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.

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.

Publication pressure and scientific misconduct in medical scientists.

PubMed

Tijdink, Joeri K; Verbeke, Reinout; Smulders, Yvo M

2014-12-01

There is increasing evidence that scientific misconduct is more common than previously thought. Strong emphasis on scientific productivity may increase the sense of publication pressure. We administered a nationwide survey to Flemish biomedical scientists on whether they had engaged in scientific misconduct and whether they had experienced publication pressure. A total of 315 scientists participated in the survey; 15% of the respondents admitted they had fabricated, falsified, plagiarized, or manipulated data in the past 3 years. Fraud was more common among younger scientists working in a university hospital. Furthermore, 72% rated publication pressure as "too high." Publication pressure was strongly and significantly associated with a composite scientific misconduct severity score. © The Author(s) 2014.

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.

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...

Coordination Procedures between the Scientific Integrity Official and the Office of Inspector General regarding Scientific Misconduct Allegations

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

Coordination Procedures between the Scientific Integrity Official and the Office of Inspector General regarding Scientific Misconduct Allegations written March 30, 2015 by the Office of the Science Advisor

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...

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

Retractions by Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences due to Scientific Misconduct.

PubMed

Jawaid, Shaukat Ali; Jawaid, Masood

2016-08-01

Under pressure to publish, academicians and research scientists are increasingly indulging in scientific misconduct leading to retraction of such papers when identified. Other reasons of retraction include scientific error and problems related to ethics. Four published manuscripts (three from Turkey and one from Pakistan) had to be retracted from Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences from January 2014 to July 2015 due to scientific misconduct. There is a need to search for effective measures which could help reduce the number of retractions and prevent scientific literature from being further polluted, which seems to be increasing every year.

Reliable References, Accountable Authors, and Steadfast Reviewers Mitigate Against Retracted Publications and Scientific Misconduct.

PubMed

Brand, Jefferson C; Rossi, Michael J; Lubowitz, James H

2017-08-01

Scientific misconduct and, in rare situations, outright fraud are every editor's nightmare. References verify statements or claims made by authors, and proper references mitigate against hyperbole and prevarication. Arthroscopy and Arthroscopy Techniques are not immune to the possibility of scientific misconduct, which is prevalent in the scientific literature, and we are grateful to accountable authors and diligent editors and reviewers who do their best to avoid such disasters. Copyright © 2017 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

A rhetorical analysis of apologies for scientific misconduct: do they really mean it?

PubMed

Souder, Lawrence

2010-03-01

Since published acknowledgements of scientific misconduct are a species of image restoration, common strategies for responding publicly to accusations can be expected: from sincere apologies to ritualistic apologies. This study is a rhetorical examination of these strategies as they are reflected in choices in language: it compares the published retractions and letters of apology with the letters that charge misconduct. The letters are examined for any shifts in language between the charge of misconduct and the response to the charge in order to assess whether the apology was sincere or ritualistic. The results indicate that although most authors' published acknowledgments of scientific misconduct seem to minimize culpability by means of the strategic use of language, their resulting ritualistic apologies often still satisfy in some way the accusers' (and thus their community's) concerns.

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.

Whistleblowing in Science

EPA Science Inventory

Before accusing a colleague of scientific misconduct, a person should have clear evidence of wrongdoing, have the knowledge necessary to assess misconduct, and have examined his motivations for alleging misconduct. The accuser may choose to confront the colleague directly, givin...

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)

How frequently do allegations of scientific misconduct occur in ecology and evolution, and what happens afterwards?

PubMed

Moreno-Rueda, Gregorio

2013-03-01

Scientific misconduct obstructs the advance of knowledge in science. Its impact in some disciplines is still poorly known, as is the frequency in which it is detected. Here, I examine how frequently editors of ecology and evolution journals detect scientist misconduct. On average, editors managed 0.114 allegations of misconduct per year. Editors considered 6 of 14 allegations (42.9%) to be true, but only in 2 cases were the authors declared guilty, the remaining being dropped for lack of proof. The annual rate of allegations that were probably warranted was 0.053, although the rate of demonstrated misconduct was 0.018, while the rate of false or erroneous allegations was 0.024. Considering that several cases of misconduct are probably not reported, these findings suggest that editors detect less than one-third of all fraudulent papers.

[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.

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

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.

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.

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.

QA MANAGERS' RESPONSIBILITY TO ALLEGATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT. WHAT SHOULD THEY DO?

EPA Science Inventory

Although it is not the primary responsibility of QA Managers'/Officers' to deal with scientific misconduct, because of the nature of their daily activities they may encounter potential cases. It is important to maintain an ambience of openness and creativity as positive scientifi...

Government Increases Reliance on Universities to Detect and Probe Fraud by Own Researchers; Critics Are Wary.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Wheeler, David L.

1987-01-01

University administrators are expected by federal agencies to detect, investigate, and judge scientific fraud and misconduct on their campuses. Both National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health place primary responsibility on universities for spotting cases of scientific misconduct. (MLW)

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

Scientific Misconduct in India: Causes and Perpetuation.

PubMed

Patnaik, Pratap R

2016-08-01

Along with economic strength, space technology and software expertise, India is also a leading nation in fraudulent scientific research. The problem is worsened by vested interests working in concert for their own benefits. These self-promoting cartels, together with biased evaluation methods and weak penal systems, combine to perpetuate scientific misconduct. Some of these issues are discussed in this commentary, with supporting examples and possible solutions.

Whistleblowing and scientific misconduct: renewing legal and virtue ethics foundations.

PubMed

Faunce, Thomas Alured; Jefferys, Susannah

2007-09-01

Whistleblowing in relation to scientific research misconduct, despite the benefits of increased transparency and accountability it often has brought to society and the discipline of science itself, remains generally regarded as a pariah activity by many of the most influential relevant organizations. The motivations of whistleblowers and those supporting them continued to be questioned and their actions criticised by colleagues and management, despite statutory protections for reasonable disclosures appropriately made in good faith and for the public interest. One reason for this paradoxical position, explored here, is that whistle blowing concerning scientific misconduct lacks the policy support customarily derived from firm bioethical and jurisprudential foundations. Recommendations are made for altering this situation in the public interest.

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...

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.

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

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.

[The fate of scientific articles when errors and scientific misconduct are detected].

PubMed

Vinther, Siri; Rosenberg, Jacob

2014-01-20

When a minor error is noted in a scientific article, the publishing journal should issue a correction. Issuing an expression of concern is relevant when scientific misconduct is suspected. If the suspicion proves to be well founded, the journal should retract the article. The number of retractions is increasing, and this emphasizes the need for unequivocal concepts and guidelines. The reason a given article is corrected or retracted should be unambiguous and articles as well as notices should be indexed properly.

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...

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

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.

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...

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...

Geophysicists adopt new approach to misconduct

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Allen, Michael

2017-11-01

Geophysicists found guilty of harassment, discrimination or bullying could be expelled from the American Geophysical Union (AGU) after it updated its ethics policy to define these misdemeanours as scientific misconduct.

[Scientific fraud. A disease we find among ourselves].

PubMed

Guimarães, S

1998-01-01

Scientific fraud is not a problem exclusive to countries with high scientific development. Fraud does not necessarily mean invention of results, usurpation of ideas, manifest plagiarism or any other kind of serious scientific misconduct. Although more rare in countries where scientific production is more modest, pungent cases of scientific fraud also exist. However, less notorious cases of scientific misconduct are frequent and must be avoided. Examples of these less notorious sins are presented. The seriousness of scientific fraud is not only due to the fact that it may involve public funds, which could have been put to more useful purposes but, above all, because it violates scientific ethics and frustrates the final aim of science, the discovery of truth.

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.

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.

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

Letter to the editor : Impartial review is key.

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

Crabtree, G. W.; Materials Science Division

The News Feature, 'Misconduct in physics: Time to wise up? [Nature 418, 120-121; 2002], raises important issues that the physical-science community must face. Argonne National Laboratory's code of ethics calls for a response very similar to that of Bell Labs, namely: 'The Laboratory director may appoint an ad-hoc scientific review committee to investigate internal or external charges of scientific misconduct, fraud, falsification of data, misinterpretation of data, or other activities involving scientific or technical matters.'

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Retracted publications in the drug literature.

PubMed

Samp, Jennifer C; Schumock, Glen T; Pickard, A Simon

2012-07-01

Recent studies have suggested an increase in the number of retracted scientific publications. It is unclear how broadly the issue of misleading and fraudulent publications pertains to retractions of drug therapy studies. Therefore, we sought to determine the trends and factors associated with retracted publications in drug therapy literature. A PubMed search was conducted to identify retracted drug therapy articles published from 2000-2011. Articles were grouped according to reason for retraction, which was classified as scientific misconduct or error. Scientific misconduct was further divided into data fabrication, data falsification, questions of data veracity, unethical author conduct, and plagiarism. Error was defined as duplicate publication, scientific mistake, journal error, or unstated reasons. Additional data were extracted from the retracted articles, including type of article, funding source, author information, therapeutic area, and retraction issue. A total of 742 retractions were identified from 2000-2011 in the general biomedical literature, and 102 drug studies met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 73 articles (72%) were retracted for a reason classified as scientific misconduct, whereas 29 articles (28%) were retracted for error. Among the 73 articles classified as scientific misconduct, those classified as unethical author conduct (32 articles [44%]) and data fabrication (24 articles [33%]) constituted the majority. The median time from publication of the original article to retraction was 31 months (range 1-130). Fifty percent of retracted articles did not state a funding source, whereas pharmaceutical manufacturer funding accounted for only 13 articles (13%) analyzed. Many retractions were due to repeat offenses by a small number of authors, with nearly 40% of the retracted studies associated with two individuals. We found that a greater proportion of drug therapy articles were retracted for reasons of misconduct and fraud compared with other biomedical studies. It is important for health care practitioners to monitor the literature for retractions so that recommendations for drug therapy and patient management may be modified accordingly. © 2012 Pharmacotherapy Publications, Inc. All rights reserved.

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.

[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.

The integrity of science - lost in translation?

PubMed

Kaiser, Matthias

2014-04-01

This paper presents some selected issues currently discussed about the integrity of science, and it argues that there exist serious challenges to integrity in the various sciences. Due to the involved conceptual complexities, even core definitions of scientific integrity have been disputed, and core cases of scientific misconduct influenced the public discussion about them. It is claimed that ethics and law may not always go well together in matters of scientific integrity. Explanations of the causes of scientific misconduct vary, and defining good scientific practices is not a straightforward task. Even though the efficacy of ethics courses to improve scientific integrity can be doubted, and universities probably need to come up with more innovative formats to improve ethics in scientific training, ethics talk may be the only practical remedy. Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Scientific misconduct and science ethics: a case study based approach.

PubMed

Consoli, Luca

2006-07-01

The Schön misconduct case has been widely publicized in the media and has sparked intense discussions within and outside the scientific community about general issues of science ethics. This paper analyses the Report of the official Committee charged with the investigation in order to show that what at first seems to be a quite uncontroversial case, turns out to be an accumulation of many interesting and non-trivial questions (of both ethical and philosophical interest). In particular, the paper intends to show that daily scientific practices are structurally permeated by chronic problems; this has serious consequences for how practicing scientists assess their work in general, and scientific misconduct in particular. A philosophical approach is proposed that sees scientific method and scientific ethics as inextricably interwoven. Furthermore, the paper intends to show that the definition of co-authorship that the members of the Committee use, although perhaps clear in theory, proves highly problematic in practice and raises more questions that it answers. A final plea is made for a more self-reflecting attitude of scientists as far as the moral and methodological profile of science is concerned as a key element for improving not only their scientific achievements, but also their assessment of problematic cases.

Knowledge of scientific misconduct in publication among medical students.

PubMed

Mubeen, Syed Muhammad; Ghayas, Rabia; Adil Rizvi, Syed Hasan; Khan, Sohaib Ahmed

2017-01-01

Publication is a central element in research dissemination and scientific misconduct in publication is relatively ignored in biomedical research. This study is to assess the knowledge of scientific misconduct in publication among private and public sector medical students. A questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was carried in four (two public and two private) medical colleges of Karachi in 2015. After ethical approval, data were collected through convenient sampling and analyzed in SPSS 16.0. Descriptive statistics was used to summarize the data and Chi-square test was used for cross tabulation with sex, type of medical colleges, and knowledge of scientific misconduct in publication. A total of 592 medical students participated with mean age of 22.2 ± 1.47 years. The majority (491, 79%) of medical students had heard about the word "publication ethics," higher among public sector students than from private sector (P < 0.001). Only 78 (13.2%) reported to had published original articles, and 64 (10.8%) and 53 (9%) medical students had heard of "ICMJE authorship criteria" and "COPE," respectively. Knowledge about fabrication of data and scientific misconduct in publication was found to be statistically significant (P < 0.05) among males than female students. Statistically significant differences were also observed between public and private medical students for knowledge regarding salami slicing, ghost author, fabrication, and photomanipulation (P < 0.001) and for plagiarism (P < 0.005). Participants from public sector colleges scored significantly better in all above variables than private medical colleges except knowledge about salami slicing in which participants from latter performed significantly better than public sector students. The study demonstrates deficiencies in knowledge regarding several aspects of publication ethics among medical students of both public and private medical colleges in Karachi. There is a need to increase the awareness of research and publication ethics among students during their academic years.

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.

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. ...

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. ...

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. ...

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 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. ...

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.

Fraud in scientific research – birth of the Concordat to uphold research integrity in the United Kingdom

PubMed Central

Khajuria, Ankur; Agha, Riaz

2014-01-01

Fraud in research has risen exponentially and recent high profile cases may just be the tip of the iceberg. This threatens to have a major impact on public health, with policy makers and clinicians acting on erroneous data. To address this, the new research “Concordat”, a consensus statement on research misconduct, has been published. Can it hold the key to rebuilding public confidence in scientific research in the United Kingdom? This review focuses on the concept of research misconduct, highlighting prominent cases and discussing strategies in order to restore confidence in the validity of scientific research. PMID:24262890

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

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.

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:…

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.

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

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.

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

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

Bubble-fusion professor loses faculty post

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Gwynne, Peter

2008-10-01

Purdue University in the US has announced that Rusi Taleyarkhan - who was found guilty of scientific misconduct by the university in July - will lose his title of Al Bement Jr Professor of Nuclear Engineering and will not be able to advise graduate students for at least three years. Purdue has also denied an appeal from the researcher about the misconduct verdict.

Scientific Misconduct.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Goodstein, David

2002-01-01

Explores scientific fraud, asserting that while few scientists actually falsify results, the field has become so competitive that many are misbehaving in other ways; an example would be unreasonable criticism by anonymous peer reviewers. (EV)

Scientific Misconduct and Social Media: Role of Twitter in the Stimulus Triggered Acquisition of Pluripotency Cells Scandal.

PubMed

Sugawara, Yuya; Tanimoto, Tetsuya; Miyagawa, Shoko; Murakami, Masayasu; Tsuya, Atsushi; Tanaka, Atsushi; Kami, Masahiro; Narimatsu, Hiroto

2017-02-28

The academic scandal on a study on stimulus‑triggered acquisition of pluripotency (STAP) cells in Japan in 2014 involved suspicions of scientific misconduct by the lead author of the study after the paper had been reviewed on a peer‑review website. This study investigated the discussions on STAP cells on Twitter and content of newspaper articles in an attempt to assess the role of social compared with traditional media in scientific peer review. This study examined Twitter utilization in scientific peer review on STAP cells misconduct. Searches for tweets and newspaper articles containing the term "STAP cells" were carried out through Twitter's search engine and Nikkei Telecom database, respectively. The search period was from January 1 to July 1, 2014. The nouns appearing in the "top tweets" and newspaper articles were extracted through a morphological analysis, and their frequency of appearance and changes over time were investigated. The total numbers of top tweets and newspaper articles containing the term were 134,958 and 1646, respectively. Negative words concerning STAP cells began to appear on Twitter by February 9-15, 2014, or 3 weeks after Obokata presented a paper on STAP cells. The number of negative words in newspaper articles gradually increased beginning in the week of March 12-18, 2014. A total of 1000 tweets were randomly selected, and they were found to contain STAP-related opinions (43.3%, 433/1000), links to news sites and other sources (41.4%, 414/1000), false scientific or medical claims (8.9%, 89/1000), and topics unrelated to STAP (6.4%, 64/1000). The discussion on scientific misconduct during the STAP cells scandal took place at an earlier stage on Twitter than in newspapers, a traditional medium. ©Yuya Sugawara, Tetsuya Tanimoto, Shoko Miyagawa, Masayasu Murakami, Atsushi Tsuya, Atsushi Tanaka, Masahiro Kami, Hiroto Narimatsu. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 28.02.2017.

Publication Ethics: A Case Series with Recommendations According to Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

PubMed

Fazly Bazzaz, Bibi Seddigheh; Sadeghi, Ramin

2012-09-01

Ethical misconduct is not a new issue in the history of science and literature. However, ethical misconducts in science have grown considerably in the modern era which is due to emphasis on the scientific proliferation in research institutes and gauging scientists according to their publications. In the current case series, several misconducts occurring over the previous years in Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (Mashhad, Iran) either for Journals or Faculty members were gathered and specific recommendations were provided to avoid similar events in the future. All recommendations are according to Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

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.

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.

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.

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

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."

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.

Teaching Scientific Ethics Using the Example of Hendrik Schon

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Feldman, Bernard J.

2012-01-01

It has been almost 10 years since one of the greatest frauds in the history of physics was uncovered, namely, the case of Hendrik Schon. This case provides a wonderful opportunity to discuss scientific integrity and scientific misconduct with both undergraduate and graduate science students. This article explains the scientific data at the heart…

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

Misreading Science in the Twentieth Century.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Budd, John M.

