Dealing with Violations and Allegations of Misconduct

Learning objectives and introduction
Key issues
Regulations and guidelines
Case studies
Resources

Handling allegations

This text is reproduced from: European Network of Research Integrity Offices (ENRIO) (2019). ENRIO Handbook. Recommendations for the Investigation of Research Misconduct. http://eneri.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/INV-Handbook_ENRIO_web_final.pdf

It is highly recommended that all allegations (substantive or grounded suspicions) regarding research misconduct (such as FFP or similar serious breaches) are dealt with according to relevant codes of conduct/overall guidelines and specified procedures. Procedures and processes regarding possible serious breaches (research misconduct) should be detailed, fair, thorough, comprehensive and objective. Irresponsible or unacceptable research practices should also be addressed although not necessarily in the same manner as investigations of serious breaches defined as research misconduct. The procedures should specify which entity (for example institution’s office, national organization or independent body) should lead or manage any investigation.

There are many different unacceptable practices or minor breaches. Some of them may not directly distort the research record but will still damage the reputation of researchers and society’s trust in research. Several studies show that unaccepted research practices are far more prevalent than FFP and thus more damaging for the research enterprise. For this reason: It is important to handle allegations regarding unaccepted practices in a proper and thorough way and thus safeguarding research integrity. This is mainly the responsibility of the local/home institution that should have procedures for doing this.

When it comes to the decision which steps to take or which phases to implement, various approaches are implemented in different countries. In some countries, there is a clear delineation of responsibilities, i.e. procedures/rules regarding the persons involved in dealing with cases in different phases. In other countries, it may be the same committee making decisions for all phases. The phases are often categorized differently, such as a) fact finding/screening evaluation/screening or preliminary inquiry and b) decision-making process/detailed investigations etc. In any case, clear criteria for proceeding from one phase to another should be described and explained to committee members. In spite of these differences, there seems to be a common intention which is to first evaluate whether the allegation possibly falls within the scope of research misconduct (or irresponsible research practices) and, if so, then to investigate or proceed with uncovering the truth surrounding the allegation. Although handling allegations should be thorough, it is of utmost importance to have a speedy process preferably with clear deadlines for each procedural step. A proper balance between thoroughness and speediness should therefore be considered.

Core principles in handling the research misconduct allegation

The procedures should reflect the principles proposed by the OECD Global Science Forum on “Investigating Research Misconduct Allegations in International Collaborative Research Projects”.* The proposed principles are outlined mostly verbatim and partly paraphrased, with minor additions where seen appropriate.

Integrity of the process

Investigations into research misconduct allegations must be fair, comprehensive and conducted expediently without compromising accuracy, objectivity, and thoroughness. Investigations often take a long time, which can become burdensome to the parties involved. Parties involved in the procedure, especially those carrying out or assisting the investigation process, must ensure that any interests they may have which might constitute a CoI are disclosed and managed. Detailed and confidential records must be maintained on all aspects of the procedure. Any evidence collected related to the allegation(s) should be gathered in accordance with pertinent local laws/guidelines. Evidence should be protected and secured throughout the process to prevent tampering. Consideration should be given to providing secure access to evidence secured (or copies made) so as to enable continuation of work if appropriate. Measures should be taken to ensure that investigations are carried through to a conclusion.

Uniformity

Procedures for dealing with misconduct should be described in sufficient detail so as to ensure the transparency of the process and uniformity within one domain of jurisdiction from one case to another. Transparency is also important for seeking uniformity across institutions when dealing with similar cases, ensuring consistency of application of procedures.

Fairness

Investigation of research misconduct allegations should be conducted in a manner that is fair to all parties and in accordance with relevant laws or regulations. Principles of due process or procedural fairness should be described in policies. Persons accused of research misconduct must be given full details of the allegation in writing and must be afforded a fair process with regards to responding to allegations, asking questions, presenting evidence, calling witnesses (if applicable), and providing responses to information or evidence presented. Witnesses (if applicable) should be accompanied by or seek advice and assistance from anyone of their choosing (e.g. a peer, a lawyer etc.).

Not all institutional or national procedures include oral testimony/hearings and/or witnesses. However, it is the experience of some ENRIO members that this may be very useful and sometimes even crucial for the conclusion of an investigation. Consideration should be given to recording/transcribing interviews (after acceptance from the interviewed person(s)) to ensure the accuracy of the record and prevent disputes. Any sanction or action(s) taken should be subject to appeal. In several European countries the conclusion of an investigation cannot be appealed but any imposed sanctions may typically (at least in several countries) be appealed according to law.

There should be an authority issuing the final decision.

Confidentiality

The procedure (i.e. the investigation) should be conducted in a manner as confidential as possible to protect those involved in the investigation (including those who raise allegations, those accused, those serving as witnesses, and those investigating allegations as committee/panel members). Such confidentiality should be maintained provided this does not compromise the investigation of the allegation, health and safety, or the safety of participants in research. Where revealing information related to an investigation is deemed necessary, any disclosure to third parties should be made on a confidential basis. If the organization and/or its staff have legal obligations to inform third parties of research misconduct, those obligations must be fulfilled at the appropriate time and through the correct mechanisms, with confidentiality being respected whenever possible. Considerations should be given to sponsors that may be required to terms and conditions of grant awards for sponsored research.

No detriment

Anyone accused of research misconduct is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. No persons should suffer any penalty when accused of research misconduct before the allegation is proven. One must be cautious regarding penalties or consequences before the possible appeal process has concluded. No person should suffer any penalty or detriment for making an allegation of research misconduct in good faith, but action(s) should be taken against persons found to have made allegations in bad faith.

Balance

Occasionally the investigating committee or panel may need to strike a balance between disclosure of identities and confidentiality. Such decisions should be made keeping in mind that the primary goal of the investigation (procedure) is to determine the truth of the allegation. Consideration should be given to reasonably and appropriately restore reputations of those wrongfully accused. Those accused and found not committed research misconduct should be asked about actions to be taken to restore their reputations prior to taking any action of this sort. Sometimes there may be a need to restore other’s reputation as well. This may regard e.g. coauthors or other cooperating researchers etc. Proportionate action should be taken against persons found to have committed research misconduct.

*) OECD Global Science Forum (2009). Investigating Research Misconduct Allegations in International Collaborative Research Projects. A PRACTICAL GUIDE. http://www.oecd.org/science/inno/42770261.pdf

European Network of Research Integrity Offices (ENRIO) (2019). ENRIO Handbook. Recommendations for the Investigation of Research Misconduct. http://eneri.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/INV-Handbook_ENRIO_web_final.pdf

Text moved

ALLEA (2017). European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Revised edition. http://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf.

ENRIO Handbook (2019). Recommendations for the Investigation of Research Misconduct. http://eneri.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/INV-Handbook_ENRIO_web_final.pdf

Horizon 2020 Online Manual. European Commission.
Potential misuse of research results, page 37. in European Commission (2019) Horizon 2020 Programme. How to complete your ethics self-assessment-material guidance. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research & Innovation.
OECD Global Science Forum (2009). Investigating Research Misconduct Allegations in International Collaborative Research Projects. A PRACTICAL GUIDE. http://www.oecd.org/science/inno/42770261.pdf
Please find here the systems of handling misconduct cases in ENRIO member states: http://www.enrio.eu/members/

Learning objectives

Recognizing policies and procedures around dealing with allegations/violations of good practice/misconduct.
Understanding national differences in procedures and identifying good practices.

Introduction

Each European country, research institution and researcher should adhere to the European Code of Conduct (CoC) for Research Integrity. A national addendum to the European CoC or more detailed and specific national, local and/or field specific guidelines/codes of conduct is a benefit and is therefore recommended. Such local/national guidelines/codes of conduct should be actively communicated, easily accessible and evaluated/revised regularly.

A description or definition of research misconduct and unacceptable practices should be included in national or local guidelines/codes of conduct. If not, specific descriptions or definitions should be outlined in other relevant documents, e.g. in legislation, agreements, policies and procedures. The question of mental state (mens rea) or level of intent should be addressed. Is there a minimum level of intent, e.g. intentionally or by (gross) negligence? A clear standard, or burden of proof, should specify what is required to demonstrate different levels of intent, along with examples of supporting evidence to prove various levels of intent.

However, there also needs to be room for honest errors and sincere difference of opinions as part of academic freedom. There is no uniform European definition of research misconduct or unacceptable practices although the European CoC provides some guidance here. Some countries (or institutions) have a clear definition of research misconduct (e.g. Fabrication, Falsification and Plagiarism known as FFP) while others have a more “moral” description. It is rarer to have clear descriptions of minor breaches of good scientific/research practice or unacceptable/irresponsible research practices although this is important and very beneficial. As definitions of unacceptable/irresponsible research practices are highly dependent on the scientific field or academic discipline in question, the respective national or international associations may be consulted when guidelines are being specified more in detail.

Main menu

Research integrity