Is failure to raise concerns about misconduct a breach of integrity? Researchers’ reflections on reporting misconduct

References

• ALLEA-All European Academies. 2017. The European code of conduct for research integrity. ALLEA - All European Academies. http://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017-1.pdf. (Accessed on Apr 25, 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Allen, M., and R. Dowell. 2013. Retrospective reflections of a whistleblower: Opinions on misconduct responses. Accountability in Research 20(5–6):339–48. doi:10.1080/08989621.2013.822249.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Barach, P., and S. D. Small. 2000. Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: Lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems. BMJ: British Medical Journal 320(7237):759–63. doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7237.759.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basel, U. 2018. Research Integrity regulation to replace previous guidelines. https://www.unibas.ch/de/Universitaet/Administration-Services/Vizerektorat-Forschung/Grants-Office/Grants-Office-News/Integrity.html. (Accessed on June 19, 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Berggren, C., and S. F. Karabag. 2018. Scientific misconduct at an elite medical institute: The role of competing institutional logics and fragmented control. Research Policy in press. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouter, L. M. 2015. Commentary: Perverse incentives or rotten apples? Accountability in Research 22(3):148–61. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.950253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouter, L. M., and S. Hendrix. 2017. Both whistleblowers and the scientists they accuse are vulnerable and deserve protection. Accountability in Research 24(6):359–66. doi:10.1080/08989621.2017.1327814.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowen, G. A. 2008. Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: A research note. Qualitative Research 8(1):137–52. doi:10.1177/1468794107085301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2):77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
   Google Scholar
• Brotherton, S., A. Kao, and B. J. Crigger. 2016. Professing the values of medicine: The modernized AMA code of medical ethics. JAMA 316(10):1041–42. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.9752.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buljan, I., L. Barać, and M. Ana. 2018. How researchers perceive research misconduct in biomedicine and how they would prevent it: A qualitative study in a small scientific community. Accountability in Research 25(4):220–38. doi:10.1080/08989621.2018.1463162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, J. R. 2006. How a system for reporting medical errors can and cannot improve patient safety. The American Surgeon 72(11):1088–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crocker, J., and M. Lynne Cooper. 2011. Addressing scientific fraud. Science 334(6060):1182. doi:10.1126/science.1216775.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cyranoski, D. Stem-cell pioneer blamed media ‘bashing’ in suicide note. Nature. https://www.nature.com/news/stem-cell-pioneer-blamed-media-bashing-in-suicide-note-1.15715#/correction1 (Accessed on Apr 28, 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Fanelli, D. 2009. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS One 4(5):e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galbraith, K. L. 2017. Life after research misconduct: Punishments and the pursuit of second chances. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 12(1):26–32. doi:10.1177/1556264616682568.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldenring, J. R. 2010. Perspective: Innocence and due diligence: Managing unfounded allegations of scientific misconduct. Academic Medicine 85(3):527–30. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181cd4c7a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gross, C. 2016. Scientific misconduct. Annual Review of Psychology 67:693–711. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haug, C. J. 2015. Peer-review fraud—Hacking the scientific publication process. New England Journal of Medicine 373(25):2393–95. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1512330.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, D., L. D. Hickman, M. Hutchinson, S. Andrew, J. Smith, I. Potgieter, M. Cleary, and K. Peters. 2014. Whistleblowing: An integrative literature review of data-based studies involving nurses. Contemporary Nurse 48(2):240–52. doi:10.1080/10376178.2014.11081946.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, D., K. Peters, S. Andrew, M. Edenborough, E. Halcomb, L. Luck, Y. Salamonson, and L. Wilkes. 2010. Understanding whistleblowing: Qualitative insights from nurse whistleblowers. Journal of Advanced Nursing 66(10):2194–201. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05365.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapur, N., A. Parand, T. Soukup, T. Reader, and N. Sevdalis. 2016. Aviation and healthcare: A comparative review with implications for patient safety. JRSM Open 7(1):2054270415616548. doi:10.1177/2054270415616548.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar, M. N. 2009. Dealing with misconduct in biomedical research: A review of the problems and the proposed methods for improvement. Accountability in Research 16(6):307–30. doi:10.1080/08989620903328576.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Martinson, B. C., M. S. Anderson, and D. V. Raymond. 2005. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435(7043):737–38. doi:10.1038/435737a.