2001-01-01

Considers textual aspects of scientific communication and problems for reception presented by the complex dynamics of communicating scientific work. Discusses scientific work based on fraud or misconduct and disputes about the nature of science, and applies reception theory and reader-response criticism to understand variations in readings of the…

Ethical dilemmas in scientific publication: pitfalls and solutions for editors.

PubMed

Gollogly, Laragh; Momen, Hooman

2006-08-01

Editors of scientific journals need to be conversant with the mechanisms by which scientific misconduct is amplified by publication practices. This paper provides definitions, ways to document the extent of the problem, and examples of editorial attempts to counter fraud. Fabrication, falsification, duplication, ghost authorship, gift authorship, lack of ethics approval, non-disclosure, 'salami' publication, conflicts of interest, auto-citation, duplicate submission, duplicate publications, and plagiarism are common problems. Editorial misconduct includes failure to observe due process, undue delay in reaching decisions and communicating these to authors, inappropriate review procedures, and confounding a journal's content with its advertising or promotional potential. Editors also can be admonished by their peers for failure to investigate suspected misconduct, failure to retract when indicated, and failure to abide voluntarily by the six main sources of relevant international guidelines on research, its reporting and editorial practice. Editors are in a good position to promulgate reasonable standards of practice, and can start by using consensus guidelines on publication ethics to state explicitly how their journals function. Reviewers, editors, authors and readers all then have a better chance to understand, and abide by, the rules of publishing.

[What can we learn from the Scott Reuben case? Scientific misconduct in anaesthesiology].

PubMed

Rittner, H L; Kranke, P; Schäfer, M; Roewer, N; Brack, A

2009-12-01

In February 2009 a major case of scientific misconduct was discovered. The American pain researcher Dr. S. Reuben had published 21 papers over a period of 15 years that were found to be fraudulent. Suddenly many advances in postoperative pain therapy which had been assumed to be correct seemed questionable. In this review article the lessons which can be learnt from this case are described. This review also reveals that it is almost impossible for reviewers or readers of scientific journals to detect scientific fraud. However, several warning signs can be identified that might be useful when reading clinical papers. In retrospect many of these signs were detectable in Reuben's studies. Based on the fraudulent papers of Reuben it will be shown how and to what extent falsified results can affect other types of literature, such as practice guidelines, meta-analyses, review articles and oral presentations.

HONOR IN SCIENCE -- SCIENCE ETHICS

EPA Science Inventory

On March 27, 2000 Carol Browner issued an all EPA employee e-mail memorandum concerning Principles of Scientific Integrity. - - - This booklet is an interesting educational source for determining what constitutes scientific misconduct which you may want to share with your associa...

Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications

PubMed Central

Fang, Ferric C.; Steen, R. Grant; Casadevall, Arturo

2012-01-01

A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes. PMID:23027971

Students' perceptions of academic dishonesty in the chemistry classroom laboratory

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

del Carlo, Dawn I.; Bodner, George M.

2004-01-01

Although the literature on both academic dishonesty and scientific misconduct is extensive, research on academic dishonesty has focused on quizzes, exams, and papers, with the virtual exclusion of the classroom laboratory. This study examined the distinctions undergraduate chemistry majors made between academic dishonesty in the classroom laboratory and scientific misconduct in the research laboratory. Across the spectrum of undergraduate chemistry courses, from the introductory course for first-semester chemistry majors to the capstone course in instrumental analysis, we noted that students believe the classroom lab is fundamentally different from a research or industrial lab. This difference is so significant that it carries over into students' perceptions of dishonesty in these two environments.

Associations between attitudes towards scientific misconduct and self-reported behavior.

PubMed

Holm, Søren; Hofmann, Bjørn

2018-06-25

We investigate the relationship between doctoral students' attitudes towards scientific misconduct and their self-reported behavior. 203 questionnaires were distributed to doctoral candidates at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo 2016/2017. The response rate was 74%. The results show a correlation between attitudes towards misconduct and self-reported problematic behaviors among doctoral students in biomedicine. The four most common reported misbehaviors are adding author(s) who did not qualify for authorship (17.9%), collecting more data after seeing that the results were almost statistically significant (11.8%), turning a blind eye to colleagues' use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data (11.2%), and reporting an unexpected finding as having been hypothesized from the start (10.5%). We find correlations between scientific misbehavior and the location of undergraduate studies and whether the respondents have had science ethics lectures previously. The study provides evidence for the concurrent validity of the two instruments used to measure attitudes and behavior, i.e. the Kalichman scale and the Research Misbehavior Severity Score (RMSS). Although the direction of causality between attitudes and misbehavior cannot be determined in this study the correlation between the two indicates that it can be important to engender the right attitudes in early career researchers.

What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"?

PubMed

Triggle, Chris R; Triggle, David J

2007-01-01

Peer review is an essential component of the process that is universally applied prior to the acceptance of a manuscript, grant or other scholarly work. Most of us willingly accept the responsibilities that come with being a reviewer but how comfortable are we with the process? Peer review is open to abuse but how should it be policed and can it be improved? A bad peer review process can inadvertently ruin an individual's career, but are there penalties for policing a reviewer who deliberately sabotages a manuscript or grant? Science has received an increasingly tainted name because of recent high profile cases of alleged scientific misconduct. Once considered the results of work stress or a temporary mental health problem, scientific misconduct is increasingly being reported and proved to be a repeat offence. How should scientific misconduct be handled--is it a criminal offence and subject to national or international law? Similarly plagiarism is an ever-increasing concern whether at the level of the student or a university president. Are the existing laws tough enough? These issues, with appropriate examples, are dealt with in this review.

Testing Hypotheses on Risk Factors for Scientific Misconduct via Matched-Control Analysis of Papers Containing Problematic Image Duplications.

PubMed

Fanelli, Daniele; Costas, Rodrigo; Fang, Ferric C; Casadevall, Arturo; Bik, Elisabeth M

2018-02-19

It is commonly hypothesized that scientists are more likely to engage in data falsification and fabrication when they are subject to pressures to publish, when they are not restrained by forms of social control, when they work in countries lacking policies to tackle scientific misconduct, and when they are male. Evidence to test these hypotheses, however, is inconclusive due to the difficulties of obtaining unbiased data. Here we report a pre-registered test of these four hypotheses, conducted on papers that were identified in a previous study as containing problematic image duplications through a systematic screening of the journal PLoS ONE. Image duplications were classified into three categories based on their complexity, with category 1 being most likely to reflect unintentional error and category 3 being most likely to reflect intentional fabrication. We tested multiple parameters connected to the hypotheses above with a matched-control paradigm, by collecting two controls for each paper containing duplications. Category 1 duplications were mostly not associated with any of the parameters tested, as was predicted based on the assumption that these duplications were mostly not due to misconduct. Categories 2 and 3, however, exhibited numerous statistically significant associations. Results of univariable and multivariable analyses support the hypotheses that academic culture, peer control, cash-based publication incentives and national misconduct policies might affect scientific integrity. No clear support was found for the "pressures to publish" hypothesis. Female authors were found to be equally likely to publish duplicated images compared to males. Country-level parameters generally exhibited stronger effects than individual-level parameters, because developing countries were significantly more likely to produce problematic image duplications. This suggests that promoting good research practices in all countries should be a priority for the international research integrity agenda.

Piltdown Man: Combining the Instruction of Scientific Ethics and Qualitative Analysis.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Vincent, John B.

1999-01-01

Discusses the most famous hoax in the history of science involving fossils including fragments of human or simian skulls and jaws and teeth found in gravel pits. Describes a laboratory experiment that exposes students to the problems of scientific misconduct. (CCM)

Criminals in the Citadel and Deceit all along the Watchtower: Irresponsibility, Fraud, and Complicity in the Search for Scientific Truth

PubMed Central

Tharyan, Prathap

2012-01-01

Scientific research aims to use reliable methods to produce generalizable new knowledge in order to understand the human condition and maximize human potential. The sanctity accorded to scientific research has been violated by numerous instances of research fraud, as well as deceptive and conflicted research that have seriously harmed people, subverted the evidence-base, wasted valuable resources, and undermined public trust. This deception by individuals has been fostered by the unrealistic expectations of society; facilitated by the complicity of institutions and organisations; and sanctioned by the inaction of supposed gate-keepers. Re-defining misconduct as occurring on a continuum from irresponsible to fraudulent is the first step in confronting this inconvenient truth. Implementing and evaluating multiple strategies targeting systems and individuals that promote the responsible conduct of research, rather than merely exposing serious instances of misconduct by individuals, is urgently required to restore faith in the aspirations, integrity, and results of scientific research. PMID:22654391

Criminals in the Citadel and Deceit all along the Watchtower: Irresponsibility, Fraud, and Complicity in the Search for Scientific Truth.

PubMed

Tharyan, Prathap

2012-01-01

Scientific research aims to use reliable methods to produce generalizable new knowledge in order to understand the human condition and maximize human potential. The sanctity accorded to scientific research has been violated by numerous instances of research fraud, as well as deceptive and conflicted research that have seriously harmed people, subverted the evidence-base, wasted valuable resources, and undermined public trust. This deception by individuals has been fostered by the unrealistic expectations of society; facilitated by the complicity of institutions and organisations; and sanctioned by the inaction of supposed gate-keepers. Re-defining misconduct as occurring on a continuum from irresponsible to fraudulent is the first step in confronting this inconvenient truth. Implementing and evaluating multiple strategies targeting systems and individuals that promote the responsible conduct of research, rather than merely exposing serious instances of misconduct by individuals, is urgently required to restore faith in the aspirations, integrity, and results of scientific research.

Generalizing on best practices in image processing: a model for promoting research integrity: Commentary on: Avoiding twisted pixels: ethical guidelines for the appropriate use and manipulation of scientific digital images.

PubMed

Benos, Dale J; Vollmer, Sara H

2010-12-01

Modifying images for scientific publication is now quick and easy due to changes in technology. This has created a need for new image processing guidelines and attitudes, such as those offered to the research community by Doug Cromey (Cromey 2010). We suggest that related changes in technology have simplified the task of detecting misconduct for journal editors as well as researchers, and that this simplification has caused a shift in the responsibility for reporting misconduct. We also argue that the concept of best practices in image processing can serve as a general model for education in best practices in research.

Public Response to Scientific Misconduct: Assessing Changes in Public Sentiment Toward the Stimulus-Triggered Acquisition of Pluripotency (STAP) Cell Case via Twitter.

PubMed

Gayle, Alberto; Shimaoka, Motomu

2017-04-20

In this age of social media, any news-good or bad-has the potential to spread in unpredictable ways. Changes in public sentiment have the potential to either drive or limit investment in publicly funded activities, such as scientific research. As a result, understanding the ways in which reported cases of scientific misconduct shape public sentiment is becoming increasingly essential-for researchers and institutions, as well as for policy makers and funders. In this study, we thus set out to assess and define the patterns according to which public sentiment may change in response to reported cases of scientific misconduct. This study focuses on the public response to the events involved in a recent case of major scientific misconduct that occurred in 2014 in Japan-stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency (STAP) cell case. The aims of this study were to determine (1) the patterns according to which public sentiment changes in response to scientific misconduct; (2) whether such measures vary significantly, coincident with major timeline events; and (3) whether the changes observed mirror the response patterns reported in the literature with respect to other classes of events, such as entertainment news and disaster reports. The recent STAP cell scandal is used as a test case. Changes in the volume and polarity of discussion were assessed using a sampling of case-related Twitter data, published between January 28, 2014 and March 15, 2015. Rapidminer was used for text processing and the popular bag-of-words algorithm, SentiWordNet, was used in Rapidminer to calculate sentiment for each sample Tweet. Relative volume and sentiment was then assessed overall, month-to-month, and with respect to individual entities. Despite the ostensibly negative subject, average sentiment over the observed period tended to be neutral (-0.04); however, a notable downward trend (y=-0.01 x +0.09; R ²=.45) was observed month-to-month. Notably polarized tweets accounted for less than one-third of sampled discussion: 17.49% (1656/9467) negative and 12.59% positive (1192/9467). Significant polarization was found in only 4 out of the 15 months covered, with significant variation month-to-month (P<.001). Significant increases in polarization tended to coincide with increased discussion volume surrounding major events (P<.001). These results suggest that public opinion toward scientific research may be subject to the same sensationalist dynamics driving public opinion in other, consumer-oriented topics. The patterns in public response observed here, with respect to the STAP cell case, were found to be consistent with those observed in the literature with respect to other classes of news-worthy events on Twitter. Discussion was found to become strongly polarized only during times of increased public attention, and such increases tended to be driven primarily by negative reporting and reactionary commentary. ©Alberto Gayle, Motomu Shimaoka. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (http://publichealth.jmir.org), 20.04.2017.

Public Response to Scientific Misconduct: Assessing Changes in Public Sentiment Toward the Stimulus-Triggered Acquisition of Pluripotency (STAP) Cell Case via Twitter

PubMed Central

Gayle, Alberto

2017-01-01

Background In this age of social media, any news—good or bad—has the potential to spread in unpredictable ways. Changes in public sentiment have the potential to either drive or limit investment in publicly funded activities, such as scientific research. As a result, understanding the ways in which reported cases of scientific misconduct shape public sentiment is becoming increasingly essential—for researchers and institutions, as well as for policy makers and funders. In this study, we thus set out to assess and define the patterns according to which public sentiment may change in response to reported cases of scientific misconduct. This study focuses on the public response to the events involved in a recent case of major scientific misconduct that occurred in 2014 in Japan—stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency (STAP) cell case. Objectives The aims of this study were to determine (1) the patterns according to which public sentiment changes in response to scientific misconduct; (2) whether such measures vary significantly, coincident with major timeline events; and (3) whether the changes observed mirror the response patterns reported in the literature with respect to other classes of events, such as entertainment news and disaster reports. Methods The recent STAP cell scandal is used as a test case. Changes in the volume and polarity of discussion were assessed using a sampling of case-related Twitter data, published between January 28, 2014 and March 15, 2015. Rapidminer was used for text processing and the popular bag-of-words algorithm, SentiWordNet, was used in Rapidminer to calculate sentiment for each sample Tweet. Relative volume and sentiment was then assessed overall, month-to-month, and with respect to individual entities. Results Despite the ostensibly negative subject, average sentiment over the observed period tended to be neutral (−0.04); however, a notable downward trend (y=−0.01 x +0.09; R ²=.45) was observed month-to-month. Notably polarized tweets accounted for less than one-third of sampled discussion: 17.49% (1656/9467) negative and 12.59% positive (1192/9467). Significant polarization was found in only 4 out of the 15 months covered, with significant variation month-to-month (P<.001). Significant increases in polarization tended to coincide with increased discussion volume surrounding major events (P<.001). Conclusions These results suggest that public opinion toward scientific research may be subject to the same sensationalist dynamics driving public opinion in other, consumer-oriented topics. The patterns in public response observed here, with respect to the STAP cell case, were found to be consistent with those observed in the literature with respect to other classes of news-worthy events on Twitter. Discussion was found to become strongly polarized only during times of increased public attention, and such increases tended to be driven primarily by negative reporting and reactionary commentary. PMID:28428163

Ethics and fraud in science: a review of scientific misconduct and applications to craniofacial research.

PubMed

Eliades, Theodore; Athanasiou, Athanasios E; Papadopulos, Jannis S

2005-01-01

The purpose of this article is to review and discuss the occurrence of fraud in biomedical research and analyze the definition, origin, and various forms of scientific misconduct. Fraud in research most often involves reporting data for which no records of experiment or population are present; manipulating research materials, equipment, or procedures to arrive at the desirable result; adding, changing, or omitting results, which positively or negatively relate to the hypothesis that the research intends to test; and incorporating ideas, statements, procedures of others' work without permission and appropriate credit to the source. The etiologic factors contributing to this deviant behavior, and measures taken by relevant bodies to eliminate this phenomenon are discussed. Ethical and integrity aspects of craniofacial research are explored and a set of criteria to facilitate rigorous assessment of the integrity of clinical and basic research protocols is proposed. These include (1) an integrity-focused training of researchers to adhere to specific laboratory procedure and tactics which discourage fraud; (2) appointment of external reviewers to detect unusual and suspicious experimental process or data patterns; and (3) encouragement of multicenter trials. Although it is widely recognized that the sole determinant of scientific misconduct is the individual investigator's integrity, a number of precautions may effectively reduce the prevalence of this event, which may affect the status and trends of biomedical research in general.

What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of:“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing?”

PubMed Central

Triggle, Chris R; Triggle, David J

2007-01-01

Peer review is an essential component of the process that is universally applied prior to the acceptance of a manuscript, grant or other scholarly work. Most of us willingly accept the responsibilities that come with being a reviewer but how comfortable are we with the process? Peer review is open to abuse but how should it be policed and can it be improved? A bad peer review process can inadvertently ruin an individual’s career, but are there penalties for policing a reviewer who deliberately sabotages a manuscript or grant? Science has received an increasingly tainted name because of recent high profile cases of alleged scientific misconduct. Once considered the results of work stress or a temporary mental health problem, scientific misconduct is increasingly being reported and proved to be a repeat offence. How should scientific misconduct be handled—is it a criminal offence and subject to national or international law? Similarly plagiarism is an ever-increasing concern whether at the level of the student or a university president. Are the existing laws tough enough? These issues, with appropriate examples, are dealt with in this review. PMID:17583174

[Role of research institutions in management of scientific fraud: The example of Inserm Scientific Integrity delegation].

