoral students. Some forms of scientific misconduct are considered to be acceptable by a significant minority. There was little awareness of relevant policies for scientific conduct, but a high level of willingness to report misconduct. PMID:23289954

  6. 10 CFR 733.2 - Scope.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Scope. 733.2 Section 733.2 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.2 Scope. This part applies to allegations of research misconduct with regard to scientific research conducted under a Department of Energy contract or an agreement. ...

  7. 10 CFR 733.2 - Scope.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Scope. 733.2 Section 733.2 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.2 Scope. This part applies to allegations of research misconduct with regard to scientific research conducted under a Department of Energy contract or an agreement. ...

  8. 10 CFR 733.2 - Scope.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Scope. 733.2 Section 733.2 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.2 Scope. This part applies to allegations of research misconduct with regard to scientific research conducted under a Department of Energy contract or an agreement. ...

  9. 10 CFR 733.2 - Scope.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Scope. 733.2 Section 733.2 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.2 Scope. This part applies to allegations of research misconduct with regard to scientific research conducted under a Department of Energy contract or an agreement. ...

  10. 10 CFR 733.2 - Scope.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Scope. 733.2 Section 733.2 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.2 Scope. This part applies to allegations of research misconduct with regard to scientific research conducted under a Department of Energy contract or an agreement. ...

  11. Raising suspicions with the Food and Drug Administration: detecting misconduct.

    PubMed

    Hamrell, Michael R

    2010-12-01

    The clinical Bioresearch Monitoring (BIMO) oversight program of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) assesses the quality and integrity of data submitted to the FDA for new product approvals and human subjects protection during clinical studies. A comprehensive program of on-site inspections and data verification, the BIMO program routinely performs random inspections to verify studies submitted to the FDA to support a marketing application. On occasion the FDA will conduct a directed inspection of a specific site or study to look for problems that may have previously been identified. The inspection of a clinical study sometimes uncovers evidence of research fraud or misconduct and it must be decided how to deal with the investigator and the suspect data. The prevention of [or] decreasing the incidence of fraud and misconduct through monitoring by the sponsor is one way to manage compliance issues and can help prevent misconduct. A training program is another way to manage compliance issues in clinical research. While training does not guarantee quality, it does help to ensure that all individuals involved understand the rules and the consequences of research misconduct.

  12. 10 CFR 600.31 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate... adjudicating official, and the adjudicating official's decision and notification of any corrective action taken... of research misconduct; and that it will comply with its own administrative process and the...

  13. Promoting Ethics and Integrity in Management Academic Research: Retraction Initiative.

    PubMed

    Ayodele, Freida Ozavize; Yao, Liu; Haron, Hasnah

    2018-02-13

    In the management academic research, academic advancement, job security, and the securing of research funds at one's university are judged mainly by one's output of publications in high impact journals. With bogus resumes filled with published journal articles, universities and other allied institutions are keen to recruit or sustain the appointment of such academics. This often places undue pressure on aspiring academics and on those already recruited to engage in research misconduct which often leads to research integrity. This structured review focuses on the ethics and integrity of management research through an analysis of retracted articles published from 2005 to 2016. The study employs a structured literature review methodology whereby retracted articles published between 2005 and 2016 in the field of management science were found using Crossref and Google Scholar. The searched articles were then streamlined by selecting articles based on their relevance and content in accordance with the inclusion criteria. Based on the analysed retracted articles, the study shows evidence of ethical misconduct among researchers of management science. Such misconduct includes data falsification, the duplication of submitted articles, plagiarism, data irregularity and incomplete citation practices. Interestingly, the analysed results indicate that the field of knowledge management includes the highest number of retracted articles, with plagiarism constituting the most significant ethical issue. Furthermore, the findings of this study show that ethical misconduct is not restricted to a particular geographic location; it occurs in numerous countries. In turn, avenues of further study on research misconduct in management research are proposed.

  14. 42 CFR 93.211 - Hearing.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES HEALTH ASSESSMENTS AND HEALTH EFFECTS STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Definitions § 93.211 Hearing. Hearing means that part of the research misconduct proceeding from the time a...

  15. 42 CFR 93.508 - Filing, forms, and service.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... HEALTH EFFECTS STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative... nondocumentary materials such as videotapes, computer disks, or physical evidence. This provision does not apply...

  16. 42 CFR 93.508 - Filing, forms, and service.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... HEALTH EFFECTS STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative... nondocumentary materials such as videotapes, computer disks, or physical evidence. This provision does not apply...

  17. 42 CFR 93.508 - Filing, forms, and service.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... HEALTH EFFECTS STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative... nondocumentary materials such as videotapes, computer disks, or physical evidence. This provision does not apply...

  18. 42 CFR 93.508 - Filing, forms, and service.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... HEALTH EFFECTS STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative... nondocumentary materials such as videotapes, computer disks, or physical evidence. This provision does not apply...

