COI works both ways: Investigation of misconduct by an independent research integrity organization is the way to go

ABSTRACT

Resnik, Hosseini and Rasmussen’s take on universities having conflict of interest (COI), and should engage an independent research integrity organization in investigating research misconduct (RM) allegations against top officials, is prudent and timely. COI could be conceived either against or for in the processes toward the conviction of a respondent. For the latter, we need look no further than another recent Harvard case involving Francesca Gino.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. State centralized RM investigations is implemented in the following examples. The Danish Board on Research Misconduct (https://ufm.dk/en/research-and-innovation/councils-and-commissions/The-Danish-Board-on-Research-Misconduct) will handle all cases of research misconduct while questionable research practice will be handled by the research institution in question. The Swedish National Board for Assessment of Research Misconduct (https://npof.se/en) has a remit “to investigate whether, under the Swedish Act (2019:504) on responsibility for good research practice and the examination of research misconduct, any such misconduct has taken place.”

2. Behavioral scientists Uri Simonsohn, Leif Nelson and Joe Simmons who investigate and blog on data analysis and integrity (https://datacolada.org/).

3. Based on the respective counts of allegations but very different treatments of Claudine Gay (who stepped down as president but remained a Harvard faculty) and Francesca Gino (targeted for tenure revocation), Harvard has been perceived of exercising double standards. Harvard’s initial reaction and actions to both were indeed very different. The final sanction would in any case be down to the fact that while the verdict of Gino’s investigations is research misconduct, the investigation committee’s report indicated that Gay’s “conduct was not reckless nor intentional and, therefore, did not constitute research misconduct.” Gino’s case should have also been investigated externally and if so, would be deemed fairer regardless of the outcome.

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.