   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
• Meskus, M., L. Marelli, and G. D’Agostino. 2017. Research misconduct in the age of open science: The case of STAP stem cells. Science as Culture 1–23. doi:10.1080/09505431.2017.1316975.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michalek, A. M., A. D. Hutson, C. P. Wicher, and D. L. Trump. 2010. The costs and underappreciated consequences of research misconduct: A case study. PLoS Medicine 7(8):e1000318. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000318.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Academy of Sciences, National Academy. 2009. On being a scientist: A guide to responsible conduct in research. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press (US).
   Google Scholar
• Okonta, P. I., and T. Rossouw. 2014. Misconduct in research: A descriptive survey of attitudes, perceptions and associated factors in a developing country. BMC Medical Ethics 15(1):25. doi:10.1186/1472-6939-15-25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olesen, A. P., L. Amin, and Z. Mahadi. 2017. Malaysian researchers talk about the influence of culture on research misconduct in higher learning institutions. Accountability in Research 24(8):469–82. doi:10.1080/08989621.2017.1399358.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pupovac, V., and D. Fanelli. 2015. Scientists admitting to plagiarism: A meta-analysis of surveys. Science and Engineering Ethics 21(5):1331–52. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9600-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redman, B., and A. Caplan. 2015. No one likes a snitch. Science and Engineering Ethics 21(4):813–19. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9570-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Research Triangle Institute. Consequences of whistleblowing for the whistleblower in misconduct in science cases. Final report. https://ori.hhs.gov/content/consequences-whistleblowing-whistleblower-misconduct-science-cases-final-report-1995 (Accessed on Apr 28, 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Resnik, D. B. 2009. International standards for research integrity: An idea whose time has come? Accountability in Research 16(4):218–28. doi:10.1080/08989620903065350.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik, D. B. 2014. Scientific misconduct and research integrity. In Handbook of global bioethics, ed. H. ten Have and B. Gordijn, 799–810. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Resnik, D. B., E. M. Smith, S. H. Chen, and C. Goller. 2017. What is recklessness in scientific research? The Frank Sauer case. Accountability in Research 24(8):497–502. doi:10.1080/08989621.2017.1397517.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shamoo, A. E., and D. B. Resnik. 2015. Responsible conduct of research. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shaw, D. 2018. A witness protection program for science. EMBO Reports 19(2):189–90. doi:10.15252/embr.201745596.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw, D. M., and T. C. Erren. 2015. Ten simple rules for protecting research integrity. PLoS Computational Biology 11(10):e1004388. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004388.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steen, R. G. 2011. Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics 37(4):249–53. doi:10.1136/jme.2010.040923.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stroebe, W., T. Postmes, and R. Spears. 2012. Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(6):670–88. doi:10.1177/1745691612460687.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. 2008. Integrity in scientific research: Principles and procedures. Switzerland: Bern.
   Google Scholar
• Tavare, A. 2011. Managing research misconduct: Is anyone getting it right? BMJ: British Medical Journal (Online) 344(7838):23–25.
   Google Scholar
• Titus, S. L., J. A. Wells, and L. J. Rhoades. 2008. Repairing research integrity. Nature 453(7198):980. doi:10.1038/453980a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wager, E. 2011. Coping with scientific misconduct. BMJ: British Medical Journal (Online) 343(7381):992–93. doi:10.1136/bmj.d6586.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, C. 2005. Suspected research fraud: Difficulties of getting at the truth. BMJ British Medical Journal (Online) 331(7511):281–88. doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7511.281.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar