1. Responsible Conduct of Research
Research Integrity and Ethics
Jason G. Ramage

2. What is Research Integrity?
the use of honest and verifiable methods in proposing, performing, and evaluating research
reporting research results with particular attention to adherence to rules, regulations, and guidelines
following commonly accepted professional codes or norms

3. Why Does it Matter?
Researchers rely on the results of others in order to make scientific progress.
Researchers rely on public support (through public investments or through voluntary participation in research) to further scientific discovery.
The public relies on scientific progress to improve lives.
Harm may result from dishonest or unethical researchers.

4. Research Misconduct Fabrication Falsification Plagiarism
Making up data or results and recording or reporting them
Falsification
Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results in such a way that the research is not accurately represented.
Plagiarism
Appropriating someone else’s ideas, processes,
results, or words without giving appropriate
credit.
SafeAssign on the University Libraries website can help screen for potential, unintentional plagiarism

5. What about self-plagiarism?
Self-plagiarism is the reuse of previously disseminated content passed off as new content, without giving notice that the material has been published elsewhere.
e.g. taking a previously published paper and submitting it to another journal with little or no modification.
Self-plagiarism is not considered research misconduct in 42 CFR 93 (Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct). However, it does violate the policies of most reputable peer-reviewed journals.
PHS Agencies – NIH, FDA, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), CDC
Many other agencies follow PHS Regulations

6. ORI – my office files an annual report; only pertains to projects funded by PHS agencies.

8. Red Flags to Look For Lack of transparency
“Revolutionary” findings that are too good to be true
Suspicious lab practices
Small lies may mean there are bigger lies nearby
Misleading statistics
Won’t share data; not proof of fraud but transparency is an important safeguard against it
Be wary of any data that looks too good to be true; can the data be replicated?
Use of stats to obscure the true results of an experiment or to tell a story that does not exist.
Completing much more experimental work than others; can make experiments “work” when nobody else can
If you lie about little things, it’s possible you’re lying about bigger things.
Overdosed America – John Abramson – manipulation of clinical trial data to mislead the public

9. Beware of predatory journals!
TRAGEDIES
T – Temptation
How great would this look on my CV?
R – Rationalization
I’ll just leave out those data points; that experiment was flawed anyway.
A – Ambition
I want to get this published in Nature, not the Journal of Last Resort.
G – Group and Authority Pressure
My department chair told me to! Everyone else is doing it!
E – Entitlement
After all the hours I’ve spent on this work, I deserve to have it published no matter what!
D – Deception
I don’t need to run the experiments; I’m sure I would have got the results I expect anyway.
I – Incrementalism
Just this one time………
E – Embarrassment
My boss will think I’m incompetent if I admit I don’t know how to run that experiment.
S – Stupid Systems
We get more credit if we can publish this as three separate papers, even though it really should all go in one.
Beware of predatory journals!
Open Access does not mean predatory. PLOS One is an open access journal, but not considered a predatory one.
C. K. Gunsalus and Aaron D. Robinson. (2018). Nine pitfalls of research misconduct. Nature, Volume 557,

10. What Research Misconduct is NOT:
Disputes regarding honest errors or differences in the interpretation of data
Authorship disputes
If I forget to include some data points in a graph of results, and it is a genuine case of forgetfulness, then it is not misconduct.

11. Reporting Research Misconduct
“All institutional members will report observed, suspected, or apparent research misconduct to the RIO, the DO, or their designees. Prior to submitting a formal charge, a potential complainant is encouraged to consult informally with the RIO, the DO, or their designees to consider whether the case involves questions of research misconduct, should be resolved by other University procedures, or does not warrant further action.”
– UA Research and Scholarly Misconduct Policies and Procedures
Describe the process – allegation; inquiry; investigation.
Retaliation against complainants, witnesses, and committee members is not tolerated.

12. A finding of research misconduct requires that:
There is a significant departure from the accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
The misconduct must have been committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
The allegations must be proven by a preponderance of evidence.

