Misconduct in Research

FFP Definition of Misconduct

fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting research results

Dealing with Misconduct

informal assessment: is the allegation within the definition of misconduct, is there evidence, is the allegation sincere

formal inquiry: is there evidence to warrant an investigation, are there other unethical practices that need to be addressed

investigation: does the evidence reach the standard to support a misconduct finding

adjudication: what penalties are appropriate

reporting: are there sponsors of the research that need to receive reports

Whistleblowers

those who report alleged misconduct

often subject to unethical treatment, must be protected, can be costly

Rules for Responsible Whistleblowing

consider alternative explanations

in light of 1, ask questions, do not make charges

figure out what documentation supports your concerns and where it is

separate your personal and professional concerns

assess your goals

seek advice and listen to it

Step-by-Step Procedures for Responsible Whistleblowing

review your concern with someone you trust

listen to what that person tells you

get a second opinion and take that seriously

if you decide to initiate formal proceedsings, seek strength in numbers

find the right place to file charges

report your concerns

ask questions, keep notes

cultivate patience

Retraction

correcting the research record, detected by post publication peer review or replication

Education

education in responsible conduct of research to avoid misconduct

Policy

can help promote fair and consistent treatment and enforceable standards, essential for compliance and oversight to detect and prevent misconduct

Data Auditing

the reviewing of data, not experimental protocols

detects alterations or replication of data that could be evidence of fabrication

requires access to raw data