Violations of Research Integrity

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

Detrimental Research Practices and Research Misconduct

Traditionally a distinction has been made in research integrity between the “big three” of plagiarism, fabrication and falsification on one hand, and other questionable research practices (QRPs) such as misattribution of authorship and failure to declare conflicts of interest. One implication of this purported distinction has been that only the former has tended to be categorized as serious misconduct, while QRPs are merely seen as minor breaches of integrity, and possibly not as misconduct at all. To illustrate this trend, one only needs to look at the definitions used for decades in the United States: “Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.” In contrast, QRPs were defined as “actions that violate traditional values of the research enterprise and that may be detrimental to the research process.” [1992 Academies report, Responsible Science]

In 2017 these definitions were revisited and partially renamed, but not actually revised. The definition of research misconduct remains identical, meaning that plagiarism, fabrication and falsification are still the focus. Furthermore, the same questionable distinction remains: the big three are still categorized as misconduct, and other misbehaviors are regarded as lesser offences. However, in recognition of the growing importance attributed to QRPs, these have now been renamed as detrimental research practices (DRPs). This change seems to be mainly cosmetic. While on the surface this might seem like a more concrete term as it sounds more definite to say 'detrimental', the actual definition of the term retains the somewhat hypothetical aspect. DRPs “may” have detrimental effects, which means that the term is essentially unchanged in its basic meaning. The new National Academies report provides several examples of such practices:

Detrimental authorship practices that may not be considered misconduct, such as honorary authorship, demanding authorship in return for access to previously collected data or materials or denying authorship to those who deserve to be designated as authors.
Not retaining or making data, code, or other information/materials underlying research results available as specified in institutional or sponsor policies, or standard practices in the field.
Neglectful or exploitative supervision in research.
Misleading statistical analysis that falls short of falsification.
Inadequate institutional policies, procedures, or capacity to foster research integrity and address research misconduct allegations, and deficient implementation of policies and procedures.
Abusive or irresponsible publication practices by journal editors and peer reviewers. (National Academies. Fostering Integrity in Research. 2017)

Notably, this list does not mention failure to disclose conflicts of interest. More importantly, some DRPs may be more detrimental than some “serious misconduct”, calling the distinction into question. For example, plagiarism is theft and fraud, but it does not (normally) harm science itself. In contrast, failure to disclose conflicts of interest can bias interpretation of results in ways that can affect science. Guest authorship and ghost authorship (see linked section) also involve theft in ways that can be much more serious for researchers’ careers than being plagiarized. And failure to raise concerns about misconduct itself may be a much more serious problem than minor cases of plagiarism. These are just a few examples, but they clearly call into question the validity of the distinction made between serious misconduct and DRPs. Generally, it may be more helpful to discard this distinction and focus on breaches of research integrity. All DRPs and ‘serious’ misconduct’ are breaches of integrity, and most will be misconduct unless honest error is involved. As the European Code reminds, in their most serious forms, unacceptable practices are sanctionable. But even at the very least every effort must be made to prevent, discourage and stop these practices through training, supervision and mentoring and through the development of a positive and supportive research environment.

References:

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

National Academies. Fostering Integrity in Research. 2017

Learning objectives:

Being able to recognize different types of violations and to assess their seriousness
Understanding the relationship between violations of research ethics and of research integrity

Introduction

Traditionally a distinction has been made between research misconduct and other unacceptable or questionable research practices (QRPs). Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (the so-called FFP categorization) in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results:

Fabrication is making up results and recording them as if they were real.
Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment or processes or changing, omitting or suppressing data or results without justification.
Plagiarism is using other people’s work and ideas without giving proper credit to the original source, thus violating the rights of the original author(s) to their intellectual outputs.

These three forms of violation are considered particularly serious “since they distort the research record” and harm the science itself, so to say (ALLEA 2017). There are further violations of good research practice that damage the integrity of the research process or of researchers. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity lists the following examples of other unacceptable and questionable research practices (QRPs):

Manipulating authorship or denigrating the role of other researchers in publications.
Re-publishing substantive parts of one’s own earlier publications, including translations, without duly acknowledging or citing the original (‘self-plagiarism’).
Citing selectively to enhance own findings or to please editors, reviewers or colleagues.
Withholding research results.
Allowing funders/sponsors to jeopardize independence in the research process or reporting of results so as to introduce or promulgate bias.
Expanding unnecessarily the bibliography of a study.
Accusing a researcher of misconduct or other violations in a malicious way.
Misrepresenting research achievements.
Exaggerating the importance and practical applicability of findings.
Delaying or inappropriately hampering the work of other researchers.
Misusing seniority to encourage violations of research integrity.
Ignoring putative violations of research integrity by others or covering up inappropriate responses to misconduct or other violations by institutions.
Establishing or supporting journals that undermine the quality control of research (‘predatory journals’).

However, the distinction made between serious misconduct and QRPs is not always clear. This will be discussed more in detail in Key Issues section.

References:

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.

Cases and Questions - Violations of research integrity

1 Start 2 Step 2 3 Step 3 4 Step 4 5 Complete

Case 1

A graduate student, working on a project that involves extensive DNA sequencing, provides his mentor with a computer generated sequence of a gene. The student tells his mentor that the sequence determination has involved complete analysis of both strands of the DNA molecule. Over the next several months, it is determined that not all of the sequence data reflects analysis of both DNA strands. Indeed, follow-up work by a postdoctoral in the laboratory reveals several mistakes in the sequence. The student in question admits to misleading his mentor and, following appropriate investigation, is convicted of scientific misconduct and dismissed from the graduate program. The mentor realizes that the student presented some of the erroneous data at a regional scientific meeting. Proceedings of the meeting were not published but abstracts of all of the works presented were distributed to approximately 100 meeting participants. In addition the student, with the mentor's permission, sent the sequence by electronic mail to three other laboratories. (Source: www.research-ethics.org)

Question 1

What, if any, responsibility does the faculty mentor have with regard to disclosing the above developments?

Main menu

Research integrity