The Challenges for Scientists in Avoiding Plagiarism

Although it might seem to be a simple task for scientists to avoid plagiarism and thereby an allegation of research misconduct, assessment of trainees in the Responsible Conduct of Research and recent findings from the National Science Foundation Office of Inspector General regarding plagiarism suggests otherwise. Our experiences at a land–grant academic institution in assisting researchers in avoiding plagiarism are described. We provide evidence from a university–wide multi–disciplinary course that understanding how to avoid plagiarism in scientific writing is more difficult than it might appear, and that a failure to learn the rules of appropriate citation may cause dire consequences. We suggest that new strategies to provide training in avoiding plagiarism are required.     

Responsible Conduct of Research Measure: Initial Development and Pilot Study

Although much discussion has been focused on research misconduct (RM) and questionable research practices, to date no self-report measures exist to examine this phenomenon. To help fill this void, the authors developed the Responsible Conduct of Research Measure (RCRM) through multiple pilot study waves involving researchers in the social and behavioral sciences. Preliminary results reveal adequate validity and reliability. The authors discuss limitations of the study as well as some possible directions for future research on this topic.     

Teaching Ethical Aptitude to Graduate Student Researchers

Limited time dedicated to each training areas, irrelevant case-studies, and ethics “checklists” have resulted in bare-bones Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training for present biomedical graduate student researchers. Here, we argue that science graduate students be taught classical ethical theory, such as virtue ethics, consequentialist theory, and deontological theory, to provide a basic framework to guide researchers through ethically complex situations and examine the applicability, implications, and societal ramifications of their research. Using a relevant biomedical research example to illustrate this point, we argue that proper ethics training for graduate student researchers not only will enhance current RCR training, but train more creative, responsible scientists.     

Emphasizing the experiences of researchers after RCR instructions: Introduction to Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) in Malaysia

The purpose of this study is to highlight the experiences of individuals who participate in the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training program held at various universities in Malaysia. In response to a mailing request sent to 40 individuals who had undertaken a RCR training program, 15 participants agreed to be interviewed. The results of the study showed that the three main reasons for participating in the training were as follows: anticipation for knowledge gained; personal experience with research misconduct; and establishing a new network of researchers. In terms of the positive effects gained from undertaking the training, the participants highlighted an increased awareness of the issues and problems related to research misconduct; the need to promote integrity in research conduct; a change in the way they conduct their research; and a change in the way they confront and address misconduct. The findings of this study should be valuable for policy makers and those involved in the management of research programs and ethics, as it demonstrated the importance of RCR training in equipping researchers with the necessary knowledge to conduct research responsibly, and to avoid research misconduct.     

Articulating a Role for Program Evaluation in Responsible Conduct of Research Programs

Since Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct was released in 2001, there has been increased interest in evaluating programs designed to foster the responsible conduct of research (RCR). The field of program evaluation is designed to determine the worth or value of programs and can serve as a resource for institutions interested in evaluating their RCR programs. This article provides a very brief overview of program evaluation, demonstrates how it can be applied to RCR, and provides key reference information. Evaluating RCR programs can promote institutional accountability for the resources that are used in supporting those programs.     

Teaching and Learning Responsible Research Conduct: Influences of Prior Experiences on Acceptance of New Ideas

Despite requirements for Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training, little is known about how much this training actually influences the thinking and behaviors of participants. Interview-based qualitative research methods were used to study the reactions of Ph.D. students and postdoctoral fellows to what was taught in an RCR course. For trainees with limited prior RCR experience, or who agreed with what was taught, it was relatively easy to influence their attitudes and how they thought they would use the new information in the future. However, if their prior experiences or existing knowledge conflicted with what was taught they resisted and often rejected new ideas that were presented. Interviews also revealed the tremendously complex process trainees must undergo trying to resolve or integrate all of the different perspectives they receive on RCR from other sources. These results revealed the importance of viewing RCR training from the perspective of learning theory and how prior knowledge influences what people learn. The results also support the need for periodic rather than one-time RCR training to counter the often conflicting views and practices young scientists experience in real-life research settings.     

