Survey focuses on research integrity measures in biomedical research labs

2011 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Research Integrity

A Personal View of Biomedical Research Integrity in the 90s

Physiology ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 238-239
Author(s):  
Paul J. Friedman
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Personal View ◽  
Quality Of Research

The integrity of scientists is being aggressively questioned. Incidents of misconduct have been so sensationalized that many scientific leaders have responded with equally unrealistic denial. This is a plea to regard the issue with perspective but to take positive steps to improve both awareness and quality of research ethics.

Protecting Research, Preserving Trust

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josephine Johnston ◽  
Naomi Scheinerman
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Special Interest ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
The Past ◽  
Financial Interests ◽  
Financial Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Financial Relationships

This chapter reviews the two main concerns about financial relationships with industry: that they could conflict with research-related obligations leading to biased or flawed research and an incomplete research record, and that they could undermine trust in biomedical research, researchers, and research institutions. We show that these concerns are valid, and that they persist in the U.S., despite a gradual tightening over the past decade of rules and regulations regarding financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. The threat that financial interests can pose to research integrity should be of special interest to psychiatry for two reasons: they are prevalent in this field, and they pose heightened risks due to the nature of psychiatry itself. Finally, we recommend that psychiatry—and individual research psychiatrists—take more seriously the threat posed by financial relationships with industry, and work together to develop additional strategies for avoiding and managing financial conflicts of interest.

scholarly journals Biomedical Text Mining for Research Rigor and Integrity: Tasks, Challenges, Directions

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Halil Kilicoglu
Keyword(s):  
Text Mining ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Supplementary Information ◽  
Biomedical Text ◽  
Biomedical Text Mining ◽  
Supplementary Material

AbstractAn estimated quarter of a trillion US dollars is invested in the biomedical research enterprise annually. There is growing alarm that a significant portion of this investment is wasted, due to problems in reproducibility of research findings and in the rigor and integrity of research conduct and reporting. Recent years have seen a flurry of activities focusing on standardization and guideline development to enhance the reproducibility and rigor of biomedical research. Research activity is primarily communicated via textual artifacts, ranging from grant applications to journal publications. These artifacts can be both the source and the end result of practices leading to research waste. For example, an article may describe a poorly designed experiment, or the authors may reach conclusions not supported by the evidence presented. In this article, we pose the question of whether biomedical text mining techniques can assist the stakeholders in the biomedical research enterprise in doing their part towards enhancing research integrity and rigor. In particular, we identify four key areas in which text mining techniques can make a significant contribution: plagiarism/fraud detection, ensuring adherence to reporting guidelines, managing information overload, and accurate citation/enhanced bibliometrics. We review the existing methods and tools for specific tasks, if they exist, or discuss relevant research that can provide guidance for future work. With the exponential increase in biomedical research output and the ability of text mining approaches to perform automatic tasks at large scale, we propose that such approaches can add checks and balances that promote responsible research practices and can provide significant benefits for the biomedical research enterprise.Supplementary informationSupplementary material is available at BioRxiv.

scholarly journals The essential need for research misconduct allegation audits

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Loikith ◽  
Robert P Bauchwitz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Physical Sciences ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Office Of Research Integrity ◽  
Audit Standards

The percentage of allegations of biomedical research misconduct in the United States that are dismissed by responsible institutions without any faculty assessment or auditable record is near 90%. Recently, members of the U.S. Congress have complained that the penalties for those against whom findings of research misconduct are made are too light and that too few grant funds associated with research misconduct have been recovered for use by other researchers and taxpayers. Here we describe the laws that empower federal agencies which can oversee investigations of biomedical research misconduct: the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG), both located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Research misconduct pertaining to U.S. physical sciences funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) is overseen by the NSF's OIG. While OIGs may provide some improvement over ORI in the handling of research misconduct, we have found that a much more serious flaw exists which undermines an ability to conduct performance audits as to the effectiveness by which allegations of research misconduct are handled in the United States. Federal audit standards (GAGAS/Yellow Book), if applied to the handling of research misconduct, would allow a determination as to whether the handling of allegations of biomedical research misconduct actually functions adequately, and if not, how it might be improved. Specifically, we propose that independent, external peer review under GAGAS audit standards should be instituted without delay in assessing the performance of ORI, or any other similarly tasked federal agency, in handling allegations of research misconduct.