  19. 42 CFR 93.508 - Filing, forms, and service.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... HEALTH EFFECTS STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative... nondocumentary materials such as videotapes, computer disks, or physical evidence. This provision does not apply...

  20. 42 CFR 93.519 - Admissibility of evidence.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing Process § 93.519 Admissibility of evidence. (a) The ALJ decides the admissibility of... of Witness). (i) Evidence about offers of compromise or settlement made in this action is...

  1. 42 CFR 93.519 - Admissibility of evidence.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing Process § 93.519 Admissibility of evidence. (a) The ALJ decides the admissibility of... of Witness). (i) Evidence about offers of compromise or settlement made in this action is...

  2. Research Misconduct: A Report from a Developing Country.

    PubMed

    Khadem-Rezaiyan, Majid; Dadgarmoghaddam, Maliheh

    2017-10-01

    Cheating rate is rising and engages newer methods. This study performed to estimate the rate of research misconduct in the thesis of undergraduate and postgraduate medical students in 2015. In this cross sectional study, all undergraduate and postgraduate medical students graduated during the study period in 2015, from the School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran were asked to fill a small checklist anonymously. It consisted of two demographic questions and two other ones for estimation of research misconduct. All three major types of research misconduct were explained in the checklist. We used the Randomized Response Technique for sensitive question in this survey. We asked the respondent to choose one question randomly and answer to it. The probability of selection of each question was equal. There were 149 filled questionnaires out of which 44 (31%) were graduated for General Practitioner, 63 (44%) for Residency, 31(21%) for Master Degree and 6 (4%) for Ph.D. Fifty-two percent (75) were male. More than half of participants were graduated between 2011 and 2012. The majority of participants were native (104, 81%). Undergraduate students had an estimation of 19% research misconduct in performing the thesis while this was 26% of postgraduate students. Males were nearly two times comparing to females in this issue (30% vs. 16%). This high estimation must be considered in future policy making about observing strictly on researches.

  3. 10 CFR 733.5 - Allegations received by DOE.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Allegations received by DOE. 733.5 Section 733.5 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.5 Allegations received by DOE. If DOE receives directly a written allegation of research misconduct with regard to research under a DOE contract or...

  4. 10 CFR 733.5 - Allegations received by DOE.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Allegations received by DOE. 733.5 Section 733.5 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.5 Allegations received by DOE. If DOE receives directly a written allegation of research misconduct with regard to research under a DOE contract or...

  5. 10 CFR 733.5 - Allegations received by DOE.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Allegations received by DOE. 733.5 Section 733.5 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.5 Allegations received by DOE. If DOE receives directly a written allegation of research misconduct with regard to research under a DOE contract or...

  6. 10 CFR 733.5 - Allegations received by DOE.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Allegations received by DOE. 733.5 Section 733.5 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.5 Allegations received by DOE. If DOE receives directly a written allegation of research misconduct with regard to research under a DOE contract or...

  7. 10 CFR 733.5 - Allegations received by DOE.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Allegations received by DOE. 733.5 Section 733.5 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.5 Allegations received by DOE. If DOE receives directly a written allegation of research misconduct with regard to research under a DOE contract or...

  8. 77 FR 124 - Findings of Research Misconduct

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2012-01-03

    ... of Cell and Developmental Biology, SUNY US, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by... application R01 GM047607- 18A1, in a manuscript submitted for publication to the Journal of Cell Biology, and... Figure 1A in a manuscript submitted for publication to the Journal of Cell Biology, by altering...

  9. 48 CFR 952.235-71 - Research misconduct.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... organizationally from the element which conducted the investigation. The adjudication must include a review of the... the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate... allegations of research misconduct; and that it will comply with its own administrative process and the...

  10. 42 CFR 93.226 - Retaliation.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Definitions § 93.226 Retaliation. Retaliation for the purpose of this part means an adverse action... response to— (a) A good faith allegation of research misconduct; or (b) Good faith cooperation with a...

  11. 42 CFR 93.226 - Retaliation.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Definitions § 93.226 Retaliation. Retaliation for the purpose of this part means an adverse action... response to— (a) A good faith allegation of research misconduct; or (b) Good faith cooperation with a...

  12. RESEARCH MISCONDUCT POLICIES OF SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS

    PubMed Central

    RESNIK, DAVID B.; PEDDADA, SHYAMAL; BRUNSON, WINNON

    2014-01-01

    The purpose of this study was to gather information on the misconduct policies of scientific journals. We contacted editors from a random sample of 399 journals drawn from the ISI Web of Knowledge database. We received 197 responses (49.4% response rate): 54.8% had a policy, and 47.7% had a formal (written) policy; 28.9% had a policy that only outlined procedures for handling misconduct, 15.7% had a policy that only defined misconduct, 10.2% had a policy that included both a definition and procedures; 26.9% of journals had a policy that was generated by the publisher, 13.2% had a policy that was generated by the journal, and 14.7% had a policy that was generated by another source, such as a professional association. We analyzed the relationship between having a policy and impact factor, field of science, publishing house, and nationality. Impact factor was the only variable with a statistically significant association with having a policy. Impact factor was slightly positively associated with whether or not the publisher had a policy, with an odds ratio of 1.49 (P < .0004) per 10 units increase in the impact factor, with a 95% confidence interval (1.20, 1.88). Our research indicates that more than half of scientific journals have developed misconduct policies, but that most of these policies do not define research misconduct and most of these policies were not generated by the journal. PMID:19757231

  13. No One Likes a Snitch.

    PubMed

    Redman, Barbara; Caplan, Arthur

    2015-08-01

    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.

  14. Ethics of research for patients in pain.

    PubMed

    Waisel, David B

    2017-04-01

    This review describes advances in rising and continuing ethical issues in research in patients in pain. Although some of the issues focus directly on pain research, such as research in neonatal pain management, others focus on widespread ethical issues that are relevant to pain research, such as scientific misconduct, deception, placebo use and genomics. Scientific misconduct is more widespread than realized and requires greater awareness of the markers of misconduct like irreproducibility. More education about what qualifies as misconduct, such as consent violations, plagiarism and inappropriate patient recruitment along with data falsification needs to be implemented. Wayward researchers may attend a rehabilitation conference to improve their practices. Studies in neonatal pain management do not require comparing an intervention with the inadequate analgesia of a placebo; comparing with a standard approach is sufficient. Deception of research patients may be acceptable under narrow circumstances. The legitimacy of using broad informed consent for biobanking and genomic studies are being challenged as changes to the Common Rule are being considered. Increasing complexity and the desire to further medical knowledge complicates research methods and informed consent. The ethical issues surrounding these and offshoot areas will continue to develop.

  15. Research ethics III: Publication practices and authorship, conflicts of interest, and research misconduct.

    PubMed

    Horner, Jennifer; Minifie, Fred D

    2011-02-01

    In this series of articles--Research Ethics I, Research Ethics II, and Research Ethics III--the authors provide a comprehensive review of the 9 core domains for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) as articulated by the Office of Research Integrity. In Research Ethics III, they review the RCR domains of publication practices and authorship, conflicts of interest, and research misconduct. Whereas the legal definition of research misconduct under federal law pertains mainly to intentional falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism, they discuss a host of research practices that raise ethical concerns. The integrity of the scientific record--its accuracy, completeness, and value--ultimately impacts the health and well-being of society. For this reason, scientists are both entrusted and obligated to use the highest standards possible when proposing, performing, reviewing, and reporting research or when educating and mentoring new investigators.

  16. 42 CFR 93.502 - Appointment of the Administrative Law Judge and scientific expert.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research... expertise to assist the ALJ in evaluating scientific or technical issues related to the findings of research misconduct. (1) On the ALJ's or a party's motion to appoint an expert, the ALJ must give the parties an...

  17. 42 CFR 93.502 - Appointment of the Administrative Law Judge and scientific expert.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research... expertise to assist the ALJ in evaluating scientific or technical issues related to the findings of research misconduct. (1) On the ALJ's or a party's motion to appoint an expert, the ALJ must give the parties an...

  18. Risk Factors for Misconduct in a Navy Sample

    DTIC Science & Technology

    2009-01-01

    antisocial behavior and misconduct in the military. Based strictly on the military job performance literature, the justification for routine personality...comparisons were conducted on the demographic variables (see Table 1). For the categorical variables (e.g., gender), chi-square tests were performed ; for ...Risk Factors for Misconduct in a Navy Sample Stephanie Booth-Kewley and Gerald E. Larson Naval Health Research Center, San Diego, California David L

  19. 42 CFR 93.506 - Authority of the Administrative Law Judge.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing Process § 93.506 Authority of the Administrative Law Judge. (a) The ALJ assigned... communication; (17) Take action against any party for failing to follow an order or procedure or for disruptive...

  20. 42 CFR 93.315 - Notice to ORI of institutional findings and actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ...) Final institutional action. State whether the institution found research misconduct, and if so, who... 42 Public Health 1 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Notice to ORI of institutional findings and actions... HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of Institutions The Institutional...

  1. 42 CFR 93.523 - The Administrative Law Judge's ruling.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing Process § 93.523 The Administrative Law Judge's ruling. (a) The ALJ shall issue a... decision in whole or in part is the final HHS action, unless debarment or suspension is an administrative...

  2. 42 CFR 93.315 - Notice to ORI of institutional findings and actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ...) Final institutional action. State whether the institution found research misconduct, and if so, who... 42 Public Health 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Notice to ORI of institutional findings and actions... HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Responsibilities of Institutions The Institutional...

