Should other practices besides fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism be considered misconduct in your publications?
To answer this question, it is useful to make a key inquiry: “What makes a specific behavior so wrong that it becomes misconduct?” A typical reaction to this query may list deliberate or intentional behaviors that truly undermine the legitimacy of the exploration record, squander open subsidies, or endanger the general well-being and security.
Overall, people expect to reap benefits from investigations that they undertake as opposed to putting their well-being and security at risk. In the same way, society does not expect that professionals in research will squander finances or take part in practices that introduce false or questionable information into research records. Therefore, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) were included in the Federal definition of research misconduct.
FFPs are not the only harmful research practices that can get in the way of the dependability of the investigation records, misappropriate finances, or jeopardize lives. Whenever solicited, specialists enumerate a long list of practices that can be considered genuine departures from the guidelines for dependable research. Up until now, the Federal government has chosen to maintain its emphasis on FFP, yet many research institutions have broadened their definition of misconduct to include other genuine infringements of the standards of research (Ana, Koehlmoos, Smith, & Yan, 2013).
As a taxpayer and citizen expecting to benefit from freely financed inquiries, I would include the following practices in the list of research misconduct:
- Publishing the same experimental outcomes repeatedly without making it obvious to the reader
- Overemphasizing the uniqueness and significance of one’s research findings
- Highlighting a part of research findings that support the proposed hypothesis and disregarding any information that suggests a contrary opinion
- Accepting to have one’s name included in the authors of a publication knowing very well that there was no significant contribution to the planning, interpretation, and dissemination of the research.
How is integrity in your program monitored” and “Is self-regulation of integrity in your field effective?
In the field of kinesiology, the federal government does not often involve itself in arguments about the inception of research charges of a minor nature (separating the delayed consequences of a specific test into different conveyances such that several repercussions can be linked to an act of delinquency). Nevertheless, given the significance of the uprightness of the investigation records, some research institutions have started to put more effort into monitoring violations of research protocols and ethics.
The commitment to monitoring misconduct as a basic standard for the vigilant direction of appropriate research helps maintain a respectable standard of expectations and deters researchers from committing misconduct in their research initiatives. As a result, professionals are less likely to partake in investigative misconduct. Trustworthy research requires that attention is paid to the aims of appropriate inquiry. These details are discussed at length in the introduction to RCR.
Research misconduct has rightly received significant attention. Specialists who act unscrupulously, waste communal resources, destroy research proceedings, distort the investigative strategy, and damage public trust can fraudulently influence the safety and wellbeing of society. Research misconduct remedies are needed when an investigator pays no regard to federal, state, institutional, or professional guidelines. Thus, these entities should develop stringent measures to address research misconduct and be vigilant in monitoring such practices.
The meanings and strategies of dealing with misconduct form the core foundation for strong self-direction. In addition, federal procedures apply to legislatively financed investigations. Many research institutes apply federal research misconduct methods to all investigations. Moreover, many research foundations have extended the central federal definitions of research delinquency to encompass other deceitful procedures. Federal and institutional research regulations require that researchers distance themselves from dishonest practices (Shamoon & Resnik, 2009). Failure to meet all the stipulated requirements can lead to termination or disqualification for federal funding.
Should colleagues report the misconduct of their peers if they are concerned that doing so could adversely impact their career?
Research misconduct does not include a difference of opinion, criminal conduct, personal debates, infringement of permissible administrative approaches, or other unacceptable practices such as discrimination and provocation. However, the new federal standard provides guidelines for protecting the rights of informants and respondents who are being scrutinized in the course of misconduct investigations.
Inquiries about misconduct allegations should not be influenced by outside perceptions before the conclusion of investigations and verification of any claims of misconduct. However, there are exemptions to this procedural norm. If the misconduct poses a potential risk to general wellbeing or safety, for example, research misdemeanors in a clinical trial, the offender should be summoned immediately by the person in charge of the trial.
In such cases, the federal sponsor should also be notified right away. The names of the persons charged with wrongdoing should remain confidential. In addition, steps must be taken to protect the subjects in the trial. Failure to report various infringements is wrongdoing that can result in disciplinary actions. Punishment is warranted if the failure to report an offense endangers the well-being of other members of society. Research misconduct may threaten the safety of other people if it has a direct influence on data used to make important decisions regarding public welfare. Failing to report investigative delinquency also undermines professional trust. Thus, some research establishments include failure to report a crime in their assessment of misconduct procedures (Sox & Rennie, 2006). For these reasons, it is imperative that colleagues report any misconduct of their peers to avoid putting their own careers at risk.
References
Ana, J., Koehlmoos, T., Smith, R., & Yan, L. L. (2013). Research misconduct in low- and middle-income countries. PLoS Medicine, 10(3), e1001315.
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2009). Responsible conduct of research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sox, H. C., & Rennie, D. (2006). Research misconduct: Lessons from the Poehlman case. Journal of Internal Operations, 144(8), 609-613.