The Canadian Agency for the Oversight of Research Involving Humans: A Reform Proposal

In this paper, I propose the creation of a Canadian agency for the oversight of research involving humans. I describe first a series of significant problems with Canada’s current system of oversight. I then argue for the creation of a national-level agency, covering all research involving humans, with three branches (policy and standards, education, and compliance). Of particular note, the proposed compliance branch consists of a number of independent national and regional Research Ethics Boards (i.e., REBs no longer reside within institutions). There is also an Audit Committee and a Non-compliance Committee (with supporting staff of auditors and compliance officers) to ensure compliance with the policies and standards set by the Policy and Standards Branch. Finally, I answer a series of “frequently asked questions” about the proposed agency design such as “What about ‘local context’?” and “Why not have a system of accreditation of institutional REBs instead?” In sum, radical reform is needed and, in this paper, I present a proposal for such reform.     

Responsible Conduct of Research Measure: initial development and pilot study

Although much discussion has been focused on research misconduct (RM) and questionable research practices, to date no self-report measures exist to examine this phenomenon. To help fill this void, the authors developed the Responsible Conduct of Research Measure (RCRM) through multiple pilot study waves involving researchers in the social and behavioral sciences. Preliminary results reveal adequate validity and reliability. The authors discuss limitations of the study as well as some possible directions for future research on this topic.     

Preparing Whistleblowers for Reporting Research Misconduct

Making an allegation of research misconduct can be stressful for a whistleblower. The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) can play an important role in helping reduce the stress by thoroughly discussing what whistleblowers can expect if they make an allegation. Through interviews with 77 RIOs who had recently handled a research misconduct case, we found that RIOs who addressed more topics as well as specific aspects of the topics were more likely to have used some type of memory aide in their initial contact with whistleblowers, talked with ORI staff or other RIOs about “hypothetical” research misconduct cases, or attended a RIO boot camp training. We believe that RIOs who more fully inform whistleblowers are providing timely preparation and building whistleblowers' confidence so they can make a more informed decision about reporting and experience less stress.     

A Brief History of RCR Education

Responsible conduct of research (RCR) education is now common throughout the United States, primarily in response to federal requirements beginning with the National Institutes of Health in 1989. Despite this long history, RCR education programs remain highly disparate, often with ill-defined content, format, and goals, and minimal evidence for effectiveness. However because it is widely believed that such programs can have value, it is hoped that a review of what is available, and how that came to pass, will highlight what has been done well and where gaps still remain.     

Rescuing Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Education

Responsible conduct of research (RCR) education requirements, resources, and research have proliferated over the past twenty years, but evidence and experience highlight shortcomings in many domains: goals, audience, content, teaching tools, use of the Internet for instruction, instructors, allocation of responsibility for education, education requirements, and sources of funding. Revised approaches and suggested roles and responsibilities are proposed to meet these challenges. The unifying theme for these recommendations is to shift the focus from RCR education to RCR culture building.     

The Emergence of the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) in PHS Policy and Practice

The Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) is now an established academic field taught at virtually every major American research university and generates a growing volume of research and pedagogical literature. Paradoxically, it is a field without a consensually agreed upon definition, goals, foundational theories, research agenda, and pedagogical methodology. It has been suggested that RCR as currently being taught is ineffective in preventing misconduct and improving the quality of research. The following short history of RCR, focused mainly on Federal policy and practice, explains how this curious state of affairs developed and persists and concludes with some suggestions for the future of RCR instruction.     

RCR Online Course: Build an Online Course to Augment RCR Training Using Evidenced-Based Learning Theory

This article demonstrates how to apply evidenced-based instructional design principles to develop a supplemental, online Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) course. The supplement RCR course may serve to appropriately augment the National Institutes of Health (NIH) required RCR training. The way to ensure that an online RCR course is effective is to incorporate evidence-based learning theories into the development of the course content. This article specifically demonstrates application of Bloom's taxonomy and Gagne's Nine Instructional Events to a research misconduct course. At the conclusion, the reader will be able to apply evidence-based learning theories to the development of any online course.     

