Institutional Research Misconduct Reports Need More Credibility

Abstract

Institutions have a central role in protecting the integrity of research. They employ researchers, own the facilities where the work is conducted, receive grant funding, and teach many students about the research process. When questions arise about research misconduct associated with published articles, scientists and journal editors usually first ask the researchers' institution to investigate the allegations and then report the outcomes, under defined circumstances, to federal oversight agencies and other entities, including journals. 1 Depending on institutions to investigate their own faculty presents significant challenges. Misconduct reports, the mandated product of institutional investigations for which US federal dollars have been spent, have a wide range of problems. These include lack of standardization, inherent conflicts of interest that must be addressed to directly ensure credibility, little quality control or peer review, and limited oversight. Even

Scientific Misconduct and Medical Journals

“…In 2017, a group of representatives who deal with scientific misconduct, including university and institutional leaders and research integrity officers, federal officials, researchers, journal editors, journalists, and attorneys representing respondents, whistle-blowers, and institutions, examined best and failed practices related to institutional investigation of scientific misconduct. 14 The group developed a checklist that can be used by institutions to follow reasonable standards to investigate an allegation of scientific misconduct and to provide an appropriate and complete report following the investigation. 14 JAMA editors request institutions to provide periodic updates on the status of an investigation, and once the investigation is completed, institutions are expected to provide the editors with a detailed report of their findings.…”

“…14 The group developed a checklist that can be used by institutions to follow reasonable standards to investigate an allegation of scientific misconduct and to provide an appropriate and complete report following the investigation. 14 JAMA editors request institutions to provide periodic updates on the status of an investigation, and once the investigation is completed, institutions are expected to provide the editors with a detailed report of their findings. For cases in which misconduct has been identified, the institution and the authors may recommend and request retraction of the published article.…”

Check for publication integrity before misconduct

“…One of us (C.K.G.) helped to develop a checklist for assessing the quality of institutional investigations of researchers' conduct 2 . Academic publishing has also introduced a suite of checklists to be completed by authors when submitting papers, to make sure certain aspects of the research are fully reported.…”

Overdue: a US advisory board for research integrity

“…Japan's Association for the Promotion of Research Integrity (APRIN) has issued a checklist for conducting investigations into research integrity. That was based on a 2017 US effort 7 , itself rooted in work done by the AAAS and various organizations in the United States three decades ago.…”