Research Misconduct Definitions Adopted by U.S. Research Institutions

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

National Scientific Misconduct Policies in Argentina: Two Definitions of Research Misconduct

ABSTRACT

In “An International Study of Research Misconduct Policies”, Resnik et al. count Argentina in the list of countries without national research misconduct policies. In this paper, we clarify that Argentina has national policies of research misconduct and present the research misconduct definitions of two official science organisms: the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) and the Ethics Committee of the Argentine Ministry of Science (MINCyT).     

Is it time to revise the definition of research misconduct?

U.S. federal policy defines research misconduct as fabrication of data, falsification of data, or plagiarism (FFP). In recent years, some have argued or suggested that the definition of research misconduct should also include sexual harassment, sabotage, deceptive use of statistics, and failure to disclose a significant conflict of interest (COI). While the arguments for revising the definition of misconduct used by federal agencies to include misbehaviors other than FFP are not convincing at this point in time, the arguments for revising definitions used by other organizations, such as professional societies, universities, or journals, may be. Since these other organizations play an important role in promoting integrity in science and deterring unethical behavior, they may consider adopting definitions of misconduct that extend beyond FFP. Debates about the definition of research misconduct are a normal and healthy part of broader discussions about integrity in science and how best to promote it. These debates should continue even if the federal definition of misconduct remains unchanged.     

Research Misconduct Policies of Scientific Journals

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.     

In support of mothers’ employment: limits to policy convergence in the EU?

This article compares 11 Western European countries with respect to public policies that promote the employment of mothers: maternity and parental leave, childcare provisions and family-related tax credits and allowances. The goal of this analysis is to characterise trends in the development of these policies from the mid-1980s to the present and identify the degree of policy convergence in this area of social policy. The process of convergence is analysed along two sets of criteria: the amount and forms of provisions, and the coherence of policies (eligibility, funding mechanisms, locus of regulation and quality control). The analysis is informed by theories of welfare regimes that identify distinctive patterns in which national policies shape the employment of women: general family support, dual-earner families and market-oriented families. Findings of the study reveal limited development towards harmonisation of national social policies. Such resilience of national welfare regimes can be attributed to institutional path dependence, on the one hand, and to minimal EU efforts to harmonise social policies, on the other. The article suggests that integrating markets have so far had a limited effect on social policy development, but that there are positive signs that convergence is possible in the future.     

Data Audit as a Way to Prevent/Contain Misconduct

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

Assessing the Seriousness of Research Misconduct: Considerations for Sanction Assignment

Federal and institutional policies recommend the criterion of “seriousness” as a guide for sanction assignment in cases where researchers have been found to have committed research misconduct. Discrepancies in assessments of seriousness for similar acts of misconduct suggest the need to clarify what might be meant by the seriousness of research misconduct and how the criterion can be used to assign sanctions. This essay demonstrates how determinations of seriousness can differ depending on the set of ethical appeals employed and argues that an expanded lexicon for talking about the seriousness of research misconduct would help to promote fairness and consistency in sanction assignment. It concludes with some policy recommendations for those charged with research misconduct sanction assignment and for those who oversee research integrity at institutional levels.     

Assessing the seriousness of research misconduct: considerations for sanction assignment

Federal and institutional policies recommend the criterion of "seriousness" as a guide for sanction assignment in cases where researchers have been found to have committed research misconduct. Discrepancies in assessments of seriousness for similar acts of misconduct suggest the need to clarify what might be meant by the seriousness of research misconduct and how the criterion can be used to assign sanctions. This essay demonstrates how determinations of seriousness can differ depending on the set of ethical appeals employed and argues that an expanded lexicon for talking about the seriousness of research misconduct would help to promote fairness and consistency in sanction assignment. It concludes with some policy recommendations for those charged with research misconduct sanction assignment and for those who oversee research integrity at institutional levels.     

Research Misconduct Policies of Social Science Journals and Impact Factor

In this study we gathered data on the misconduct policies of social science journals and combined it with the data from our previous study on journal misconduct policies, which did not include enough social science journals for data analysis. Consistent with our earlier finding, impact factor of the journal was the only variable significantly associated with whether a journal had a formal (written) misconduct policy with an odds-ratio of 1.72 (p < 0.01). We did not find that type of science (physical, biomedical, or social) or publisher had a significant effect on whether a journal had a policy. Another important finding is that less than half of the journals that responded to the survey had a formal misconduct policy.     

Evaluating research misconduct policies at major research universities: a pilot study

This pilot study evaluates the accessibility and usefulness of the research misconduct (RM) policies at the top-25 universities as ranked by NIH and NSF grant awards. Measuring accessibility demonstrates how readily-available policies are to the people they affect. Evaluating the range of policy content indicates whether policies and procedures on research misconduct are "useful" as opposed to merely "minimal" (Rhoades, 2003). On average, it took five clicks to get from a university's home page to its RM policies. Only nine policies were accessed within three or fewer clicks. Policy information was coded into categories comprising a total of 20 topic areas, which were then grouped into five content domains. The policies reveal a broad range of usefulness. Some provide relevant details on almost every topic area, while others leave most questions unanswered. Three of the 20 topic areas are almost universally covered in the policies analyzed. In contrast, five other topic areas average less than half of the information which could have been included. These policies, from elite U.S. research universities, may serve as role models; as such they should perhaps be held to the highest standards. If the message sent by a policy lacks clarity and precision, it should be revised to include an appropriate level of detail.     

