Is it time to revise the definition of research misconduct?

ABSTRACT

U.S. federal policy defines research misconduct as fabrication of data, falsification of data, or plagiarism (FFP). In recent years, some have argued or suggested that the definition of research misconduct should also include sexual harassment, sabotage, deceptive use of statistics, and failure to disclose a significant conflict of interest (COI). While the arguments for revising the definition of misconduct used by federal agencies to include misbehaviors other than FFP are not convincing at this point in time, the arguments for revising definitions used by other organizations, such as professional societies, universities, or journals, may be. Since these other organizations play an important role in promoting integrity in science and deterring unethical behavior, they may consider adopting definitions of misconduct that extend beyond FFP. Debates about the definition of research misconduct are a normal and healthy part of broader discussions about integrity in science and how best to promote it. These debates should continue even if the federal definition of misconduct remains unchanged.

KEYWORDS:

• Research misconduct
• fabrication
• falsification
• plagiarism
• definition
• sexual harassment
• sabotage
• statistics

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Intramural Program of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH). It does not represent the views of the NIEHS, NIH, or U.S. government.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. The commentary focuses on the U.S. federal definition of research misconduct. It is also worth noting that while most of the top research and development (R&D) funding nations include FFP in their definitions of research misconduct, many also include other categories, such as unethical authorship (54.6%), unethical publication practices (36.4%), failing to report a significant COI (34.6%), and unethical peer review (31.8%) (Resnik et al. 2015a).

2. It is worth noting that other ethically questionable research practices, such as not naming a significant contributor as an author, may also inaccurately represent research.

3. There are many misbehaviors that can negatively impact the social structure of science, including racism and bullying, but I will not discuss them here.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [ZIAES102646-08].