Responsible Conduct of Research

Establishing a Responsible Research Environment

All faculty members are ultimately responsible for the scholarly character, accuracy, and reliability of their own research and for that conducted under their supervision. Each researcher is also responsible for the integrity and originality of their own research. Faculty should contribute to an intellectual atmosphere that promotes high academic and ethical standards and one in which issues of social responsibility and professional ethics are addressed. The most effective single process for ensuring research of high quality is peer review, both formal and informal. Informal review occurs through departmental and interest group seminars and interdisciplinary research discussion groups. Each division, department, or program should encourage such informal review procedures. Formal review is accomplished by peer review committees that are charged with the task of evaluation of the merit of research. An example of an external committee is a NIH study section.

Research misconduct is significant misbehavior that improperly appropriates the intellectual property or contributions of others, that intentionally impedes the progress of research, or that risks corrupting the scientific record or compromising the integrity of scientific practices. (The record encompasses any documentation or presentation of research, oral or written, published or unpublished.) Such behaviors are unethical and unacceptable in proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or in reviewing the proposals or research reports of others. Examples of research misconduct include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Fabrication: Making up data or results.
• Falsification: Intentionally misreporting data or results.
• Plagiarism: Using ideas or words of another person without giving appropriate credit.

Research misconduct does not include honest errors or differences of opinion and interpretation. When such honest errors are discovered, they should be acknowledged, preferably in the same journal or venue in which the mistaken information was published. Colleagues rarely condemn researchers who make such acknowledgments promptly and openly.