  3. 42 CFR 93.523 - The Administrative Law Judge's ruling.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Opportunity To Contest ORI Findings of Research Misconduct and HHS Administrative Actions Hearing Process § 93.523 The Administrative Law Judge's ruling. (a) The ALJ shall issue a... decision in whole or in part is the final HHS action, unless debarment or suspension is an administrative...

  4. Plagiarism: an egregious form of misconduct.

    PubMed

    Juyal, Deepak; Thawani, Vijay; Thaledi, Shweta

    2015-02-01

    Publishing research papers for academic fraternity has become important for career advancement and promotion. Number of publications in peer reviewed journals and subsequent citations are recognized as measures of scientific success. Non-publishing academicians and researchers are invisible to the scientific community. With pressure to publish, misconduct has crept into scientific writing with the result that research misconduct, plagiarism, misappropriation of intellectual property, and substantial unattributed textual copying of another's publication have become common. The Office of Research Integrity, USA, defines research misconduct as "fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting research results." Although plagiarism is difficult to define in few words, it can be viewed as the stealing of another person's ideas, methods, results, or words without giving proper attribution. The Office of Research Integrity defines plagiarism as being "theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work." Plagiarism is one of the most vehemently derided breaches of research integrity as it undermines the original and honest contribution to an existing body of knowledge. Plagiarism has many forms viz. blatant plagiarism, technical plagiarism, patchwork plagiarism, and self-plagiarism. In any form, the plagiarism is a threat to the research integrity and is unacceptable. We do need to detect such acts and effectively prosecute the offenders.

  5. Malaysian researchers talk about the influence of culture on research misconduct in higher learning institutions.

    PubMed

    Olesen, Angelina P; Amin, Latifah; Mahadi, Zurina

    2017-01-01

    Based on a previous survey by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in the USA, a considerable number of foreign research scientists have been found guilty of research misconduct. However, it remains unclear as to whether or not cultural factors really contribute to research misconduct. This study is based on a series of interviews with Malaysian researchers from the local universities regarding their own professional experiences involving working with researchers or research students from different countries or of different nationalities. Most of the researchers interviewed agreed that cultures do shape individual character, which influences the way that such individuals conduct research, their decision-making, and their style of academic writing. Our findings also showed that working culture within the institution also influences research practices, as well as faculty mentorship of the younger generation of researchers. Given the fact such misconduct might be due to a lack of understanding of research or working cultures or practices within the institution, the impact on the scientific community and on society could be destructive. Therefore, it is suggested that the institution has an important role to play in orienting foreign researchers through training, mentoring, and discussion with regard to the "does" and "don'ts" related to research, and to provide them with an awareness of the importance of ethics when it comes to conducting research.

  6. 45 CFR 689.8 - Interim administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 689.8 Interim administrative actions. (a) After an inquiry or during an external or... misconduct. Such an order will normally be issued on recommendation from OIG and in consultation with the...

  7. 45 CFR 689.8 - Interim administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 689.8 Interim administrative actions. (a) After an inquiry or during an external or... misconduct. Such an order will normally be issued on recommendation from OIG and in consultation with the...

  8. 45 CFR 689.8 - Interim administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 689.8 Interim administrative actions. (a) After an inquiry or during an external or... misconduct. Such an order will normally be issued on recommendation from OIG and in consultation with the...

  9. 45 CFR 689.8 - Interim administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 689.8 Interim administrative actions. (a) After an inquiry or during an external or... misconduct. Such an order will normally be issued on recommendation from OIG and in consultation with the...

  10. 45 CFR 689.8 - Interim administrative actions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 689.8 Interim administrative actions. (a) After an inquiry or during an external or... misconduct. Such an order will normally be issued on recommendation from OIG and in consultation with the...

  11. Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings

    PubMed Central

    Resnik, David B; Dinse, Gregg E

    2012-01-01

    We examined all 208 closed cases involving official findings of research misconduct published by the US Office of Research Integrity from 1992 to 2011 to determine how often scientists mention in a retraction or correction notice that there was an ethical problem with an associated article. 75 of these cases cited at least one published article affected by misconduct for a total of 174 articles. For 127 of these 174, we found both the article and a retraction or correction statement. Since eight of the 127 published statements consisted of simply the word ‘retracted,’ our analysis focused on the remaining 119 for which a more detailed retraction or correction was published. Of these 119 statements, only 41.2% mentioned ethics at all (and only 32.8% named a specific ethical problem such as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism), whereas the other 58.8% described the reason for retraction or correction as error, loss of data or replication failure when misconduct was actually at issue. Among the published statements in response to an official finding of misconduct (within the time frame studied), the proportion that mentioned ethics was significantly higher in recent years than in earlier years, as was the proportion that named a specific problem. To promote research integrity, scientific journals should consider adopting policies concerning retractions and corrections similar to the guidelines developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics. Funding agencies and institutions should take steps to ensure that articles affected by misconduct are retracted or corrected. PMID:22942373

  12. Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings.

