Proposed Increases in Government Authority Over Research Misconduct Proceedings.

This Viewpoint discusses changes proposed by the US Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Research Integrity that would shift control of research misconduct proceedings from institutional oversight to federal authority.

Rooting out scientific misconduct.

Scientific misconduct is an issue rife with controversy, from its forms and definitions to the policies that guide how allegations are handled. A survey published nearly 15 years ago reported that 2% of researchers said they had fabricated or falsified data in their published work. This is not just an academic issue. Fake data promote ineffective or even dangerous treatments, for example, and thwart the discovery of real solutions for society. In the United States, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) is tasked with rooting out misconduct in research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Last October, ORI proposed changes to how it functions. The agency's recommendations-the first since 2005-have evoked mixed reactions, but the real problem is that ORI is underfunded and lacks the resources and authority needed to make a difference. Unless its charter is revised by Congress, the ORI can sadly do little more than tinker at the edges of scientific fraud.

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

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.

Research misconduct, NSF v NIH: Its nature and prevalence and the impact of their respective methods of investigation and adjudication.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have established separate administrative mechanisms for investigation and adjudication of alleged research misconduct. This report compares research misconduct at NSF and NIH and the possible effects of their respective methods of investigation and adjudication. Notable and paradoxical findings were identified: NIH supported four times the number of grants as NSF, yet NSF reviewed 2.5 times the number of research misconduct reports. NSF faculty were two-times more likely to be found guilty (88%) than faculty at NIH (42%). 83.6% of NSF offenders were guilty of plagiarism, vs. 4.8% at NIH. NSF trainees made up 6% of the guilty, vs. 42% at NIH. These findings are most likely related to the nature of their respective sciences, scientists, and the nature of their publications. Investigative policies and procedures are quite similar at these two agencies with the exception of the subpoena power available to the NSF's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) where it would be infrequently utilized in investigations of its predominant offense, plagiarism. However, it could prove useful if made available to the NIH Office of Research Integrity (ORI) for investigations of fabrication/falsification, its most common offense. Federal criteria for prosecution should be modified to increase the likelihood of prosecution of serious offenders referred by ORI.

Scientific misconduct and accountability in teams.

Increasing complexity and multidisciplinarity make collaboration essential for modern science. This, however, raises the question of how to assign accountability for scientific misconduct among larger teams of authors. Biomedical societies and science associations have put forward various sets of guidelines. Some state that all authors are jointly accountable for the integrity of the work. Others stipulate that authors are only accountable for their own contribution. Alternatively, there are guarantor type models that assign accountability to a single author. We contribute to this debate by analyzing the outcomes of 80 scientific misconduct investigations of biomedical scholars conducted by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI). We show that the position of authors on the byline of 184 publications involved in misconduct cases correlates with responsibility for the misconduct. Based on a series of binary regression models, we show that first authors are 38% more likely to be responsible for scientific misconduct than authors listed in the middle of the byline (p<0.01). Corresponding authors are 14% more likely (p<0.05). These findings suggest that a guarantor-like model where first authors are ex-ante accountable for misconduct is highly likely to not miss catching the author responsible, while not afflicting too many bystanders.