Research Misconduct

Introduction

Graduate students and researchers study to gain basic rules, logic, knowledge and technology
related to nature, human beings, society and life in order to understand them. They also study to
enrich human society through their research activities. Governments and private institutions
invest their money and human resources for their purpose. This support would largely depend on
public trust in the validity of research results. Graduate students and researchers are obligated to
design their projects carefully, collect data in a scientifically correct manner, and report their
results accurately under these circumstances. Unfortunately, there are occasions that research
misconduct such as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism etc. have been finding in research
processes. Sometimes there were acts contrary to the law.

Needless to say that research must avoid breaking the law, and it is necessary to be familiar with
what constitutes research misconduct, how to report it and how institution should handle it in
order to avoid committing research misconduct.

Today, all graduate schools incorporate training on responsible conduct of research into their
curriculum. For this reason, graduate students and post-doctoral fellows are expected to maintain
the same research standards as professional researchers and not immune from penalties if they
fail to do so. Students who defend themselves by claiming that they “didn’t know” are just
indifferent and will be seen as careless. Faculty advisors commonly receive harsher penalties
than their graduate students over the same case of misconduct. This is not because graduate
students are somehow lacking in independence rather it is because they do not have the same
freedom in their research and are in some way of a weaker position.

Definition of Research Misconduct

“Regarding the Guidelines for Responding to Misconduct in Research” released by the Ministry
of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology on August 8th 2006 explained the
various types of misconduct in research.[1] The revised edition was released on August 26th
2014. This is the definition of misconduct in research derived from the 2014 revised edition:[2]

The misconduct in question is the fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism of data or research

findings, etc., indicated in a submitted research paper or other published research results
(hereinafter “specific research misconduct”), either willfully or due to gross neglect of the basic
duty of care expected of a researcher.
 Fabrication is Making up data or research results etc.
 Falsification is Manipulating research materials, equipment or processes to change data
or results obtained from research activities.
 Plagiarism is Appropriating the ideas, analysis, analytical methods, data, research results,
research paper(s) or words of other researchers without obtaining the permission of the
 researchers or giving appropriate credit.

The definition of specific research misconduct shown above is used in almost all sectors in
Japan including other government departments.

In the 2006 edition, the definition was preceded by the qualification that “conduct is not
considered misconduct where there is evidence proving that it was not intentional”. Which
means that mistakes or different approach (e.g., different way to read data) were not considered
as research misconduct. However, the 2014 revised edition amended the definition of specific
research misconduct to include conduct concerning that “either intentionally or as a result of
considerable neglect of the basic duty of care that researchers are expected to observe”.

Also the Guidelines define “research” as “encompassing basic and applied research and even
experimental studies in any fields of science, engineering and mathematics which include
research on economy, education, linguistics, medicine, psychology, society and statistics and
research on human and animal subjects”. “Research results” refers to records of data or results
describing concrete facts that have been obtained through scientific investigation and constitute
the contents of research proposals, experiment records, progress reports, abstracts, academic
dissertations, oral presentations, internal reports, journal publications etc. The term also
encompasses the electronic versions of any of these materials.

Measures Against Research Misconduct

The United States has been pioneering in the fight against research misconduct.

In the early 1980s, the country experienced a series of major cases of research misconduct. The
academic community and Federal Government responded to deal with these cases, and after
extensive discussions the predecessor to the current Office of Research Integrity (ORI) was
established in 1989. The ORI now works to develop and place into practice policies, procedures,
and rules to identify, investigate and prevent cases of research misconduct. It also provides
technical support for misconduct investigations performed by universities and research
institutions and offers grants for education, training, workshops and research into research
misconduct (in the biomedical field).

By contrast, in Japan and European countries, there are no such bodies as the ORI authorized by
the state to investigate research misconduct and this task has mostly been left to individual
universities and research institutions.

It was in the 2000s that Japan started to deal with research misconduct. A 2004 survey by the
Science Council of Japan revealed that little more than 1% of Japan’s scientific academic
societies had a code of ethics.[3] Later, in response to “Appropriate Responses to Research
Misconduct” (February 2006) issued by the Council for Science, Technology and Innovation,[4]
MEXT issued “Regarding the Guidelines for Responding to Misconduct in Research” (August
2006) which was addressed specifically at research funded by competitive funds from
independent administrative agencies under MEXT’s jurisdiction or from MEXT itself. The
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare responded in turn by releasing a similar notification.

As already mentioned, in August 2014, MEXT issued a revised version of the 2006 Guidelines.
The revised edition organized the basic policies given in MEXT’s Guidelines around the
following three pillars:[2]
 Basic stance on research misconduct: Both individual researchers and research
institutions such as universities must take a firm stance against research misconduct.
 Autonomy and self-discipline among researchers and in the scientific community:
Research misconduct must be dealt with internally based on the self-discipline of
researchers, the autonomy of the scientific community and research institutions such as
universities.
 Management duty of research institutions such as universities: Research institutions such
as universities must strengthen their response in order to create environments that are
resistant to research misconduct.

If we look at the global fight against research misconduct, we find that there has been a wave of
new initiatives contributing greatly to research integrity including non-profit international
organizations and systems for post-publication peer review.
 The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) is an international non-profit organization
which was set up in the U.K. in 1997. It drafts international rules and provides technical
guidance for academic publishers and editors to help them deal with fabrication,
falsification and plagiarism in academic papers.
 Retraction Watch is an organization that was set up in the U.S. in August 2012, to
discuss about the papers that have already been published. It works against research
misconduct by building a database of retracted papers and discussing issues related to
paper retraction.

 PubPeer is an organization that was set up in October 2012, to discuss about the papers
that have already been published. Its website which is a platform for discussing the
research behind published papers and has identified instances of research misconduct in
multiple academic papers. It was this site that the first doubt raised about the STAP cell
paper and was developed into a major controversy in Japan in 2014.
Cases of Research Misconduct:

International Classic cases from around the world

It has been pointed out that some famous figures in the history of science might have committed
research misconduct.[5]

 Isaac Newton might have adjusted calculations to fit his preferred observations.
 Gregor Mendel’s results with pea plants are allegedly different from what was observed
experimentally, indicating that he might have changed the original, less consistent, data.

International Cases
The Summerlin Case (Fabrication)：
 In 1974, William Summerlin, working with immunologist Robert Good at the Sloan-
 Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, reported that he could transplant tissue from
genetically unrelated animals without rejection by the recipient animal. Such a finding
would have been invaluable for transplant medicine. Summerlin tried to support his
claims by showing white mice that had black patches on their backs. He claimed that
their skin had been transplanted from unrelated donor mice. However, when a lab
technician wiped the black patch on the white mouse’s back with alcohol, the black color
started to come off. Summerlin had used a black permanent marker to color a patch of
the white mouse’s fur black.

The Soman Case (Plagiarism):

 In 1978, diabetes researcher Helena Wachslicht-Rodbard, a post-doctoral fellow at the
U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), submitted a paper containing her research
results to an academic journal. Professor Philip Felig from Yale University was
commissioned to peer review the submitted paper, a job which he delegated to his
subordinate Assistant Professor Vijay R. Soman. Rodbard’s paper was very similar in
theme to Soman’s research which was rejected for that reason and he went on to
plagiarize it in its entirety of words and data, credit himself as author and submit it to
another academic journal.
 However, in an ironic turn of events, it was Rodbard’s superior who was asked to peer
review Soman’s submission. Her superior showed the paper to Rodbard, at which point
she discovered that Soman had plagiarized all her words and data and brought repeated
allegations of misconduct against him. Soman’s plagiarism was confirmed in 1980 and
he resigned from Yale University in April of that year. Rodbard went on to grow tired of
research and make the transition from researcher to clinician. She became successful in
the world of clinical medicine and later held such major positions as President of the
American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

