Guidelines

6. Dealing with Possible Scientific Misconduct

The importance of responsible conduct in scientific research and communication has been emphasized throughout these Guidelines. In the great majority of circumstances, those involved in such communications understand the importance of such conduct and behave appropriately. However, exceptions can occur and when an allegation of misconduct is made, it is essential that the scientific community respond quickly and effectively. It is true that investigations of misconduct often consume valuable resources and can be very unpleasant, and that enforcement of prohibitions against misconduct can be even more costly and unpleasant. Yet, as a professional society we have a responsibility for maintaining the scientific integrity of our members and those others who communicate their research through our publications and at our annual meetings. Moreover, only by accepting this responsibility ourselves can we minimize the likelihood that individuals outside of the research enterprise will take the responsibility from us.

The Society for Neuroscience believes that each of the guidelines established herein is relevant to the responsible conduct of science. The Society also recognizes that the guidelines deal with matters of varying seriousness and that honest errors can sometimes occur. Thus, for the purposes of this document, the term “misconduct” is limited to instances of intentional fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism by authors, reviewers, or editors. Note, however, that these terms may be applied to any section of any type of communication of scientific observations.

6.1. Accusations of misconduct should be dealt with at the lowest organizational level that can be effective. Editors may conduct a preliminary inquiry into alleged misconduct related to a manuscript that is in review, in press, or has been published by their journal. Resolving matters at this level saves time, money, and helps to protect the reputations of all involved, in particular, those of individuals who are unjustly accused. However, the resolution should involve consultation with the chair of the Publications Committee and, as appropriate, the Executive Committee.

6.2. If, after an initial inquiry, the editor believes that an accusation of misconduct may have merit then the editor must notify the institutions at which the research was conducted. In the United States and many other countries, responsibility for dealing with alleged misconduct lies with the institutions at which the research was performed and with the cognizant federal agencies. The institutions at which work was performed usually will have primary responsibility for considering and resolving allegations of scientific misconduct regarding that work.

There are several reasons for the primacy of institutions in the consideration of allegations of misconduct. First, most cases of alleged misconduct involve the use or misuse of funds awarded to a particular institution and/or activities performed as part of the obligations of an individual to that institution. Second, research institutions have the resource to conduct misconduct investigations and the right of access to research materials and personnel. Third, alleged, misconduct in science may involve violations of ethical principles and institutional standards of conduct but not necessarily scientific misconduct as defined by law. Fourth, institutions have an interest in the conduct of their faculty, staff, and students. Thus, most institutions have policies that define scientific misconduct, procedures for investigating allegations of misconduct, and penalties for scientific misconduct as well as for false allegations of misconduct.

6.2.1. The Society for Neuroscience supports the principle that institutions engaged in research should have effective procedures for dealing with allegations of scientific misconduct.

6.2.2. Evidence of possible misconduct regarding a manuscript should be reported to the research integrity officers of the institutions at which the research was conducted.

6.2.3. All possible care should be taken to handle these matters so as to protect the rights and reputations of everyone concerned (see 6.4).

6.3. When an editor reports alleged misconduct to the institutions at which the research was performed, the editor also should ask to be informed of the progress and outcome of any inquiry or investigation. Those responsible for the publication process also have an interest in maintaining the highest standards of conduct. Despite the central role of the research institution in dealing with misconduct, those responsible for the publication of a research article or abstract also should participate, if requested, in such inquiries. The Society of Neuroscience has special responsibility for matters related to The Journal of Neuroscience, the Society for Neuroscience Abstracts, and any of its other publications in either print or electronic form. Moreover, the Society also has a special interest in the professional conduct of its members, including conduct that does not directly concern Society publications.

6.3.1. If a preliminary inquiry justifies a formal investigation by an institution or federal agency, the editor of the journal to which the manuscript was submitted (or the individual responsible for the meeting abstract) should ask to be notified of that investigation early in the process. The editor also should request to be kept informed of its progress and told about its conclusions.

6.4. Allegations of scientific misconduct should be investigated promptly but with due attention to the rights of all individuals concerned. Misconduct in research threatens the scientific enterprise and should be investigated promptly and thoroughly. However, it is essential that such investigations respect the rights of both the accused and the individual making the accusation.

6.4.1. Individuals who allege misconduct should be asked to provide their evidence to the editor and/or authors’ institutions.

6.4.2. Authors are expected to cooperate fully with misconduct investigations, including providing access to original data and laboratory notebooks.

6.4.3. Individuals who allege misconduct are encouraged to allow their identities to be made known to the investigating institution. However, should they choose not to do so, this request should be respected.

6.4.4. At all stages, every effort should be made to ensure that the process is fair and just, both for the accused and the individuals making the allegation.

6.4.5. The accused should be considered innocent of wrongdoing until the evidence indicates otherwise. However, an editor may delay publication of a challenged paper pending the outcome of an investigation.

6.4.6. Accusers who bring forward allegations in good faith should not be subjected to retaliation, even if no misconduct is found.

6.4.7. The entity investigating the accusation should complete that investigation as quickly as possible consistent with the need for a thorough and impartial inquiry.

6.4.8. 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 knowledge that an investigation is being conducted has become generally known and an accused scientist is exonerated.

6.5. Professional societies may initiate corrective and/or disciplinary actions based on a finding of serious misconduct related to its publications or its members. In some cases it may be appropriate that a professional society take further actions regarding a finding of scientific misconduct by an editor, research institution, granting agency, or court of law. The specific guidelines that follow refer to the Society for Neuroscience. Other professional societies may wish to develop procedures in accordance with their own structure.

6.5.1. Once an investigation of misconduct is concluded by the relevant institution or agency, the individual responsible for the publication (e.g., the editor of a journal) should be informed of the outcome. That individual should then inform Executive Committee of the Council of the Society for Neuroscience of the outcome, including any administrative or disciplinary action that has been taken by the institution or agency.

6.5.2. In the case of investigations related to manuscripts or abstracts submitted to The Journal of Neuroscience or the Society for Neuroscience Abstracts, recommendations for sanctions should be made by Executive Committee of the Society for Neuroscience to the editor-in-chief of The Journal of Neuroscience or the Chair of the Program Committee of the Society for Neuroscience, respectively, and to its Publications Committee. These individuals will then determine the appropriate action in association with the Executive Committee.

6.5.3. Some investigations will involve publications submitted to a non- Society publication by a member of the Society. Findings of misconduct should be reported to the Executive Committee of the Society by anyone who becomes aware of them. The Executive Committee then will determine the appropriate action.

6.5.4. 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) (see also Section 3.9.4).

6.5.5. If the article or abstract was authored by more than one individual and some of those individuals are found to be innocent of misconduct, this should be made clear in the published statement.

6.5.6. Any co-authors not found to be guilty of misconduct should be invited to participate in the preparation of the correction or retraction and/or to add an indication of their agreement to the statement. However, such authors should not be permitted to block publication of the statement.

6.5.7. 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 Executive Committee in association with the Editor-in-chief of The Journal of Neuroscience or the chair of the Program Committee. This recommendation is made to the Council of the Society for Neuroscience, which then determines the course of action to be taken.

6.5.8. 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.