Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Improving the scientific misconduct hearing process

D M Parrish1

  • 1Titus & McConomy, Pittsburgh, Pa 15222-1207, USA.

JAMA
|April 23, 1997
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Scientific misconduct and correcting the scientific literature.

Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges·1999
Same author

Falsification of credentials in the research setting; scientific misconduct?

The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics·1996
Same author

Image communications. What is needed and why.

Applied radiology·1985
Same author

Characteristics of a professional nursing practice climate: a survey.

The Journal of nursing administration·1981
Same journal

WHO Issues Guidelines for Treating Ebola and Marburg Viruses.

JAMA·2026
Same journal

FDA Approves Additional Naloxone Nasal Spray for Opioid Overdose.

JAMA·2026
Same journal

HIV May Hide in More Cells Than Previously Thought-Here's What That Could Mean for a Cure.

JAMA·2026
Same journal

US Dietary Supplement Use Increasing, Especially in Older Adults.

JAMA·2026
Same journal

Heat Stress From Climate Change Surges Globally.

JAMA·2026
Same journal

Strength Training Linked With Lower Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Women.

JAMA·2026
See all related articles

The Office of Research Integrity

Area of Science:

  • Scientific misconduct and research integrity policy.

Background:

  • Recent reversals of Office of Research Integrity (ORI) scientific misconduct findings raise concerns about its effectiveness.
  • ORI investigations are lengthy and costly, yet often fail to substantiate findings at the hearing level.
  • Both whistleblowers and accused individuals criticize the current hearing process for its inefficiency and protracted nature.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To examine the inherent problems within the current scientific misconduct hearing process.
  • To propose improvements to enhance the efficacy and fairness of scientific misconduct adjudications.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of the existing scientific misconduct hearing procedures.
  • Review of criticisms from whistleblowers and accused parties.
  • Examination of the challenges faced by ORI, institutions, and individuals in proving misconduct.
Keywords:
Biomedical and Behavioral ResearchCommission on Research IntegrityDepartmental Appeals Board (DHHS)Office of Research IntegrityResearch Integrity Adjudications Panel (DHHS)

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • The current hearing process presents significant obstacles to proving scientific misconduct.
  • Substantial resources invested by ORI do not guarantee successful substantiation of findings.
  • The process is perceived as burdensome and lengthy by all involved parties.

Conclusions:

  • The scientific misconduct hearing process requires fundamental reform.
  • Reforming the process by involving administrative law judges, patent attorneys, and a scientific majority could improve outcomes.
  • Proposed changes aim to increase the fairness, efficiency, and reliability of scientific misconduct determinations.