The Baltimore Case (False charge of fabrication)：

 This infamous case pitted a postdoctoral researcher against a Nobel Prize winner. It
became a cause célèbre in the mid-1980s and was the subject of federal investigations
and congressional hearings.
 The case began when Margot O’Toole, a postdoctoral research at Tufts University, could
not validate the findings of her employer, Thereza Imanishi-Kari, that were set to be
published in the journal Cell. David Baltimore of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT), a Nobel Prize winner, was a co-author on the paper.
 O’Toole came to believe that Imanishi-Kari had manipulated research data and presented
her evidence to committees at Tufts and MIT. The committees ruled that misconduct had
not occurred but that Imanishi-Kari had been sloppy in her research. Around the same
time, a committee of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) also cleared Imanishi-Kari.

 However, the case didn’t stop there. Walter Stewart and Ned Feder, two scientists from
the NIH who were responsible for exposing misconduct, became involved in this case,
believing that the committees and the NIH had not investigated enough on the problems
throughout the paper. In 1988 a congressional hearing was held, headed by
Representative John Dingel who chaired the Energy and Commerce Committee and
 oversaw budget allocation for the NIH. The Committee conducted a thorough
investigation even bringing in the Secret Service whose report concluded that the
evidence of Imanishi-Kari had provided to the Committee had been falsified.
 In 1991, the NIH’s misconduct division the Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) found
that significant portions of the data were fabricated. As a result, Imanishi-Kari was
banned from receiving federal grant money for 10 years. Baltimore resigned as president
of Rockefeller University because of the controversy relating to this case.
 In 1992, OSI was modified and became the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). In 1996,
an ORI appeals board overturned the earlier decision in the case. The board said that it
had not been shown that Imanishi-Kari falsified the scientific record; instead, she was
guilty of sloppy research practices.
 In the end, Imanishi-Kari was found not to have committed misconduct. That make this
more of a case of false allegation than of research misconduct and it illustrates the
following points:
o Investigations and deliberations over research misconduct takes for many years
(11 years in this case).
o Even a post-doctoral fellow can accuse a Nobel Laureate of research misconduct.

o Judgments of misconduct from two separate public institutions were overturned.

o The accused party suffered a great deal of harm including being both forced to
resign and denied funding.
o In the end, all people involved suffered some harm.

 Soon afterward, regulations concerning the handling of misconduct allegations were

announced by the NIH and the National Science Foundation (NSF); provisions were
included for protecting the rights of those who report misconduct and those of the
accused and for an appeals process.

The Schon Case (fabrication and falsification)：

 In October 2002, the physics community was shaken when it learned that
groundbreaking electronics research at Bell Labs was based on fraudulent data. Jan
Hendrik Schon had published papers in many prestigious journals including Science and
Nature.[6] He worked in the areas of superconductivity, molecular crystals and molecular
electronics. Yet a committee found that he had made up or altered data at least 16 times
between 1998 and 2001. He was subsequently fired by Bell Labs but the committee
cleared Schon’s collaborators of any misconduct.

The Eric Poehlman Case＊(fabrication and falsification)：

 In March 2005, ORI found that Eric T. Poehlman, a former professor in the Department
of Medicine at the University of V College of Medicine, had engaged in research
misconduct by misleading and deceptive practices in proposing, conducting, and
reporting the results of research.[7] Poehlman had submitted an NIH grant application
 that contained falsified results of a preliminary study which was part of a long-term
research project on aging. Over a period of several years, Poehlman reported falsified
data at professional meetings and in published results. He repeatedly falsified and
fabricated data in order to support his theory and in his NIH grant application he included
descriptions of a long-term research project that he never actually carried out, even
making up research papers related to the project. He also provided false reports to the
university’s investigation committee.
 As a result, Poehlman had to relinquish his position as a member of the advisory
committee of the Public Health Service (PHS), the parent organization of NIH and
voluntarily declared that he would not receive any more research funds from the Federal
Government. He also pledged not to appeal any decisions regarding the case and agreed
to the withdrawal 10 of his articles that had been published in academic journals. But in
the end, he couldn’t get off that easily and on June 28th 2006, he was sentenced to 366
days in jail, making him the first person to be sentenced to imprisonment for research
misconduct in the U.S.
*
In its educational materials, the CITI JAPAN Project does not, as a rule, identify the
names of specific research institutions and individuals involved in misconduct that
has been uncovered within the last ten years. However we made an exception in this
particular case and identified the individual in question by name, because it would
otherwise have been difficult to give the case a clear and appropriate title, and also
Mr. Poehlman’s name has already been published in the case description available on
the ORI website and elsewhere.