    PubMed

    Resnik, David B; Dinse, Gregg E

    2013-01-01

    We examined all 208 closed cases involving official findings of research misconduct published by the US Office of Research Integrity from 1992 to 2011 to determine how often scientists mention in a retraction or correction notice that there was an ethical problem with an associated article. 75 of these cases cited at least one published article affected by misconduct for a total of 174 articles. For 127 of these 174, we found both the article and a retraction or correction statement. Since eight of the 127 published statements consisted of simply the word 'retracted,' our analysis focused on the remaining 119 for which a more detailed retraction or correction was published. Of these 119 statements, only 41.2% mentioned ethics at all (and only 32.8% named a specific ethical problem such as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism), whereas the other 58.8% described the reason for retraction or correction as error, loss of data or replication failure when misconduct was actually at issue. Among the published statements in response to an official finding of misconduct (within the time frame studied), the proportion that mentioned ethics was significantly higher in recent years than in earlier years, as was the proportion that named a specific problem. To promote research integrity, scientific journals should consider adopting policies concerning retractions and corrections similar to the guidelines developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics. Funding agencies and institutions should take steps to ensure that articles affected by misconduct are retracted or corrected.

  13. Academic and research misconduct in the PhD: issues for students and supervisors.

    PubMed

    Mitchell, Theresa; Carroll, Jude

    2008-02-01

    There are many pressures upon PhD students not least the requirement to make an original or significant contribution to knowledge. Some students, confronted with complex research processes, might adopt practices that compromise standards that are unacceptable within a research community. These practices challenge the PhD student-supervisor relationship and have implication for the individual, the supervisory team, the institution, the awarding body and the wider research context. Discussion relating to misconduct within the PhD is of international importance if the aim is to encourage and facilitate rigorous research practice. Cases involving academic and research misconduct, especially those occurring at PhD level, are likely to become more frequent as numbers of PhD students increase and will demand appropriate, defensible responses from supervisors. Misconduct during PhD study can be difficult to resolve because of lack of clarity in definitions, supervisor naiveté and failure to acknowledge students' decision making limitations. Using scenarios from the first author's supervisory practice to illustrate issues of concern for students and supervisors during PhD supervision, the authors aim to illuminate the importance of engagement with regulatory bodies; problems of knowledge and understanding transfer; culturally specific issues and meanings of academic theft.

  14. Beyond Trust: Plagiarism and Truth.

    PubMed

    Penders, Bart

    2018-03-01

    Academic misconduct distorts the relationship between scientific practice and the knowledge it produces. The relationship between science and the knowledge it produces is, however, not something universally agreed upon. In this paper I will critically discuss the moral status of an act of research misconduct, namely plagiarism, in the context of different epistemological positions. While from a positivist view of science, plagiarism only influences trust in science but not the content of the scientific corpus, from a constructivist point of view both are at stake. Consequently, I argue that discussions of research misconduct and responsible research ought to be explicitly informed by the authors' views on the relationship between science and the knowledge it produces.

  15. Disadvantages of publishing biomedical research articles in English for non-native speakers of English

    PubMed Central

    Rezaeian, Mohsen

    2015-01-01

    OBJECTIVES: English has become the most frequently used language for scientific communication in the biomedical field. Therefore, scholars from all over the world try to publish their findings in English. This trend has a number of advantages, along with several disadvantages. METHODS: In the current article, the most important disadvantages of publishing biomedical research articles in English for non-native speakers of English are reviewed. RESULTS: The most important disadvantages of publishing biomedical research articles in English for non-native speakers may include: Overlooking, either unintentionally or even deliberately, the most important local health problems; failure to carry out groundbreaking research due to limited medical research budgets; violating generally accepted codes of publication ethics and committing research misconduct and publications in open-access scam/predatory journals rather than prestigious journals. CONCLUSIONS: The above mentioned disadvantages could eventually result in academic establishments becoming irresponsible or, even worse, corrupt. In order to avoid this, scientists, scientific organizations, academic institutions, and scientific associations all over the world should design and implement a wider range of collaborative and comprehensive plans. PMID:25968115

  16. Disadvantages of publishing biomedical research articles in English for non-native speakers of English.

    PubMed

    Rezaeian, Mohsen

    2015-01-01

    English has become the most frequently used language for scientific communication in the biomedical field. Therefore, scholars from all over the world try to publish their findings in English. This trend has a number of advantages, along with several disadvantages. In the current article, the most important disadvantages of publishing biomedical research articles in English for non-native speakers of English are reviewed. The most important disadvantages of publishing biomedical research articles in English for non-native speakers may include: Overlooking, either unintentionally or even deliberately, the most important local health problems; failure to carry out groundbreaking research due to limited medical research budgets; violating generally accepted codes of publication ethics and committing research misconduct and publications in open-access scam/predatory journals rather than prestigious journals. The above mentioned disadvantages could eventually result in academic establishments becoming irresponsible or, even worse, corrupt. In order to avoid this, scientists, scientific organizations, academic institutions, and scientific associations all over the world should design and implement a wider range of collaborative and comprehensive plans.

  17. The relationship between school engagement and delinquency in late childhood and early adolescence.

    PubMed

    Hirschfield, Paul J; Gasper, Joseph

    2011-01-01

    Engagement in school is crucial for academic success and school completion. Surprisingly little research has focused on the relationship between student engagement and delinquency. This study examines whether engagement predicts subsequent school and general misconduct among 4,890 inner-city Chicago elementary school students (mean age: 11 years and 4 months; 43.3% boys; 66.5% black; 28.8% Latino). To improve upon prior research in this area, we distinguish three types of engagement (emotional, behavioral, and cognitive), examine whether the relationship between engagement and misconduct is bidirectional (misconduct also impairs engagement), and control for possible common causes of low engagement and misconduct, including peer and family relationships and relatively stable indicators of risk-proneness. Emotional and behavioral engagement predict decreases in school and general delinquency. However, cognitive engagement is associated with increases in these outcomes. School and general delinquency predict decreased engagement only in the cognitive domain. Suggestions for future research and implications for policy are discussed.

  18. Perception of Ethical Misconduct by Neuropsychology Professionals in Latin America.

    PubMed

    Panyavin, Ivan S; Goldberg-Looney, Lisa D; Rivera, Diego; Perrin, Paul B; Arango-Lasprilla, Juan Carlos

    2015-08-01

    To date, extremely limited research has focused on the ethical aspects of clinical neuropsychology practice in Latin America. The current study aimed to identify the frequency of perceived ethical misconduct in a sample of 465 self-identified neuropsychology professionals from Latin America in order to better guide policies for training and begin to establish standards for practitioners in the region. Frequencies of neuropsychologists who knew another professional engaging in ethical misconduct ranged from 1.1% to 60.4% in the areas of research, clinical care, training, and professional relationships. The most frequently reported perceived misconduct was in the domain of professional training and expertise, with nearly two thirds of participants knowing other professionals who do not possess adequate training to be working as neuropsychologists. The least frequently reported perceived misconduct was in the domain of professional relationships. Nearly one third of participants indicated that they had never received formal training in professional ethics. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

  19. Military Rule of Evidence 404(b): Toothless Giant of the Evidence World

    DTIC Science & Technology

    1996-04-01

    Evidence Practice ........... 49 B. Applying the Military Rules of Evidence ........... 52 C. Refining the Standard of Proof .................... 56 D. What...committed such an offence at another time and with another person, and that he had a tendency to such practices , ought not to be admitted."" This report...a practice not forbidden by 45 Stone, England, supra note 12, at 959. Prior cases had held uncharged misconduct inadmissible, apparently on the theory

  20. Grade Retention and Its Association with School Misconduct in Adolescence: A Multilevel Approach

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Demanet, Jannick; Van Houtte, Mieke

    2013-01-01

    Few studies with respect to grade retention and school-disruptive behavior have focused on adolescence. Moreover, previous retention research has ignored multilevel issues. This study aims to fill these research lacunae by addressing the role of grade retention in adolescent students' school misconduct. Furthermore, we explore the role of the…

  1. 10 CFR 733.1 - Purpose.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Purpose. 733.1 Section 733.1 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.1 Purpose. The purpose of this part is to set forth a general... Research Misconduct established by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy on December 6...

  2. Authentic Leadership, Research Integrity, and Institutions of Higher Learning: Why Focusing on Departmental Leadership Is Critical for Preserving the Sanctity of Science

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Echols, Katherine I.

    2017-01-01

    One of the most overlooked and complex problems that universities and colleges face nation-wide is how to reduce and eliminate research misconduct. Because of the confidential nature of allegations of research misconduct and the high rate of underreporting, administrators at scholarly institutions struggle with understanding the cause of such…

  3. Ethics and Scientific Integrity in Public Health, Epidemiological and Clinical Research

    PubMed Central

    Coughlin, Steven S.; Barker, Amyre; Dawson, Angus

    2012-01-01

    The ethics and scientific integrity of biomedical and public health research requires that researchers behave in appropriate ways. However, this requires more than following of published research guidelines that seek to prevent scientific misconduct relating to serious deviations from widely accepted scientific norms for proposing, conducting, and reporting research (e.g., fabrication or falsification of research data or failures to report potential conflicts of interest). In this paper we argue for a broader account of scientific integrity, one consistent with that defended by the United States Institute of Medicine, involving a commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility for one’s actions as a researcher and to practices consistent with the responsible conduct of research and protection of the research participants. Maintaining high standards of ethical and scientific integrity helps to maintain public trust in the research enterprise. An increasing number of authors have pointed to the importance of mentoring and education in relation to the responsible conduct of science in preventing transgressions of scientific integrity. Just like in clinical research and biomedicine, epidemiologists and other public health researchers have the responsibility to exhibit and foster the very highest standards of scientific integrity. PMID:24532867