PubMed

Bungener, Martine; Hadchouel, Michelle

2012-09-01

Fraud is only a part of misconduct in research. Very few French research Institutions have a scientific integrity office, and their prevention. The Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (Inserm) has created a "Scientific Integrity delegation". Scientific Integrity is an international concern. Scientific Integrity is closely linked to organisation, management and evaluation of all research activities. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Integrating a Peer-Taught Module on Practical Research Ethics into the Graduate Student Orientation Curriculum

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Danowitz, Amy M.; Taylor, Christopher E.

2011-01-01

As active members of the scientific community, graduate students make ethical judgments about the conduct and presentation of their research. Pressures in the research environment often influence these decisions. Because inappropriate decisions can lead to unethical behavior and scientific misconduct, it is important that students understand the…

Ethics in writing: Learning to stay away from plagiarism and scientific misconduct

PubMed Central

Sharma, Bharat Bhushan; Singh, Virendra

2011-01-01

Fraudulent data and plagiarized text may corrupt scientific medical literature and ultimately harm patients. By prescribing erroneous treatment to an individual, only single patient is affected; but by presenting incorrect data or transcripts, the whole scientific medical universe is affected. Although both scenarios are highly undesirable, one can assume the magnitude of the effect of latter. Writers of scientific medical literature have been found to be involved in plagiarism and other publication misconducts from time to time irrespective of social, economic and geographic structure. The reason of such behavior is not usually obvious. Easy availability of personal computers has led to widespread dissemination of medical literature. As a result, young scientists are now publishing their research more frequently and efficiently. At the same time, this has increased the tendency to submit hurriedly prepared, poorly drafted and even illegitimate publications. Use of some amount of copy–paste followed by modifications during preparation of a manuscript seems to be common. Therefore, the researchers, especially postgraduate students, should be educated continuously about ethical medical writing. PMID:21712931

Research Misconduct: Policy and Practice at the NSF

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Manka, Aaron

2004-03-01

Under NSF's Office of Inspector General mandate to prevent fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement involving NSF's proposals and awards, our office also investigates allegations of research misconduct. I will discuss our office's handling of such matters, focusing on the ethical and legal obligations of proposal submitters and awardees and the role of the scientific community. To illustrate some other points that are of interest to the physics community, I will also discuss some of our investigative activities relevant to: duplicate funding, the accuracy of information in proposals, and collaborations.

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.

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.

Honoring Our Ethical Origins: Scientific Integrity and Geoethics, Past, Present, and Future

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Gundersen, L. C.

2017-12-01

Current ethics policy owes much of its origins to Aristotle and his writings on virtue - including the idea that if we understand and rationally practice virtue and excellence, we will be our best selves. From this humble beginning emerged a number of more complex, ever evolving, ethical theories. The Hypocratic Oath and atrocities of World War II resulted in the roots of scientific integrity through the Nuremberg Code and the Belmont Report, which set ethical rules for human experimentation, including, respect, beneficence, and justice. These roots produced bioethics, medical ethics, environmental ethics, and geoethics. Geoethics has its origins in Europe and is being embraced in the U.S.A. It needs a respected place in the geoscience curriculum, especially as we face the global challenges of climate change and sustainability. Modern scientific integrity in the U.S.A., where research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, was derived from efforts of the 1980's through 1990's by the Nat'l Institutes of Health and Nat'l Academy of Sciences (NAS). This definition of misconduct has remained an immovable standard, excluding anything not of the scientific process, such as personal behaviors within the research environment. Modern scientific integrity codes and reports such as the Singapore Statement, the NAS' Fostering Integrity in Research, and current federal agency policies, provide standards of behavior to aspire to, and acknowledge the deleterious effects of certain behaviors and practices, but still hesitate to include them in formal definitions of research misconduct. Modern media is holding a mirror to what is happening in the research environment. There are conflicts of interest, misrepresentations of data and uncertainty, discrimination, harassment, bullying, misuse of funds, withholding of data and code, intellectual theft, and a host of others, that are having a serious detrimental effect on science. For science to have its best future, we as scientists need to nurture and encourage the best in ourselves and others, taking a cue from the ancient Greeks. We need to address conduct as a part of misconduct. Recent policies, including the AGU's are bravely moving forward in this direction. It is new and difficult ground, but we are scientists, and this is an experiment we need to do.

NSF's Handling of Allegations of Misconduct in Science

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Manka, Aaron

2000-03-01

Under NSF's Office of Inspector General mandate to prevent fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement involving NSF's proposals and awards, our office is unique in that it also investigates allegations of misconduct in science. I will discuss our office's handling of such matters, focusing on the ethical and legal obligations of proposal submitters and awardees and the role of the scientific community. To illustrate some of these points that are of interest to the physics community, I will discuss some of our investigative activities relevant to: duplicate funding, cost sharing, and the accuracy of information in proposals. If the OSTP policy on research misconduct has been released for public comment, I will briefly discuss this policy, which is meant to be adopted by all federal funding agencies, and what it will mean for us and the community we serve.

[Ghostwriters and commerce of scientific papers on the internet: science at risk].

PubMed

Grieger, Maria Christina Anna

2007-01-01

Frauds in scientific production are not a rare phenomenon, even in the medical field. Among these frauds are some types of authorship misconduct, such as plagiarism and ghostwriting sponsored by pharmaceutical industries. Another type of misconduct, which is particularly detrimental to science, is the e-commerce of scientific works, which has been growing and frequently shown in the press. To analyze the e-commerce of scientific papers and the means by which these services are offered. Eighteen Brazilian web sites that offer elaboration of scientific papers were selected. A request for the elaboration of a final essay for a forged post-graduate course was sent to each of them. The research requested had already been completed, consequently technical, ethical and bibliographical characteristics were already known to the author. Ten enterprises accepted the order and, except for one, they have not objected to the conditions imposed: Field research, approval by an ethics committee on research and use of the Vancouver norms. Six have not replied and two have not accepted the order alleging that they had no co-workers available for the task. E-commerce of scientific papers is a fact which can negatively interfere in the ethical, scientific and professional development of graduate and post-graduate students, as well as in scientific production by adulterating data and information found in literature. A new approach is recommended, especially when evaluating final essays.

Perspective: Innocence and due diligence: managing unfounded allegations of scientific misconduct.

PubMed

Goldenring, James R

2010-03-01

While the incidence of fraud in science is well documented, issues related to the establishment of innocence in cases of fallacious allegations remain unaddressed. In this article, the author uses his own experience to examine issues that arise when investigators are falsely accused of scientific fraud. Investigators must understand the processes in place to protect themselves against false accusations. The present system takes a position of guilty until proven innocent, a concept that is antithetical to American principles of jurisprudence. Yet this stance is acceptable as a requirement for membership in the scientific community, more reflective of the rules within a guild organization. The necessity for proof of innocence by members of the scientific community carries obligations that transcend normal legal assumptions. Scientists must safeguard their reputations by organizing and maintaining all original image files and data relevant to publications and grant proposals. Investigators must be able to provide clear documentation rapidly whenever concerns are raised during the review process. Moreover, peer-reviewed journals must be diligent not only in the identification of fraud but also in providing rapid due process for adjudication of allegations. The success of the scientific guild rules of conduct lies in the practice of due diligence by both scientists and journal editors in questions of scientific misconduct.

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.

Scientist to appeal misconduct charge

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Gwynne, Peter

2008-08-01

Lawyers for the "bubble-fusion" researcher Rusi Taleyarkhan have told Physics World that he will appeal over the findings of a panel that last month found him guilty of two charges of scientific misconduct. Taleyarkhan, a nuclear engineer at Purdue University in the US, was charged by a sixmember internal committee, which concluded that he had cited a paper by researchers in his own lab as if it were an independent confirmation of his alleged discovery of bubble fusion in 2002. The committee also found him guilty of adding the name of a student who had not contributed to that paper as an author.

Reply [to “Gentler term proposed for “borrowers’”

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Cicerone, Ralph

The author's basic point is a sound one— that not all inappropriate behavior is misconduct in science. I also appreciate Thomas Peterson's good humor. And perhaps it would be useful to have a word or phrase to help us deal with a sloppiness of scientific habit where there is no intent to mislead. However, just because a problem arises through inattention, misjudgment, or misunderstanding does not mean that the problem should not be taken seriously. AGU takes all such problems seriously, as evidenced by the Union's policy on Misconduct in Science, available at the AGU web site

Correction and Use of Biomedical Literature Affected by Scientific Misconduct

PubMed Central

Neale, Anne Victoria; Northrup, Justin; Dailey, Rhonda; Marks, Ellen; Abrams, Judith

2009-01-01

The purpose of this study was to identify and describe published research articles that were named in official findings of scientific misconduct and to investigate compliance with the administrative actions contained in these reports for corrections and retractions, as represented in PubMed. Between 1993 and 2001, 102 articles were named in either the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts (“Findings of Scientific Misconduct”) or the U.S. Office of Research Integrity annual reports as needing retraction or correction. In 2002, 98 of the 102 articles were indexed in PubMed. Eighty-five of these 98 articles had indexed corrections: 47 were retracted; 26 had an erratum; 12 had a correction described in the “comment” field. Thirteen had no correction, but 10 were linked to the NIH Guide “Findings of Scientific Misconduct”, leaving only 3 articles with no indication of any sort of problem. As of May 2005, there were 5,393 citations to the 102 articles, with a median of 26 citations per article (range 0–592). Researchers should be alert to “Comments” linked to the NIH Guide as these are open access, and the “Findings of Scientific Misconduct’ reports are often more informative than the statements about the retraction or correction found in the journals. PMID:17703606

75 FR 52346 - Findings of Scientific Misconduct

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-08-25

... to show that RNAi treatment of C. elegans led to increased expression of the TRA-2 protein when this... effect on laf-1 during developmental stages of C. elegans, and in Figure 5, the same lanes purportedly...

Responsible science: Ensuring the integrity of the research process. Volume 1. Final report, 1989--1992

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

Not Available

In 1989, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine initiated a major study to examine issues related to scientific responsibility and the conduct of research. 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 that not all scientists adhere to this obligation. Issues of misconduct and integrity in science present complex questions. This report recommends specific actions that all scientists, their institutions, and their sponsors can take to preserve and strengthen the integrity of the researchmore » process and also to deal with allegations of misconduct. The recommendations provide a blueprint for encouraging and safeguarding the intellectual independence that is essential to doing the best science while also providing for fundamental accountability to those who sponsor and support scientific research.« less

LNTgate: How scientific misconduct by the U.S. NAS led to governments adopting LNT for cancer risk assessment

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

Calabrese, Edward J., E-mail: edwardc@schoolph.umass.edu

This paper provides a detailed rebuttal to the letter of Beyea (2016) which offered a series of alternative interpretations to those offered in my article in Environmental Research (Calabrese, 2015a) concerning the role of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) I Committee Genetics Panel in the adoption of the linear dose response model for cancer risk assessment. Significant newly uncovered evidence is presented which supports and extends the findings of Calabrese (2015a), reaffirming the conclusion that the Genetics Panel should be evaluated for scientific misconduct for deliberate misrepresentation of the research record inmore » order to enhance an ideological agenda. This critique documents numerous factual errors along with extensive and deliberate filtering of information in the Beyea letter (2016) that leads to consistently incorrect conclusions and an invalid general perspective.« less

Principles and ethics in scientific communication in biomedicine.

PubMed

Donev, Doncho

2013-12-01

To present the basic principles and standards of scientific communication and writing a paper, to indicate the importance of honesty and ethical approach to research and publication of results in scientific journals, as well as the need for continuing education in the principles and ethics in science and publication in biomedicine. An analysis of relevant materials and documents, sources from the internet and published literature and personal experience and observations of the author. In the past more than 20 years there is an increasingly emphasized importance of respecting fundamental principles and standards of scientific communication and ethical approach to research and publication of results in peer review journals. Advances in the scientific community is based on honesty and equity of researchers in conducting and publishing the results of research and to develop guidelines and policies for prevention and punishment of publishing misconduct. Today scientific communication standards and definitions of fraud in science and publishing are generally consistent, but vary considerably policies and approach to ethics education in science, prevention and penal policies for misconduct in research and publication of results in scientific journals. It is necessary to further strengthen the capacity for education and research, and raising awareness about the importance and need for education about the principles of scientific communication, ethics of research and publication of results. The use of various forms of education of the scientific community, in undergraduate teaching and postgraduate master and doctoral studies, in order to create an ethical environment, is one of the most effective ways to prevent the emergence of scientific and publication dishonesty and fraud.

Principles and Ethics in Scientific Communication in Biomedicine

PubMed Central

Donev, Doncho

2013-01-01

Introduction and aim: To present the basic principles and standards of scientific communication and writing a paper, to indicate the importance of honesty and ethical approach to research and publication of results in scientific journals, as well as the need for continuing education in the principles and ethics in science and publication in biomedicine. Methods: An analysis of relevant materials and documents, sources from the internet and published literature and personal experience and observations of the author. Results: In the past more than 20 years there is an increasingly emphasized importance of respecting fundamental principles and standards of scientific communication and ethical approach to research and publication of results in peer review journals. Advances in the scientific community is based on honesty and equity of researchers in conducting and publishing the results of research and to develop guidelines and policies for prevention and punishment of publishing misconduct. Today scientific communication standards and definitions of fraud in science and publishing are generally consistent, but vary considerably policies and approach to ethics education in science, prevention and penal policies for misconduct in research and publication of results in scientific journals. Conclusion: It is necessary to further strengthen the capacity for education and research, and raising awareness about the importance and need for education about the principles of scientific communication, ethics of research and publication of results. The use of various forms of education of the scientific community, in undergraduate teaching and postgraduate master and doctoral studies, in order to create an ethical environment, is one of the most effective ways to prevent the emergence of scientific and publication dishonesty and fraud. PMID:24505166

Conflicting messages concerning current strategies against research misconduct in Japan: a call for ethical spontaneity.

PubMed

Asai, Atsushi; Okita, Taketoshi; Enzo, Aya

2016-08-01

The Japanese government has asserted that the purpose of scientific activities is to search for the truth about the world and contribute to public interest of the humanities and claimed that research misconduct should occur under no circumstances ever. The revealing of each new case of research misconduct leads to the establishment of investigation committees and research guidelines, as well as punishments for the transgressors. However, we wonder if Japanese researchers are receiving different messages that might undermine the purpose of the former messages. First, Japan's policies on science and technology have been created to comprise an integration of merit-based evaluations, principles of competition and a concentrated and unbalanced distribution of research funding, leading to decreases in ordinary research funding for the researchers and an increase in fierce research competition. Second, Japanese government and society as a whole continue to send the researchers messages such as 'Only results matter', 'Be No. 1 as a top priority' and 'All we need now is scientific progress'. Third, cultural peculiarities may explain some of the actions relevant to research misconducts currently noted in Japan. We argue that it is essential to re-examine and improve the governmental policies and evaluation methods for research achievements need to be more multifaceted. In order to have the researchers act according to ethics, it is essential for them to reaffirm their objectives for working in the fields of science and medicine and the importance of balancing their personal profit with the greater cause for entering into this field. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

THE TOPIC OF RESEARCH INTEGRITY IN LATINAMERICA1

PubMed Central

Rodríguez, Eduardo; Lolas, Fernando

2012-01-01

Present article narrates the experience of trainees of the ethics of biomedical and psychosocial research program of the Interdisciplinary Center for studies on bioethics (CIEB) of the University of Chile on the topic of research integrity in Latin America. The following problems are covered: integrity of publications, reporting of scientific research misconduct, definitions of research integrity, scientific ethical review committees functioning, international multi-centric clinical trials monitoring and norms for scientific integrity and ethical oversight. PMID:22679532

Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature.

PubMed

Casadevall, Arturo; Steen, R Grant; Fang, Ferric C

2014-09-01

Retraction of flawed articles is an important mechanism for correction of the scientific literature. We recently reported that the majority of retractions are associated with scientific misconduct. In the current study, we focused on the subset of retractions for which no misconduct was identified, in order to identify the major causes of error. Analysis of the retraction notices for 423 articles indexed in PubMed revealed that the most common causes of error-related retraction are laboratory errors, analytical errors, and irreproducible results. The most common laboratory errors are contamination and problems relating to molecular biology procedures (e.g., sequencing, cloning). Retractions due to contamination were more common in the past, whereas analytical errors are now increasing in frequency. A number of publications that have not been retracted despite being shown to contain significant errors suggest that barriers to retraction may impede correction of the literature. In particular, few cases of retraction due to cell line contamination were found despite recognition that this problem has affected numerous publications. An understanding of the errors leading to retraction can guide practices to improve laboratory research and the integrity of the scientific literature. Perhaps most important, our analysis has identified major problems in the mechanisms used to rectify the scientific literature and suggests a need for action by the scientific community to adopt protocols that ensure the integrity of the publication process. © FASEB.

ICMJE authorship criteria are not met in a substantial proportion of manuscripts submitted to Biochemia Medica.