Minister Stripped of Doctoral Degree (Plagiarism):

 In 1980, the woman, who would later become the German Minister for Education and
Science, submitted her PhD thesis to the University of Dusseldorf and was awarded a
doctoral degree in education. However, 32 years later in 2012, an anonymous allegation
was made online for analytic evidence suggested that the text of her PhD thesis had been
plagiarized from another source. The University of Dusseldorf responded by launching
an investigation which verified that the Minister had committed plagiarism and on
February 5th 2013, she was stripped of her PhD. Four days later, she submitted her
resignation as Minister.
Cases of Research Misconduct: Japan
Revocation of Master’s Degree (Plagiarism):
 In September 2008, a graduate school student received a master’s degree from the
Graduate School of Media and Policy Studies at K University. However, after the student
had graduated, an allegation was made to K University of plagiarism in the student’s
master’s thesis. An investigation by the University verified that plagiarism had been
committed and in October 2012, the graduate student’s degree was revoked.

Anti-Hypertensive Drug Diovan (Fabrication and Falsification):

 In June 2011, some concerns were raised regarding irregularities in clinical research
papers on a particular anti-hypertensive drug. The university of the professor who was
responsible for supervising the research brought in external experts and established an
investigation board which conducted hearings to question the professor and other persons
 involved in order to verify the findings. The board finalized its investigation report in
2013. The report concluded that there was duplication between papers and found that
many of them contained fabricated data.
 The research had been conducted as a collaborative clinical research project involving
many universities. When each of these universities pursued their own investigations,
many of them discovered that questionable blood-pressure values had been used and
article after article was withdrawn from journals.

Professor K at University T (Falsification):

 In January 2012, an allegation of research misconduct was made externally against a
particular professor at T University. The University launched an investigation in
September 2013, the results of which were announced in December 2014. The
investigation revealed that inappropriate images had been used in 51 papers published by
the professor between 1996 and 2011 (i.e. images that had been copied or repurposed
from other sources, patched together, not published, deleted or overly manipulated). 43
out of the 51 papers were found to contain falsified data and the remaining 8 papers were
found to contain improprieties amounting to carelessness. The professor in question
resigned from T University at the end of March 2012. 36 of his papers were later
withdrawn.

The STAP Cell Case (Fabrication and Falsification):

 In January 2014, a researcher at R Institute had two papers published in Nature. Since the
papers contained a scientific breakthrough, there was a press conference to mark their
publication and the story was widely covered in newspapers and on television. However,
immediately after publication, an online discussion of published papers raised doubts
over the data they presented. In April that year, R Institute announced that its
investigation had revealed that the electrophoretic images had been falsified and the
microscopic images had been fabricated (copied from a paper by other researchers at the
institute). The papers were retracted in July of the same year and in December, the
researcher in question resigned voluntarily.

Professor L at C University (Plagiarism):

