Toward global standardization of conducting fair investigations of allegations of research misconduct

ABSTRACT

In the United States, through nation-wide discussions, the procedures for handling allegations of research misconduct are now well established. Procedures are geared toward carefully treating both complainants and respondents fairly in accordance with the US framework. Other countries, which have their own cultural and legal framework, also need fair and legally compatible procedures for conducting investigations of allegations of research misconduct. Given the rapid growth of international collaboration in research, it is desirable to have a global standard, or common ground, for misconduct investigations. Institutions need clear guidance on important subjects such as what information should be included in the investigation reports, how the investigation committee should be organized once research misconduct allegation has been received, how to conduct the investigation, how the data and information obtained should be taken as evidence for vs. against misconduct, and what policies the investigation committee should follow. We explore these issues from the viewpoint of members of committees investigating accusations of research misconduct (hereafter referred to as “investigation committees”) as well as persons overseeing the committees in Japan. We hope to engender productive discussions among experts in misconduct investigations, leading to a formulation of international standards for such investigation.

KEYWORDS:

• Research integrity
• research ethics
• research misconduct
• responsible conduct of research

Acknowledgments

We are deeply indebted to the inputs and suggestions from Dr. Susan Garfinkel (Office of Research Compliance, Ohio State University), Dr. Zoe Hammatt (Z Consulting LLC), Dr. Ivan Oransky (Co-founder of Retraction Watch), Dr. Michael W. Kalichman (University of California, San Diego), Naomi Kondo (School of Public Health, The University of Tokyo), Kazuhisa Nakayama (Graduate School and Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Kyoto University)

Disclosure statement

Several of the authors are affiliated with the Association for the Promotion of Research Integrity (APRIN), an independent non-profit organization of which activities are supported by volunteer researchers, ex-researchers, legal experts, and ethicists. Costs of committee meetings and administrative costs were supported by APRIN.

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for the article can be accessed here.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1. It is reasonable for the respondent’s current institution to play the major role in the investigation. Under certain circumstances, the burden of investigation could be lighter if the respondent’s previous institution conducts the investigation, either solely or playing the leading role. The raw data are likely to be found at the previous institution where the research in question was carried out because research data in principle are the property of the institution. The individuals, who were involved or remember the details of the time when the research in question was conducted, are likely to be found at the previous institution. When public funds are to be returned, it is the previous institution where the research in question was conducted that would have to return the funds. Even in the case of a joint investigation, it seems best for one institution to be designated to lead the investigation and to carry the responsibility of mandated reporting.

2. The ORI is responsible for advising research institutions on their investigations and finding any misconducts that they have overlooked. See (Dahlberg and Davidian 2010).

3. Background and outline (the reasons for the discovery, the content of the allegation, the background of the investigation, etc.), investigation (investigation system and survey content), results of investigation (the type of specified misconduct that has been identified, the researcher involved in the specified misconduct, the expenses and research subjects in which the specified misconduct occurred, the specific details of the specified misconduct, and the conclusions and reasons for judgment), details of measures taken by the investigation organization (suspension of spending of competitively awarded funds, personnel actions regarding relevant persons, recommendation for withdrawal or retraction of papers, etc.), causes of occurrence of specified misconduct and recurrence prevention measures (management system of the research institution at the time when the misconduct occurred, the state of development of necessary regulations, and measures to prevent recurrence). Abstracted from (MEXT 2014).

4. Major examples are PubPeer (https://pubpeer.com/) and Retraction Watch (http://retractionwatch.com/). Accessed 25 February 2020.

5. Major examples are arXiv (http://arXiv.org), bioRxiv (https://www.biorxiv.org) and medRxiv (https://connect.medrxiv.org). Accessed 25 February 2020.

6. The American Statistical Association has also released a statement on the issue of focusing on p-values without understanding the context (ASA 2016).