Evaluating U.S. medical schools' efforts to educate faculty researchers on research integrity and research misconduct policies and procedures.

This paper examines how well U.S. medical school institutions are doing to promote research integrity.

Ensuring PhD development of responsible conduct of research behaviors: who's responsible?

The importance of public confidence in scientific findings and trust in scientists cannot be overstated. Thus, it becomes critical for the scientific community to focus on enhancing the strategies used to educate future scientists on ethical research behaviors. What we are lacking is knowledge on how faculty members shape and develop ethical research standards with their students.

Preparing whistleblowers for reporting research misconduct.

Making an allegation of research misconduct can be stressful for a whistleblower. The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) can play an important role in helping reduce the stress by thoroughly discussing what whistleblowers can expect if they make an allegation. Through interviews with 77 RIOs who had recently handled a research misconduct case, we found that RIOs who addressed more topics as well as specific aspects of the topics were more likely to have used some type of memory aide in their initial contact with whistleblowers, talked with ORI staff or other RIOs about "hypothetical" research misconduct cases, or attended a RIO boot camp training.

Faculty members' perceptions of advising versus mentoring: does the name matter?

The recommendations, during the past 20 years, to improve PhD scientific training and graduate school success, have focused on the significance of mentoring. It is well established that PhD students with mentors have significantly more success in graduate school as demonstrated by publishing papers before they graduate and by making presentations. Have faculty and academic institutions embraced the mentoring role? This study explores the views of 3,500 scientists who have primary responsibilities to educate PhD and MD/PhD students.

Assessing the preparedness of research integrity officers (RIOs) to appropriately handle possible research misconduct cases.

Institutions receiving federal funding for research from the U.S.Public Health Service need to have policies and procedures to both prevent research misconduct and to adjudicate it when it occurs.

Mentoring and research misconduct: an analysis of research mentoring in closed ORI cases.

We are reporting on how involved the mentor was in promoting responsible research in cases of research misconduct. We reviewed the USPHS misconduct files of the Office of Research Integrity. These files are created by Institutions who prosecute a case of possible research misconduct; ORI has oversight review of these investigations.