 Professor L, a non-Japanese professor of anthropology at C University, translated a
Japanese-language conference presentation created by a former graduate student of his
lab into Korean, compiled it into a paper under his own sole authorship and had it
published in the May 2013 edition of the academic journal “Society of Korean Human
and Plant Environment Studies”. An allegation was made to the University on January 16
2014, and an investigation was carried out between October 22 and December 24 2014.
As a result of the investigation, the professor’s conduct was recognized as plagiarism on
May 29 2015.
How Often Does Research Misconduct Occur?
 How often does research misconduct occur? Are cases afore mentioned and covered by
media particularly proverbial? Do covered cases represent just the tip of the iceberg or
most cases of research misconduct?
 There is not sufficient data either in Japan or in other countries to answer this question.
How common research misconduct remains a matter of speculation. The fundamental
 problem is that even when research misconduct occurs, it is not necessarily reported to
the relevant institutions. However, there are some surveys, as described below, which are
useful for analyzing the realities around research misconduct.
 In 2004, a survey was conducted led by the Science Council of Japan. Out of the 838
academic societies that responded to the survey, 113 (14%) answered “YES” when asked
whether a case of fabrication, falsification or plagiarism had been brought up in the
meetings of the board of directors or in editorial meetings in the past five years.[3] In the
majority of cases, the discussion had been concerned with deficiencies in procedures or
organizational systems for handling suspected cases of research misconduct. However,
when it comes to estimating the actual incidence rate of research misconduct, this data is
no more than a testimonial reference.
 In addition, according to data on research misconduct in Japan described in Hakuraku
Rockville’s Incidents Involving Scientific Researchers and Ethics, there were 88 cases of
fabrication and falsification and 23 cases of plagiarism in Japan within the ten-year
period from 2000 to 2009.[9] Further, according to a paper written by Shigeaki Kikuchi,
in the sixteen-year period from 1998 to 2013, there were 38 cases of fabrication and
falsification and 58 cases of plagiarism.[10] These findings indicate that every year, there
were between 2 and 9 cases of fabrication and falsification and between 2 and 4 cases of
plagiarism.
 Misconduct cases have been easily counted since the 1990s in US. For example, ORI
received an average of 198 allegations per year between 1992 and 2007.[8] However, it
is unclear how many cases of misconduct went unreported.

 Nicholas H. Steneck, an American specialist in research ethics analyzed the figures

published in a range of literature and estimated that examples of falsification, fabrication
or plagiarism can be found within 1% of papers in the U.S.[16]
Dealing with Research Misconduct

Preliminary Investigation, Formal Investigation, Sanctions

 According to the afore-mentioned Guidelines,[2] when an allegation of research
misconduct arises, unless otherwise specified, it is the research institution of the accused
person is required to respond to the allegation.
 This research institution carries out a preliminary investigation in order to determine
whether the allegation has substance and an investigation is warranted. The period of
time for preliminary investigation varies based on the rules of each university (for
example, within 30days after receiving an allegation).
 In the formal investigation, all the facts are recorded in a formal manner and appraised,
leading to either a finding of misconduct or the case being dismissed. The formal
investigation is required to organize the investigation committee including external
experts and record detailed process of the investigation and findings. The period of time
for formal investigation varies based on the rules of each university (for example, within
150days after commencement of the formal investigation).
 Sanctions are taken against anyone who is found to have been involved in research
misconduct and against authors who, while not found guilty of misconduct, are found to
have been responsible for the research paper implicated in the misconduct (hereinafter,
“the guilty person”). Measures may be taken against the guilty person either by a funding
agency such as MEXT by the university or research institution to which he belongs or by
the publishing company which has published the relevant article on their journal.
o The suspect was charged with criminal offense, sent to the court and received a
prison sentence in the Eric Poehlman case. In Baltimore case, secret service of the
federal government investigated. Some research misconduct cases were actually
investigated as criminal offenses and judged at the court.
 In order to determine that research misconduct has definitely been committed, it is
necessary to find out whether it occurred intentionally or not.

 If the accused person wishes to clear his name of suspicion, he must bear responsibility
for producing scientific evidence proving that the research was conducted using valid
scientific methods and practices, and these papers are only a reflection of the research
results. When accounting for his research the accused person fails to produce critical
evidence that ought to exist (e.g., if there is missing raw data, experiment/observation
notes, experiment materials or reagents) and cannot justify this lack of evidence,
misconduct will be deemed to have taken place.
Notification and Report of Investigation Results
 When research misconduct has been alleged for a study funded by competitive funding,
once the preliminary investigation is completed and the main investigation has
proceeded, the university or research institution leading the investigation is to report this
fact to the funding organization and the overseeing authority such as MEXT or the
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare.
 As soon as the main investigation is finalized, the university or research institution
notifies the whistleblower and the accused person of its findings. If the accused person
belongs to an institution other than where the investigation is conducted, the
investigation’s findings is notified to the accused’s institution.
 Also the university or research institution reports the investigation’s findings promptly to
the funding organization and the overseeing authority such as MEXT or the Ministry of
Health, Labour and Welfare.

 Furthermore, if the whistleblower is found to have maliciously brought false allegations,

the university or research institution also notifies the whistleblower’s institution of this
fact.
Protection and Rights of Whistleblowers and Accused
 Research institutions have the responsibility to take steps to protect those who have been
accused of misconduct as well as those who have made the allegations. They are also
called upon to create a working environment where details of allegations can be kept
confidential and anyone who wishes to make an allegation in good conscience can claim
without fear of retaliation.
 The fact that an allegation has been made should never in itself be used as grounds for
 disadvantageous treatment such as termination of the research project in question. It is
important that maintaining complete confidentiality surrounding allegations in order to
protect the rights of the accused individual.
 Also where misconduct is deemed to have occurred, research institutions are required to
inform the accused promptly that an allegation has been made, must disclose details of
the allegation and the evidence (such as data) which it is based on and must give the
accused persons an opportunity to rebut the allegation.

 If the investigation finds that misconduct has occurred, a period must be set aside for the
accused to deliver their appeal. The Guidelines also lay out procedures in which appeals
should be reviewed.
Sanctions
 When someone is found guilty of research misconduct, measures can be taken by the
funding agency, by the institution of where the person belongs (or used to belong to) or
by the academic publisher that published the paper.
 In the U.S., when, research misconduct has been committed, federal regulations require
the institution in question to impose sanctions on this research misconduct as a result of
adjudication, although the regulations do not delineate strictly what those sanctions have
to be. Funding agencies may issue sanctions in addition to by the institution.
 The ORI releases a report for the cases of research misconduct with a guilty finding in
the Federal Register, ORI Newsletter, ORI Annual Report and the ORI web site. In
addition, the findings appear in the NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts and in the media.
The PHS may also impose administrative sanctions.[15]
 In Japan, as soon as it is determined that research misconduct has been committed, the
person who is found guilty will be ordered to stop using competitive funds provided by
their funding agency and institution. Accused person also faces sanctions in accordance
with the internal rules of their institution and are ordered to withdraw the offending paper
or academic publication. The results of the investigation are made public including the
name of the institution to which the guilty person belongs and details of the misconduct.
Although the 2006 MEXT Guidelines indicated that the name of the guilty person was to
be made public, the 2014 Guidelines have no specific instructions on this matter and
leave it up to the internal rules of the university or research institution in question.
Whether to identify the guilty person by name is decided on a case-by-case basis in
practice.
 The funding agency will review the case while considering such elements as how serious
and flagrant the misconduct is, how much deeper each of the committed persons is
involved and what position of these persons at the time of misconduct, and then
determine what sanctions should be imposed on these persons. The funding agency will
decide specific sanctions such as termination of research funds, claiming a refund of
research funds or temporal suspension of the person’s eligibility to submit an application
for competitive funds.

 The academic publisher which published the paper can, acting under advisement from an
 organization such as the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE), come to its own
conclusion as to whether or not misconduct occurred. Publishers often wait until the
university or research institution in question has already released its investigation report
before their own determination. However, investigations often take for a long time and it
is not unusual for publishers to take action without waiting for the report. The publisher
often reaches the same conclusion as the university or research institution and sometimes
differ. As a circumstances, if the academic publisher determines that there has been
research misconduct, it responds by either retracting the paper in question or issuing an
expression of concern. When finding the paper contained a mistake, it may issue a
correction.
Appropriate Handling of Allegations, Whistleblowers and Accused Persons

