ABSTRACT

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.

Minal M. Caron, Sarah B. Dohan, Mark Barnes & Barbara E. Bierer (2023) Defining “recklessness” in research misconduct proceedings, Accountability in Research, DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2256650

Publisher (Open Access): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621.2023.2256650