Responding to Research Misconduct: A Primer for LIS Professionals

References

• American Chemical Society. n.d. Ethical and professional guidelines. Accessed March 22, 2019. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/careers/career-services/ethics.html.
   Google Scholar
• Association of College and Research Libraries. n.d. ACRL scholarly communication toolkit. Accessed October 4, 2017. http://acrl.libguides.com/scholcomm/toolkit.
   Google Scholar
• Bedzow, I. 2019. Giving voice to values as a professional physician: An introduction to medical ethics. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ben-Yehuda, N., and A. Oliver-Lumerman. 2017. Fraud and misconduct in research: Detection, investigation, and organizational response. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bonito, A. J., S. L. Titus, and D. E. Wright. 2012. Assessing the preparedness of research integrity officers (RIOs) to appropriately handle possible research misconduct cases. Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (4):605–19. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9274-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borrego, Á., J. Ardanuy, and C. Urbano. 2018. Librarians as research partners: Their contribution to the scholarly endeavor beyond Library and information science. Journal of Academic Librarianship 44 (5):663–70. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2018.07.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brainard, J. 2018. Rethinking retractions. Science 362 (6413):390–93. doi:10.1126/science.362.6413.390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, D. 2018. Duplicated images could soon be identified by an automated test. Nature 555 (7694):18. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-02421-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calarco, P., K. Shearer, B. Schmidt, and D. Tate. 2016. Librarians’ competencies profile for scholarly communication and open access. Accessed March 25, 2019. https://www.coar-repositories.org/files/Competencies-for-ScholComm-and-OA_June-2016.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, Illinois Institute of Technology. n.d. The ethics codes collection. Accessed March 25, 2019. http://ethicscodescollection.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, H., and Y. Zhang. 2017. Educating data management professionals: A content analysis of Job descriptions. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 43 (1):18–24. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2016.11.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coates, H. 2014. Ensuring research integrity: The role of data management in current crises. C&RL News 75 (11):598–601. doi:10.5860/crln.75.11.9224.
   Google Scholar
• Committee on Responsible Science; Committee on Science, Engineering, Medicine, and Public Policy; Policy and Global Affairs, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Fostering integrity in research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/21896.
   Google Scholar
• Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy; National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. 2009. On being a scientist: A guide to responsible conduct in research, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/12192.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, A. M., M. A. Kennan, L. Lyon, and S. Pinfield. 2017. Developments in research data management in academic libraries: Towards an understanding of research data service maturity. Journal of the Association for Information Science And Technology 68 (9):2182–200. doi:10.1002/as.23781.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DuBois, J. M., J. T. Chibnall, R. Tait, and J. S. Vander Wal. 2016. Lessons from researcher rehab. Nature 534 (7606):173–75. doi:10.1038/534173a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DuBois, J. M., J. T. Chibnall, R. Tait, and J. S. Vander Wal. 2018. The professionalism and integrity in research program. Academic Medicine 93 (4):586–92. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000001804.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, M. A., and S. Roy. 2017. Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science 34 (1):51–61. doi:10.1089/ees.2016.0223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erway, R., L. Horton, A. Nurnberger, R. Otsuji, and A. Rushing. 2016. Building blocks: Laying the foundation for a research data management program. Dublin, OH: Online Computer Library Center. http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/2016/oclcresearch-data-management-building-blocks-2016.html.
   Google Scholar
• Fearon, D., B. Gunia, B. E. Pralle, S. Lake, and A. L. Sallans. 2013. Research data management services SPEC kit 334. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.
   Google Scholar
• Foutch, L. J. 2016. A new partner in the process: The role of a librarian on a faculty research team. Collaborative Librarianship 8 (2):80–83.
   Google Scholar
• Fox, M., and J. Beall. 2014. Advice for plagiarism whistleblowers. Ethics and Behavior 24 (5):341–49. doi:10.1080/10508422.2013.866047.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gentile, M. C. 2010. Giving voice to values: How to speak your mind when you know what’s right. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gentile, M. C. 2017. Giving voice to values: A global partnership with UNGC PRME to transform management education. International Journal of Management Education 15 (2):121–25. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2017.02.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibney, E. 2017. The scientist who spots fake videos. Nature News, October 6. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22784/
   Google Scholar
• Gorman, M. 2015. Our enduring values revisited: Librarianship in an ever-changing world. Chicago: American Library Association.
   Google Scholar
• Gunsalus, C. K. 1998. How to blow the whistle and still have a career afterwards. Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1):51–64. doi:10.1007/s11948-998-0007-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• iThenticate. n.d. Accessed March 25, 2019. http://www.ithenticate.com.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston, L. R., ed. 2017a. Curating research data: A handbook of current practice. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston, L. R., ed. 2017b. Curating research data: Practical strategies for your Digital repository. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries.
   Google Scholar
• Kidder, R. 2005. Moral courage. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Koehler, W. 2015. Ethics and values in librarianship: A history. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Koppers, L., H. Wormer, and K. Ickstadt. 2017. Towards a systematic screening tool for quality assurance and semiautomatic fraud detection for images in the life sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (4):1113–28. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9841-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kretser, A., D. Murphy, S. Bertuzzi, T. Abraham, D. Allison, J. Boor, A. Grantham, L. J. Harris, and R. Hollander, R. Yada. 2019. Scientific integrity principles and best practices: Recommendations from a scientific integrity consortium. Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (2):327–55. doi:10.1007/s11948-019-00094-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loikith, L., and R. Bauchwitz. 2016. The essential need for research misconduct allegation audits. Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (4):1027–49. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9798-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lubalin, J. S., and J. L. Matheson. 1999. The fallout: What happens to whistleblowers and those accused but exonerated of scientific misconduct? Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):229–50. doi:10.1007/s11948-999-0014-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyon, L. 2016. Librarians in the lab: Toward radically re-engineering data curation services at the research coalface. New Review of Academic Librarianship 22 (4):391–409. doi:10.1080/13614533.2016.1159969.
