This commentary sheet relates to the Research Integrity and Human Research Ethics matters that should inform our decisions about hiring, promotions and recognition. They relate to more than publishing in prestigious journals and securing large grants. It needs to be about ethics, responsible conduct, collegiality and research culture. Researchers is can’t be superstars if they are bullies, sexual harasses, charlatans or cheats. Basing our processes those considerations isn’t easy, but it ensures are institutions will become a productive pipeline for future research leaders.
In this commentary sheet we discuss what some have termed ‘soft misconduct’ and five ways in which institutions can deal with them. Others have reasonably observed that they are just research misconduct and should be investigated and punished as such. While this might indeed be the case, until national research integrity codes (such as the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research) list these behaviours as being research misconduct, institutions will need to deal with them with their own policies and procedures.
An institution that doesn’t have a mechanism where individuate can make complaints/make allegations where the identity of complaints will be protected or a mechanism where individuals can make anonymous complaints/make allegations, are begging for passive-aggressive behaviour, though not quite as humorous as this Don Mayne cartoon. This is Research Integrity Commentary Sheet is available for download by our Patrons.
This great print-ready infographic describes the small slips that can send you tumbling toward research misconduct.
It is an Australian modification of a resource produced by ORI.
A useful handout for a research integrity workshop. And a constructive addition to your Research Integrity Resource Library..
A recommended prompt for all researchers.