Scientific Forensics: How the Office of Research Integrity can Assist Institutional Investigations of Research Misconduct During Oversight Review

2010 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 713-735 ◽  
Author(s):  
John E. Dahlberg ◽  
Nancy M. Davidian
Keyword(s):  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Office Of Research Integrity

scholarly journals RETRACTED: Polymorphisms in the 5-HTTLPR Gene Mediate Storage Capacity of Visual Working Memory

2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 1069-1076 ◽  
Author(s):  
David E. Anderson ◽  
Theodore A. Bell ◽  
Edward Awh
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Visual Working Memory ◽  
Cognitive Neuroscience ◽  
Storage Capacity ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Settlement Agreement ◽  
Office Of Research Integrity ◽  
Data Points ◽  
The University

By the request of the authors, the following two research articles will be retracted from the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience: 1. Anderson, D. E., Ester, E. F., Klee, D., Vogel, E. K., & Awh, E. (2014). Electrophysiological evidence for failures of item individuation in crowded visual displays. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(10), 2298– 2309. https://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00649 . 2. Anderson, D. E., Bell, T. A., & Awh, E. (2012). Polymorphisms in the 5-HTTLPR gene mediate storage capacity of visual working memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(5), 1069–1076. https://dx.doi. org/10.1162/jocn_a_00207 . On August 1, 2015, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) announced a settlement agreement with David E. Anderson, the Respondent ( http://ori.hhs.gov/content/ case-summary-anderson-david ). On the basis of the Respondent’s admission and an analysis by the University of Oregon, ORI concluded that the Respondent had engaged in research misconduct by falsifying and/or fabricating data in four publications. Those publications were retracted immediately after the release of the ORI findings. Since that time, additional problems have been discovered with Article 1 above. Data points shown in Figure 8 were removed without justification and in contradiction to the analytic approach described in the methods and results. In light of this discovery and of the previous ORI findings, authors Bell and Awh no longer have confidence in the integrity of the data in Article 2. For these reasons, all authors on both articles (including the Respondent) have agreed to the retraction of Articles 1 and 2 above.

scholarly journals RETRACTED: Electrophysiological Evidence for Failures of Item Individuation in Crowded Visual Displays

2014 ◽  
Vol 26 (10) ◽  
pp. 2298-2309 ◽  
Author(s):  
David E. Anderson ◽  
Edward F. Ester ◽  
Daniel Klee ◽  
Edward K. Vogel ◽  
Edward Awh
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Neuroscience ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Visual Displays ◽  
Case Summary ◽  
Electrophysiological Evidence ◽  
Settlement Agreement ◽  
Office Of Research Integrity ◽  
Data Points ◽  
The University

By the request of the authors, the following two research articles will be retracted from the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience: 1. Anderson, D. E., Ester, E. F., Klee, D., Vogel, E. K., & Awh, E. (2014). Electrophysiological evidence for failures of item individuation in crowded visual displays. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(10), 2298– 2309. https://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00649 . 2. Anderson, D. E., Bell, T. A., & Awh, E. (2012). Polymorphisms in the 5-HTTLPR gene mediate storage capacity of visual working memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(5), 1069–1076. https://dx.doi. org/10.1162/jocn_a_00207 . On August 1, 2015, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) announced a settlement agreement with David E. Anderson, the Respondent ( http://ori.hhs.gov/content/ case-summary-anderson-david ). On the basis of the Respondent’s admission and an analysis by the University of Oregon, ORI concluded that the Respondent had engaged in research misconduct by falsifying and/or fabricating data in four publications. Those publications were retracted immediately after the release of the ORI findings. Since that time, additional problems have been discovered with Article 1 above. Data points shown in Figure 8 were removed without justification and in contradiction to the analytic approach described in the methods and results. In light of this discovery and of the previous ORI findings, authors Bell and Awh no longer have confidence in the integrity of the data in Article 2. For these reasons, all authors on both articles (including the Respondent) have agreed to the retraction of Articles 1 and 2 above.

Life After Research Misconduct

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle L. Galbraith
Keyword(s):  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Ethical Standards ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Federal Support ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Federal Research ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Office Of Research Integrity ◽  
Corrective Actions

Research misconduct is a serious violation of a scientific community’s ethical standards. Scientists who commit research misconduct typically face corrective actions from employers and funding agencies, as well as significant professional stigma. Unfortunately, there is little systematic data about the post-misconduct career of these guilty parties. Through a review of Office of Research Integrity (ORI) case summaries, I identified a pool of 284 researchers who engaged in research misconduct and were subject to ORI corrective actions. To assess the prevalence of post-misconduct research activities for these scientists, I searched publicly available databases and online resources for evidence of post-misconduct research activities (such as publications and federal research support). The data demonstrate that researchers often receive second chances as researchers, with indicators of post-misconduct research activities identified for 134 (47.18%) of the offending researchers. In addition, those researchers have received more than US$123 million in federal support for their post-misconduct research efforts.

