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.     

Evaluating the oversight of scientific misconduct

The Office of Research Integrity has proposed a new definition of scientific misconduct that will substantively reduce the federal government's role of oversight of scientific practices. The standard is being changed despite the lack of evidence about the effects of current policies or understanding of why research misconduct occurs, how it can be detected and prevented, and the nature and effectiveness of sanctions. Given this lack of knowledge and the perception that the integrity of science is falling, we believe it would be unwise for the academic and scientific community to adopt this new standard.     

Evaluating the Oversight of Scientific Misconduct

The office of Research Integrity has proposed a new definition of scientific misconduct that will substantively reduce the federal government's role of oversight of scientific practices. The standard is being changed despite the lack of evidence about the effects of current policies or understanding of why research misconduct occurs, how it can be detected and prevented, and the nature and effectiveness of sanctions. Given this lack of knowledge and the perception that the integrity of science is falling, we believe it would be unwise for the academic and scientific community to adopt this new standard.     

Misconduct versus Honest Error and Scientific Disagreement

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

Misconduct versus honest error and scientific disagreement

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

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.     

Perceptions of research integrity and the Chinese situation: In-depth interviews with Chinese biomedical researchers in Europe

ABSTRACT

Research misconduct has been a threat to Chinese biomedical research. Despite many publications dealing with research integrity in China, little empirical data is available concerning Chinese biomedical researchers’ perceptions of research integrity and misconduct. To learn more about this issue, we interviewed Chinese biomedical researchers in Europe to investigate their perceptions of this issue. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 participants until data saturation was reached. The findings indicate that certain aspects of research integrity need elaboration among Chinese biomedical researchers. Participants had a vague understanding of general concepts related to research integrity. Data fabrication, data falsification and plagiarism were perceived as the most severe deviance. Inappropriate authorship (especially gift authorship) and ghost writing were regarded as the most prevalent types of research misconduct in Chinese biomedical research. The harms of certain practices, such as inappropriate authorship, salami publication and multiple submission, were not well recognized. Attitudes toward research misconduct were divided. The current scientific evaluation system, pressures of promotion, motives for fame and other factors were perceived as the main reasons for research misconduct. Participants suggested various measures in addition to existing safeguards to improve research integrity in Chinese biomedical research.     

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.     

An International Study of Research Misconduct Policies

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.     

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

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.     

Inaction over retractions of identified fraudulent publications: ongoing weakness in the system of scientific self-correction

Published articles may be retracted when their findings are no longer considered reliable due to honest error, publication misconduct, or research misconduct. This article focuses on the case of a single serial violator of research and publication ethics in anesthesiology and critical care, which is widely publicized. A chain of events led to detection of misconduct that had substantial impact on the evidence base for the safety of hydroxyethyl starch, an intravenous artificial colloid solution, which is reflected in current guidelines on fluid management and volume resuscitation. As citations to retracted works continue to be a cause for concern, this article reviews the retraction status of this author’s published articles to determine whether sufficient action has been taken to retract his body of work. Results show that retraction practices are not uniform and that guidelines for retraction are still not being fully implemented, resulting in retractions of insufficient quantity and quality. As retractions continue to emerge for the author’s publications, with ten more since 2011, and as they are generally increasing, these data on retractions not only provide findings of misconduct, but also allow us to make inferences about ongoing weaknesses in the system of scientific literature.     

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.     

Scientific misconduct: Undue process

Numerous professional societies, universities, research funding sources, federal agencies, and Congressional committees have expressed concern about an apparent increasing incidence of scientific misconduct. Many of these organizations also have published standards for defining such misconduct and their procedures for investigating allegations of scientific misconduct. The futility of these procedures is illustrated by an example of blatant data falsification and fabrication in two different research projects conducted by a single researcher. The problem derives from administrative and judicial systems which have evolved to a stage where they are more concerned with process than outcome. An alternative to the resulting interminable “due process”; of the present system is tentatively suggested.     

The role of culture in research misconduct

There seems to be a taboo against discussing the role culture or national origin might play in research misconduct. Still, some observers wonder why so many scientists representing foreign cultures are among those found guilty of misconduct. Even after examining the scant available data, whether foreign nationals are disproportionately represented among Office of Research Integrity (ORI) respondents remains unclear. The lack of data, however, does not negate culture as a possible explanatory variable in research misconduct. Applying theories from sociological criminology, the author posits that the culture some researchers bring may be at odds with the norms of academic science and may emphasize ends more than means. As such, culture simply may be one of several etiological factors in research misconduct and should be considered in the spirit of objective scientific inquiry. Acknowledging the role of culture in the adherence to research ethics underscores the importance of education and training of both researchers and administrators in the responsible conduct of research and cultural diversity.     

Dealing with Misconduct in Biomedical Research: A Review of the Problems and the Proposed Methods for Improvement

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.     

Forensic Examination of Questioned Scientific Images

This paper discusses the Office of Research Integrity's (ORI) experience from its oversight review of institutional scientific misconduct cases involving questioned images, provides illustrative examples of computer image processing techniques with an explanation of how the image analysis contributed to the final misconduct determination in specific cases, and reports a compilation of some generic features of 35 ORI cases (1989-2001). The absolute and the relative incidence of cases with questioned images has increased over the last decade, as has the use of computers for presentation of the questioned image data. To date, ORI has seen no cases of de novo fabrication of images, and fortunately, in most cases the appearance of the questioned image has been quite secondary to the original basis for challenging its authenticity. The survey of cases indicates that good laboratory practices and, notably, attention to mentoring could have minimized the scope of the scientific misconduct when the act of falsification occurred.     

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.     

Retrospective Reflections of a Whistleblower: Opinions on Misconduct Responses

Almost 10 years ago, when I was in my fourth year of graduate school, my fellow graduate students discovered that our thesis advisor had engaged in misconduct by falsifying and fabricating data in two grant applications. We informed the university and my advisor resigned. This event was a turning point in my life. Years later, I have gathered my thoughts and reflections on the experience. I believe we must first prevent what misconduct we can. But unfortunately some misconduct will still occur and in those circumstances we must respond to protect those affected by the misconduct and to progress beyond the event. In so doing, we get the most value out of scientific research.     

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.     

Is failure to raise concerns about misconduct a breach of integrity? Researchers’ reflections on reporting misconduct

This article describes and discusses the views of researchers on the significance of raising concerns about scientific misconduct in their work environment and the reasons or circumstances that might deter them from doing so. In this exploratory qualitative research study, we conducted in-depth interviews with 33 researchers working in life sciences and medicine. They represent three seniority levels and five universities across Switzerland. A large majority of respondents in this research study argued that failure to raise concerns about scientific misconduct compromises research integrity. This is an encouraging result demonstrating that researchers try to adhere to high ethical standards. However, further interaction with respondents highlighted that this correct ethical assessment does not lead researchers to take the consequent action of raising concerns. The factors that discourage researchers from raising concerns need to be addressed at the level of research groups, institutions, and by setting a positive precedent which helps them to believe in the system’s ability to investigate concerns raised in a timely and professional manner. Training of researchers in research integrity related issues will have limited utility unless it is coupled with the creation of research culture where raising concerns is a standard practice of scientific and research activities.