PubMed

Šupak-Smolčić, Vesna; Mlinarić, Ana; Antončić, Dragana; Horvat, Martina; Omazić, Jelena; Šimundić, Ana-Maria

2015-01-01

Our aim was to investigate if: (a) authors of Biochemia Medica meet authorship criteria given by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), (b) authorship violations are more frequent in submissions containing some type of scientific misconduct. Self-reported authorship contributions regarding the three ICMJE criteria were analysed for all submissions to Biochemia Medica (February 2013-April 2015) which were forwarded to peer-review. To test the differences in frequencies we used Chi-squared test. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. 186 manuscripts were authored by 804 authors. All ICMJE criteria were met by 487/804 (61%) authors. The first and the last author met all the criteria more frequently than those authors in between (P<0.001). The degree to which ICMJE criteria was met for the first author did not differ between manuscripts authored by only one author and those authored by >1 author (P=0.859). In 9% of the manuscripts ICMJE criteria were not met by a single author. Authors of the 171/186 manuscripts declared that all persons qualify for authorship but only 49% of them satisfied all ICMJE criteria. Authors have failed to acknowledge contributors in 88/186 (47%) manuscripts; instead these contributors have been listed as authors without fulfilling ICMJE criteria. Authorship violation was not more common in 42 manuscripts with some type of scientific misconduct (P=0.135). Large proportion of authors of the manuscripts submitted to Biochemia Medica do not fulfil ICMJE criteria. Violation of authorship criteria is not more common for manuscripts with some type of scientific misconduct.

Ethical modernization: research misconduct and research ethics reforms in Korea following the Hwang affair.

PubMed

Kim, Jongyoung; Park, Kibeom

2013-06-01

The Hwang affair, a dramatic and far reaching instance of scientific fraud, shocked the world. This collective national failure prompted various organizations in Korea, including universities, regulatory agencies, and research associations, to engage in self-criticism and research ethics reforms. This paper aims, first, to document and review research misconduct perpetrated by Hwang and members of his research team, with particular attention to the agencies that failed to regulate and then supervise Hwang's research. The paper then examines the research ethics reforms introduced in the wake of this international scandal. After reviewing American and European research governance structures and policies, policy makers developed a mixed model mindful of its Korean context. The third part of the paper examines how research ethics reform is proactive (a response to shocking scientific misconduct and ensuing external criticism from the press and society) as well as reactive (identification of and adherence to national or international ethics standards). The last part deals with Korean society's response to the Hwang affair, which had the effect of a moral atomic bomb and has led to broad ethical reform in Korean society. We conceptualize this change as ethical modernization, through which the Korean public corrects the failures of a growth-oriented economic model for social progress, and attempts to create a more trustworthy and ethical society.

Plastic deformation of yttria stabilized cubic zirconia single crystals

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Hildebrandt, Stefan

2004-01-01

Conference Reports are meant to offer an authoritative view on a recently held scientific meeting rather than a comprehensive list of the conference presentations. Authors are invited to describe what they feel were the most interesting contributions.Changing the culture of science and publication was the tenor at the IUPAP Workshop on Scientific Misconduct and the Role of Physics Journals in its Investigation and Prevention, recently held in London. (

Editorial research and the publication process in biomedicine and health: Report from the Esteve Foundation Discussion Group, December 2012

PubMed Central

Marušić, Ana; Malički, Mario; von Elm, Erik

2014-01-01

Despite the fact that there are more than twenty thousand biomedical journals in the world, research into the work of editors and publication process in biomedical and health care journals is rare. In December 2012, the Esteve Foundation, a non-profit scientific institution that fosters progress in pharmacotherapy by means of scientific communication and discussion organized a discussion group of 7 editors and/or experts in peer review biomedical publishing. They presented findings of past editorial research, discussed the lack of competitive funding schemes and specialized journals for dissemination of editorial research, and reported on the great diversity of misconduct and conflict of interest policies, as well as adherence to reporting guidelines. Furthermore, they reported on the reluctance of editors to investigate allegations of misconduct or increase the level of data sharing in health research. In the end, they concluded that if editors are to remain gatekeepers of scientific knowledge they should reaffirm their focus on the integrity of the scientific record and completeness of the data they publish. Additionally, more research should be undertaken to understand why many journals are not adhering to editorial standards, and what obstacles editors face when engaging in editorial research. PMID:24969914

Stop misbehaving!

PubMed

Neill, Ushma S

2006-07-01

Scientists are usually thought to be beyond reproach, but with the recent spate of high-profile ethical transgressions by scientists, the public's trust in science and scientists is deteriorating. The numerous cases of scientific misconduct that have crossed my desk in the last year leave me disenchanted, disappointed, and disillusioned.

Evaluation by Citation: Trends in Publication Behavior, Evaluation Criteria, and the Strive for High Impact Publications.

PubMed

van Wesel, Maarten

2016-02-01

Criteria for the evaluation of most scholars' work have recently received wider attention due to high-profile cases of scientific misconduct which are perceived to be linked to these criteria. However, in the competition for career advancement and funding opportunities almost all scholars are subjected to the same criteria. Therefore these evaluation criteria act as 'switchmen', determining the tracks along which scholarly work is pushed by the dynamic interplay of interests of both scholars and their institutions. Currently one of the most important criteria is the impact of publications. In this research, the extent to which publish or perish, a long standing evaluation criterion, led to scientific misconduct is examined briefly. After this the strive for high impact publications will be examined, firstly by identifying the period in which this became an important evaluation criterion, secondly by looking at variables contributing to the impact of scholarly papers by means of a non-structured literature study, and lastly by combining these data into a quantitative analysis.

Interwell exciton dispersion engineering, coherent phonons generation and optical detectionof exciton condensate

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Hildebrandt, Stefan

2004-01-01

Conference Reports are meant to offer an authoritative view on a recently held scientific meeting rather than a comprehensive list of the conference presentations. Authors are invited to describe what they feel were the most interesting contributions.Changing the culture of science and publication was the tenor at the IUPAP Workshop on Scientific Misconduct and the Role of Physics Journals in its Investigation and Prevention, recently held in London.

Stop misbehaving!

PubMed Central

Neill, Ushma S.

2006-01-01

Scientists are usually thought to be beyond reproach, but with the recent spate of high-profile ethical transgressions by scientists, the public’s trust in science and scientists is deteriorating. The numerous cases of scientific misconduct that have crossed my desk in the last year leave me disenchanted, disappointed, and disillusioned. PMID:16823470

A Review of Conflict of Interest, Competing Interest, and Bias for Toxicologists

EPA Science Inventory

One of the issues often associated with scientific misconduct is conflict of interest (CoI). Although there is a lack of uniformity in the definition of CoI, many express concerns that competing interests may bias research methods and the interpretation of data and conclusions. ...

An analysis on the research ethics cases managed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) between 1997 and 2010.

PubMed

Foo, Jong Yong Abdiel; Wilson, Stephen James

2012-12-01

The growing emphasis on the importance of publishing scientific findings in the academic world has led to increasing prevalence of potentially significant publications in which scientific and ethical rigour may be questioned. This has not only hindered research progress, but also eroded public trust in all scientific advances. In view of the increasing concern and the complexity of research misconduct, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) was established in 1997 to manage cases with ethical implications. In order to review the outcomes of cases investigated by COPE, a total of 408 cases that had been managed by COPE were successfully extracted and analysed with respect to 7 distinct criteria. The results obtained indicate that the number of ethical implications per case has not changed significantly (p > 0.01) since the year COPE was instigated. Interestingly, the number of ethical cases, and to some extent, research misconduct, is not diminishing. Therefore, journal editors and publishers need to work closely together with COPE to inculcate adoption of appropriate research ethics and values in younger researchers while discouraging others from lowering standards. It is hoped that with a more concerted effort from the academic community and better public awareness, there will be fewer incidences of ethically and scientifically challenged publications. The ultimate aim being to enhance the quality of published works with concomittant public trust in the results.

[Honesty and good faith: two cornerstones in the ethics of biomedical publications].

PubMed

Reyes, Humberto

2007-04-01

The editors of medical journals should take the steps necessary to assure its readers that the contents of their publications are based in true data, that they are original and fulfill the ethical rules of biomedical and clinical research, including its reporting. This editors role has become increasingly difficult since the pressure to publish scientific papers is progressively stimulated by the role that those papers play in curricula vitae when the authors apply for university positions, academic promotions, research grants and for their personal prestige. As a consequence, increasing instances of misconduct in scientific publications are detected. Some cases are noticed during the editorial process, mostly when peer reviewers identify redundant publications or plagiarism. Other cases are denounced after a manuscript was published. It is the editors duty to verify the misconduct, request an explanation from the authors and, if their answer is unsatisfactory, report the problem to the institutional authorities supporting the authors. The editors should denounce the situation in a forthcoming issue of the journal. Universities should enforce the teaching of ethical rules that govern the report of scientific information. Revista Médica de Chile follows recommendations given by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the World Association of Medical Editors and other groups, but honesty and good faith in all the actors involved in the process of biomedical publications (authors, reviewers, editors) remain the cornerstones of scientific good behavior.

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.

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.

DSM-5 antisocial personality disorder: predictive validity in a prison sample.

PubMed

Edens, John F; Kelley, Shannon E; Lilienfeld, Scott O; Skeem, Jennifer L; Douglas, Kevin S

2015-04-01

Symptoms of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), particularly remorselessness, are frequently introduced in legal settings as a risk factor for future violence in prison, despite a paucity of research on the predictive validity of this disorder. We examined whether an ASPD diagnosis or symptom-criteria counts could prospectively predict any form of institutional misconduct, as well as aggressive and violent infractions among newly admitted prisoners. Adult male (n = 298) and female (n = 55) offenders were recruited from 4 prison systems across the United States. At the time of study enrollment, diagnostic information was collected using the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV; APA, 1994) Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II; First, Gibbon, Spitzer, Williams, & Benjamin, 1997) supplemented by a detailed review of official records. Disciplinary records were obtained from inmates' respective prisons covering a 1-year period following study enrollment and misconduct was categorized hierarchically as any (general), aggressive (verbal/physical), or violent (physical). Dichotomous ASPD diagnoses and adult symptom-criteria counts did not significantly predict institutional misconduct across our 3 outcome variables, with effect sizes being close to 0 in magnitude. The symptom of remorselessness in particular showed no relation to future misconduct in prison. Childhood symptom counts of conduct disorder demonstrated modest predictive utility. Our results offer essentially no support for the claim that ASPD diagnoses can predict institutional misconduct in prison, regardless of the number of adult symptoms present. In forensic contexts, testimony that an ASPD diagnosis identifies defendants who will pose a serious threat while incarcerated in prison presently lacks any substantial scientific foundation. (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).

Teaching and Assessing the Responsible Conduct of Research: A Delphi Consensus Panel Report

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

DuBois, James M.; Dueker, Jeffrey M.

2009-01-01

In an effort to foster research integrity, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation mandate education of all trainees in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). Nevertheless, recent studies suggest that rates of questionable research practices and scientific misconduct are both high and considerably underreported.…

Whistleblowing in academic medicine

PubMed Central

Rhodes, R; Strain, J

2004-01-01

The authors present and discuss cases of academic medicine failing to address unethical behaviour in academic science and, thereby, illustrate the scope and seriousness of the problem. The Olivieri/Apotex affair is just another instance of academic medicine's dereliction in a case of scientific fraud and misconduct. Instead of vigorously supporting their faculty member in her efforts to honestly communicate her findings and to protect patients from the risks associated with the use of the study drug, the University of Toronto collaborated with the Apotex company's "stalling tactics," closed down Dr Olivieri's laboratory, harassed her, and ultimately dismissed her. The authors argue that the incentives for addressing problematic behaviour have to be revised in order to effect a change in the current pattern of response that occurs in academic medicine. An externally imposed realignment of incentives could convert the perception of the whistleblower, from their present caste as the enemy within, into a new position, as valued friend of the institution. The authors explain how such a correction could encourage appropriate reactions to scientific misconduct from academic medicine. PMID:14872069

AGU's Updated Scientific Integrity and Professional Ethics Policy

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

McPhaden, M. J.

2017-12-01

AGU'S mission is to promote discovery in Earth and space science for the benefit of humanity. This mission can only be accomplished if all those engaged in the scientific enterprise uphold the highest standards of scientific integrity and professional ethics. AGU's Scientific Integrity and Professional Ethics Policy provides a set of principles and guidelines for AGU members, staff, volunteers, contractors, and non-members participating in AGU sponsored programs and activities. The policy has recently been updated to include a new code of conduct that broadens the definition of scientific misconduct to include discrimination, harassment, and bullying. This presentation provides the context for what motivated the updated policy, an outline of the policy itself, and a discussion of how it is being communicated and applied.

Strengthening the framework for independence of science in policymaking

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Rosenberg, A.; Phartiyal, P.; Halpern, M.; Goldman, G. T.; Reed, G.

2016-12-01

The "independence" of scientific advice—shorthand for the safeguards that are needed to ensure that scientific evidence that informs policy proposals stems from a valid and credible scientific process—is crucial to better policy decisions and public faith in public policy decisions. To the public, and often policy-makers, the process of developing, refereeing, and synthesizing science is often opaque, confusing, and underappreciated. At the same time, calls for disclosure of real or perceived conflicts of interest and for greater public access to scientific information and data are increasing. Further, vested interests routinely produce their own analyses, which often do not meet acceptable standards, to justify their own ends or a particular pre-determined policy position for economic, political, ideological, or other gains. These are not speculative concerns. For example, conflict of interest disclosure is often incomplete and inconsistently enforced. Peer review, even in the academic community, has been compromised or circumvented in too many cases. Scientific misconduct and research integrity in several fields have become high-profile scandals. Scientific integrity policies in government agencies are not fully implemented. A decline in public funding of research makes private-public partnerships more commonplace, and sometimes, those partnerships allow funders to unduly influence faculty appointment, curricula, and research. In this complicated landscape, a coherent, publicly credible and acceptable framework to assure that scientific advice is independent is sorely needed. Such a framework must incorporate best practices such as peer review; disclosure of conflicts; public availability of research findings, methodology and data; reproducibility of results; scientific freedom to publish; and deterrents against scientific misconduct. The framework would be broadly applicable across many technical fields and sectors. Here we delve into each of these elements and suggest a path forward on advancing the independence of science. Public policy will truly serve the public interest only when the science informing government decisions is independent, legitimate, and credible.

Incubating Innovation or Cultivating Corruption? The Developmental State and the Life Sciences in Asia

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Lee, Cheol-Sung; Schrank, Andrew

2010-01-01

A substantial body of literature purports to document the growth of scientific misconduct in Northeast Asia. This article traces the apparent growth of research fraud and falsification to two distinct features of the national innovation systems common to the region: liberal research regimes adopted by developmental states and marked by freedom…

Scientific misconduct and theft: case report from 17th century.

PubMed

Fatović-Ferencić, Stella

2008-02-01

Gjuro Armen Baglivi was one of the most famous medical authorities of the 17th century. Apart from his numerous books and publications, several extensive collections of his correspondence have been preserved and are available in libraries around the world. They provide new information about the 17th century scientific culture and place of Baglivi's work in the scientific European context. Also, they shed light on his personality more than other writings intended for the public eye. In this paper I will present the case of a theft of intellectual property, which Baglivi described in one of his letters to Jean Jacques Manget.

Scientific Misconduct and Theft: Case Report from 17th Century

PubMed Central

Fatović-Ferenčić, Stella

2008-01-01

Gjuro Armen Baglivi was one of the most famous medical authorities of the 17th century. Apart from his numerous books and publications, several extensive collections of his correspondence have been preserved and are available in libraries around the world. They provide new information about the 17th century scientific culture and place of Baglivi’s work in the scientific European context. Also, they shed light on his personality more than other writings intended for the public eye. In this paper I will present the case of a theft of intellectual property, which Baglivi described in one of his letters to Jean Jacques Manget. PMID:18293461

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

Patchwork plagiarism--a jigsaw of stolen puzzle pieces.

PubMed

Supak Smolcić, Vesna; Bilić-Zulle, Lidija

2013-01-01

Plagiarism remains at the top in terms of interest to the scientific community. In its many vicious forms, patchwork plagiarism is characterized by numerous unresolved issues and often passes "below the radar" of editors and reviewers. The problem of detecting the complexity of misconduct has been partially resolved by plagiarism detection software. However, interpretation of relevant reports is not always obvious or easy. This article deals with plagiarism in general and patchwork plagiarism in particular, as well as related problems that editors must deal with to maintain the integrity of scientific journals.

Piltdown Man: Combining the Instruction of Scientific Ethics and Qualitative Analysis

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Vincent, John B.

1999-11-01

In combination with lectures on scientific method and the problems of scientific misconduct in a freshman chemistry course at The University of Alabama, a laboratory experiment was developed to allow students to feel some of the sense of scientific discovery associated with the exposure of the Piltdown Man fraud. This is accomplished by modifying a commonly performed freshman chemistry laboratory experiment, qualitative analysis of group III metal ions. Pieces of chalk are treated with chromium, manganese, and iron to simulate the treatment used to forge the Piltdown "fossils"; students can use techniques in qualitative analysis schemes for the group III ions to determine whether the samples are "forgeries" and if so which metal ion(s) were used.

Early Contributions to the Evolution of the Canadian Scientific Integrity System: Institutional and Governmental Interaction in the Policy Diffusion Process

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Schoenherr, Jordan Richard; Williams-Jones, Bryn

2016-01-01

Academic institutions and research funders have in the last decade devoted considerable effort to developing policies to support academic integrity and prevent misconduct. In this study, we consider the extent to which various initiatives of Canadian federal and provincial (Québec) funders have affected the development of institutional research…

Science as a Matter of Honour: How Accused Scientists Deal with Scientific Fraud in Japan.

PubMed

Pellegrini, Pablo A

2017-06-26

Practices related to research misconduct seem to have been multiplied in recent years. Many cases of scientific fraud have been exposed publicly, and journals and academic institutions have deployed different measures worldwide in this regard. However, the influence of specific social and cultural environments on scientific fraud may vary from society to society. This article analyzes how scientists in Japan deal with accusations of scientific fraud. For such a purpose, a series of scientific fraud cases that took place in Japan has been reconstructed through diverse sources. Thus, by analyzing those cases, the social basis of scientific fraud and the most relevant aspects of Japanese cultural values and traditions, as well as the concept of honour which is deeply involved in the way Japanese scientists react when they are accused of and publicly exposed in scientific fraud situations is examined.