Survey of Research Integrity Measures Utilized in Biomedical Research Laboratories: Final Report

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Rodbard ◽  
◽  
Gavan O'Shea ◽  
Michael Keeney ◽  
Roger Levine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Final Report

scholarly journals The essential need for research misconduct allegation audits

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Loikith ◽  
Robert P Bauchwitz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Physical Sciences ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Office Of Research Integrity ◽  
Audit Standards

The percentage of allegations of biomedical research misconduct in the United States that are dismissed by responsible institutions without any faculty assessment or auditable record is near 90%. Recently, members of the U.S. Congress have complained that the penalties for those against whom findings of research misconduct are made are too light and that too few grant funds associated with research misconduct have been recovered for use by other researchers and taxpayers. Here we describe the laws that empower federal agencies which can oversee investigations of biomedical research misconduct: the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG), both located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Research misconduct pertaining to U.S. physical sciences funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) is overseen by the NSF's OIG. While OIGs may provide some improvement over ORI in the handling of research misconduct, we have found that a much more serious flaw exists which undermines an ability to conduct performance audits as to the effectiveness by which allegations of research misconduct are handled in the United States. Federal audit standards (GAGAS/Yellow Book), if applied to the handling of research misconduct, would allow a determination as to whether the handling of allegations of biomedical research misconduct actually functions adequately, and if not, how it might be improved. Specifically, we propose that independent, external peer review under GAGAS audit standards should be instituted without delay in assessing the performance of ORI, or any other similarly tasked federal agency, in handling allegations of research misconduct.

scholarly journals The essential need for research misconduct allegation audits

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Loikith ◽  
Robert P Bauchwitz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Physical Sciences ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Office Of Research Integrity ◽  
Audit Standards

The percentage of allegations of biomedical research misconduct in the United States that are dismissed by responsible institutions without any faculty assessment or auditable record is near 90%. Recently, members of the U.S. Congress have complained that the penalties for those against whom findings of research misconduct are made are too light and that too few grant funds associated with research misconduct have been recovered for use by other researchers and taxpayers. Here we describe the laws that empower federal agencies which can oversee investigations of biomedical research misconduct: the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG), both located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Research misconduct pertaining to U.S. physical sciences funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) is overseen by the NSF's OIG. While OIGs may provide some improvement over ORI in the handling of research misconduct, we have found that a much more serious flaw exists which undermines an ability to conduct performance audits as to the effectiveness by which allegations of research misconduct are handled in the United States. Federal audit standards (GAGAS/Yellow Book), if applied to the handling of research misconduct, would allow a determination as to whether the handling of allegations of biomedical research misconduct actually functions adequately, and if not, how it might be improved. Specifically, we propose that independent, external peer review under GAGAS audit standards should be instituted without delay in assessing the performance of ORI, or any other similarly tasked federal agency, in handling allegations of research misconduct.

scholarly journals Ethical considerations in the biomedical research: analysis of national biomedical research ethics guidelines in Iran

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amirhossein Mardani ◽  
Maryam Nakhoda ◽  
Alireza Noruzi ◽  
Ehsan Shamsi Gooshki
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Regulatory Body ◽  
National Guidelines ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Operation Stage ◽  
Research Operation

The national guidelines for biomedical research ethics are approved by the “National Committee for Ethics in Biomedical Research” at the Iranian Ministry of Health and Medical Education as the regulatory body for biomedical research in the country. The focus of these guidelines should be on the ethical issues related to different stages of the research process, which would lead to increased research integrity and better supervision of research activities. The present study analyzed the contents of these national guidelines to clarify the ethical considerations connected to the five stages of a research process including 1) proposing, 2) approval, 3) operation, 4) documentation and 5) publishing. The findings showed that the assessed guidelines laid more emphasis on the ethical considerations related to the research operation stage rather than the proposal stage. In other words, activities such as identification of the research problem, formulation of hypotheses and questions, financial evaluation, data analysis and data interpretation did not receive adequate attention in these guidelines. Most of the guidelines presented subject categories such as the rights of participants and supervisory considerations in the “research operation stage”, ethical considerations in the “evaluation and approval procedure stage”, and editorial responsibilities in the “research review and publication stage”. In general, despite noticeable content for guiding researchers for ethical conduction of research the national guidelines are not adequately developed to cover comprehensive and sufficient ethical considerations regarding all the activities of research.

scholarly journals The essential need for research misconduct allegation audits

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Loikith ◽  
Robert P Bauchwitz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Physical Sciences ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Office Of Research Integrity ◽  
Audit Standards

Nearly ninety percent of allegations of biomedical research misconduct in the United States are dismissed by responsible institutions without any faculty assessment or auditable record. Recently, members of the U.S. Congress have complained that the penalties for those against whom findings of research misconduct are made are too light and that too few grant funds associated with research misconduct have been recovered for use by other researchers and taxpayers. Here we describe the laws that empower federal agencies which can oversee investigations of biomedical research misconduct: the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG), both located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Research misconduct pertaining to U.S. physical sciences funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) is overseen by the NSF's OIG. While OIGs may provide some improvement over ORI in the handling of research misconduct, we have found that a much more serious flaw exists which undermines an ability to conduct performance audits as to the effectiveness by which allegations of research misconduct are handled in the United States. Federal audit standards (GAGAS/Yellow Book), if applied to the handling of research misconduct, would allow a determination as to whether the handling of allegations of biomedical research misconduct actually functions adequately, and if not, how it might be improved. Specifically, we propose that independent, external peer review under GAGAS audit standards should be instituted without delay in assessing the performance of ORI, or any other similarly tasked federal agency, in handling allegations of research misconduct.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document