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.     

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.     

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.     

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 Rhoades, L. J. Policies and Procedures: Minimal or Useful. Presentation to the introductory workshop for institutional research integrity officers. University of Connecticut Health Center.  [Google Scholar]). 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.     

The social role of alcohol in Russian culture

The year 1995 marks the tenth anniversary of the beginning of perestroika in Russia. The country has paid with its health for all the social, economic and political reforms. The chronic state of social stress, which is already in its tenth year, has led to a sharp growth in alcoholism and drug addiction, an increasing prevalence of neurosis and psychosomatic diseases and an increase in the death rate and decrease in the birth rate. This is the degeneration of the Russian nation. Alcohol stimulates and alcoholism indicates the process of self-destruction of the population. Unfortunately, there are no accurate statistics on alcohol consumption and problems in Russia today, as there is no state monopoly on alcohol production and sale and no common drug treatment service for the whole country. According to generalized estimates from epidemiological investigations, the average prevalence of alcoholism is 200–250 per 1000 adults, but this differs significantly in different professional groups: 10% of the workers in the nuclear energy industry suffer from alcoholism, 35% of the sailors, 22% of the workers in the machine-tool industry and 42% of the people working in the woodworking industry. There is one woman alcoholic for each 5 men. On average, only 1 of every 7 alcoholics seeks medical and social aid. The main cause of alcoholism is alcoholism itself -its uncontrolled and expanding reproduction. The investigation of alcoholism is being intensively removed from the clinical to the social sphere. It can be explained by understanding the role of social and psychological factors in the origin and development of alcoholism and the harsh socio-economic consequences and moral damage. The appearance of a new class of specialists - social workers - in Russia in 1991 was predetermined by these factors. The main objective of social workers is to fight social diseases and alcoholism in particular as the most terrible social disease of the Russian Federation. The history and place of alcohol in modern Russian culture, the stages and forms of the development of alcoholism and its ethnocultural peculiarities in different social strata of the population are described in this article. The reasons for and consequences of alcoholism are systematized, and the principles and directions of the activity of the social services in dealing with the treatment of alcoholism and rehabilitation of the diseased are defined.     

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 records and the resolution of misconduct allegations at research universities

Accurate record keeping is an important part of the responsible conduct of research. However, there is very little empirical research on scientific record keeping. No one knows the incidence of serious problems with research records, the types of problems that occur, nor their consequences. In this study, we examined the role of research records in the resolution of misconduct allegations as a useful barometer for the incidence and types of problems that occur with records. We interviewed Research Integrity Officers (RIOs) at 90 major research universities and conducted focus groups with active research faculty. RIOs reported problems with research records in 38% of the 553 investigations they conducted. Severe problems with research records often prevented completion of investigations while problems that are more typical lengthened them by 2 to 3 weeks. Five types of poor record keeping practices accounted for 75 % of the problems with incomplete/inadequate records being the most common (30%). The focus groups concurred with the findings from the interviews with RIOs, stressed the importance of the research group leader in setting and maintaining record practices, and offered additional insights. While university officials and faculty members have suspected for many years that there are serious problems with research record keeping, our study provides empirical evidence for this belief. By documenting some of the problems with record keeping in university-based research, the results of our study provide information that will be useful for policy development at academic institutions.     

Whistle blowing and research integrity: Potential remedy for research misconduct in Malaysian institutions of higher education

This study found that less than half of the respondents are willing to blow the whistle. The results reveal that a lack of protection with regard to the whistleblower’s identity, the tedious investigative process, and the notion of avoiding confrontation, which is more apparent in Asian cultures as compared to the West, are among the reasons why individuals who witnessed misconduct chose to remain silent. Adhering to the Asian cultural upbringing where the young must respect the old, those of lower rank must obey those with higher authority, and subordinates do not question the actions of their superior, has become a norm even in the working environment. Therefore, emphasize the need for better protection for whistleblowers including using experienced individuals with a research ethics background to handle allegations from whistleblowers. In addition, established guidelines and procedures for whistleblowers with regard to voicing their allegations against colleagues engaged in research misconduct is still lacking or, to a certain extent, is still unknown to researchers. Thus, the concern indicates a need for institutions to create awareness among researchers regarding the existing platform for whistleblowers, or to develop a systematic and clear procedure which is reliable and independent to promote professionalism in academia.     

