Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Feb 19:4:3.
doi: 10.1186/s41073-019-0062-x. eCollection 2019.

Quality of reports of investigations of research integrity by academic institutions

Andrew Grey  1 , Mark Bolland  1 , Greg Gamble  1 , Alison Avenell  2
Affiliations

Quality of reports of investigations of research integrity by academic institutions

Andrew Grey et al. Res Integr Peer Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Academic institutions play important roles in protecting and preserving research integrity. Concerns have been expressed about the objectivity, adequacy and transparency of institutional investigations of potentially compromised research integrity. We assessed the reports provided to us of investigations by three academic institutions of a large body of overlapping research with potentially compromised integrity.

Methods: In 2017, we raised concerns with four academic institutions about the integrity of > 200 publications co-authored by an overlapping set of researchers. Each institution initiated an investigation. By November 2018, three had reported to us the results of their investigations, but only one report was publicly available. Two investigators independently assessed each available report using a published 26-item checklist designed to determine the quality and adequacy of institutional investigations of research integrity. Each assessor recorded additional comments ad hoc.

Results: Concerns raised with the institutions were overlapping, wide-ranging and included those which were both general and publication-specific. The number of potentially affected publications at individual institutions ranged from 34 to 200. The duration of investigation by the three institutions which provided reports was 8-17 months. These investigations covered 14%, 15% and 77%, respectively, of potentially affected publications. Between-assessor agreement using the quality checklist was 0.68, 0.72 and 0.65 for each report. Only 4/78 individual checklist items were addressed adequately: a further 14 could not be assessed. Each report was graded inadequate overall. Reports failed to address publication-specific concerns and focussed more strongly on determining research misconduct than evaluating the integrity of publications.

Conclusions: Our analyses identify important deficiencies in the quality and reporting of institutional investigation of concerns about the integrity of a large body of research reported by an overlapping set of researchers. They reinforce disquiet about the ability of institutions to rigorously and objectively oversee integrity of research conducted by their own employees.

Keywords: Institution; Investigation; Misconduct; Research integrity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Not applicableNot applicableThe authors declare that they have no competing interests. AG had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Neither of these organizations had a role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review or approval of the manuscript.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Comment in

References

    1. Gunsalus CK, Marcus AR, Oransky I. Institutional research misconduct reports need more credibility. JAMA. 2018;319(13):1315–1316. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.0358. - DOI - PubMed
    1. National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. Addressing research misconduct and detrimental research practices: current knowledge and issues. In: Fostering Integrity of Research. edn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. p. 2017.
    1. Sox HC, Rennie D. Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: lessons from the Poehlman case. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(8):609–613. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-144-8-200604180-00123. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bolland MJ, Avenell A, Gamble GD, Grey A. Systematic review and statistical analysis of the integrity of 33 randomized controlled trials. Neurology. 2016;87:2391–2402. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000003387. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ministry of Education Culture Sports Science and Technology. http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/jinzai/fusei/1404087.htm. Accessed 10 Oct 2018. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources