Division of Research
Ethics in Research
Research Integrity is a group of teams — including Animal Research Compliance, Export Controls, the Human Research Protection Program, Quality Assurance and Quality Improvement, Conflict of Interest and Regulatory Compliance — that partner with the research community to facilitate ethical research guided by governing policies and regulations.
Brown is committed to the highest levels of integrity and expects researchers to conduct research relationships with honesty, transparency and in a manner that supports the University’s mission.
Brown offers several options for Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training, which is a requirement for certain federal grants and fellowship awards.
Certain types of research conducted for legitimate purposes can be utilized for both benevolent and harmful purposes and is characterized by the U.S. government as “dual use research.”
Addressing Research Misconduct
Brown takes any allegations of research misconduct seriously. Please note that authorship disputes do not fall under the definition of research misconduct unless there is suspected plagiarism. All employees or individuals associated with Brown University should report observed, suspected or apparent research misconduct by emailing ori-admin@brown.edu or anonymously using Brown’s Anonymous Reporting Hotline. Given that the Research Integrity staff often needs more information to initiate a proceeding, email is recommended.
If you are unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of research misconduct, you may contact Research Integrity at ori-admin@brown.edu to discuss the suspected misconduct informally.
Related Brown Policies and Guidelines
The Policy on Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct applies to any person paid by, under the control of, or affiliated with Brown University at the time of the alleged misconduct, such as scientists, trainees, technicians and other staff members, students, fellows, guest researchers or collaborators at Brown.
Determining authorship is an important component of upholding the integrity of the research and scholarly enterprise and serves as an explicit way of assigning responsibility and giving credit for intellectual work. Authorship credit should be given to those who contribute and participate in substantive ways to scholarly and scientific work,and should honestly and accurately reflect actual contributions.
Members of the Brown community are responsible for sustaining the highest ethical standards of the University, and of the broader community in which they function. The University values integrity, honesty and fairness, and strives to integrate these values into its teaching, research and business activities.
Brown’s Code of Student Conduct is a set of standards of student behavior and conduct that help maintain a campus environment where ideas are freely exchanged, University property and processes are respected and conflicts are peacefully resolved.
Brown prohibits retaliation against employees who make good faith reports of potential violations of laws, regulations or a University policy. The University recognizes that employees who report violations must be free from fear of retaliation in support of the University’s mission.
Misconduct Definitions
Research misconduct
is defined as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
Fabrication
is making up results and recording or reporting them.
Falsification
is manipulating research materials, equipment or processes or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
Plagiarism
is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit.
Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences in opinion.
Importantly, a finding of research misconduct requires that:
- there be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
- the misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly or recklessly; and
- the allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
Additional Reporting Guidance
Identifying the Appropriate Contact
Allegations or suspicions of misconduct outside the scope of Brown’s policy may need to be referred to other offices for review. You can discuss the observed misconduct confidentially with a Research Integrity staff member, who can provide further guidance.
Additionally, instances of alleged research misconduct by students in practicum-type courses, and in coursework and classroom activities, may in many cases be better addressed through the University’s Code of Student Conduct, rather than through the procedures of this policy.
If you are unsure of the appropriate office that would handle the allegation, please contact Research Integrity.
Unintended Deviations
Deviations that are unintended (or accidental) are considered to be “honest errors” rather than research misconduct. However, unintended deviations should be corrected as soon as they are discovered because faulty data or images should not remain in the research record.
Sometimes researchers claim to have made an “honest error” when, in fact, they deliberately changed or manipulated data or images. Therefore, the University may, in some cases, still conduct an investigation to ensure that something was indeed an honest error and not research misconduct.
If you have a question about whether a specific situation is considered research misconduct, please contact Research Integrity.
Unsure Whether Something Is Misconduct?
If you are unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of research misconduct, you can certainly discuss it with someone. Research Integrity is Brown’s primary research misconduct contact, including if you have questions about whether an activity constitutes research misconduct. Contact Research Integrity at ori-admin@brown.edu or 401-863-3295. You do not need to reveal anything; you can always talk in hypotheticals.
For confidential guidance on the topic, you may consult Brown’s Office of the Ombuds at 401-863-6145 or email ombuds@brown.edu.
If you prefer to report to an independent agency outside of Research Integrity, visit the Brown University Anonymous Reporting Hotline website or call them at 877-318-9184.
Brown’s Anonymous Reporting Hotline
Access to Data
In general, researchers who work together on a project and who may be publishing together should be sharing their data with one another. Data generated as part of a research project conducted at the University are owned by the University and should be stored in a shared research folder or file that is accessible by all researchers involved in the project. The principal investigator (PI) on the project is generally regarded as the steward of such data.
If a researcher who worked on a research project at Brown is unwilling to share the data that was generated at Brown with the PI of the project, the matter falls within the University Code of Conduct and its Research Data and Research Materials Management, Sharing and Retention Policy. If a PI or other member of the research team has concerns about research data that is not shared and cannot be accessed, they should contact Research Integrity.
