Ethical Conduct of Research for New Faculty, Post-Docs and Graduate Students Brief Overview

The Landscape Allegations of research misconduct have markedly increased everywhere in the past few years, coinciding with the emergence of Automated software performing broad searches that scan for potential research misconduct (particularly for text plagiarism and image manipulation/fraud) Social networks and internet sites policing research ethics which may include making allegations

UofT’s Standards for Ethical Conduct of Research UofT’s Policy on Ethical Conduct of Research expects: “…the highest standards of ethical conduct in every aspect of research,” Research Misconduct is broadly defined at UofT: “Any research practice that deviates seriously from the commonly accepted ethics/integrity standards or practices of the relevant research community“ Some examples: Fabrication; deliberate misrepresentation; plagiarism; failure to disclose a conflict of interest; misuse of funds; failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations, or research ethics board directives; encouraging, facilitating, condoning, or failing to report misconduct; retaliation against person making an allegation Due latitude given for honest errors and differences in methodology, interpretation, and judgement

Text recycling (sometimes referred to as self-plagiarism) Self-plagiarism refers to the reuse of portions of text previously presented in the published literature by the same authors without appropriate citation to the original work It is not clear how much “text recycling” is allowable by journals; authors must take appropriate care to ensure that they cite the original work (and use quotation marks if relevant) and if relevant, notify the editor at the time of submission. An example might be the reuse of text in an invited Review article that was originally used in an earlier contributed work by the same authors and without citation to the original work. This practice has led to complaints of research misconduct. An example is “recycling” of Methods sections in papers, where a single method is used (and its description copied) across multiple manuscripts without citation or prior notification to the editor. This practice has led to complaints of research misconduct although some latitude seems to be given for methods sections.

Digital Image Manipulation or Fraud Inappropriate digital image manipulation: Adjustment to images to “beautify” an image but it does not change the interpretation of the data. Such manipulations MUST be disclosed in detail in the figure caption, Methods section, or supplementary information. Failure to disclose, in full, all operations performed on data and images at the time of the original manuscript submission has led to complaints of research misconduct. Examples of image manipulation that misrepresents the original data and is thus could be construed as misconduct: image enhancement to draw attention to a specific feature, brightness/contrast/colour adjustments, especially ones that are nonlinear or applied inconsistently across images, and splicing images into one image. Digital image fraud Falsification of an image or adjustment of an image in such a way that it affects the interpretation of the data (i.e. deleting a band from a gel) For further discussion on this topic:

Ensuring Ethical Research Conduct Canadian research funding agencies (NSERC, CIHR, SSHRC) in 2011 published a framework for Responsible Conduct of Research UofT has established a two-step framework to address allegations of research misconduct in compliance with the tri-council policy research-misconduct-revised/ research-misconduct-revised/ 1.Inquiry: initial gathering and review of information to asses if a full investigation is warranted or some other resolution possible 2.Investigation: to determine if research misconduct has taken place

What to do in the event of an external allegation of research misconduct (1)Do not respond immediately to an allegation. Bring the allegation as soon as practically possible to the attention of your supervisor(s) and/or the academic head. Provide all information about the allegation. This will allow for a full discussion that considers among other things, university policy, as to what should occur next and the importance of a timely response. (2)If the external communication is not specifically an allegation but more concerns about the integrity of your work, follow the steps in #1. Sometimes miscommunication or misunderstanding can lead to such questions but you will need assistance in addressing the concerns. (3)Remember to preserve all relevant research data and records. (4)Treat the communication as confidential except for the sharing of it with those in #1.