Scientific misconduct encountered by APAME journals: an online survey.

PubMed

Looi, Lai-Meng; Wong, Li Xuan; Koh, Cing Chai

2015-12-01

In June 2015, invitations were sent by email to 151 APAME journals to participate in an online survey with an objective of gaining insight into the common publication misconduct encountered by APAME editors. The survey, conducted through SurveyMonkey over a 20-day-period, comprised 10 questions with expansions to allow anecdotes limited to 400 characters, estimated to take less than 10 minutes to complete. Only one invitation was issued per journal, targeting (in order of priority) editors, editorial board members and editorial staff, and limited by email availability. 54 (36%) journals responded. 98% of respondents held Editor or Editorial Board positions. All respondent journals have editorial policies on publication ethics and 96% provide instructions related to ethics. 45% use anti-plagiarism software to screen manuscripts, the most popular being iThenticate, CrossCheck and Turnitin. Up to 50% of journals had encountered studies without IRB approval. Author misconduct encountered were (in rank order): plagiarism (75%), duplicate publication (58%), unjustified authorship (39%), authorship disputes (33%), data falsification (29%), data/image manipulation (27%), conflict of interest (25%), copyright violation (17%) and breach of confidentiality (10%). Reviewer misconduct encountered were: conflict of interest (19%), plagiarism (17%), obstructive behavior (17%), abusive language (13%) and breach of confidentiality (13%). Notwithstanding the limitations of the survey and the response rate, a few insights have been gained: (1) the need for strengthening the ethical culture of researchers/authors and reviewers, (2) anti-plagiarism software can improve plagiarism detection by about 15%, and (3) the need for technical support to detect plagiarism, duplicate publication and image manipulation.

Authorship in scientific publications: analysis and recommendations.

PubMed

Hess, Christian W; Brückner, Christian; Kaiser, Tony; Mauron, Alex; Wahli, Walter; Wenzel, Uwe Justus; Salathé, Michelle

2015-01-01

In 2008, a Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences working group chaired by Professor Emilio Bossi issued a "Memorandum on scientific integrity and the handling of misconduct in the scientific context", together with a paper setting out principles and procedures concerning integrity in scientific research. In the Memorandum, unjustified claims of authorship in scientific publications are referred to as a form of scientific misconduct - a view widely shared in other countries. In the Principles and Procedures, the main criteria for legitimate authorship are specified, as well as the associated responsibilities. It is in fact not uncommon for disputes about authorship to arise with regard to publications in fields where research is generally conducted by teams rather than individuals. Such disputes may concern not only the question who is or is not to be listed as an author but also, frequently, the precise sequence of names, if the list is to reflect the various authors' roles and contributions. Subjective assessments of the contributions made by the individual members of a research group may differ substantially. As scientific collaboration - often across national boundaries - is now increasingly common, ensuring appropriate recognition of all parties is a complex matter and, where disagreements arise, it may not be easy to reach a consensus. In addition, customs have changed over the past few decades; for example, the practice of granting "honorary" authorship to an eminent researcher - formerly not unusual - is no longer considered acceptable. It should be borne in mind that the publications list has become by far the most important indicator of a researcher's scientific performance; for this reason, appropriate authorship credit has become a decisive factor in the careers of young researchers, and it needs to be managed and protected accordingly. At the international and national level, certain practices have therefore developed concerning the listing of authors and the obligations of authorship. The Scientific Integrity Committee of the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences has collated the relevant principles and regulations and formulated recommendations for authorship in scientific publications. These should help to prevent authorship disputes and offer guidance in the event of conflicts.

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

How do we handle self-plagiarism in submitted manuscripts?

PubMed

Supak-Smocić, Vesna; Bilić-Zulle, Lidija

2013-01-01

Self-plagiarism is a controversial issue in scientific writing and presentation of research data. Unlike plagiarism, self-plagiarism is difficult to interpret as intellectual theft under the justification that one cannot steal from oneself. However, academics are concerned, as self-plagiarized papers mislead readers, do not contribute to science, and bring undeserved credit to authors. As such, it should be considered a form of scientific misconduct. In this paper, we explain different forms of self-plagiarism in scientific writing and then present good editorial policy toward questionable material. The importance of dealing with self-plagiarism is emphasized by the recently published proposal of Text Recycling Guidelines by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

How do we handle self-plagiarism in submitted manuscripts?

PubMed Central

Šupak-Smolčić, Vesna; Bilić-Zulle, Lidija

2013-01-01

Self-plagiarism is a controversial issue in scientific writing and presentation of research data. Unlike plagiarism, self-plagiarism is difficult to interpret as intellectual theft under the justification that one cannot steal from oneself. However, academics are concerned, as self-plagiarized papers mislead readers, do not contribute to science, and bring undeserved credit to authors. As such, it should be considered a form of scientific misconduct. In this paper, we explain different forms of self-plagiarism in scientific writing and then present good editorial policy toward questionable material. The importance of dealing with self-plagiarism is emphasized by the recently published proposal of Text Recycling Guidelines by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). PMID:23894861

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

32 CFR 776.69 - Misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-07-01

... 32 National Defense 5 2014-07-01 2014-07-01 false Misconduct. 776.69 Section 776.69 National Defense Department of Defense (Continued) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY MISCELLANEOUS RULES PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT... Professional Conduct § 776.69 Misconduct. (a) Misconduct. It is professional misconduct for a covered attorney...

32 CFR 776.69 - Misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-07-01

... 32 National Defense 5 2013-07-01 2013-07-01 false Misconduct. 776.69 Section 776.69 National Defense Department of Defense (Continued) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY MISCELLANEOUS RULES PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT... Professional Conduct § 776.69 Misconduct. (a) Misconduct. It is professional misconduct for a covered attorney...

32 CFR 776.69 - Misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-07-01

... 32 National Defense 5 2011-07-01 2011-07-01 false Misconduct. 776.69 Section 776.69 National Defense Department of Defense (Continued) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY MISCELLANEOUS RULES PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT... Professional Conduct § 776.69 Misconduct. (a) Misconduct. It is professional misconduct for a covered attorney...

32 CFR 776.69 - Misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... 32 National Defense 5 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Misconduct. 776.69 Section 776.69 National Defense Department of Defense (Continued) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY MISCELLANEOUS RULES PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT... Professional Conduct § 776.69 Misconduct. (a) Misconduct. It is professional misconduct for a covered attorney...

32 CFR 776.69 - Misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-07-01

... 32 National Defense 5 2012-07-01 2012-07-01 false Misconduct. 776.69 Section 776.69 National Defense Department of Defense (Continued) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY MISCELLANEOUS RULES PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT... Professional Conduct § 776.69 Misconduct. (a) Misconduct. It is professional misconduct for a covered attorney...

Dealing with scientific integrity issues: the Spanish experience.

PubMed

Puigdomènech, Pere

2014-02-01

Integrity has been an important matter of concern for the scientific community as it affects the basis of its activities. Most countries having a significant scientific activity have dealt with this problem by different means, including drafting specific legal or soft law regulations and the appointment of stable or ad hoc committees that take care of these questions. This has also been the case in Spain. After the period of transition between dictatorship to a democratic regime, and, particularly, after the entrance in the European Union, scientific activity has increased in the country. As it could be expected, problems of misconduct have appeared and different institutions have been dealing with these matters. One of the best examples is that of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC), the largest institution devoted to scientific research belonging to the Spanish Government. The experience of the CSIC’s Ethics Committee in dealing with conflicts related to scientific practices is discussed here.

Federal Agency Scientific Integrity Policies and the Legal Landscape

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Kurtz, L.

2017-12-01

Federal agencies have worked to develop scientific integrity policies to promote the use of scientific and technical information in policymaking, reduce special-interest influences, and increase transparency. Following recent allegations of agency misconduct, these policies are now more important than ever. In addition to setting standards, scientific integrity policies also provide avenues for whistleblowers to complain about perceived violations. While these policies have their shortcomings (which may differ by agency), they are also one of the better available options for upholding principles of scientific integrity within the federal government. A legal perspective will be offered on what sorts of issues might rise to the threshold to make an official complaint, and the process of actually making a complaint. Other legal avenues for complaining about scientific integrity violations will also be discussed, such as complaints filed with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel or an agency's Office of Inspector General, and bringing the matter to federal court.

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...

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...

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...

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...

[The management of errors and scientific fraud by biomedical journals: They cannot replace Institutions].

PubMed

Maisonneuve, Hervé

2012-09-01

Research integrity is not negotiable, but we regularly observe research misconduct, and journals are victims or guilty. Journals do not have the objective to assess research integrity: that's the Institutions' roles. Journals discover research misconduct when articles are reviewed (an editor or a reviewer detect signals), or after the article's publication when a reader or a whistleblower call the journal. The editors and reviewers' research misconduct are less described and not publicized in the medias. The peer-review system is criticised. If authors were fair-play, and reviews well done, the journals should not publish articles containing false data. The opponents to the peer-review system propose no alternatives to replace it. The anonymous peer reviews are questioned: it has never been proved that quality of anonymous reading was better than quality of open reading. The Open Access facilitated the creation of many journals. Some journals are excellent and got an impact factor; most journals have a poor quality and don't follow the publications ethics standards. When errors and fraud are identified, journals can publish 3 statements: erratum for errors, expression of concern for errors or fraud when evidence is not established, and retraction when evidence is obvious. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

High school science fair and research integrity

PubMed Central

Dalley, Simon; Shepherd, Karen; Reisch, Joan

2017-01-01

Research misconduct has become an important matter of concern in the scientific community. The extent to which such behavior occurs early in science education has received little attention. In the current study, using the web-based data collection program REDCap, we obtained responses to an anonymous and voluntary survey about science fair from 65 high school students who recently competed in the Dallas Regional Science and Engineering Fair and from 237 STEM-track, post-high school students (undergraduates, 1st year medical students, and 1st year biomedical graduate students) doing research at UT Southwestern Medical Center. Of the post-high school students, 24% had competed in science fair during their high school education. Science fair experience was similar overall for the local cohort of Dallas regional students and the more diverse state/national cohort of post-high school students. Only one student out of 122 reported research misconduct, in his case making up the data. Unexpectedly, post-high school students who did not participate in science fair anticipated that carrying out science fair would be much more difficult than actually was the case, and 22% of the post-high school students anticipated that science fair participants would resort to research misconduct to overcome obstacles. No gender-based differences between students’ science fair experiences or expectations were evident. PMID:28328976

High school science fair and research integrity.

PubMed

Grinnell, Frederick; Dalley, Simon; Shepherd, Karen; Reisch, Joan

2017-01-01

Research misconduct has become an important matter of concern in the scientific community. The extent to which such behavior occurs early in science education has received little attention. In the current study, using the web-based data collection program REDCap, we obtained responses to an anonymous and voluntary survey about science fair from 65 high school students who recently competed in the Dallas Regional Science and Engineering Fair and from 237 STEM-track, post-high school students (undergraduates, 1st year medical students, and 1st year biomedical graduate students) doing research at UT Southwestern Medical Center. Of the post-high school students, 24% had competed in science fair during their high school education. Science fair experience was similar overall for the local cohort of Dallas regional students and the more diverse state/national cohort of post-high school students. Only one student out of 122 reported research misconduct, in his case making up the data. Unexpectedly, post-high school students who did not participate in science fair anticipated that carrying out science fair would be much more difficult than actually was the case, and 22% of the post-high school students anticipated that science fair participants would resort to research misconduct to overcome obstacles. No gender-based differences between students' science fair experiences or expectations were evident.

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

Faculty and College Student Beliefs about the Frequency of Student Academic Misconduct

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Hard, Stephen F.; Conway, James M.; Moran, Antonia C.

2006-01-01

This study investigated faculty and college student beliefs concerning student academic misconduct. Faculty beliefs predicted efforts to prevent misconduct and efforts to challenge it. Student beliefs predicted frequency of misconduct. Faculty and students overestimated the extent of misconduct, students to a greater degree. Faculty who…

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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

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.

Cross-Field Comparison of Ethics Education: Golden Rules and Particulars.

PubMed

Mulhearn, Tyler J; Watts, Logan L; Torrence, Brett S; Todd, E Michelle; Turner, Megan R; Connelly, Shane; Mumford, Michael D

2017-01-01

Research misconduct negatively impacts the scientific community and society in general. Providing training in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) to researchers is one viable approach to minimizing research misconduct. Although recent evidence suggests ethics training can indeed be effective, little empirical work has examined the similarities and differences across fields. In the present study, we analyzed 62 empirical studies in engineering, biomedical science, social science, and mixed fields. The findings suggest certain instructional principles, or "golden rules," apply generally to all fields. These golden rules include maintaining a field-specific or field-general approach and emphasizing processes in training. The findings also suggest that content areas contributing to instructional effectiveness vary as a function of field. Generally, it appears that all fields may benefit from taking a multi-pronged approach to ethics education wherein the salient field issues are covered. Implications for RCR education are discussed.

Research Misconduct: The Peril of Publish or Perish

PubMed Central

Al-Adawi, Samir; Ali, Badreldin H.; Al-Zakwani, Ibrahim

2016-01-01

There is a spurt of interest in research productivity in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to lay the foundation for national development. From a global perspective, increased research productivity could conceivably be accompanied by an exponential increase in research misconduct (RM). Inevitably, erroneous or falsified data will be expected to adversely affect public health by misleading policy makers and clinicians alike into embarking on health policy and allocation of resources that are byproducts of RM. This will contribute significantly to the emerging crisis of confidence of the public in the integrity of scientific research. For a long time, RM has been considered only as plagiarism or data fabrication and falsification. However, the concept of RM nowadays encompasses more and, in this review, we discuss its possible implications in emerging economies, such as those of the GCC countries. We suggest that GCC countries ought to consider implementing remedial and punitive policies to deal with RM. PMID:26816563

Case Studies in Science Ethics

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Williams, Karen

2010-03-01

Everyone in science should have ethics education training. I have seen graduate students taken advantage of by their mentors. Many of us have seen misconduct...but what should we do about it? Young scientists are often unaware of the rules in science and make mistakes because of their ignorance of the rules in that particular field of study. Then there are an increasing number of cases in the news of overt cases of misrepresentation in science. All are welcome to attend this discussion of case studies. A case study on topics such as: how to treat data properly, how our values in science affect our work, who gets authorship on scientific papers, who is first author on a paper, what you should do if you uncover misconduct or plagiarism in your university, and we will discuss the scientist's role in society. This will be a painless, non-confrontational small group, then large group discussion of each case

Patchwork plagiarism – a jigsaw of stolen puzzle pieces

PubMed Central

Smolčić, Vesna Šupak; Bilić-Zulle, Lidija

2013-01-01

Plagiarism remains at the top in terms of interest to the scientific community. In its many vicious forms, patchwork plagiarism is characterized by numerous unresolved issues and often passes “below the radar” of editors and reviewers. The problem of detecting the complexity of misconduct has been partially resolved by plagiarism detection software. However, interpretation of relevant reports is not always obvious or easy. This article deals with plagiarism in general and patchwork plagiarism in particular, as well as related problems that editors must deal with to maintain the integrity of scientific journals. PMID:23457762

International Perspectives on Plagiarism and Considerations for Teaching International Trainees

PubMed Central

Heitman, Elizabeth; Litewka, Sergio

2010-01-01

In the increasingly global community of biomedical science and graduate science education, many US academic researchers work with international trainees whose views on scientific writing and plagiarism can be strikingly different from US norms. Although a growing number of countries and international professional organizations identify plagiarism as research misconduct, many international trainees come from research environments where plagiarism is ill-defined and even commonly practiced. Two research-ethics educators consider current perspectives on plagiarism around the world and contend that US research-training programs should focus on trainees’ scientific writing skills and acculturation, not simply on preventing plagiarism. PMID:21194646

Medical journal peer review: process and bias.

PubMed

Manchikanti, Laxmaiah; Kaye, Alan D; Boswell, Mark V; Hirsch, Joshua A

2015-01-01

Scientific peer review is pivotal in health care research in that it facilitates the evaluation of findings for competence, significance, and originality by qualified experts. While the origins of peer review can be traced to the societies of the eighteenth century, it became an institutionalized part of the scholarly process in the latter half of the twentieth century. This was a response to the growth of research and greater subject specialization. With the current increase in the number of specialty journals, the peer review process continues to evolve to meet the needs of patients, clinicians, and policy makers. The peer review process itself faces challenges. Unblinded peer review might suffer from positive or negative bias towards certain authors, specialties, and institutions. Peer review can also suffer when editors and/or reviewers might be unable to understand the contents of the submitted manuscript. This can result in an inability to detect major flaws, or revelations of major flaws after acceptance of publication by the editors. Other concerns include potentially long delays in publication and challenges uncovering plagiarism, duplication, corruption and scientific misconduct. Conversely, a multitude of these challenges have led to claims of scientific misconduct and an erosion of faith. These challenges have invited criticism of the peer review process itself. However, despite its imperfections, the peer review process enjoys widespread support in the scientific community. Peer review bias is one of the major focuses of today's scientific assessment of the literature. Various types of peer review bias include content-based bias, confirmation bias, bias due to conservatism, bias against interdisciplinary research, publication bias, and the bias of conflicts of interest. Consequently, peer review would benefit from various changes and improvements with appropriate training of reviewers to provide quality reviews to maintain the quality and integrity of research without bias. Thus, an appropriate, transparent peer review is not only ideal, but necessary for the future to facilitate scientific progress.