Researchers experience of misconduct in research in Malaysian higher education institutions

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

Plagiarism: A Shared Responsibility of All,Current Situation,and Future Actions in Yemen

As combating plagiarism is a shared responsibility of all, this article focuses on presenting the current situation of higher education in Yemen. The critical review of four implementable policy documents and interviews revealed the absence of research ethics code, research misconduct policy, and institutional policies in the country. This led to the presence of several acts of research dishonesty. The article concludes with an initiative for necessary future actions in the nation.     

Return of the Nanny: Public Policy towards In‐home Childcare in the UK,Canada and Australia

Research on early childhood education and care (ECEC) policy focuses overwhelmingly on formal, centre‐based provision and, to a lesser extent, on family day care (or childminding) provided in the homes of registered carers. Comparatively little research addresses the policy treatment of care provided in the child's home by nannies and au pairs. This article examines the position of in‐home childcare in Australia, the UK and Canada, and the varied nature and extent of public funding and regulation. Introducing a new dimension into comparative studies of ECEC, it also explores how shifts in migration policy in each country have intersected with ECEC funding and regulation to reshape the recruitment and employment of in‐home child carers. Australia, the UK and Canada are all liberal, market‐oriented countries, but there is considerable diversity in the way governments support and regulate in‐home childcare, their rationales for so doing, and in the connections between childcare and migration. We argue that connecting the analysis of in‐home childcare to migration policies raises new questions about the classification and comparison of ECEC policies.     

Evidence-based Engagement in the Voluntary Sector: Lessons from Canada

The shift towards governance and greater reliance on third parties in the design, implementation and evaluation of policy has created new pressures to ensure that policies are designed and delivered in a consistent and effective manner. In the interest of improving transparency, accountability, effectiveness and efficiency, governments in Canada and in the UK, as in many industrialized countries, have begun to emphasize the need for evidence‐based policy‐making. As a result, knowledge and research have become key assets in the production of policy. Yet, with their current capacity and knowledge base wanting, governments have increasingly relied on the knowledge and information of external actors and have afforded greater authority to them on this basis. This has created a situation in which evidence‐based inputs are given greater weight. This shift has particular implications for voluntary sector organizations whose basis for intervention has lain historically with the interests that they represent. Already, in the Canadian case many national organizations have seen their focus shift to research activities under the impetus of new funding initiatives explicitly encouraging activities grounded in knowledge and policy analysis. Moreover, policy guidelines have been elaborated in order to enhance the sector's capacity to contribute to the development of policy in a depoliticized manner. Using a series of interviews conducted with representatives from national voluntary organizations in Canada, this article explores the implications of such a shift for the voluntary sector in Canada, and asks whether the Canadian case holds some lessons for voluntary sector–state relations in other jurisdictions.     

Marketisation policies in different contexts: Consequences for home‐care workers in Germany,Japan and Sweden

Market‐oriented restructurings of long‐term care policies contribute significantly to the aggravation of care workers’ situations. This article focuses on the effects of broader long‐term care policy developments on market‐oriented reforms. Germany, Japan and Sweden are three countries that have introduced market‐oriented reforms into home‐based care provision embedded in distinct long‐term care policy developments. Conceptually, this article draws on comparative research on care to define the institutional dimensions of long‐term care policies. Empirically, the research is based on policy analyses, as well as on national statistics and a comparative research project on home‐care workers in the aforementioned countries. The findings reveal the mediating impact of the extension and decline of long‐term public care support and the corresponding development of the care infrastructure on both the restructuring of care work and the assessments of the care workers themselves.     

Evaluating U.S. Medical Schools' Efforts to Educate Faculty Researchers on Research Integrity and Research Misconduct Policies and Procedures

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

Models of supranational policymaking and the reform of the EMU

Under what conditions do sovereign governments agree to create a common policy institution? And what model of supranational policymaking may be preferable? To answer these questions, we introduce a policy game of two interdependent countries with reciprocal negative externalities created by shocks to a socially relevant variable. Depending on national preferences over policy options and their outcomes, both countries incur welfare losses if governments pursue non-cooperative policy choices. Then we examine what kind of supranational policy regimes may be endorsed by both governments according to the Pareto criterion. Two regimes are “technocratic” (they do not take national preferences into account), two are “political” (they do). One political regime that we call “union” aggregates the national preferences additively. The thrust of our analysis is that the technocratic regimes are dominated by non-cooperation, so that the single alternative is between the union and non-cooperation. Yet an important point is that the union is the Pareto-dominant regime only within a limited range of asymmetry between countries’ preferences. This result has notable implications for the debate on the reform of the European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) facing the challenge of further integration of member countries. Application to the EMU case is assisted by numerical simulations based on empirical parameters drawn from qualified external sources, which show that aymmetries in national attitudes towards policies that “Europe wants” may jeopardize the creation of a union in alternative to non-cooperation.     

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.