Scientific Forensics: How the Office of Research Integrity can Assist Institutional Investigations of Research Misconduct During Oversight Review
Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (4):713-735 (2010)
| Abstract | The Division of Investigative Oversight within the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) is responsible for conducting oversight review of institutional inquiries and investigations of possible research misconduct. It is also responsible for determining whether Public Health Service findings of research misconduct are warranted. Although ORI findings rely primarily on the scope and quality of the institution’s analyses and determinations, ORI often has been able to strengthen the original findings by employing a variety of analytical methods, often computer based. Although ORI does not conduct inquiries or investigations, it has broad authority to provide assistance to institutions at all stages of their reviews of allegations. This assistance can range from providing advice on best practices, to legal assistance, to suggestions for how best to investigate specific allegations. When asked, ORI can also conduct certain forensic analyses, such as a statistical examination of questioned digits or a simple examination of a questioned figure in Photoshop. ORI will not provide opinions or render judgment on such analyses while the institution is still conducting its investigation. Such analyses can be done without knowing much else about the case | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,875 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesPéter Kakuk (2009). The Legacy of the Hwang Case: Research Misconduct in Biosciences. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (4).
Arthur Bonito, Sandra Titus & David Wright (2012). Assessing the Preparedness of Research Integrity Officers (RIOs) to Appropriately Handle Possible Research Misconduct Cases. Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (4):605-619.
Samuel Tilden (2010). Incarceration, Restitution, and Lifetime Debarment: Legal Consequences of Scientific Misconduct in the Eric Poehlman Case. Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (4):737-741.
John E. Dahlberg & Christian C. Mahler (2006). The Poehlman Case: Running Away From the Truth. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):157-173.
Mark S. Davis, Michelle Riske-Morris & Sebastian R. Diaz (2008). Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct: Evidence From Ori Case Files. Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (2).
Barbara K. Redman, Thomas N. Templin & Jon F. Merz (2006). Research Misconduct Among Clinical Trial Staff. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (3).
E. Wright David, L. Titus Sandra & B. Cornelison Jered (2008). MentOring and Research Misconduct: An Analysis of Research mentOring in Closed Ori Cases. Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (3).
David E. Wright, Sandra L. Titus & Jered B. Cornelison (2008). Mentoring and Research Misconduct: An Analysis of Research Mentoring in Closed Ori Cases. Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (3).
Chris B. Pascal (1999). The History and Future of the Office of Research Integrity: Scientific Misconduct and Beyond. Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):183-198.
Barbara Mishkin (1999). Scientific Misconduct: Present Problems and Future Trends. Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):283-292.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-06-09Total downloads16 ( #75,695 of 556,895 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,931 of 556,895 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