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...

Modeling Academic Dishonesty: The Role of Student Perceptions and Misconduct Type

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Kennedy, Peter; Bisping, Timothy O.; Patron, Hilde; Roskelley, Kenneth

2008-01-01

The authors explore academic misconduct in various forms and consider the role of student perceptions. They gather data from students in introductory economics courses regarding 31 types of misconduct. They estimate the relevance of various determinants of misconduct, acknowledging that they may vary across misconduct type and that students'…

The Perceived Social Contexts of Adolescents' Misconduct: A Comparative Study of Youths in Three Cultures.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Greenberger, Ellen; Chen, Chuansheng; Beam, Margaret; Whang, Sang-Min; Dong, Qi

2000-01-01

Examined relations between U.S., Korean, and Chinese adolescents' misconduct and their perceptions of others' behavior and attitudes toward youth misconduct. Found that U.S. youths engaged in more misconduct than other groups. Perceived behavior and sanctions of close friends were strongest predictors of misconduct in all cultures. Found unique…

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

Research Integrity of Individual Scientist

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Haklak, Rockbill

We are discussing about many aspects of research integrity of individual scientist, who faces the globalization of research ethics in the traditional culture and custom of Japan. Topics are scientific misconduct (fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism) in writing paper and presenting research results. Managements of research material, research record, grant money, authorship, and conflict of interest are also analyzed and discussed. Finally, we make 5 recommendations to improve research integrity in Japan.

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...

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...

Adolescent Misconduct Behaviors: A Cross-Cultural Perspective of Adolescents and Their Parents

PubMed Central

Tisak, Marie S.; Tisak, John; Chen, Yiwei; Fang, Qijuan; Baker, Erin R.

2017-01-01

The primary goal of the current study was to examine cultural differences in Chinese and U.S. adolescents’ and parents’ perceptions and evaluations of adolescent misconduct behaviors. A total of 395 U.S. and Chinese adolescents (ages 11-19 years) and 255 parents participated in this study. Each participant generated adolescent misconduct behaviors and rated each misconduct behavior as to the degree of wrongness. The misconduct behaviors were coded into 10 categories across three themes (moral offenses, drugs, and conventions). Results revealed significant cultural differences in a number of adolescent misconduct behaviors. For example, the United States generated more misconduct behaviors in weapon offenses and drug use than did China. These cultural differences were further complicated by an interaction between culture and generation. Chinese adolescents were more likely than U.S. adolescents to use categories of school, home, and social conventional violations, and considered these adolescent misconduct behaviors to be more wrong. However, it was the U.S. parents who considered adolescent misconduct behaviors in these categories to be more wrong than did Chinese parents. PMID:29051630

Adolescent Misconduct Behaviors: A Cross-Cultural Perspective of Adolescents and Their Parents.

PubMed

Tisak, Marie S; Tisak, John; Chen, Yiwei; Fang, Qijuan; Baker, Erin R

2017-01-01

The primary goal of the current study was to examine cultural differences in Chinese and U.S. adolescents' and parents' perceptions and evaluations of adolescent misconduct behaviors. A total of 395 U.S. and Chinese adolescents (ages 11-19 years) and 255 parents participated in this study. Each participant generated adolescent misconduct behaviors and rated each misconduct behavior as to the degree of wrongness. The misconduct behaviors were coded into 10 categories across three themes (moral offenses, drugs, and conventions). Results revealed significant cultural differences in a number of adolescent misconduct behaviors. For example, the United States generated more misconduct behaviors in weapon offenses and drug use than did China. These cultural differences were further complicated by an interaction between culture and generation. Chinese adolescents were more likely than U.S. adolescents to use categories of school, home, and social conventional violations, and considered these adolescent misconduct behaviors to be more wrong. However, it was the U.S. parents who considered adolescent misconduct behaviors in these categories to be more wrong than did Chinese parents.

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

Sexual Misconduct and Enactment

PubMed Central

Plakun, Eric M.

1999-01-01

Sexual misconduct remains a significant problem in the behavioral health professions. Although it is tempting to view sexual misconduct as perpetrated by “bad” clinicians against patients who are “victims,” this is an oversimplification of a complex problem. In this article, the author explores the psychoanalytic concept of enactment as a mechanism that can lead well-meaning clinicians to engage in sexual misconduct; defines enactment and differentiates it from near neighbor phenomena; uses case examples to illustrate how enactments may lead to sexual misconduct or may offer opportunities to deepen and enhance psychotherapeutic work; and offers recommendations for prevention of sexual misconduct. PMID:10523431

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...

46 CFR 5.27 - Misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... 46 Shipping 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Misconduct. 5.27 Section 5.27 Shipping COAST GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO THE PUBLIC MARINE INVESTIGATION REGULATIONS-PERSONNEL ACTION Definitions § 5.27 Misconduct. Misconduct is human behavior which violates some formal...

46 CFR 5.27 - Misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-10-01

... 46 Shipping 1 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Misconduct. 5.27 Section 5.27 Shipping COAST GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO THE PUBLIC MARINE INVESTIGATION REGULATIONS-PERSONNEL ACTION Definitions § 5.27 Misconduct. Misconduct is human behavior which violates some formal...

46 CFR 5.27 - Misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-10-01

... 46 Shipping 1 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Misconduct. 5.27 Section 5.27 Shipping COAST GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO THE PUBLIC MARINE INVESTIGATION REGULATIONS-PERSONNEL ACTION Definitions § 5.27 Misconduct. Misconduct is human behavior which violates some formal...

46 CFR 5.27 - Misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-10-01

... 46 Shipping 1 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Misconduct. 5.27 Section 5.27 Shipping COAST GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO THE PUBLIC MARINE INVESTIGATION REGULATIONS-PERSONNEL ACTION Definitions § 5.27 Misconduct. Misconduct is human behavior which violates some formal...

46 CFR 5.27 - Misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-10-01

... 46 Shipping 1 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Misconduct. 5.27 Section 5.27 Shipping COAST GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO THE PUBLIC MARINE INVESTIGATION REGULATIONS-PERSONNEL ACTION Definitions § 5.27 Misconduct. Misconduct is human behavior which violates some formal...

Build infrastructure in publishing scientific journals to benefit medical scientists

PubMed Central

Dai, Ni; Xu, Dingyao; Zhong, Xiyao; Li, Li; Ling, Qibo

2014-01-01

There is urgent need for medical journals to optimize their publishing processes and strategies to satisfy the huge need for medical scientists to publish their articles, and then obtain better prestige and impact in scientific and research community. These strategies include optimizing the process of peer-review, utilizing open-access publishing models actively, finding ways of saving costs and getting revenue, smartly dealing with research fraud or misconduct, maintaining sound relationship with pharmaceutical companies, and managing to provide relevant and useful information for clinical practitioners and researchers. Scientists, publishers, societies and organizations need to work together to publish internationally renowned medical journals. PMID:24653634

Combating plagiarism: a shared responsibility.

PubMed

Rathod, Sujit D

2010-01-01

Scientific progress depends on the free dissemination of original thinking and research. With the evidence base formed by publication, investigators develop and implement additional studies, and policy makers propose new laws and regulations. The ramifications of this evidence can affect millions of lives and reallocate considerable resources for programmes or research. As such, it is incumbent on investigators to conduct rigorous research, which precludes engaging in scientific misconduct such as falsification, fabrication and plagiarism. This article addresses the causes and consequences of plagiarism and the processes by which plagiarism is discovered. It concludes by considering the responsibilities of members of the research community in preventing and addressing plagiarism.

Build infrastructure in publishing scientific journals to benefit medical scientists.

PubMed

Dai, Ni; Xu, Dingyao; Zhong, Xiyao; Li, Li; Ling, Qibo; Bu, Zhaode

2014-02-01

There is urgent need for medical journals to optimize their publishing processes and strategies to satisfy the huge need for medical scientists to publish their articles, and then obtain better prestige and impact in scientific and research community. These strategies include optimizing the process of peer-review, utilizing open-access publishing models actively, finding ways of saving costs and getting revenue, smartly dealing with research fraud or misconduct, maintaining sound relationship with pharmaceutical companies, and managing to provide relevant and useful information for clinical practitioners and researchers. Scientists, publishers, societies and organizations need to work together to publish internationally renowned medical journals.

[New tobacco vaporizers: how to react?].

PubMed

Etter, Jean-François

2015-06-10

Cigarette combustion, rather than either tobacco or nicotine, is the cause of a public health disaster. Fortunately, several new technologies that vaporize nicotine or tobacco may make cigarettes obsolete. Some of these new technologies are developed and owned by the tobacco industry, which invests massively for the research and development of these products. Because of its past scientific misconduct, the tobacco industry is ostracized. In the context of a fierce ideological debate on these new products, it is crucial that regulators and the public are provided with evidence-based guidance. Should the scientific production in this field be done with or without the tobacco industry? This thorny issue is discussed in this comment.

International perspectives on plagiarism and considerations for teaching international trainees.

PubMed

Heitman, Elizabeth; Litewka, Sergio

2011-01-01

In the increasingly global community of biomedical science and graduate science education, many US academic researchers work with international trainees whose views on scientific writing and plagiarism can be strikingly different from US norms. Although a growing number of countries and international professional organizations identify plagiarism as research misconduct, many international trainees come from research environments where plagiarism is ill-defined and even commonly practiced. Two research-ethics educators consider current perspectives on plagiarism around the world and contend that US research-training programs should focus on trainees' scientific writing skills and acculturation, not simply on preventing plagiarism. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

37 CFR 10.23 - Misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-07-01

... 37 Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights 1 2011-07-01 2011-07-01 false Misconduct. 10.23 Section 10... of Professional Responsibility § 10.23 Misconduct. (a) A practitioner shall not engage in disreputable or gross misconduct. (b) A practitioner shall not: (1) Violate a Disciplinary Rule. (2) Circumvent...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

37 CFR 10.23 - Misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-07-01

... 37 Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights 1 2012-07-01 2012-07-01 false Misconduct. 10.23 Section 10... of Professional Responsibility § 10.23 Misconduct. (a) A practitioner shall not engage in disreputable or gross misconduct. (b) A practitioner shall not: (1) Violate a Disciplinary Rule. (2) Circumvent...

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...

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...

75 FR 6670 - Findings of Misconduct in Science; Correction

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-02-10

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Misconduct in Science... Register entitled ``Findings of Misconduct in Science.'' DATES: Effective Date: February 10, 2010. Applicability Date: The correction notice is applicable for the Findings of Misconduct in Science notice...

37 CFR 10.23 - Misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... 37 Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights 1 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Misconduct. 10.23 Section 10... of Professional Responsibility § 10.23 Misconduct. (a) A practitioner shall not engage in disreputable or gross misconduct. (b) A practitioner shall not: (1) Violate a Disciplinary Rule. (2) Circumvent...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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.

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

45 CFR 2554.51 - What if the investigation indicates criminal misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-10-01

... misconduct? 2554.51 Section 2554.51 Public Welfare Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued... Appeals § 2554.51 What if the investigation indicates criminal misconduct? (a) Any investigating official may: (1) Refer allegations of criminal misconduct directly to the Department of Justice for...

38 CFR 4.17a - Misconduct etiology.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-07-01

... 38 Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief 1 2012-07-01 2012-07-01 false Misconduct etiology. 4... RATING DISABILITIES General Policy in Rating § 4.17a Misconduct etiology. A permanent and total... coexistence of misconduct disability when: (a) A veteran, regardless of employment status, also has innocently...

45 CFR 2554.51 - What if the investigation indicates criminal misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-10-01

... misconduct? 2554.51 Section 2554.51 Public Welfare Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued... Appeals § 2554.51 What if the investigation indicates criminal misconduct? (a) Any investigating official may: (1) Refer allegations of criminal misconduct directly to the Department of Justice for...

45 CFR 681.46 - What if the investigation indicates criminal misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-10-01

... misconduct? 681.46 Section 681.46 Public Welfare Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued) NATIONAL... investigation indicates criminal misconduct? (a) Any investigating official may: (1) Refer allegations of criminal misconduct directly to the Department of Justice for prosecution or for suit under the False...

10 CFR 72.12 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 72.12 Section 72.12 Energy NUCLEAR... Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, certificate holder, applicant for a license or certificate, employee... applicant's activities subject to this part, may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes or...

13 CFR 142.40 - What if the investigation indicates criminal misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-01-01

... indicates criminal misconduct? 142.40 Section 142.40 Business Credit and Assistance SMALL BUSINESS... investigation indicates criminal misconduct? (a) Any investigating official may: (1) Refer allegations of criminal misconduct directly to the Department of Justice for prosecution or for suit under the False...

38 CFR 4.17a - Misconduct etiology.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-07-01

... 38 Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief 1 2011-07-01 2011-07-01 false Misconduct etiology. 4... RATING DISABILITIES General Policy in Rating § 4.17a Misconduct etiology. A permanent and total... coexistence of misconduct disability when: (a) A veteran, regardless of employment status, also has innocently...

40 CFR 13.5 - Claims involving criminal activities or misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... misconduct. 13.5 Section 13.5 Protection of Environment ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY GENERAL CLAIMS COLLECTION STANDARDS General § 13.5 Claims involving criminal activities or misconduct. (a) The Administrator will refer cases of suspected criminal activity or misconduct to the EPA Office of Inspector General...

10 CFR 30.10 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... 10 Energy 1 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 30.10 Section 30.10 Energy NUCLEAR... Provisions § 30.10 Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, certificate of registration holder, applicant for... deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee, certificate of...

45 CFR 681.46 - What if the investigation indicates criminal misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-10-01

... misconduct? 681.46 Section 681.46 Public Welfare Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued) NATIONAL... investigation indicates criminal misconduct? (a) Any investigating official may: (1) Refer allegations of criminal misconduct directly to the Department of Justice for prosecution or for suit under the False...

45 CFR 2554.51 - What if the investigation indicates criminal misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-10-01

... misconduct? 2554.51 Section 2554.51 Public Welfare Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued... Appeals § 2554.51 What if the investigation indicates criminal misconduct? (a) Any investigating official may: (1) Refer allegations of criminal misconduct directly to the Department of Justice for...

37 CFR 11.804 - Misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-07-01

... 37 Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights 1 2013-07-01 2013-07-01 false Misconduct. 11.804 Section 11... Professional Conduct Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession § 11.804 Misconduct. It is professional misconduct for a practitioner to: (a) Violate or attempt to violate the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct...

10 CFR 72.12 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 72.12 Section 72.12 Energy NUCLEAR... Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, certificate holder, applicant for a license or certificate, employee... applicant's activities subject to this part, may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes or...

38 CFR 4.17a - Misconduct etiology.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-07-01

... 38 Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief 1 2013-07-01 2013-07-01 false Misconduct etiology. 4... RATING DISABILITIES General Policy in Rating § 4.17a Misconduct etiology. A permanent and total... coexistence of misconduct disability when: (a) A veteran, regardless of employment status, also has innocently...

38 CFR 4.17a - Misconduct etiology.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... 38 Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief 1 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Misconduct etiology. 4... RATING DISABILITIES General Policy in Rating § 4.17a Misconduct etiology. A permanent and total... coexistence of misconduct disability when: (a) A veteran, regardless of employment status, also has innocently...

10 CFR 52.4 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 52.4 Section 52.4 Energy NUCLEAR... Provisions § 52.4 Deliberate misconduct. (a) Applicability. This section applies to any: (1) Licensee; (2..., or a standard design approval. (b) Definitions. For purposes of this section: Deliberate misconduct...

10 CFR 30.10 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-01-01

... 10 Energy 1 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 30.10 Section 30.10 Energy NUCLEAR... Provisions § 30.10 Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, certificate of registration holder, applicant for... deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee, certificate of...

40 CFR 13.5 - Claims involving criminal activities or misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-07-01

... misconduct. 13.5 Section 13.5 Protection of Environment ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY GENERAL CLAIMS COLLECTION STANDARDS General § 13.5 Claims involving criminal activities or misconduct. (a) The Administrator will refer cases of suspected criminal activity or misconduct to the EPA Office of Inspector General...

10 CFR 30.10 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... 10 Energy 1 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 30.10 Section 30.10 Energy NUCLEAR... Provisions § 30.10 Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, certificate of registration holder, applicant for... deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee, certificate of...

40 CFR 13.5 - Claims involving criminal activities or misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-07-01

... misconduct. 13.5 Section 13.5 Protection of Environment ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY GENERAL CLAIMS COLLECTION STANDARDS General § 13.5 Claims involving criminal activities or misconduct. (a) The Administrator will refer cases of suspected criminal activity or misconduct to the EPA Office of Inspector General...

13 CFR 142.40 - What if the investigation indicates criminal misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... indicates criminal misconduct? 142.40 Section 142.40 Business Credit and Assistance SMALL BUSINESS... investigation indicates criminal misconduct? (a) Any investigating official may: (1) Refer allegations of criminal misconduct directly to the Department of Justice for prosecution or for suit under the False...

45 CFR 2554.51 - What if the investigation indicates criminal misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-10-01

... misconduct? 2554.51 Section 2554.51 Public Welfare Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued... Appeals § 2554.51 What if the investigation indicates criminal misconduct? (a) Any investigating official may: (1) Refer allegations of criminal misconduct directly to the Department of Justice for...

10 CFR 72.12 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 72.12 Section 72.12 Energy NUCLEAR... Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, certificate holder, applicant for a license or certificate, employee... applicant's activities subject to this part, may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes or...