From Baltimore to Bell Labs: Reflections on Two Decades of Debate about Scientific Misconduct

This essay proposes a new definition of scientific "misconduct," which is broader than the definition recently adopted by the U.S. government. According to the proposed definition, misconduct is a serious and intentional violation of accepted scientific practices, commonsense ethical norms, or research regulations in proposing, designing, conducting, reviewing, or reporting research. Punishable misconduct includes fabrication of data or experiments, falsification of data, plagiarism, or interference with a misconduct investigation. Misconduct does not include honest errors, differences of opinion, or ethically questionable research practices.     

Improving Ethical Knowledge and Sensemaking from Cases through Elaborative Interrogation and Outcome Valence

The case-based approach to learning is popular among many applied fields. However, results of case-based education vary widely on case content and case presentation. This study examined two aspects of case-based education—outcome valence and case elaboration methods—in a two-day case-based Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) ethics education program. Results suggest that outcome information is an integral part of a quality case. Furthermore, valence consistent outcomes may have certain advantages over mixed valence outcome information. Finally, students enjoy and excel working with case material, and the use of elaborative interrogation techniques can significantly improve internally-focused ethical sensemaking strategies associated with personal biases, constraints, and emotions.     

Teaching and learning responsible research conduct: influences of prior experiences on acceptance of new ideas

Despite requirements for Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training, little is known about how much this training actually influences the thinking and behaviors of participants. Interview-based qualitative research methods were used to study the reactions of Ph.D. students and postdoctoral fellows to what was taught in an RCR course. For trainees with limited prior RCR experience, or who agreed with what was taught, it was relatively easy to influence their attitudes and how they thought they would use the new information in the future. However, if their prior experiences or existing knowledge conflicted with what was taught they resisted and often rejected new ideas that were presented. Interviews also revealed the tremendously complex process trainees must undergo trying to resolve or integrate all of the different perspectives they receive on RCR from other sources. These results revealed the importance of viewing RCR training from the perspective of learning theory and how prior knowledge influences what people learn. The results also support the need for periodic rather than one-time RCR training to counter the often conflicting views and practices young scientists experience in real-life research settings.     

Canadian policy on reporting breaches of research integrity: When should Research Ethics Boards be informed?

ABSTRACT

In Canada, institutions that receive research funding from the three federal granting agencies must establish research ethics boards (REBs) to review the ethical acceptability of research involving humans. Institutions are also expected to promote the responsible conduct of research, fostering researchers’ abilities to act with integrity in the conduct of their research. Where a researcher fails to act with integrity in research with humans, institutional policies and procedures of the U15, Canada’s most research-intensive universities, vary in the extent to which they involve their REBs in response to such breaches. Some make no mention of the REB, whereas others state that their REB should be provided with information relating to upheld allegations. In this paper, we argue that when allegations of research integrity breaches are corroborated, the institution’s REB should be identified as a party required to receive that information. Only then can REBs ensure compliance with research ethics standards, which is essential to maintain the public’s trust.     

对近十年老舍研究的反思

近 10年老舍研究的成就有目共睹 ,但论题重复、视角单一和创见贫乏所形成的沉寂状况也日益明显。老舍研究需要在多维视野中进一步整合研究内容 ,提出新的研究课题并在更大视野中进一步拓展。     

Implementation of a responsible conduct of research education program at Duke University School of Medicine

Academic medical centers rarely require all of their research faculty and staff to participate in educational programs on the responsible conduct of research (RCR). There is also little published evidence of RCR programs addressing high-profile, internal cases of misconduct as a way of promoting deliberation and learning. In the wake of major research misconduct, Duke University School of Medicine (DUSoM) expanded its RCR education activities to include all DUSoM faculty and staff engaged in research. The program included formal deliberation of the Translational Omics misconduct case, which occurred at Duke. Over 5,000 DUSoM faculty and staff participated in the first phase of this new program, with a 100% completion rate. The article reports on the program’s development, challenges and successes, and future directions. This experience at Duke University illustrates that, although challenging and resource intensive, engagement with RCR activities can be integrated into programs for all research faculty and staff. Formal, participatory deliberation of recent cases of internal misconduct can add a novel dimension of reflection and openness to RCR educational activities.