13. What would you do?
Scenario 1: Your department chair has reviewed your data and thinks you should prepare a manuscript and submit it for publication. However, she suggests repeating some of the experiments in order to validate the data. When you do, you find you can’t replicate the original results. What do you do? Scenario 2: You’re chatting with a colleague about how stressed out you both are from your teaching load and research responsibilities. He off-handedly mentions that he made up some data to support a grant proposal, but said it was no big deal because he’s 100% sure those are the results he would have got had he actually run the experiments. What do you do? Scenario 3: You’ve won an award from a prominent business to study the effects of its product on human health. Your data show that the product may actually be harmful to people. When you present the results to the company, you’re asked not to publish them. What do you do?

14. M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Don’t be that guy!
Conducted research into the supposed anti-cancer properties of plant-derived chemicals (e.g. curcumin)
M.D. Anderson launched a review of his work in 2012 after ORI notified the institution that questions had been raised with respect to 65 of his published papers
Allegations included image manipulation (adding/subtracting features; cropping; stretching; rotating; flipping) to imply the same images represented different experimental conditions
As of April 2018, 19 of his papers have been retracted
He had once threatened to sue Retraction Watch for their reporting on his case
Bharat Aggarwal
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
University of Texas

15. Dong-Pyou Han - Iowa State University
Charged with falsifying HIV vaccine research; he manipulated samples of rabbit serum to make it appear that injections of GP41 stimulated the production of antibodies against HIV
Han resigned from Iowa State after Harvard researchers, trying to validate his findings, discovered human antibodies in the rabbit samples
In 2013, ORI implemented a three-year ban on pursuing federal grants for Han and the university repaid $500,000 to the NIH
He was also sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison and ordered to repay $7.2 million in grant funds that had been received based on falsified data
Dong-Pyou Han - Iowa State University

16. Yiheng Percival Zhang Virginia Tech
Accused of defrauding the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the university of > $1.1 million
Allegedly filed grants for research that had already been completed in China and withheld grant funds from the university (included in his grants was a stipulation that gave the university 30% of funds received from NSF and DOE; the university actually received 18%)
Was arrested in September 2017 and is awaiting trial; currently free on bond
Also being sued in civil court by a former employee of Zhang’s startup company; suit alleges that Zhang used confidential trade information, developed in part by the plaintiff, to benefit a company owned by the Chinese government
Yiheng Percival Zhang
Virginia Tech

17. Conflict of Interest/Conflict of Commitment
A conflict of interest exists when a university faculty or staff member may have the opportunity to influence university administrative, business, or academic decisions in ways that could lead to personal gain, give improper advantage to self or others, or interfere with objective preservation, generation, or public dissemination of knowledge.
A conflict of commitment arises when a faculty or staff member’s time and effort given to outside activities and interests interferes or competes with his/her obligations and responsibilities to the university.

18. Examples of potential COI/COC
Consulting activities – note that 9- and 12-month faculty who are meeting their university responsibilities may be allowed to commit up to 15 work days per semester to outside interests including consulting
Externally reimbursed travel – reporting is required for those sponsors who reimburse travel in excess of $5000 in a calendar year
Significant financial interest – may include compensation exceeding $5000 in the past 12 months from a publicly traded company; equity/ownership worth ≥ $5000 in a publicly traded company; any equity/ownership in a non-publicly traded company
Teaching at another college or university – note that tenured and tenure-track faculty must receive approval from the Provost prior to teaching at another college or university

19. The key is transparency!
When a COI/COC is identified, a Conflict Management Plan (CMP) must be prepared and approved by the Conflict of Interest Review Committee. A template for a CMP can be found on the RSCP website.
On an annual basis, the Conflict of Interest/Commitment Disclosure and the Annual Report on Outside Employment (if applicable) must be filled out.
The key is transparency!

20. CITI Training
Online training is available through the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) at Log in through the institutional account (University of Arkansas Fayetteville) using your UARK ID and password.
Available options include:
Biomedical Responsible Conduct of Research
Humanities Responsible Conduct of Research
Physical Science Responsible Conduct of Research
Social and Behavioral Responsible Conduct of Research
Each course comprises seven modules covering:
- Research Misconduct - Data Management
- Authorship - Peer Review
- Mentoring - Conflicts of Interest
- Collaborative Research
NIH, NSF, and USDA may require RCR training for some awards.

21. Be sure to visit our website and subscribe to the RSCP listserv!
You’ve got questions? We’ve got answers!
Contact Information
Jason Ramage
Director, Research Compliance
MLKG
1424 West MLK Jr. Blvd
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Be sure to visit our website and subscribe to the RSCP listserv!