  4. Ethics and Scientific Integrity in Public Health, Epidemiological and Clinical Research.

    PubMed

    Coughlin, Steven S; Barker, Amyre; Dawson, Angus

    2012-01-01

    The ethics and scientific integrity of biomedical and public health research requires that researchers behave in appropriate ways. However, this requires more than following of published research guidelines that seek to prevent scientific misconduct relating to serious deviations from widely accepted scientific norms for proposing, conducting, and reporting research (e.g., fabrication or falsification of research data or failures to report potential conflicts of interest). In this paper we argue for a broader account of scientific integrity, one consistent with that defended by the United States Institute of Medicine, involving a commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility for one's actions as a researcher and to practices consistent with the responsible conduct of research and protection of the research participants. Maintaining high standards of ethical and scientific integrity helps to maintain public trust in the research enterprise. An increasing number of authors have pointed to the importance of mentoring and education in relation to the responsible conduct of science in preventing transgressions of scientific integrity. Just like in clinical research and biomedicine, epidemiologists and other public health researchers have the responsibility to exhibit and foster the very highest standards of scientific integrity.

  5. Plagiarism: An Egregious Form of Misconduct

    PubMed Central

    Juyal, Deepak; Thawani, Vijay; Thaledi, Shweta

    2015-01-01

    Background: Publishing research papers for academic fraternity has become important for career advancement and promotion. Number of publications in peer reviewed journals and subsequent citations are recognized as measures of scientific success. Non-publishing academicians and researchers are invisible to the scientific community. Discussion: With pressure to publish, misconduct has crept into scientific writing with the result that research misconduct, plagiarism, misappropriation of intellectual property, and substantial unattributed textual copying of another's publication have become common. The Office of Research Integrity, USA, defines research misconduct as “fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.” Although plagiarism is difficult to define in few words, it can be viewed as the stealing of another person's ideas, methods, results, or words without giving proper attribution. The Office of Research Integrity defines plagiarism as being “theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work.” Plagiarism is one of the most vehemently derided breaches of research integrity as it undermines the original and honest contribution to an existing body of knowledge. Conclusion: Plagiarism has many forms viz. blatant plagiarism, technical plagiarism, patchwork plagiarism, and self-plagiarism. In any form, the plagiarism is a threat to the research integrity and is unacceptable. We do need to detect such acts and effectively prosecute the offenders. PMID:25789254

  6. 10 CFR 733.6 - Consultation with the DOE Office of the Inspector General.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Consultation with the DOE Office of the Inspector General. 733.6 Section 733.6 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.6 Consultation with the DOE Office of the Inspector General. Upon receipt of an allegation of research misconduct...

  7. 10 CFR 733.6 - Consultation with the DOE Office of the Inspector General.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Consultation with the DOE Office of the Inspector General. 733.6 Section 733.6 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.6 Consultation with the DOE Office of the Inspector General. Upon receipt of an allegation of research misconduct...

  8. 10 CFR 733.6 - Consultation with the DOE Office of the Inspector General.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Consultation with the DOE Office of the Inspector General. 733.6 Section 733.6 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.6 Consultation with the DOE Office of the Inspector General. Upon receipt of an allegation of research misconduct...

  9. 10 CFR 733.6 - Consultation with the DOE Office of the Inspector General.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Consultation with the DOE Office of the Inspector General. 733.6 Section 733.6 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.6 Consultation with the DOE Office of the Inspector General. Upon receipt of an allegation of research misconduct...

  10. 10 CFR 733.6 - Consultation with the DOE Office of the Inspector General.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... 10 Energy 4 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Consultation with the DOE Office of the Inspector General. 733.6 Section 733.6 Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 733.6 Consultation with the DOE Office of the Inspector General. Upon receipt of an allegation of research misconduct...

  11. Gangkill: An Exploratory Empirical Assessment of Gang Membership, Homicide Offending, and Prison Misconduct

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Drury, Alan J.; DeLisi, Matt

    2011-01-01

    Extant research indicates that inmates with street gang history are prone for prison misconduct but that inmates convicted of homicide offenses are less likely to be noncompliant. No research has explored the interaction between street gang history and homicide offending. Based on official infraction data from 1,005 inmates selected from the…

  12. A Social Control Perspective on Scientific Misconduct.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Hackett, Edward J.