Information to Include in a Report
Allegations of potential research misconduct are assessed by the Research Integrity staff. This process can be expedited if the report contains the following:
- Identification of potentially fabricated or falsified data or plagiarized text, data or ideas, specifically with supporting evidence of where it occurred (e.g., manuscripts, presentations, posters, grant applications, etc.)
- Listing of any relevant publication information
- Inclusion of the original source if plagiarism is suspected
- Identification of the individual reporting the allegation
- Listing of any other research team members or key witnesses that may be able to speak to the allegation
Providing as much information as possible facilitates review of the evidence and allows the Research Integrity officer to go back to the complainant for additional clarification. However, allegations of potential research misconduct will be accepted in any format or medium, and all allegations will be reviewed under Brown University's Policy on Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct.
Preventing Research Misconduct
It is crucial that University researchers maintain safe and professional working environments in their laboratories. The Professionalism and Integrity in Research (P.I.) Program funded by the National Institutes of Health has created a useful checklist to assist with lab leadership and management.
Additional Ways to Encourage Ethical Research
The following are additional strategies that researchers can use to avoid being involved in allegations of research misconduct.
- Have or develop written standards for research recordkeeping and data management.
- Foster more research quality “habits” (e.g., principal investigator review of raw data) and unannounced spot checks.
- Foster a culture in which data sharing is expected and data challenging is encouraged.
- Foster transparency regarding methods and access to underlying data.
- Use electronic lab notebooks (ELNs).
- Prioritize regular sharing of “unpolished” data during lab meetings.
- Design file-organizing systems that involve giving research images a sensible name. When it comes to checking your paper before you publish it, you need to trace back all the images to the raw data and check them against the metadata. For example, if you have a photo labeled as “Day Three,” does that correspond to the date the photo was taken or that the experiment happened on?
- Seek independent replication before rushing to publication with novel results.
- Don’t discourage negative results.
- Follow your instincts. Look for data that is “too good to be true” or data that makes no sense. Having repeat offenders of noncompliance may be a red flag of substandard practices.
- Assess laboratory sizes and mentor-mentee ratios; actively prioritize mental health.
- Be thoughtful about who trains incoming members of your lab.
Before Someone Leaves the Lab
- Take possession of all of the data generated in your lab; ensure that the data are organized in such a way that you can readily identify them.
- If data are in an ELN, ensure that ownership of the ELN is transferred to you as the PI.
- Establish an agreement in writing regarding authorship expectations for ongoing and future projects
Investigating Research Misconduct
Universities have an obligation to investigate research misconduct allegations per federal regulations. Brown will investigate all allegations by following the procedures outlined in the Research Misconduct Policy. Individuals accused of research misconduct are given full details of the allegation(s) and allowed a fair process for responding to allegations and presenting evidence. Confidentiality is maintained to the extent possible throughout the investigation of the alleged research misconduct investigation.
It is always best to be as cooperative with Research Integrity as possible. If you have maintained good records of your research data, please provide it to the Research Integrity Office. This includes, lab notebooks, raw data and all related communications.
While a research misconduct investigation is not a legal proceeding, you can consult with your legal counsel, or a non-lawyer personal advisor (such as a trusted colleague/mentor who is not a principal or witness in the case) to seek advice. You may also bring the counsel or personal advisor to interviews or meetings on the investigation with advance notice to the inquiry/investigation committee.
Lastly, if you know or suspect who may have brought the allegations forward, avoid doing anything that may be interpreted as retaliation. The University has a policy that strictly prohibits retaliation against whistleblowers.
Misconduct Review Process
The first stage in reviewing a complaint of research misconduct is a so-called preliminary assessment of the allegation to determine whether the complaint falls within the definition of research misconduct, whether it falls under the purview of Brown University, and whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant an inquiry.
If the case proceeds to an inquiry, an Inquiry Committee will be appointed to review the evidence and interview key witnesses. The Inquiry Committee may be scientists, subject matter experts, administrators or other qualified persons, and they may be from inside or outside the institution.
If the Inquiry Committee concludes that there is potential evidence of research misconduct, a full investigation will be initiated. For more information about the procedures at each stage of reviewing a complaint, please see Brown University's Policy on Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct.
Roles and Responsibilities During Review
There are five primary parties involved in research misconduct reviews, though there may be additional parties.
- The Complainant is the person who makes an allegation of research misconduct
- The Respondent is the subject of the research misconduct allegation
- The Research Integrity Officer executes a fair, impartial and competent review of allegations of research misconduct. At Brown, the Senior Director of the Research Integrity, or their designee, serves in this role.
- The Deciding Official makes final determinations on the allegation(s) of research misconduct after reviewing the report of the Investigation Committee and any recommended institutional administrative actions. At Brown, the Vice President for Research serves in this role.
- A Witness is any person pertinent to the research misconduct inquiry or investigation.
Additional Resources
Federal Research Misconduct Policies
- U.S. Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct
- National Science Foundation Research Misconduct
- NASA Research Misconduct
Research Integrity Tools and Guidance
- HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI)
- ORI Policy on Plagiarism
- A Guide to Ethical Writing
- Research Integrity Infographics
- Text Recycling Research Project: Best Practices for Researchers
- NSF Research Misconduct by the Numbers