Bibliography
Essential Readings on Addressing Academic Misconduct and Related Topics
| Title | Author(s) | Year | Abstract | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Defining and handling research misconduct: a comparison between Chinese and European Institutional Policies | Dan Li; Gustaaf Cornelis | 2020 | Research institutions are responsible for promoting research integrity and handling allegations of research misconduct. Due to various cultural and social contexts, institutional policies from different cultural backgrounds exhibit many differences, such as their primary concern and mechanisms for dealing with allegations of research misconduct. This comparative study analyses research misconduct policies from 21 Chinese and 22 European universities. The results show that definitions of research misconduct from all retrieved policies go beyond fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism but include different types of questionable research practices. Their procedures for handling research misconduct differ in, for example, confidentiality and disclosure of conflict of interest. Differences can also be found in their governance approaches (“bottom-up” versus “top-down”). | link |
| Seven ways to plagiarize: handling real allegations of research misconduct | Michael C. Loui | 2002 | As the research integrity officer at my university for two years, I handled eight allegations of plagiarism. These eight cases show that initial appearances can be mistaken, that policies for handling allegations of research misconduct cannot cover every contingency, and that many cases can be resolved collegially without resort to formal procedures. | link |
| Should research misconduct be criminalized? | Rafael Dal-Ré; Lex M Bouter; Pim Cuijpers; Christian Gluud; Soren Holm | 2020 | For more than 25 years, research misconduct (research fraud) is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP)—although other research misbehaviors have been also added in codes of conduct and legislations. A critical issue in deciding whether research misconduct should be subject to criminal law is its definition, because not all behaviors labeled as research misconduct qualifies as serious crime. But assuming that all FFP is fraud and all non-FFP not is far from obvious. In addition, new research misbehaviors have recently been described, such as prolific authorship, and fake peer review, or boosted such as duplication of images. The scientific community has been largely successful in keeping criminal law away from the cases of research misconduct. Alleged cases of research misconduct are usually looked into by committees of scientists usually from the same institution or university of the suspected offender in a process that often lacks transparency. Few countries have or plan to introduce independent bodies to address research misconduct; so for the coming years, most universities and research institutions will continue handling alleged research misconduct cases with their own procedures. A global operationalization of research misconduct with clear boundaries and clear criteria would be helpful. There is room for improvement in reaching global clarity on what research misconduct is, how allegations should be handled, and which sanctions are appropriate. | link |
| Make reports of research misconduct public | C.K. Gunsalus | 2019 | Confronted with bad behaviour, institutions will keep asking the wrong questions until they have to show their working, says C. K. Gunsalus. | link |
| How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta analysis of survey data | Daniele Fanelli | 2009 | The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy. Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys. To standardize outcomes, the number of respondents who recalled at least one incident of misconduct was calculated for each question, and the analysis was limited to behaviours that distort scientific knowledge: fabrication, falsification, ‘‘cooking’’ of data, etc... Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis. A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words ‘‘falsification’’ or ‘‘fabrication’’, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others. Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct. | link |
| Both whistleblowers and the scientists they accuse are vulnerable and deserve protection | Lex M. Bouter; Sven Hendrix | 2017 | Whistleblowers play an important role diagnosing research misconduct, but often experience severe negative consequences. That is also true for incorrectly accused scientists. Both categories are vulnerable and deserve protection. Whistleblowers must proceed carefully and cautiously. Anonymous whistleblowing should be discouraged but cannot be ignored when the allegations are specific, serious, and plausible. When accused of a breach of research integrity it is important to be as transparent as possible. Sometimes accusations are false in the sense that the accuser knows or should know that the allegations are untrue. A mala fide whistleblower typically does not act carefully and we postulate a typology that may help in detecting them. Striking the right balance between whistleblower protection and timely unmasking false and identifying incorrect accusations is a tough dilemma leaders of research institutions have to face. | link |
| How to blow the whistle and still have a career afterwards | C.K. Gunsalus | 1998 | Filing charges of scientific misconduct can be a risky and dangerous endeavor. This article presents rules of conduct to follow when considering whether to report perceived misconduct, and a set of step-by-step procedures for responsible whistleblowing that describe how to do so once the decision to report misconduct has been made. This advice is framed within the university setting, and may not apply fully in industrial settings. | link |
| How to survive as a whistle-blower | Michael Doran | 2016 | Scientists who report potential misconduct must tread carefully, says Michael Doran. | link |
Do you have a relevant paper to suggest or share? Please let us know at victims@academicintegrity.eu to help expand this resource for our community.