    1994-01-01

    Some explanations for scientific misconduct are examined, including those based on theories of individual psychopathology, anomie, and alienation. An alternative explanation, drawing on the concept of social control, is presented, and implications for research and policy are examined. (MSE)

  13. The university and the responsible conduct of research: who is responsible for what?

    PubMed

    Alfredo, Katherine; Hart, Hillary

    2011-09-01

    Research misconduct has been thoroughly discussed in the literature, but mainly in terms of definitions and prescriptions for proper conduct. Even when case studies are cited, they are generally used as a repository of "lessons learned." What has been lacking from this conversation is how the lessons of responsible conduct of research are imparted in the first place to graduate students, especially those in technical fields such as engineering. Nor has there been much conversation about who is responsible for what in training students in Responsible Conduct of Research or in allocating blame in cases of misconduct. This paper explores three seemingly disparate cases of misconduct-the 2004 plagiarism scandal at Ohio University; the famous Robert Millikan article of 1913, in which his reported data selection did not match his notebooks; and the 1990 fabrication scandal in Dr. Leroy Hood's research lab. Comparing these cases provides a way to look at the relationship between the graduate student (or trainee) and his/her advisor (a relationship that has been shown to be the most influential one for the student) as well as at possibly differential treatment for established researchers and researchers-in-training, in cases of misconduct. This paper reflects on the rights and responsibilities of research advisers and their students and offers suggestions for clarifying both those responsibilities and the particularly murky areas of research-conduct guidelines.

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

    PubMed Central

    Schulz, William G.

    2015-01-01

    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. PMID:26155732

  15. Lack of involvement of medical writers and the pharmaceutical industry in publications retracted for misconduct: a systematic, controlled, retrospective study.

    PubMed

    Woolley, Karen L; Lew, Rebecca A; Stretton, Serina; Ely, Julie A; Bramich, Narelle J; Keys, Janelle R; Monk, Julie A; Woolley, Mark J

    2011-06-01

    The primary objective of this study was to quantify how many publications retracted because of misconduct involved declared medical writers (i.e., not ghostwriters) or declared pharmaceutical industry support. The secondary objective was to investigate factors associated with misconduct retractions. A systematic, controlled, retrospective, bibliometric study. Retracted publications dataset in the MEDLINE database. PubMed was searched (Limits: English, human, January 1966 - February 2008) to identify publications retracted because of misconduct. Publications retracted because of mistake served as the control group. Standardized definitions and data collection tools were used, and data were analyzed by an independent academic statistician. Of the 463 retracted publications retrieved, 213 (46%) were retracted because of misconduct. Publications retracted because of misconduct rarely involved declared medical writers (3/213; 1.4%) or declared pharmaceutical industry support (8/213; 3.8%); no misconduct retractions involved both declared medical writers and the industry. Retraction because of misconduct, rather than mistake, was significantly associated with: absence of declared medical writers (odds ratio: 0.16; 95% confidence interval: 0.05-0.57); absence of declared industry involvement (0.25; 0.11-0.58); single authorship (2.04; 1.01-4.12); first author having at least one other retraction (2.05; 1.35-3.11); and first author affiliated with a low/middle income country (2.34; 1.18-4.63). The main limitations of this study were restricting the search to English-language and human research articles. Publications retracted because of misconduct rarely involved declared medical writers or declared pharmaceutical industry support. Increased attention should focus on factors that are associated with misconduct retractions.

  16. A Review of the Scientific Misconduct Inquiry Process, Ankara Chamber of Medicine, Turkey.

    PubMed

    Gökçay, Banu; Arda, Berna

    2017-08-01

    The aim of this study is to review the inquiry process used in scientific misconduct cases in the Ankara Chamber of Medicine between the years 1998 and 2012. The violations of the "Disciplinary Regulations of the Turkish Medical Association" have been examined by keeping the names of the people, institutions, associations and journals secret. In total, 31 files have been studied and 11 of these files have been identified as related to scientific misconduct. The methods of inquiry, the decisions about the need for an investigation process, the types of scientific misconduct, and the adjudication processes have all been reported. Furthermore, the motives of researchers who made allegations, the study approaches of investigators, and the objections to the decisions about guilt and innocence have also been examined. Based on the findings obtained, the reasons for scientific misconduct and the distribution of responsibilities among the people in the inquiry process have been discussed. A major conclusion is the need to standardize the process of conducting inquiries about scientific misconduct cases for the regional chambers of medicine in Turkey.

  17. 45 CFR 689.9 - Dispositions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 689.9... investigation or an NSF investigation fails to confirm alleged misconduct— (1) OIG will notify the subject of the investigation and, if appropriate, those who reported the suspected or alleged misconduct. This...

  18. 45 CFR 689.9 - Dispositions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 689.9... investigation or an NSF investigation fails to confirm alleged misconduct— (1) OIG will notify the subject of the investigation and, if appropriate, those who reported the suspected or alleged misconduct. This...

  19. 45 CFR 689.9 - Dispositions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 689.9... investigation or an NSF investigation fails to confirm alleged misconduct— (1) OIG will notify the subject of the investigation and, if appropriate, those who reported the suspected or alleged misconduct. This...

  20. 45 CFR 689.9 - Dispositions.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION RESEARCH MISCONDUCT § 689.9... investigation or an NSF investigation fails to confirm alleged misconduct— (1) OIG will notify the subject of the investigation and, if appropriate, those who reported the suspected or alleged misconduct. This...

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.
Top