Procedures for Dealing with Allegations of Unethical Scientific Conduct
When a violation of the SfN Ethics Policy whether intentional or not, is alleged, it is essential that the scientific community respond quickly and effectively. Allegations brought to the attention of the Society are initially dealt with by the Editor-in-Chief if they pertain to The Journal of Neuroscience, by the chair of the Program Committee if they pertain to abstracts for the annual meeting, by the SfN President if they pertain to other categories. The Scientific Publications Committee is responsible for overseeing the consistent handling of alleged Ethics Policy violations.
1. SfN’s investigation of an alleged violation of the Ethics Policy will conform to the following principles:
1.1. The investigation will be prompt and will respect the rights of the accused and of the individual(s) making the allegation.
1.2. Authors or other relevant parties are expected to cooperate fully with the investigation.
1.3. The identity of the complainant will be kept confidential, unless the complainant requests otherwise.
1.4. At all stages, every effort will be made to ensure that the process is fair and just for the accused, the complainant, and the neuroscience community.
1.5. Complainants who bring forward allegations in good faith should not be subjected to retaliation, even if no misconduct is found.
1.6. Knowledge that an investigation is being or has been conducted, as well as any information collected in the process, should be restricted to the absolute minimum number of persons necessary and treated with strict confidentiality, even after the investigation is complete. However, information regarding the investigation and its findings should be released in cases in which misconduct has been determined to have occurred or when the existence of an investigation has become generally known and an accused scientist is exonerated.
2. All allegations should be dealt with at the lowest organizational level that can be effective. The appropriate SfN person, as outlined above and referred to in this document as “the point person,” will conduct a preliminary inquiry into the allegation. If the matter can be resolved at this level it will save time and money, and help to protect the reputations of all involved. If, after an initial inquiry, the point person believes that an allegation may have merit, then he or she will inform all authors (or other relevant parties if the case does not involve a publication) of the allegation and solicit a response. If this response allows the point person to determine that no violation of the Ethics Policy has occurred (e.g., an honest scientific mistake is acknowledged by the authors), the authors will be asked to publish a correction or to retract the paper or abstract, if appropriate. If resolution is achieved at this level, the chair of the Scientific Publications Committee will be notified in confidence of the incident.
2.1. For manuscripts, the editorial process will be put on hold until the allegation is resolved.
3. Allegations not resolved at the lowest organizational level will be referred to the Scientific Publications Committee. In the case of more serious allegations, the point person will notify all relevant parties that the matter has been referred to the Scientific Publications Committee. If the Scientific Publications Committee concurs that a violation of the Ethics Policy may have occurred, the chair of the Scientific Publications Committee will notify the institution at which the research was conducted and will request that a formal investigation be undertaken by the institution.
3.1. The Society for Neuroscience expects that institutions engaged in research will have effective procedures for dealing with allegations of scientific misconduct, inappropriate conflict of interest, or unethical treatment of animals or human subjects.
3.2. All possible care will be taken by SfN to handle these matters so as to protect the rights and reputations of everyone concerned.
3.3. When requesting that an institution investigate an allegation, SfN expects to be informed of the progress and outcome of any inquiry or investigation and expects the process to be concluded within five months.
4. The Society may initiate corrective actions and/or sanctions in response to a violation of the SfN Ethics Policy. In some cases it may be appropriate that the Society take further actions regarding a violation of the Ethics Policy.
4.1. The SfN Executive Committee will make the final decision on any sanctions imposed by SfN.
4.2. The point person and the Scientific Publications Committee are empowered to continue their investigation and analysis in parallel with any institutional investigation, and may recommend that the Executive Committee impose immediate, short-term sanctions to protect the integrity of scientific communications. These sanctions may be extended or revised, and corrections to the literature may be made as needed after five months or the conclusion of the institutional investigation, whichever comes first.
4.3. Once an investigation of misconduct is concluded by the relevant institution(s), the chair of the Scientific Publications Committee should be informed of the outcome, including any administrative or disciplinary action that has been taken by the institution or agency.
4.4. If the institutional investigation provides substantial new information, the Scientific Publications Committee will review the case based on the information provided by the investigating institution as well as the original allegations and the results of the preliminary inquiry. If the institution requested to investigate possible misconduct has failed to respond within five months, the Scientific Publications Committee will make its recommendations based on the information available.
4.5. If an investigation concerning a published article or abstract determines that the article contains a serious error, then a correction or retraction must be published prominently in the journal or abstract collection in which the original report appeared and contain the full bibliographic reference to the original article or abstract. It should also be listed in the contents page and be prominently labeled (e.g., erratum, retraction, or apologia). The normal expectation is that an author would voluntarily retract an article that was found to involve violations of the Ethics Policy. If the authors do not agree, it is incumbent on the Editor-in-Chief to retract the article with a statement of an editorial action.
4.6. If an investigation reveals possible misrepresentation involving non-SfN publications, the Scientific Publications Committee may recommend notifying the editors of the other publications.
4.7. Some allegations of SfN Ethics Policy violations may involve publications submitted to a non-Society publication by a member of the Society. A finding of a violation of the SfN Ethics Policy should be reported to the chair of the Scientific Publications Committee. The Scientific Publications Committee will determine what action, if any, to recommend.
4.8. If it is determined that allegations were not made in good faith, or were maliciously motivated, disciplinary action may be recommended for those responsible by the Scientific Publications Committee to the Executive Committee.
4.9. The Council of the Society for Neuroscience retains the right to consider additional action. In accordance with the Bylaws of the Society, this action may include expulsion from the Society.
Acknowledgements
This document was prepared by the Responsible Conduct Working Group and approved by the Society for Neuroscience Council on July 20, 2010. It is based on previous guidelines developed by the Society for Neuroscience and by other organizations, the committee’s own deliberations, and the comments received from others.
The Responsible Conduct Working Group included David Van Essen (Washington University, chair), Christopher Henderson (Columbia University), Nancy Ip (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology), Daniel Johnston (University of Texas, Austin), Sabine Kastner (Princeton University), Peggy Mason (University of Chicago), John Maunsell (Harvard University), Jeffrey Rothstein (Johns Hopkins University), Gordon Shepherd (Yale University), and Michael Zigmond (University of Pittsburgh).
Suggestions for updates to this policy should be addressed to the Society for Neuroscience at ethics@sfn.org.