Dealing with Allegations

 In the Guidelines (Revised 2014 Edition), MEXT stipulates that all relevant institutions
(not only MEXT and the universities and research institutions and also funding agencies
such as the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) and the Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science (JSPS)) should have appropriate measures to protect
whistleblowers who attempt to expose research misconduct and to keep details of their
allegations confidential.
 Here is a summary of the main points covered in Section 3.2 of the Guidelines (Revised
2014 Edition), “Dealing with Allegations”:[2]
o In principal, whistleblowers should identify themselves by name and should make
the allegation directly to the offices of the research institution or funding agency
in question. Depending on the nature of the allegation, sometimes anonymous
allegations may be processed the same way as non-anonymous allegations.
o If necessary, the research institution or funding agency that receives the allegation
is to pass it on to another suitable organization.
o Even if an incident is reported as a matter for consultation rather than as an
allegation, the research institution or funding agency confirms whether the person
making the report intends for it to be treated as an allegation with reasonable
grounds.
o When a research institution or funding agency receives an allegation or
consultation over a potential incident of specific research misconduct (or
potential involvement in such an incident), it examines and verifies carefully the
allegation or report and, when there is finding on reasonable grounds, issue a
warning to the accused person.

o In all of the above situations, the name of the whistleblower and the details of the
allegation are certainly kept confidential.
Dealing with Whistleblowers and Accused Persons
 Here is a summary of the main points covered in Section 3.3 of the Guidelines (Revised
2014 Edition), “Dealing with Whistleblowers and Accused Persons”:[2]
o Any allegations must be kept confidential and no one, other than the member of
 staff in charge, has access to either the details of the allegation and the identity of
the whistleblower.
o Until the results of the investigation are made public, all measures shall be taken
to keep the allegation reported to the offices of the institution and the details of
the investigation confidential. If the investigation is leaked, the institution can
offer a public explanation provided that the whistleblower and the accused have
given their consent (their consent is not necessary if they leak the investigation).
o To prevent malicious allegations, students and researchers are to be made well
aware of the following facts:
 Allegations are made non-anonymously in principal.
 Allegations of misconduct must be backed with scientifically valid
reasons.
 Whistleblowers may be expected to cooperate in the investigation.
 If a malicious allegation is found, the whistleblower may be identified
publicly or subject to disciplinary action or criminal charges.
o Provided that the allegation is not found to have been made maliciously, the
research institution or funding agency must not use it as grounds to treat the
whistleblower disadvantageously and it must not treat the accused person
disadvantageously only because an allegation has been brought against him
without reasonable grounds.
 The following data from the U.S. illustrates clearly why procedures, as described above,
are necessary. According to a 1995 study commissioned by the ORI, more than two-
thirds of all whistleblowers reported experiencing at least one negative outcome as a
direct result of their whistleblowing.[11] Those experiences included facing counter-
allegations, being ostracized by colleagues, threats of lawsuits, and so on. Of the
whistleblowers who did not experience a negative consequence as a result of coming
forward, more than 90% said that they would do so again. Surprisingly, 75% of those
who did suffer a negative outcome from reporting an allegation of misconduct also said
that they would do so again.

 Since the results of this report have been clarified, many universities and research
institutions have established procedures to protect the rights of whistleblowers in the
United States. The PHS’s Policies on Research Misconduct require institutions to protect
whistleblowers, witnesses and members of inquiry and investigation committees.[12]
The 2006’s ORI report describes how to deal with individuals who report allegations of
research misconduct. It examines the legal framework, the role of individuals who report
allegations and the responsibilities of institutions and the ORI in an effort to provide
guidance for handling the allegations effectively.[13]
Guidelines for Whistleblowers of Research Misconduct
 Universities, research institutions and funding agencies have points of contact
 specifically for processing allegations of research misconduct. These also provide
information on matters such as how to handle new allegations, the investigation system,
investigation methods, identification of research misconduct, how to handle investigation
results and complaints and the disclosure of investigation results.

