Funding

Disciplines: All

This month, ORP is highlighting SIUE’s Academic and Research Misconduct Policy 1Q5, as well as resources available to help promote a culture of research integrity at all levels within the academic community. This week, our focus is on the standard to find misconduct and the repercussions of research and academic misconduct.

 Misconduct Standard

 Under SIUE’s policy, to find there was academic or research misconduct, the preponderance of the evidence must establish that: (1) research or academic misconduct as defined occurred; (2) the research or academic misconduct is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant academic community; and (3) the respondent committed the research or academic misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.

 The standard has 4 elements. Our first article went over the definition of academic and research misconduct, so this article will talk about the other 3 major points in the definition: (1) preponderance of the evidence; (2) significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant academic community; (3) it was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; as well as the repercussions of research misconduct.

 Preponderance of the Evidence

 To find misconduct, the committee must find all elements of the standard are met “by a preponderance of evidence.” Preponderance of the evidence means the evidence shows misconduct is more likely than not. To put it in perspective, under the preponderance standard, the burden of proof is met when the evidence proves there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true. That means if just 51% of evidence shows misconduct, the standard is met.

 Significant Departure From Accepted Practices Of The Relevant Academic Community

 Academic disciplines engage in varied research. Therefore, the misconduct standard takes into consideration the relevant academic community the respondent is a part of and looks at the standards of that community. To find misconduct, 51% of the evidence must show that the respondent significantly departed from the accepted practices of the relevant academic community.

 It Was Committed Intentionally, Knowingly, Or Recklessly.

 This part of the standard looks at the researchers’ intention. SIUE’s policy notes that differences of opinion and interpretation and honest error are not considered research misconduct. The misconduct must be done intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. Essentially, misconduct requires the intent to deceive.

 A good example of the difference comes from Fostering Integrity in Research, “If a researcher produces incorrect results out of negligence or carelessness, the behavior is typically criticized but would not be considered misconduct, since there was no conscious deception. Likewise, plagiarism is often intentional but can also result from sloppy work practices.” See NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE, FOSTERING INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH 71 (2017).

 But how are Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly defined? Individuals act “intentionally” if their “conscious objective” is that their actions will lead to a certain result. They act “knowingly” if they are aware of a high probability that they are engaging in such conduct. They act “recklessly” if they are aware of and “consciously disregard” a substantial risk that they are engaging in prohibited conduct. For these, the individual has some level of personal awareness of engaging in prohibited behavior. FOSTERING INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH 71 (2017).

 The definition only requires that the preponderance of the evidence establishes the misconduct was committed either intentionally, OR knowingly, OR recklessly.

 Repercussions of Research Misconduct

 If the standard to find misconduct is met, there are consequences. Under SIUE’s misconduct policy, the possible actions include:

1. withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts;
2. removal of the responsible person from the particular project,
3. letter of reprimand;
4. special monitoring of future work;
5. probation, suspension, salary reduction, or initiation of steps leading to possible rank reduction or termination of employment;
6. restitution of funds to the grantor agency;
7. and other actions, including disciplinary measures up to and including termination, appropriate to the research or academic misconduct.

 But even beyond these actions, there can be other consequences. In very extreme cases, researchers at other institutions have faced criminal charges and been sentenced to prison.

 Resources

 Many of this article’s definitions and examples came from the book Fostering Integrity in Research. Commissioned by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Policy and Global Affairs; Committee on Science, Engineering, Medicine, and Public Policy; and Committee on Responsible Science, it was published in 2017 as an extension and update of a paper published in the 1990s. The book is an in depth look at research misconduct, its definition, the responsibilities of all those in the research enterprise, and examination of how we can ensure integrity in research at all levels. You can download a free pdf of the book online here.

SIUE’s Research Integrity webpage has links to Research Misconduct case studies and the HHS Office of Research Integrity publishes misconduct case summaries on their website.

This completes the series on SIUE’s Academic and Research Misconduct Policy 1Q5. Next month ORP will highlight our newly published Authorship Dispute Policy 1M12 and authorship guidelines.