scholarly journals The essential need for research misconduct allegation audits

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Loikith ◽  
Robert P Bauchwitz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Physical Sciences ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Office Of Research Integrity ◽  
Audit Standards

The percentage of allegations of biomedical research misconduct in the United States that are dismissed by responsible institutions without any faculty assessment or auditable record is near 90%. Recently, members of the U.S. Congress have complained that the penalties for those against whom findings of research misconduct are made are too light and that too few grant funds associated with research misconduct have been recovered for use by other researchers and taxpayers. Here we describe the laws that empower federal agencies which can oversee investigations of biomedical research misconduct: the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG), both located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Research misconduct pertaining to U.S. physical sciences funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) is overseen by the NSF's OIG. While OIGs may provide some improvement over ORI in the handling of research misconduct, we have found that a much more serious flaw exists which undermines an ability to conduct performance audits as to the effectiveness by which allegations of research misconduct are handled in the United States. Federal audit standards (GAGAS/Yellow Book), if applied to the handling of research misconduct, would allow a determination as to whether the handling of allegations of biomedical research misconduct actually functions adequately, and if not, how it might be improved. Specifically, we propose that independent, external peer review under GAGAS audit standards should be instituted without delay in assessing the performance of ORI, or any other similarly tasked federal agency, in handling allegations of research misconduct.

scholarly journals Status of retraction notices for biomedical publications associated with research misconduct

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Drimer-Batca ◽  
Jonathan M Iaccarino ◽  
Alan Fine
Keyword(s):  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
The Status ◽  
Office Of Research Integrity ◽  
Retraction Notice ◽  
Biomedical Publications

In order to assess the status of retraction notices for publications involving research misconduct, we collected and analyzed information from the Office of Research Integrity website. This site lists confirmed instances of misconduct in research supported by the National Institutes of Health. Over a 10-year period, 200 publications derived from misconduct were identified. For 20.5% of those papers, no retraction notice was published. We found that the majority of these cases were from investigations concluded at least two years before our analysis, and thus are unlikely to be explainable by timing considerations. These findings demonstrate that retraction notices for papers associated with misconduct are often not published and suggest that clear, adherent policies are needed in this circumstance to correct the scientific record.

scholarly journals Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications

eLife ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew M Stern ◽  
Arturo Casadevall ◽  
R Grant Steen ◽  
Ferric C Fang
Keyword(s):  
Publication Output ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Direct Costs ◽  
Funding Sources ◽  
Financial Costs ◽  
Personal Consequences ◽  
Office Of Research Integrity

The number of retracted scientific articles has been increasing. Most retractions are associated with research misconduct, entailing financial costs to funding sources and damage to the careers of those committing misconduct. We sought to calculate the magnitude of these effects. Data relating to retracted manuscripts and authors found by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) to have committed misconduct were reviewed from public databases. Attributable costs of retracted manuscripts, and publication output and funding of researchers found to have committed misconduct were determined. We found that papers retracted due to misconduct accounted for approximately $58 million in direct funding by the NIH between 1992 and 2012, less than 1% of the NIH budget over this period. Each of these articles accounted for a mean of $392,582 in direct costs (SD $423,256). Researchers experienced a median 91.8% decrease in publication output and large declines in funding after censure by the ORI.

scholarly journals The essential need for research misconduct allegation audits

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Loikith ◽  
Robert P Bauchwitz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Physical Sciences ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Office Of Research Integrity ◽  
Audit Standards

Nearly ninety percent of allegations of biomedical research misconduct in the United States are dismissed by responsible institutions without any faculty assessment or auditable record. Recently, members of the U.S. Congress have complained that the penalties for those against whom findings of research misconduct are made are too light and that too few grant funds associated with research misconduct have been recovered for use by other researchers and taxpayers. Here we describe the laws that empower federal agencies which can oversee investigations of biomedical research misconduct: the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG), both located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Research misconduct pertaining to U.S. physical sciences funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) is overseen by the NSF's OIG. While OIGs may provide some improvement over ORI in the handling of research misconduct, we have found that a much more serious flaw exists which undermines an ability to conduct performance audits as to the effectiveness by which allegations of research misconduct are handled in the United States. Federal audit standards (GAGAS/Yellow Book), if applied to the handling of research misconduct, would allow a determination as to whether the handling of allegations of biomedical research misconduct actually functions adequately, and if not, how it might be improved. Specifically, we propose that independent, external peer review under GAGAS audit standards should be instituted without delay in assessing the performance of ORI, or any other similarly tasked federal agency, in handling allegations of research misconduct.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document