 In Japan, those who make allegations of research misconduct are considered to come
under the protection of the guidelines and other policies issued by administrative
agencies. In fact, whistleblowers are often subject to unfavorable and unpleasant
treatment. Anyone thinking of making an allegation should read through the code of
research ethics of the university or research institution carefully as well as materials such
as the MEXT Guidelines quoted above and proceed with caution.
 Michael Kalichman from the University of California, San Diego, has provided some
useful guidelines about general considerations when making allegations of misconduct.
[14] They can be summarized as follows:

Documentation: When making an allegation of research misconduct, clear documentation

of who did what, and when they did it, is crucially important.

Perspective: Possible whistleblowers should seek guidance before making allegations of

research misconduct. It appears to be a serious action but could be a misunderstanding. It
is appropriate to talk to peers, senior researchers or an ombudsperson.[14]

 As soon as someone is involved in a research misconduct allegation, that person should

review institutional policies and procedures on the issue. The whistleblower is required
to understand what is research misconduct, who should be apprised of the allegation,
what constitutes evidence for or against an allegation, how to obtain the evidence who
will review the allegation, what the whistleblower’s role will be, and how long the
process is expected to take.

 It is also useful to learn from blogs and books about actual cases of research misconduct.
Questionable Research Practices

Apart from the specific research misconduct identified by MEXT such as, fabrication,
falsification and plagiarism, there are also other conduct “questionable research practices”
(QRPs): which is research practices that seems to fall into an ethical gray area. These practices
vary in acceptability depending on the field, country, culture and period.[16] Although it cannot
consider as clear breaches of research ethics, there is likely to be distinguished criticism from the
laboratory, collaborating researchers and research colleagues.

Here are some examples of QRPs:

 Failure to record correctly the research process and results in research notes (including
electronic files).
 Failure to store research notes, important research data or research materials for the
designated period.
  Failure to store records of already published research or research records that may be
useful to other researchers to be able to refer at later date.
 Naming someone as contributing author even though he did not contribute to the research
results (gift authorship).
 Failure to name someone as contributing author even though he contributed to the
research results (ghost authorship).
 Refusing to provide research notes, important research data or research materials for use
in an investigation into research misconduct. In this case, the refusal itself is likely to be
considered a form of research misconduct.
 Failure of research supervisors to give adequate guidance to students and graduate
students.
 Exploitation of a student’s or graduate student’s data or research results by the
laboratory’s research supervisor.
 Failure to cite previous studies properly.

To become a trustful graduate student or researcher, one should stay away from not only
research misconduct but also QRPs. Although these practices could maintain by improving the
research environment, research ethics of the research supervisor’s or the university’s or research
institution’s system for research fairness is often insufficient. Therefore, it is important that the
individual graduate students and researchers who are involved in research have to find their own
way to improve their thought, knowledge and skills.

Conclusion
 Research misconduct is problem in the community of not only graduate students and
researchers but also the general public. If prophylactic methods, therapeutic drugs or
methods for surgery are determined based on fabricated or falsified data, a considerable
number of people will face health hazards. Also if researchers accumulate their research
efforts based on fabricated or falsified data, it will end up in vain. This is a complete
waste of research funds and competence and time of graduate students or researchers
which could even lead to decline industries related to science and technology. Plagiarism
destroys the intellectual property system and creative activities.
 Graduate students and researchers are generally keen to produce significant research
results, the best results could end up being ignored if the researcher is not trusted by
other peers. Moreover, people of the general public will lose trust in graduate students
and researchers, and as a result, they may not willingly accept research results being
obtained even if they are absolutely remarkable and useful for people. Brilliant young
people may not even think of becoming a researcher.
 Graduate students and researchers must become familiar with not only their research
field but also matters surrounding research misconduct. It is especially important for
graduate students and researchers to promote dialog on research misconduct with others,
learn about differences skills, history, regulations and customs regarding research
 misconduct between countries.

 Research misconduct can have devastating consequences to all of the involved. Errors in
the literature might be eventually fixed, but a tarnished reputation wouldn’t disappear.
Graduate students and researchers must be diligent to avoid any research practice or habit
that represents questionable integrity or ethics.