Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Responsible Conduct in Research

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Responsible Conduct in Research"— Presentation transcript:

1 Responsible Conduct in Research
this is a test Responsible Conduct in Research Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship

2 this is a test Introduction The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) supports several programs designed to promote education and training in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) that covers the following nine instructional areas: Data Acquisition, Management, Sharing and Ownership Conflict of Interest and Commitment Human Subjects Animal Welfare Research Misconduct Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship Mentor / Trainee Responsibilities Peer Review Collaborative Science Also included and important is the financial management of the grant funds and the appropriate charging of research expenses. Education in responsible conduct is essential because unethical or compromised behaviors on the part of researchers lead the public to lose trust in the research community. When trust is lost, credibility is lost. When credibility is lost, the opportunity to improve human well-being and protect the environmental is lost. When belief that science can make a difference is lost, funding for research is lost. The America Competes Act states that any graduate student, undergraduate student or postdoctoral associate who receives support from a federal award MUST have instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research.

3 this is a test Research Misconduct Research Misconduct – The Office of Science and Technology (OSTP) in the Executive Office of the President has issued a definition of misconduct that applies to all agencies and recipients of federal funds. NSF and PHS (Public Health Service - including NIH) have implemented this policy. Research Misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research or in reporting research results. Fabrication – is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. Falsification – is manipulating research materials, equipment or processes or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. Plagiarism – is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit. This includes taking another’s proposal ideas during the review of their proposal. It does not include honest error or differences of opinion!

4 Co – Authorship Video case studies and some questions to ponder
this is a test Co – Authorship Video case studies and some questions to ponder VIDEO #9 What are the individual contributions of Bob, Joe, Sue and Amy to the manuscript, and should they be included as authors. What are the criteria for being included as an author on a paper being submitted for publication? How does one determine whether a colleague should be listed as an author or simply mentioned in the acknowledgements’ section? Should lab technicians be listed as authors? If a manuscript is more likely to be accepted into a top-level journal if a potential author is well known, is it appropriate to include that author if his inclusion (a) helps advance the careers of the other authors or (b) helps to expose the research to a wider audience?

5 this is a test ESA on Authorship From Office of Research Integrity Newsletter – Volume 17, No. 4.; September 2009; page 5 “In ecology, manuscript writing is a legitimate authorship contribution, but the logical operator for the combinations of contributions for authorship is also “OR”. Authorship may legitimately be claimed if researchers: Conceived the ideas or experimental design Participated actively in the execution of the study Analyzed and interpreted the data Wrote the Manuscript” (Ecological Society of America,

6 this is a test Co-Authorship Scoring System (NERC Unity of Comparative Plant Ecology, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, The University, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK) INTELLECTUAL INPUT (Planning/Designing/Interpreting) No Contribution Points One detailed discussion Points Several detailed discussions Points Correspondence or longer meetings Points Substantial liaisons Points Closest Possible Involvement Points PRACTICAL INPUT: DATA-CAPTURE (Setting-up/Observing/Recording/Abstracting) No Contribution Points Small Contribution Points Moderate Indirect Contribution Points Moderate Direct Contribution Points Major Indirect Contribution Points Major Direct Contribution Points PRACTICAL INPUT: BEYOND DATA-CAPTURE (Data Processing/Organizing) No Contribution Points Brief or Routine Advise Points Specially-tailored Assistance Points Whole Basis of Approach Points SPECIALIST INPUT FROM RELATED FIELDS No Contribution Points Brief or Routine Advice Points Specially-tailored Assistance Points Whole basis of Approach Points LITERARY INPUT (Contribution to First Complete Draft of Manuscript) No Contribution Points Edited Others’ Materials Points Contributed Small Sections Points Contributed Moderate Sections Points Contributed Majority Points Contributed Virtually All Points NOTE: > 25 points = an authorship (NATURE 352:187)

7 this is a test Plagiarism and Inappropriate Citation Video case study and some questions to ponder VIDEO #11 What are the various ways this graduate student might deal with this problem? Is there more than one appropriate solution? Is a professor more likely to trust a post-doc compared to a graduate student? Discuss how lab tenure might influence interaction amongst lab members. Does the fact that Bob is a post-doc change the way this situation should be handled? Assume that Bob and this graduate student have published together in the past. Would this make a difference? Will the graduate student’s career be tarnished if Bob becomes known as an academic fraud? When is it proper to use citations in scientific writing?

8 Yes, There are Consequences!
this is a test Yes, There are Consequences! In Rare Move, University Returns NSF Grant Funds After Plagiarism Finding Finding an investigator guilty of research misconduct in connection with a federal grant is bad enough, but having to repay the grant — with that action reported publicly — isn’t the kind of publicity any university (or research institute) would desire. Although rare, sometimes grants must be repaid. And that’s exactly the situation Central Michigan University found itself in last month. In the wake of an investigation that concluded two researchers were guilty of plagiarism in a grant application and subsequent research, in violation of its research integrity policy, CMU’s board voted late last month to return $619,489 in grant funds received from the National Science Foundation. By law, the funds, however, go into the national treasury, not back to the funding agency. Steven Smith, CMU’s director of public relations, declined to comment on whether the university took disciplinary actions against the unidentified researchers, members of the math faculty. NSF awarded the three-year grant in 2005 to a team of seven CMU math faculty for a project called “CONCEPT: CONnecting Content and Pedagogical Education of Pre-service Teachers.” Allegations of plagiarism arose as early as March 2007 when teaching materials connected with the program were given out to students. They came to a head in July of that year after one of the two researchers later found guilty of misconduct left CMU and wanted to transfer the funds to the new institution. As recommended by federal guidance on handling misconduct, CMU began an “inquiry” to first determine whether a full investigation was warranted. Two Investigations Were Done ”The original allegations were brought forth by members of the research team,” Smith said. He noted that the university conducted two separate “preliminary” and two “official” investigations. The first investigation was of possible plagiarism in the work produced with grant funds, and the finding of plagiarism there gave rise to a suspicion that there could also have been plagiarized material in the grant application itself. Two outside experts concluded material was plagiarized by one researcher and also held accountable the principal investigator for not catching the misconduct. Materials were believed to have been lifted from work by the University of Missouri. “Most of the formal investigation concluded in September 2008,” Smith told RRC, adding that after this time there was a “back and forth with NSF.” The board action to return the grant didn’t occur until recently, however, due in part to what Smith termed “a significant amount of administrative turnover” at CMU. But, Smith added, “as soon as we confirmed there was plagiarism, we stopped the process,” he said, referring to the ongoing work funded by the grant. CMU couldn’t allow the work to proceed because it was “tainted,” Smith said. Report on Research Compliance, Volume 6, Number 11 • November 2009

9 Resources
this is a test Resources Resources on publication practices and responsible authorship is available from Office of Research Integrity website. Test your knowledge Go to And test your knowledge for each of the categories Online Ethics Center - University of New Hampshire - Syracuse University -

10 Certificate of Completion
this is a test Certificate of Completion I certify that I have completed the rcr Training Module on Research Authorship Print Name Date Signature Please print out sign and return to Grants and Compliance Office

Download ppt "Responsible Conduct in Research"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google