10 CFR 52.4 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 52.4 Section 52.4 Energy NUCLEAR... Provisions § 52.4 Deliberate misconduct. (a) Applicability. This section applies to any: (1) Licensee; (2..., or a standard design approval. (b) Definitions. For purposes of this section: Deliberate misconduct...

13 CFR 142.40 - What if the investigation indicates criminal misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... indicates criminal misconduct? 142.40 Section 142.40 Business Credit and Assistance SMALL BUSINESS... investigation indicates criminal misconduct? (a) Any investigating official may: (1) Refer allegations of criminal misconduct directly to the Department of Justice for prosecution or for suit under the False...

40 CFR 13.5 - Claims involving criminal activities or misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-07-01

... misconduct. 13.5 Section 13.5 Protection of Environment ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY GENERAL CLAIMS COLLECTION STANDARDS General § 13.5 Claims involving criminal activities or misconduct. (a) The Administrator will refer cases of suspected criminal activity or misconduct to the EPA Office of Inspector General...

45 CFR 2554.51 - What if the investigation indicates criminal misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... misconduct? 2554.51 Section 2554.51 Public Welfare Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued... Appeals § 2554.51 What if the investigation indicates criminal misconduct? (a) Any investigating official may: (1) Refer allegations of criminal misconduct directly to the Department of Justice for...

10 CFR 30.10 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-01-01

... 10 Energy 1 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 30.10 Section 30.10 Energy NUCLEAR... Provisions § 30.10 Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, certificate of registration holder, applicant for... deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee, certificate of...

13 CFR 142.40 - What if the investigation indicates criminal misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-01-01

... indicates criminal misconduct? 142.40 Section 142.40 Business Credit and Assistance SMALL BUSINESS... investigation indicates criminal misconduct? (a) Any investigating official may: (1) Refer allegations of criminal misconduct directly to the Department of Justice for prosecution or for suit under the False...

13 CFR 142.40 - What if the investigation indicates criminal misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-01-01

... indicates criminal misconduct? 142.40 Section 142.40 Business Credit and Assistance SMALL BUSINESS... investigation indicates criminal misconduct? (a) Any investigating official may: (1) Refer allegations of criminal misconduct directly to the Department of Justice for prosecution or for suit under the False...

38 CFR 4.17a - Misconduct etiology.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-07-01

... 38 Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief 1 2014-07-01 2014-07-01 false Misconduct etiology. 4... RATING DISABILITIES General Policy in Rating § 4.17a Misconduct etiology. A permanent and total... coexistence of misconduct disability when: (a) A veteran, regardless of employment status, also has innocently...

10 CFR 72.12 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 72.12 Section 72.12 Energy NUCLEAR... Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, certificate holder, applicant for a license or certificate, employee... applicant's activities subject to this part, may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes or...

10 CFR 52.4 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 52.4 Section 52.4 Energy NUCLEAR... Provisions § 52.4 Deliberate misconduct. (a) Applicability. This section applies to any: (1) Licensee; (2..., or a standard design approval. (b) Definitions. For purposes of this section: Deliberate misconduct...

75 FR 81612 - Findings of Misconduct in Science; Correction

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-12-28

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Misconduct in Science... Misconduct in Science.'' DATES: Effective Date: December 28, 2010. Applicability Date: The correction notice is applicable for the Findings of Misconduct in Science notice published on November 29, 2010. FOR...

37 CFR 11.804 - Misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-07-01

... 37 Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights 1 2014-07-01 2014-07-01 false Misconduct. 11.804 Section 11... Professional Conduct Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession § 11.804 Misconduct. It is professional misconduct for a practitioner to: (a) Violate or attempt to violate the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct...

10 CFR 72.12 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 72.12 Section 72.12 Energy NUCLEAR... Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, certificate holder, applicant for a license or certificate, employee... applicant's activities subject to this part, may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes or...

40 CFR 13.5 - Claims involving criminal activities or misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-07-01

... misconduct. 13.5 Section 13.5 Protection of Environment ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY GENERAL CLAIMS COLLECTION STANDARDS General § 13.5 Claims involving criminal activities or misconduct. (a) The Administrator will refer cases of suspected criminal activity or misconduct to the EPA Office of Inspector General...

45 CFR 681.46 - What if the investigation indicates criminal misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... misconduct? 681.46 Section 681.46 Public Welfare Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued) NATIONAL... investigation indicates criminal misconduct? (a) Any investigating official may: (1) Refer allegations of criminal misconduct directly to the Department of Justice for prosecution or for suit under the False...

10 CFR 30.10 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-01-01

... 10 Energy 1 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 30.10 Section 30.10 Energy NUCLEAR... Provisions § 30.10 Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, certificate of registration holder, applicant for... deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee, certificate of...

45 CFR 681.46 - What if the investigation indicates criminal misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-10-01

... misconduct? 681.46 Section 681.46 Public Welfare Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued) NATIONAL... investigation indicates criminal misconduct? (a) Any investigating official may: (1) Refer allegations of criminal misconduct directly to the Department of Justice for prosecution or for suit under the False...

45 CFR 681.46 - What if the investigation indicates criminal misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-10-01

... misconduct? 681.46 Section 681.46 Public Welfare Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued) NATIONAL... investigation indicates criminal misconduct? (a) Any investigating official may: (1) Refer allegations of criminal misconduct directly to the Department of Justice for prosecution or for suit under the False...

10 CFR 52.4 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 52.4 Section 52.4 Energy NUCLEAR... Provisions § 52.4 Deliberate misconduct. (a) Applicability. This section applies to any: (1) Licensee; (2..., or a standard design approval. (b) Definitions. For purposes of this section: Deliberate misconduct...

10 CFR 52.4 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 52.4 Section 52.4 Energy NUCLEAR... Provisions § 52.4 Deliberate misconduct. (a) Applicability. This section applies to any: (1) Licensee; (2..., or a standard design approval. (b) Definitions. For purposes of this section: Deliberate misconduct...

25 CFR 12.53 - Who investigates officer misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-04-01

... 25 Indians 1 2011-04-01 2011-04-01 false Who investigates officer misconduct? 12.53 Section 12.53... Conduct § 12.53 Who investigates officer misconduct? The Director, Office of Law Enforcement Services maintains an internal affairs program that investigates all allegations of misconduct by BIA officers, and...

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...

10 CFR 76.10 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 76.10 Section 76.10 Energy NUCLEAR... Deliberate misconduct. (a) The Corporation or any employee of the Corporation and any contractor (including a... in deliberate misconduct that causes or, but for detection, would have caused, the Corporation to be...

10 CFR 70.10 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 70.10 Section 70.10 Energy NUCLEAR... Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee or applicant; or any... licensee's or applicant's activities in this part, may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes...

10 CFR 76.10 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 76.10 Section 76.10 Energy NUCLEAR... Deliberate misconduct. (a) The Corporation or any employee of the Corporation and any contractor (including a... in deliberate misconduct that causes or, but for detection, would have caused, the Corporation to be...

10 CFR 70.10 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 70.10 Section 70.10 Energy NUCLEAR... Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee or applicant; or any... licensee's or applicant's activities in this part, may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes...

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...

10 CFR 71.8 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 71.8 Section 71.8 Energy NUCLEAR... § 71.8 Deliberate misconduct. (a) This section applies to any— (1) Licensee; (2) Certificate holder; (3... deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee, certificate holder...

10 CFR 71.8 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 71.8 Section 71.8 Energy NUCLEAR... § 71.8 Deliberate misconduct. (a) This section applies to any— (1) Licensee; (2) Certificate holder; (3... deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee, certificate holder...

10 CFR 70.10 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 70.10 Section 70.10 Energy NUCLEAR... Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee or applicant; or any... licensee's or applicant's activities in this part, may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes...

10 CFR 50.5 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-01-01

... 10 Energy 1 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 50.5 Section 50.5 Energy NUCLEAR... Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee or applicant; or any... licensee's or applicant's activities in this part, may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes...

10 CFR 70.10 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 70.10 Section 70.10 Energy NUCLEAR... Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee or applicant; or any... licensee's or applicant's activities in this part, may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes...

25 CFR 12.53 - Who investigates officer misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-04-01

... 25 Indians 1 2012-04-01 2011-04-01 true Who investigates officer misconduct? 12.53 Section 12.53... Conduct § 12.53 Who investigates officer misconduct? The Director, Office of Law Enforcement Services maintains an internal affairs program that investigates all allegations of misconduct by BIA officers, and...

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...

38 CFR 3.301 - Line of duty and misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... misconduct. 3.301 Section 3.301 Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS... Entitlement Considerations § 3.301 Line of duty and misconduct. (a) Line of duty. Direct service connection..., and not the result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or, for claims filed after October 31, 1990...

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...

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...

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...

10 CFR 40.10 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... 10 Energy 1 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 40.10 Section 40.10 Energy NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL General Provisions § 40.10 Deliberate misconduct... applicant's activities in this part, may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes or would have...

10 CFR 63.11 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 63.11 Section 63.11 Energy NUCLEAR... MOUNTAIN, NEVADA General Provisions § 63.11 Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a..., may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a...

10 CFR 70.10 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 70.10 Section 70.10 Energy NUCLEAR... Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee or applicant; or any... licensee's or applicant's activities in this part, may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes...

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...

10 CFR 40.10 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-01-01

... 10 Energy 1 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 40.10 Section 40.10 Energy NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL General Provisions § 40.10 Deliberate misconduct... applicant's activities in this part, may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes or would have...

77 FR 38017 - Regulation Strengthening Accountability of Attorneys and Non-Attorney Representatives Appearing...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-06-26

... disciplinary action for misconduct based upon good cause. The proposed rule will assist the Department in maintaining the integrity of its proceedings by deterring misconduct by those who appear before it in... application of sanctions for misconduct, (ii) identifies possible sanctions for misconduct including...

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...

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...

10 CFR 40.10 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... 10 Energy 1 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 40.10 Section 40.10 Energy NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL General Provisions § 40.10 Deliberate misconduct... applicant's activities in this part, may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes or would have...

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...

25 CFR 12.53 - Who investigates officer misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

... 25 Indians 1 2014-04-01 2014-04-01 false Who investigates officer misconduct? 12.53 Section 12.53... Conduct § 12.53 Who investigates officer misconduct? The Director, Office of Law Enforcement Services maintains an internal affairs program that investigates all allegations of misconduct by BIA officers, and...

Communication, Systems, and Misconduct with Adolescent Students

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Hargrave, Terry D.; Brammer, Robert

2006-01-01

This article examines communication and system issues in dealing with misconduct in adolescents. The initial focus is an analysis of the goals of misconduct, including attention, power, revenge, and display of inadequacy. The second focus encourages the school system to consider its own part in the problems of misconduct, by examining circular…

10 CFR 71.8 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 71.8 Section 71.8 Energy NUCLEAR... § 71.8 Deliberate misconduct. (a) This section applies to any— (1) Licensee; (2) Certificate holder; (3... deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee, certificate holder...

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...

10 CFR 50.5 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-01-01

... 10 Energy 1 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 50.5 Section 50.5 Energy NUCLEAR... Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee or applicant; or any... licensee's or applicant's activities in this part, may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes...

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...

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...

10 CFR 63.11 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 63.11 Section 63.11 Energy NUCLEAR... MOUNTAIN, NEVADA General Provisions § 63.11 Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a..., may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a...

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...

10 CFR 76.10 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 76.10 Section 76.10 Energy NUCLEAR... Deliberate misconduct. (a) The Corporation or any employee of the Corporation and any contractor (including a... in deliberate misconduct that causes or, but for detection, would have caused, the Corporation to be...

10 CFR 50.5 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... 10 Energy 1 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 50.5 Section 50.5 Energy NUCLEAR... Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee or applicant; or any... licensee's or applicant's activities in this part, may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes...

10 CFR 63.11 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 63.11 Section 63.11 Energy NUCLEAR... MOUNTAIN, NEVADA General Provisions § 63.11 Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a..., may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a...

10 CFR 71.8 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 71.8 Section 71.8 Energy NUCLEAR... § 71.8 Deliberate misconduct. (a) This section applies to any— (1) Licensee; (2) Certificate holder; (3... deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee, certificate holder...

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...

10 CFR 50.5 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-01-01

... 10 Energy 1 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 50.5 Section 50.5 Energy NUCLEAR... Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee or applicant; or any... licensee's or applicant's activities in this part, may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes...

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 CFR 76.10 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 76.10 Section 76.10 Energy NUCLEAR... Deliberate misconduct. (a) The Corporation or any employee of the Corporation and any contractor (including a... in deliberate misconduct that causes or, but for detection, would have caused, the Corporation to be...

10 CFR 63.11 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 63.11 Section 63.11 Energy NUCLEAR... MOUNTAIN, NEVADA General Provisions § 63.11 Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a..., may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a...

25 CFR 12.53 - Who investigates officer misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-04-01

... 25 Indians 1 2013-04-01 2013-04-01 false Who investigates officer misconduct? 12.53 Section 12.53... Conduct § 12.53 Who investigates officer misconduct? The Director, Office of Law Enforcement Services maintains an internal affairs program that investigates all allegations of misconduct by BIA officers, and...

38 CFR 3.301 - Line of duty and misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-07-01

... misconduct. 3.301 Section 3.301 Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS... Entitlement Considerations § 3.301 Line of duty and misconduct. (a) Line of duty. Direct service connection..., and not the result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or, for claims filed after October 31, 1990...

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...

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...

38 CFR 3.301 - Line of duty and misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-07-01

... misconduct. 3.301 Section 3.301 Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS... Entitlement Considerations § 3.301 Line of duty and misconduct. (a) Line of duty. Direct service connection..., and not the result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or, for claims filed after October 31, 1990...

10 CFR 40.10 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-01-01

... 10 Energy 1 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 40.10 Section 40.10 Energy NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL General Provisions § 40.10 Deliberate misconduct... applicant's activities in this part, may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes or would have...

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...

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...

10 CFR 71.8 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 71.8 Section 71.8 Energy NUCLEAR... § 71.8 Deliberate misconduct. (a) This section applies to any— (1) Licensee; (2) Certificate holder; (3... deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee, certificate holder...

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...

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...

10 CFR 63.11 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 63.11 Section 63.11 Energy NUCLEAR... MOUNTAIN, NEVADA General Provisions § 63.11 Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a..., may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a...

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...

10 CFR 76.10 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 76.10 Section 76.10 Energy NUCLEAR... Deliberate misconduct. (a) The Corporation or any employee of the Corporation and any contractor (including a... in deliberate misconduct that causes or, but for detection, would have caused, the Corporation to be...

38 CFR 3.301 - Line of duty and misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-07-01

... misconduct. 3.301 Section 3.301 Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS... Entitlement Considerations § 3.301 Line of duty and misconduct. (a) Line of duty. Direct service connection..., and not the result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or, for claims filed after October 31, 1990...

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...

38 CFR 3.301 - Line of duty and misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-07-01

... misconduct. 3.301 Section 3.301 Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS... Entitlement Considerations § 3.301 Line of duty and misconduct. (a) Line of duty. Direct service connection..., and not the result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or, for claims filed after October 31, 1990...

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...

10 CFR 40.10 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-01-01

... 10 Energy 1 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 40.10 Section 40.10 Energy NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL General Provisions § 40.10 Deliberate misconduct... applicant's activities in this part, may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes or would have...

10 CFR 50.5 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... 10 Energy 1 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 50.5 Section 50.5 Energy NUCLEAR... Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee or applicant; or any... licensee's or applicant's activities in this part, may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes...

25 CFR 12.53 - Who investigates officer misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... 25 Indians 1 2010-04-01 2010-04-01 false Who investigates officer misconduct? 12.53 Section 12.53... Conduct § 12.53 Who investigates officer misconduct? The Director, Office of Law Enforcement Services maintains an internal affairs program that investigates all allegations of misconduct by BIA officers, and...

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.

5 CFR 890.1112 - Denial of continuation of coverage due to involuntary separation for gross misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... involuntary separation for gross misconduct. 890.1112 Section 890.1112 Administrative Personnel OFFICE OF... involuntary separation for gross misconduct. (a) Notice of denial. (1) When an employing office determines that the offense for which an employee is being removed constitutes gross misconduct for the purpose of...

28 CFR 0.29c - Reporting allegations of employee misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-07-01

... misconduct. 0.29c Section 0.29c Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 4-Office of the Inspector General § 0.29c Reporting allegations of employee misconduct. (a... administrative misconduct by Department employees shall be reported to the OIG, or to a supervisor or a...

45 CFR 2554.37 - Are there sanctions for misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... 45 Public Welfare 4 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Are there sanctions for misconduct? 2554.37... there sanctions for misconduct? (a) The ALJ may sanction a person, including any party or representative... prosecute or defend an action; or (3) Engaging in other misconduct that interferes with the speedy, orderly...

10 CFR 60.11 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 60.11 Section 60.11 Energy NUCLEAR... Provisions § 60.11 Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee... misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee or applicant to be in violation of...

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...

45 CFR 681.31 - Are there sanctions for misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-10-01

... 45 Public Welfare 3 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Are there sanctions for misconduct? 681.31 Section... misconduct? (a) The ALJ may sanction a person, including any party or representative, for failing to comply with an order, or for engaging in other misconduct that interferes with the speedy, orderly, and fair...

10 CFR 60.11 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 60.11 Section 60.11 Energy NUCLEAR... Provisions § 60.11 Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee... misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee or applicant to be in violation of...

