Since the majority of university researchers are not subject to t

Since the majority of university researchers are not subject to the rules of conduct of a professional body, their name will only routinely enter the public domain if a paper is formally retracted, and even then the reasons Epigenetics Compound Library supplier for the retraction are not always evident. The danger of this practice is that it can allow serial offenders to move from university to university largely unimpeded. Professor Anthony Segal at University College London (UCL) made this point recently when one of his postdoctoral researchers had been subject to allegations of research misconduct at two other leading universities before

coming to UCL;[29] his work with Professor Segal was eventually found to be wanting, and a high-profile paper was formally retracted from Nature. Ways must be found to allow institutions to exchange information of this nature without fear of litigation. A similar situation has occurred in the case of Professor Melendez, where investigation of allegations of research misconduct have been conducted at three universities: two in the UK, University of Liverpool and the University of Glasgow, and at the National University of Singapore. So far, these investigations have resulted in 12 retractions from leading journals, but it is reported that the universities

felt unable to communicate freely about the investigations even though there must have been some overlap LY2835219 as Melendez had worked in all three institutions.[22] Professor Segal has suggested that there should be a register for laboratory scientists and that maintenance of registration would be an indication of a researcher’s integrity.[29] The concept of the “research passport” has already been entertained and might go some way to affirm the importance for a researcher to have a clean record with, say, a relevant professional body or learned society. For medical and dental researchers in the UK, for example, a finding of serious research misconduct could put their registration in jeopardy and could limit C59 cell line the right to work in the UK as a practitioner.

Might it be reasonable to put similar stipulations on other researchers who currently escape this sanction by not being subject to the regulations of a professional regulator? Finally, I would suggest that we need more research to understand better the motivations of those that commit misconduct and why they feel able to go against the high-level principles that are now accepted to be intrinsic to the integrity of research across the disciplines. How important is the notion that research misconduct is worth the risk because the chances of getting caught appear to be slight? In a fascinating article in The New York Times Magazine (April 28, 2013) by Yudhijit Battacharjee, the story behind the 55 retractions by the Dutch social psychologist, Professor Diederik Stapel, is revealed in a face-to-face interview.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>