INTRODUCTION TO RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH

1. Shared values

There are, however, some important shared values for the responsible conduct of research that bind all researchers together, such as:
HONESTY — conveying information truthfully and honoring commitments,
ACCURACY — reporting findings precisely and taking care to avoid errors,
EFFICIENCY — using resources wisely and avoiding waste, and
OBJECTIVITY — letting the facts speak for themselves and avoiding improper. 
Research misconduct policies provide guidance on responsible conduct in three areas. They are: 
(1) establish definitions for misconduct in research, 
(2) outline procedures for reporting and investigating misconduct, and 
(3) provide protection for whistleblowers (persons who report misconduct) and persons accused of misconduct.

Federal Policy on Research Misconduct

Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. Research misconduct does not include differences of opinion.

2. Planning research

2.1. The Protection of Human Subject
2.2. The Welfare of Laboratory Animals
2.3. Conflicts of Interest (finance, commitment, intellectual) 

3. Conducting research

3.1. Data management practices (ownership, collection, protection, sharing)
3.2. Mentor and Trainee responsibilities
Common sense suggests that good mentoring should begin with:

a commitment to maintain a productive and supportive research environment,
a clear understanding of mutual responsibilities,
proper supervision and review, and
an understanding that the main purpose of the relationship is to prepare trainees to become successful researchers.


3.3. Collorative research  

4. Reporting and Reviewing research 

4.1. Authorship
All forms of publication should present:

a full and fair description of the work undertaken,
an accurate report of the results, and
an honest and open assessment of the findings.


In assessing the completeness of any publications, researchers should ask whether they have described:

what they did (methods),
what they discovered (results), and
what they make of their discovery (discussion).


Authorship is generally limited to individuals who make significant contributions to the work that is reported. This includes anyone who:

participated in drafting the publication, and
was intimately involved in the conception and design of the research,
assumed responsibility for data collection and interpretation,
approved the final version of the publication.


4.2. Practices that should be avoided
Honorary authorship. 
The practice of listing undeserving authors on publications, called “honorary” authorship, is widely condemned and in the extreme considered by some to constitute a form of research misconduct. However, common agreement notwithstanding, honorary authorship is a significant problem in research publication today.

Salami publication. 
Salami publication (sometimes called bologna or trivial publication) is the practice of dividing one significant piece of research into a number of small experiments (least publishable units or LPUs), simply to increase the number of publications. Researchers therefore should avoid trivial or salami publication.

Duplicate publication. 
Duplicate publication is the practice of publishing the same information a second time without acknowledging the first publication. This practice not only wastes time and resources but can also distort the research record and endanger public health.

Premature public statements. 
Academic or scholarly publication practices are designed to assure that the information conveyed to broader audiences through these practices is accurate and fairly presented. While the system is not foolproof and erroneous or biased information is from time to time published, standard publication practices do serve an important quality control role in research.
4.3. Peer review—evaluation by colleagues with similar knowledge and experience—is an essential component of research and the self-regulation of professions.

Peer reviewers have an obligation to preserve confidentiality during the review process if they have been asked to do so and it is not acceptable to do any of the following without getting permission:

discuss grant proposals or manuscripts you are reviewing with colleagues in your department or at a professional meeting;
ask students or anyone else to conduct a review you were asked to do;
use an idea or information contained in a grant proposal or unpublished manuscript before it becomes publicly available;
retain a copy of the reviewed material (generally manuscripts and grant proposals should be shredded or returned after the review is complete); and
discuss personnel and hiring decisions with colleagues who are not part of the review process.