The role of litigation in human research accountability

This essay examines and analyzes the recent and dramatic series of personal injury lawsuits instituted against those individuals and institutions that conduct and monitor human research. It discusses the social engineering functions of tort litigation, outlines the legal elements and viability of lawsuits against those who conduct and monitor human research, and evaluates and predicts what role tort litigation will play in fulfilling the goals of accountability in the context of human research and human research regulation. In general, tort law engenders two forms of accountability: retrospective and prospective. Retrospective accountability is backward looking, focusing on harms that have already occurred, their culprits, and the reimbursement of individuals for their injuries. Prospective accountability is forward looking in that it encourages actors and institutions to fulfill responsibilities toward individuals in order that harm does not occur, or at least that the risk of harm is decreased. This article argues that research litigation is not, and will probably never become, an effective means of ensuring retrospective accountability in regard to research injuries and ethical violations. Paradoxically though, the current wave of research litigation may serve an important and even key role in encouraging and ensuring prospective accountability.     

The role of federal regulations in assuring research integrity

The federal government has a proper interest in research integrity. Regulations have had effects on scientists and institutions; some appear to have been beneficial, such as recent educational efforts; others have augmented bureaucracy and sowed divisiveness. The federal oversight bureaucracy should be subject to the sunset provision.

Participation by the community is essential to the development of effective regulations, but ethical issues should be dealt with by professional standards, not laws. It is argued that the scientific community had begun to respond to public concerns when change was accelerated by regulation, and that change from within is most effective.     

The role of culture in theories of the intergenerational transmission of violence

The intergenerational transmission of violence has been one of the most rigorously researched hypotheses in violence research in recent decades. A number of previous studies have provided evidence supporting this hypothesis, and there has been a growing body of literature investigating its mechanism. However, the role of culture in the intergenerational transmission of violence has not received much research attention, and thus, it remains largely unknown. To suggest a better theoretical basis for understanding the role of culture in the transmission mechanism, the present paper examines three critical theories that address the intergenerational phenomenon: Dodge's social information processing theory, Nisbett's cultural cognitive theory and Turiel's social‐cognitive domain theory. The paper provides a review of the basic assumptions and core concepts of each theory and identifies the potential contributions and gaps of each theory. The three theories present different accounts of the ontogenetic origins of ideas about violence and convey different portraits of the intergenerational mechanism. However, these theories also show that they are highly likely to be related to one another and that they can help close one another's gaps. This paper suggests that a unified framework that can merge the personal and cultural factors of causation is necessary to better capture the dynamic interplay among culture, experiences with violence and the actual enactment of violent behaviours.     

NSF's approach to misconduct in science

At the National Science Foundation (NSF), the investigation of allegations of misconduct in science is the responsibility of the Office of Inspector General (OIG). NSF's procedures distinguish between the preliminary inquiry and the formal investigation. They also distinguish these stages from the adjudication stage, which is the responsibility of the Office of the Director of NSF rather than of OIG. If an investigation seems warranted, OIG usually asks the university that employs the accused person to perform it, after which OIG reviews the university's investigation report. NSF in effect is asking universities to move from an informal to a formal method of dealing with misconduct in science allegations. This transition is not yet complete. Universities encounter many difficulties in investigating misconduct allegations, in particular when they try to assess an individual's intent. About half of the allegations NSF receives have to do with intellectual property violations, and most of the findings of misconduct that NSF has made were in connection with plagiarism. One plagiarism case illustrates some aspects of the problem of intent.     

Federal agencies can do more to ensure correction of the literature when research misconduct is found

Federal agencies can do more to ensure the integrity of the peer-reviewed literature including providing timely notice of misconduct findings or admissions regarding published articles, requiring the individual found guilty of misconduct to provide notice to affected journals, and to work with the journals and co-authors on making appropriate correction. The case of Andrew Cullinane underscores weakness in the current U.S. government administrative processes and the negative impact on journals.     

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.