28 CFR 0.29c - Reporting allegations of employee misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-07-01

... misconduct. 0.29c Section 0.29c Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 4-Office of the Inspector General § 0.29c Reporting allegations of employee misconduct. (a... administrative misconduct by Department employees shall be reported to the OIG, or to a supervisor or a...

45 CFR 2554.37 - Are there sanctions for misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-10-01

... 45 Public Welfare 4 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Are there sanctions for misconduct? 2554.37... there sanctions for misconduct? (a) The ALJ may sanction a person, including any party or representative... prosecute or defend an action; or (3) Engaging in other misconduct that interferes with the speedy, orderly...

10 CFR 110.7b - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 110.7b Section 110.7b Energy... Provisions § 110.7b Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee... deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee or applicant to be in...

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...

28 CFR 0.29c - Reporting allegations of employee misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-07-01

... misconduct. 0.29c Section 0.29c Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 4-Office of the Inspector General § 0.29c Reporting allegations of employee misconduct. (a... administrative misconduct by Department employees shall be reported to the OIG, or to a supervisor or a...

45 CFR 2554.37 - Are there sanctions for misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-10-01

... 45 Public Welfare 4 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Are there sanctions for misconduct? 2554.37... there sanctions for misconduct? (a) The ALJ may sanction a person, including any party or representative... prosecute or defend an action; or (3) Engaging in other misconduct that interferes with the speedy, orderly...

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...

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...

29 CFR 102.177 - Exclusion from hearings; Refusal of witness to answer questions; Misconduct by attorneys and...

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-07-01

... questions; Misconduct by attorneys and party representatives before the Agency; Procedures for processing misconduct allegations. 102.177 Section 102.177 Labor Regulations Relating to Labor NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RULES AND REGULATIONS, SERIES 8 Misconduct by Attorneys or Party Representatives § 102.177...

10 CFR 110.7b - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 110.7b Section 110.7b Energy... Provisions § 110.7b Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee... deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee or applicant to be in...

5 CFR 890.1112 - Denial of continuation of coverage due to involuntary separation for gross misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... involuntary separation for gross misconduct. 890.1112 Section 890.1112 Administrative Personnel OFFICE OF... involuntary separation for gross misconduct. (a) Notice of denial. (1) When an employing office determines that the offense for which an employee is being removed constitutes gross misconduct for the purpose of...

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...

10 CFR 110.7b - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 110.7b Section 110.7b Energy... Provisions § 110.7b Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee... deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee or applicant to be in...

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...

28 CFR 0.29c - Reporting allegations of employee misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... misconduct. 0.29c Section 0.29c Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 4-Office of the Inspector General § 0.29c Reporting allegations of employee misconduct. (a... administrative misconduct by Department employees shall be reported to the OIG, or to a supervisor or a...

10 CFR 60.11 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 60.11 Section 60.11 Energy NUCLEAR... Provisions § 60.11 Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee... misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee or applicant to be in violation of...

45 CFR 681.31 - Are there sanctions for misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-10-01

... 45 Public Welfare 3 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Are there sanctions for misconduct? 681.31 Section... misconduct? (a) The ALJ may sanction a person, including any party or representative, for failing to comply with an order, or for engaging in other misconduct that interferes with the speedy, orderly, and fair...

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...

10 CFR 110.7b - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 110.7b Section 110.7b Energy... Provisions § 110.7b Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee... deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee or applicant to be in...

29 CFR 102.177 - Exclusion from hearings; Refusal of witness to answer questions; Misconduct by attorneys and...

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-07-01

... questions; Misconduct by attorneys and party representatives before the Agency; Procedures for processing misconduct allegations. 102.177 Section 102.177 Labor Regulations Relating to Labor NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RULES AND REGULATIONS, SERIES 8 Misconduct by Attorneys or Party Representatives § 102.177...

10 CFR 110.7b - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 110.7b Section 110.7b Energy... Provisions § 110.7b Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee... deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee or applicant to be in...

45 CFR 2554.37 - Are there sanctions for misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-10-01

... 45 Public Welfare 4 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Are there sanctions for misconduct? 2554.37... there sanctions for misconduct? (a) The ALJ may sanction a person, including any party or representative... prosecute or defend an action; or (3) Engaging in other misconduct that interferes with the speedy, orderly...

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 CFR 890.1112 - Denial of continuation of coverage due to involuntary separation for gross misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-01-01

... involuntary separation for gross misconduct. 890.1112 Section 890.1112 Administrative Personnel OFFICE OF... involuntary separation for gross misconduct. (a) Notice of denial. (1) When an employing office determines that the offense for which an employee is being removed constitutes gross misconduct for the purpose of...

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...

5 CFR 890.1112 - Denial of continuation of coverage due to involuntary separation for gross misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-01-01

... involuntary separation for gross misconduct. 890.1112 Section 890.1112 Administrative Personnel OFFICE OF... involuntary separation for gross misconduct. (a) Notice of denial. (1) When an employing office determines that the offense for which an employee is being removed constitutes gross misconduct for the purpose of...

28 CFR 0.29c - Reporting allegations of employee misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-07-01

... misconduct. 0.29c Section 0.29c Judicial Administration DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 4-Office of the Inspector General § 0.29c Reporting allegations of employee misconduct. (a... administrative misconduct by Department employees shall be reported to the OIG, or to a supervisor or a...

45 CFR 681.31 - Are there sanctions for misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-10-01

... 45 Public Welfare 3 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Are there sanctions for misconduct? 681.31 Section... misconduct? (a) The ALJ may sanction a person, including any party or representative, for failing to comply with an order, or for engaging in other misconduct that interferes with the speedy, orderly, and fair...

29 CFR 102.177 - Exclusion from hearings; Refusal of witness to answer questions; Misconduct by attorneys and...

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... questions; Misconduct by attorneys and party representatives before the Agency; Procedures for processing misconduct allegations. 102.177 Section 102.177 Labor Regulations Relating to Labor NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RULES AND REGULATIONS, SERIES 8 Misconduct by Attorneys or Party Representatives § 102.177...

45 CFR 681.31 - Are there sanctions for misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-10-01

... 45 Public Welfare 3 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Are there sanctions for misconduct? 681.31 Section... misconduct? (a) The ALJ may sanction a person, including any party or representative, for failing to comply with an order, or for engaging in other misconduct that interferes with the speedy, orderly, and fair...

12 CFR 1227.4 - Regulated entity reports on covered misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-01-01

... 12 Banks and Banking 10 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Regulated entity reports on covered misconduct... COUNTERPARTY PROGRAM General § 1227.4 Regulated entity reports on covered misconduct. (a) General. A regulated... the past three (3) years has engaged in covered misconduct. A regulated entity is aware of covered...

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...

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...

45 CFR 2554.37 - Are there sanctions for misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-10-01

... 45 Public Welfare 4 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Are there sanctions for misconduct? 2554.37... there sanctions for misconduct? (a) The ALJ may sanction a person, including any party or representative... prosecute or defend an action; or (3) Engaging in other misconduct that interferes with the speedy, orderly...

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...

29 CFR 102.177 - Exclusion from hearings; Refusal of witness to answer questions; Misconduct by attorneys and...

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-07-01

... questions; Misconduct by attorneys and party representatives before the Agency; Procedures for processing misconduct allegations. 102.177 Section 102.177 Labor Regulations Relating to Labor NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RULES AND REGULATIONS, SERIES 8 Misconduct by Attorneys or Party Representatives § 102.177...

5 CFR 890.1112 - Denial of continuation of coverage due to involuntary separation for gross misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-01-01

... involuntary separation for gross misconduct. 890.1112 Section 890.1112 Administrative Personnel OFFICE OF... involuntary separation for gross misconduct. (a) Notice of denial. (1) When an employing office determines that the offense for which an employee is being removed constitutes gross misconduct for the purpose of...

29 CFR 102.177 - Exclusion from hearings; Refusal of witness to answer questions; Misconduct by attorneys and...

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-07-01

... questions; Misconduct by attorneys and party representatives before the Agency; Procedures for processing misconduct allegations. 102.177 Section 102.177 Labor Regulations Relating to Labor NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RULES AND REGULATIONS, SERIES 8 Misconduct by Attorneys or Party Representatives § 102.177...

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...

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...

45 CFR 681.31 - Are there sanctions for misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... 45 Public Welfare 3 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Are there sanctions for misconduct? 681.31 Section... misconduct? (a) The ALJ may sanction a person, including any party or representative, for failing to comply with an order, or for engaging in other misconduct that interferes with the speedy, orderly, and fair...

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...

10 CFR 60.11 - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 60.11 Section 60.11 Energy NUCLEAR... Provisions § 60.11 Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee... misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee or applicant to be in violation of...

25 CFR 12.52 - How do I report misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-04-01

... 25 Indians 1 2011-04-01 2011-04-01 false How do I report misconduct? 12.52 Section 12.52 Indians... § 12.52 How do I report misconduct? The Director will develop and maintain a reporting system that allows any resident of or visitor to Indian country to report officer misconduct. Each law enforcement...

25 CFR 12.52 - How do I report misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

... 25 Indians 1 2014-04-01 2014-04-01 false How do I report misconduct? 12.52 Section 12.52 Indians... § 12.52 How do I report misconduct? The Director will develop and maintain a reporting system that allows any resident of or visitor to Indian country to report officer misconduct. Each law enforcement...

10 CFR 61.9b - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 61.9b Section 61.9b Energy NUCLEAR... Provisions § 61.9b Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee... deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee or applicant to be in...

25 CFR 12.52 - How do I report misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-04-01

... 25 Indians 1 2013-04-01 2013-04-01 false How do I report misconduct? 12.52 Section 12.52 Indians... § 12.52 How do I report misconduct? The Director will develop and maintain a reporting system that allows any resident of or visitor to Indian country to report officer misconduct. Each law enforcement...

25 CFR 12.52 - How do I report misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... 25 Indians 1 2010-04-01 2010-04-01 false How do I report misconduct? 12.52 Section 12.52 Indians... § 12.52 How do I report misconduct? The Director will develop and maintain a reporting system that allows any resident of or visitor to Indian country to report officer misconduct. Each law enforcement...

10 CFR 61.9b - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 61.9b Section 61.9b Energy NUCLEAR... Provisions § 61.9b Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee... deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee or applicant to be in...

10 CFR 61.9b - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 61.9b Section 61.9b Energy NUCLEAR... Provisions § 61.9b Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee... deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee or applicant to be in...

10 CFR 61.9b - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 61.9b Section 61.9b Energy NUCLEAR... Provisions § 61.9b Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee... deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee or applicant to be in...

25 CFR 12.52 - How do I report misconduct?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-04-01

... 25 Indians 1 2012-04-01 2011-04-01 true How do I report misconduct? 12.52 Section 12.52 Indians... § 12.52 How do I report misconduct? The Director will develop and maintain a reporting system that allows any resident of or visitor to Indian country to report officer misconduct. Each law enforcement...

10 CFR 61.9b - Deliberate misconduct.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-01-01

... 10 Energy 2 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Deliberate misconduct. 61.9b Section 61.9b Energy NUCLEAR... Provisions § 61.9b Deliberate misconduct. (a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee... deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee or applicant to be in...

Risky substance use and peer pressure in Swiss young men: Test of moderation effects.

PubMed

Studer, Joseph; Baggio, Stéphanie; Grazioli, Véronique S; Mohler-Kuo, Meichun; Daeppen, Jean-Bernard; Gmel, Gerhard

2016-11-01

Peer pressure (PP) toward misconduct is a well-known risk factor for substance use. However, the way it interacts with social factors and the associations of the aspects of PP other than PP toward misconduct have been understudied. This study examined the associations of three aspects of PP with risky substance use and tested whether the associations of PP toward misconduct were moderated by social factors. A representative sample of 5,680 young Swiss males completed a questionnaire assessing risky alcohol, cigarette, and cannabis use, PP toward misconduct, toward peer involvement, and toward peer conformity, as well as social support (SS) and neighbourhood cohesion. Multinomial logistic regression models were used. PP toward misconduct was positively associated with all substance use outcomes. The PP toward misconduct-risky alcohol use association was stronger in individuals reporting high than in those reporting low levels of PP toward peer involvement, SS, and neighbourhood cohesion. The PP toward misconduct-risky cannabis use association was stronger in individuals reporting high than in those reporting low levels of SS and neighbourhood cohesion. The PP toward misconduct-smoking association was stronger in individuals reporting high than in those reporting low levels of PP toward peer involvement. The risk for substance use associated with PP toward misconduct varies as a function of social factors. Being well connected with others (high level of PP toward peer involvement and SS), and living in a cohesive neighbourhood may amplify the risk for risky substance use associated with PP toward misconduct. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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.

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.

The habitual female offender inside: How psychopathic traits predict chronic prison violence.

PubMed

Thomson, Nicholas D; Towl, Graham J; Centifanti, Luna C M

2016-06-01

Psychopathy is considered one of the best predictors of violence and prison misconducts and is arguably an important clinical construct in the correctional setting. However, we tested whether psychopathy can be used to predict misconducts in prison environments for women as has been done for men. To date, few studies exist that examine and validate this association in female offender samples. The present study included 182 ethnically diverse female offenders. The aim was to prospectively predict violent and nonviolent misconducts over a 9-month period using official records of prior violent criminal history (e.g., homicide, manslaughter, assault), and self-report measures of psychopathy, impulsivity, and empathy. Using negative binomial regression, we found that past violent criminal history, and callous and antisocial psychopathic traits were predictors of violent misconducts, whereas antisocial psychopathic traits and impulsivity best predicted nonviolent misconducts. Although empathy was negatively associated with psychopathy it was not a significant predictor of violent or nonviolent misconducts. Statistical models, which included impulsivity, were considered the most parsimonious at predicting misconducts. Our findings demonstrate how risk-factors found to be reliable in male offender samples, such as psychopathic traits, impulsivity, and past violent criminal history, generalize to female offenders for predicting nonviolent and violent misconducts. One notable difference is the importance of callous psychopathic traits when predicting chronic violent misconducts by female offenders. In sum, there are more similarities in psychopathy and impulsivity than differences in the prediction of misconducts among men and women. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).

NOAA draft scientific integrity policy: Comment period open through 20 August

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Showstack, Randy

2011-08-01

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is aiming to finalize its draft scientific integrity policy possibly by the end of the year, Larry Robinson, NOAA assistant secretary for conservation and management, indicated during a 28 July teleconference. The policy “is key to fostering an environment where science is encouraged, nurtured, respected, rewarded, and protected,” Robinson said, adding that the agency's comment period for the draft policy, which was released on 16 June, ends on 20 August. “Science underpins all that NOAA does. This policy is one piece of a broader effort to strengthen NOAA science,” Robinson said, noting that the draft “represents the first ever scientific integrity policy for NOAA. Previously, our policy only addressed research misconduct and focused on external grants. What's new about this policy is that it establishes NOAA's principles for scientific integrity, a scientific code of conduct, and a code of ethics for science supervision and management.”

Scientific Ethics in Chemical Education

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Kovac, Jeffrey

1996-10-01

Scientific ethics is a subset of professional ethics, the special rules of conduct adhered to by people engaged in those pursuits called professions. It is distinct from, but consistent with, both ordinary morality and moral theory. The codes of professional ethics derive from the two bargains that define a profession: the internal code of practice and the external bargain between the profession and society. While the informal code of professional conduct is well understood by working scientists, it is rarely explicitly included in the chemistry curriculum. Instead, we have relied on informal methods to teach students scientific ethics, a strategy that is haphazard at best. In this paper I argue that scientific ethics can and must be taught as part of the chemistry curriculum and that this is the best done through the case-study method. Many decisions made by working scientists have both a technical and an ethical component. Students need to learn how to make good decisions in professional ethics. The alternative is, at best, sloppy science and, at worst, scientific misconduct.

China's rise as a major contributor to science and technology.

PubMed

Xie, Yu; Zhang, Chunni; Lai, Qing

2014-07-01

In the past three decades, China has become a major contributor to science and technology. China now employs an increasingly large labor force of scientists and engineers at relatively high earnings and produces more science and engineering degrees than the United States at all levels, particularly bachelor's. China's research and development expenditure has been rising. Research output in China has been sharply increasing since 2002, making China the second largest producer of scientific papers after the United States. The quality of research by Chinese scientists has also been improving steadily. However, China's rise in science also faces serious difficulties, partly attributable to its rigid, top-down administrative system, with allegations of scientific misconduct trending upward.

Can student-perpetrated college crime be predicted based on precollege misconduct?

PubMed

Runyan, Carol W; Pierce, Matthew W; Shankar, Viswanathan; Bangdiwala, Shrikant I

2013-12-01

Many colleges assess criminal histories during the admissions process, in part, to address violence on campus. This study sought to examine the utility of screening as a means of reducing violence. Using cohort and case-control analyses, we identified college misconduct through college records and self-reports on a confidential survey of graduating seniors, and examined precollege behaviour as indicated on admissions records, a survey and criminal background checks. One hundred and twenty students met our case definition of college misconduct, with an estimated OR of 5.28 (95% CI 1.92 to 14.48) associated with precollege misconduct revealed on the college application. However, only 3.3% (95% CI 1.0% to 8.0%) of college seniors engaging in college misconduct had reported precollege criminal behaviours on their applications and 8.5% (95% CI 2.4% to 20.4%) of applicants with a criminal history engaged in misconduct during college. Though precollege behaviour is a risk factor for college misconduct, screening questions on the application are not adequate to detect which students will engage in college misconduct. This pilot work would benefit from replication to determine the utility of criminal background investigations as part of admissions.

[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.