Defining recklessness in research misconduct proceedings

To find research misconduct in research that has been supported by federal funds, an institution must determine that the misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. Intentional and knowing are straightforward standards. Yet reckless often mystifies institutions, which struggle to assess whether a respondent's conduct should be deemed reckless, or merely negligent. This difficulty is most pronounced when allegations are lodged against the author under whose supervision the primary research was conducted - most often, the senior and/or corresponding author of a published paper who may not have been directly involved in performing the experiments or preparing the data under scrutiny. In these situations, investigation committees and the institutional deciding official must assess whether the supervising scientist is guilty of research misconduct - based on the theory that their supervision of the research and development of the publication containing falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized information was reckless - even if that person did not perform the experiment or assemble the research records in question. This paper seeks to provide a framework for evaluating the circumstances in which past supervisory conduct should be deemed reckless and thus a basis on which a finding of research misconduct may be made.

Automated summary

This paper discusses the issue of discovering research misconduct in research supported by federal funds, particularly when allegations are made against the primary research supervisor. It proposes a framework for evaluating whether past supervisory conduct should be considered reckless.