» Articles » PMID: 38010310

Factors Related to the Severity of Research Misconduct Administrative Actions: An Analysis of Office of Research Integrity Case Summaries from 1993 to 2023

Overview
Journal Account Res
Publisher Informa Healthcare
Specialty Medical Ethics
Date 2023 Nov 27
PMID 38010310
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We extracted, coded, and analyzed data from 343 Office of Research Integrity (ORI) case summaries published in the and other venues from May 1993 to July 2023 to test hypotheses concerning the relationship between the severity of ORI administrative actions and various demographic and institutional factors. We found that factors indicative of the severity of the respondent's misconduct or a pattern of misbehavior were associated with the severity of ORI administrative actions. Being required by ORI to retract or correct publications and aggravating factors, such as interfering with an investigation, were both positively associated with receiving a funding debarment and with receiving an administrative action longer than three years. Admitting one's guilt and being found to have committed plagiarism (only) were negatively associated with receiving a funding debarment but were neither positively nor negatively associated with receiving an administrative action longer than three years. Other factors, such as the respondent's race/ethnicity, gender, academic position, administrative position, or their institution's NIH funding level or extramural vs. intramural or foreign vs. US status, were neither positively nor negatively associated with the severity of administrative actions. Overall, our findings suggest that ORI has acted fairly when imposing administrative actions on respondents and has followed DHHS guidelines.

Citing Articles

Scientific misconduct responsibility attribution: An empirical study on byline position and team identity in Chinese medical papers.

Peng X, Hu D, Guo Y, Jiang H, Wu X, Hu Q PLoS One. 2024; 19(8):e0308377.

PMID: 39102401 PMC: 11299828. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308377.

References
1.
Meyer M, Appelbaum P, Benjamin D, Callier S, Comfort N, Conley D . Wrestling with Social and Behavioral Genomics: Risks, Potential Benefits, and Ethical Responsibility. Hastings Cent Rep. 2023; 53 Suppl 1:S2-S49. PMC: 10433733. DOI: 10.1002/hast.1477. View

2.
Ecklund E, Di D . A Gendered Approach to Science Ethics for US and UK Physicists. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016; 23(1):183-201. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-016-9751-8. View

3.
Fanelli D . Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Med. 2013; 10(12):e1001563. PMC: 3848921. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563. View

4.
Stern A, Casadevall A, Steen R, Fang F . Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications. Elife. 2014; 3:e02956. PMC: 4132287. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.02956. View

5.
Kaatz A, Vogelman P, Carnes M . Are men more likely than women to commit scientific misconduct? Maybe, maybe not. mBio. 2013; 4(2). PMC: 3622921. DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00156-13. View