   Google Scholar
• Malek, J. 2010. To tell or not to tell? The ethical dilemma of the would-be whistleblower. Accountability in Research 17 (3):115–29. doi:10.1080/08989621003791929.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcus, A., and I. Oransky. 2018. The data thugs. Science 359 (6377):731–32. doi:10.1126/science.359.6377.730.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McIntosh, T., C. Higgs, M. Turner, P. Partlow, L. Steele, A. E. MacDougall, Connelly, S., and M. Mumford. 2019. To whistleblow or not to whistleblow: Affective and cognitive differences in reporting peers and advisors. Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (1):171–210. doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9974-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mecca, J. T., V. Giorgini, K. Medeiros, C. Gibson, L. Devenport, S. Connelly, and M. Mumford. 2014. Perspectives on whistleblowing: Faculty member viewpoints and suggestions for organizational change. Accountability in Research 21 (3):159–75. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.847735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• North American Serials Interest Group. 2017. NASIG core competencies for scholarly communication librarians. Accessed March 25, 2019. http://www.nasig.org/site_page.cfm?pk_association_webpage_menu=310&pk_association_webpage=9435.
   Google Scholar
• Office of Research Integrity, (n.d.) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Case summaries. Accessed June 20, 2019. https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case_summary.
   Google Scholar
• Office of the Inspector General, (n.d.) National Science Foundation. Case closeout memoranda. Accessed June 20, 2019. https://www.nsf.gov/oig/case-closeout.jsp.
   Google Scholar
• Office of the Vice Provost for Research, Harvard University. n.d. Research integrity. Accessed March 21, 2019. https://vpr.harvard.edu/pages/research-integrity.
   Google Scholar
• Plump, C. 2018. Giving voice to values in the legal profession: Effective advocacy with integrity. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Redman, B. K. 2017. Commentary: Legacy of the Commission on Research Integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (2):555–63. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9753-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Research Ethics and Compliance, University of Michigan. n.d. Research integrity. Accessed June 21, 2019. https://research-compliance.umich.edu/research-integrity.
   Google Scholar
• Resnik, D. B., K. C. Elliott, P. A. Soranno, and E. M. Smith. 2017. Data-intensive science and research integrity. Accountability in Research 24 (6):344–58. doi:10.1080/08989621.2017.1327813.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik, D. B., T. Neal, A. Raymond, and G. E. Kissling. 2015. Research misconduct definitions adopted by U.S. research institutions. Accountability in Research 22 (1):14–21. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.891943.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhode, D. L. 2018. Cheating: Ethics in everyday life. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Satalkar, P., and D. Shaw. 2018. Is failure to raise concerns about misconduct a breach of integrity? Researchers’ reflections on reporting misconduct. Accountability in Research 25 (6):311–39. doi:10.1080/08989621.2018.1493577.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaller-Demers, D. S. 2015. Responsible conduct of research: Not just for researchers. Journal of Research Administration 46 (1):63–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, B., and K. Shearer. 2016. Librarians’ competencies profile for research data management. Accessed June 20, 2019. https://www.coar-repositories.org/files/Competencies-for-RDM_June-2016.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Steneck, N. H. 2007. ORI introduction to the responsible conduct of research, Revised ed. Washington, DC: Office for Research Integrity. Accessed March 25, 2019. https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/rcrintro.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Stokstad, E. 2018. The truth squad. Science 361 (6408):1189–91. doi:10.1126/science.361.6408.1189.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stone, D., B. Patton, and S. Henn. 2010. Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. 10th anniversary ed. New York: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Tenopir, C., R. J. Sandusky, S. Allard, and B. Birch. 2014. Research data management services in academic research libraries and perceptions of librarians. Library and Information Science Research 36 (2):84–90. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2013.11.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, C. V. L., and R. J. Urban. 2018. What do data librarians think of the MLIS? Professionals’ perceptions of knowledge transfer, trends and challenges. College & Research Libraries 79 (3):401–23. doi:10.5860/crl.79.3.401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 45: Public welfare, Part 689 research misconduct. Accessed March 25, 2019. www.ecfr.gov.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 42: Public health, Part 93 Public Health Service policies on research misconduct. Accessed March 25, 2019. www.ecfr.gov.
   Google Scholar
• Veldkamp, C. L. S., C. H. J. Hartgerink, M. A. L. M. van Assen, and J. M. Wicherts. 2017. Who believes in the storybook image of the scientist? Accountability in Research 24 (3):127–51. doi:10.1080/08989621.2016.1268922.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visintini, S., M. Boutet, A. Manley, and M. Helwig. 2018. Research support in health sciences libraries: A Scoping Review. The Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association 39 (2):56–78. doi:10.29173/jchla29366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendelbo, M. 2017. Perspectives on peer review of data: Framing standards and questions. College & Research Libraries 78 (3):262–66. doi:10.5860/crl.78.3.262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittenberg, J., A. Sackmann, and R. Jaffe. 2018. Situating expertise in practice: Domain-Based data management training for liaison librarians. Journal of Academic Librarianship 44 (3):323–29. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2018.04.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhe Jin, G., and S. Feng Lu. 2018. Retraction and reputation. Science 361 (6408):1196. doi:10.1126/science.aav2484.
   Google Scholar