Research Integrity

Research integrity is crucial for maintaining the credibility and trustworthiness of scientific research conducted at the University. Therefore, all aspects of the research life cycle must maintain the highest academic and ethical standards to protect the research record, our faculty and the University.

 

The Research Integrity division conducts assessments and investigations, as well as consultations and mediations, within the UM  research community to support a collaborative and compliant environment. Below are the main areas of focus for research integrity:

  • Research Misconduct
  • Detrimental Research Practices
  • Research Noncompliance Investigations
  • Authorship and Peer Review
  • Grant Disputes/Departmental Support
  • Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Training

Communication is Key

The Research Integrity division offers confidential consultation services in support of the University’s research mission.  Collaborations of any kind, whether internal or external, can become unstable and have negative effects on the research.  We are here to provide impartial advice based on regulatory and institutional compliance and professional courtesy and respect.

Contact Information

University Hotline

UM’s hotline to report concerns (online or telephone) related to violations of policies and procedures, rules and regulations, or other irregularities/improprieties. The University Hotline is hosted by EthicsPoint, a third-party provider, which forwards all reports to the University on a confidential and anonymous basis, if requested.

Research Misconduct

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.

Honest error and differences of opinion are not research misconduct.

Policy

  • The Policies and Procedures Relating to Allegations of Misconduct in Research can be found in the Faculty Manual.

Who Handles Research Misconduct?

The University of Miami is committed to upholding integrity in research by addressing and resolving allegations of research misconduct. These processes are guided by the Office of the Vice Provost for Research & Scholarship (OVPRS) and involve collaboration with faculty, staff, and students to ensure fairness and transparency.

Although relatively rare, research misconduct occurs at all universities, including UM.  Federal regulations and UM policies have been created to ensure that allegations of misconduct are managed in a way that is as fair, consistent, timely, and efficient as possible, while taking appropriate precautions to protect the privacy of the parties involved and the integrity of the process.  For this to happen, all allegations or concerns related to research misconduct must be investigated by trained and experienced staff.  At UM, the office responsible is the Office of the Vice Provost for Research. 

Dr. Maria Alcaide is the Vice Provost for Research & Scholarship and the University’s Research Integrity Officer (RIO).  The RIO is required to administer UM’s policy relating to allegations of research misconduct. 

If you have an allegation or concern related to research misconduct, or if you are unsure whether research misconduct may be involved, please contact the OVPRS via the following methods:

Contact Information:

  • Dr. Maria Alcaide, VPRS & Research Integrity Officer: (305) 243-9635; malcaide@miami.edu
  • Dr. Alberto Caban-Martinez; Associate Vice-Provost for 2RISE: (305) 243-3365; acaban-martinez@miami.edu
  • Mr. Jerry Engel, Research Integrity Officer: (305) 243-4054; jengel@miami.edu

University Hotline:

UM’s University Hotline to report concerns related to violations of policies and procedures, rules and regulations, or other irregularities/improprieties. The University Hotline is hosted by EthicsPoint, a third-party provider, which forwards all reports to the University on a confidential and anonymous basis, if requested.

Definitions

Research Misconduct

  • Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
  • Honest error and differences of opinion do not research misconduct.

Fabrication

  • Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
  • Fabrication occurs when false data is incorporated into the official study notebook, submitted to a funding agency, or publicly disseminated through the process of publication, patent application, or at a public forum such as a professional meeting, seminar, or symposium, regardless of whether the data is subsequently published or not.
  • Some examples include:
    • Completing a questionnaire for a fictitious subject that was never interviewed. Refer to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Research Integrity’s site: Can Survey Research Staff Commit Research Misconduct?
    • Creating a data set for an experiment that was never actually conducted
    • Reuse of western blots or other experimental data
    • Adding fictitious data to a real data set collected during an actual experiment for the purpose of providing additional statistical validity
    • Inserting a clinical note into the research record to indicate compliance with an element of the protocol 

Falsification

  • 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.
  • Some examples include:
    • Altering data to render a modification of the variances in the data
    • Falsifying dates and experimental procedures in the study notebook
    • Misrepresenting results from statistical analysis
    • Misrepresenting the methods of an experiment such as the model (e.g., cell line) used to conduct the experiment
    • Falsifying the times that blood samples were drawn from human subjects

Plagiarism

  • Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
  • Authorship disputes are not within the definition of plagiarism.  Please go to the “Authorship & Peer Review” Tab for more information.
  • Some examples include:
    • Copying verbatim text without proper attribution
    • Intentionally failing to cite someone else’s work, to claim that the ideas and words belong to you

Additional References:

Process

The process for reviewing allegations is as follows:

  1. Allegation Received  Allegation means a disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of The disclosure may be by written or oral statement or other communication to an institutional official. Allegations of misconduct should normally be directed to the VPRS or designee. Others who receive an allegation of misconduct should immediately forward it to the VPRS.
  2. Assessment Stage – The VPRS will request an assessment by her designees of all allegations to determine if an inquiry is warranted.
    Assessment Standard - An inquiry is warranted if the VPRS determines that the allegation: (1) falls within the definition of research misconduct; and (2) is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of possible research misconduct may be identified.
  3. Inquiry Stage - An inquiry is an information gathering and initial fact finding process to determine if a formal investigation of misconduct should be The inquiry review may be conducted by the RIO or designated institutional official (collectively, “the RIO”) with the caveat that if needed, these individuals may utilize one or more subject matter experts to assist them in the inquiry.
    Inquiry Standard - An investigation is warranted if there is:(1) a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct; and (2) preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding from the inquiry indicates that the allegation may have substance’
  4. Investigation Stage - If findings from the inquiry provide a sufficient basis for conducting an investigation, the VPRS will initiate an investigation within 30 days following receipt of the Inquiry report. An investigation means the formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record leading to a decision either to make a finding that research misconduct was not shown or to recommend a finding of research misconduct; the latter finding may include a recommendation for appropriate actions, including administrative actions.
    Investigation Standard – A finding of research misconduct requires a determination by the Committee by an eighty percent (80%) majority vote that:(1) there was a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community;(2) the misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and (3) the allegation was proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
Back to Tabs

Detrimental Research Practices

Efforts to distinguish Detrimental Research Practices (DRPs) from traditional Research Misconduct were made by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Policy and Global Affairs; Committee on Science, Engineering, Medicine, and Public Policy; Committee on Responsible Science. Published in “Fostering Research in Integrity” (2017)

In short, DRPs are those while not rising to the level of research misconduct* still threaten the integrity of the research and researchers.

*Falsification, fabrication and plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.

Here is a short list of DRPs intending to stimulate the understanding because no exhaustive list could be created:

  • Detrimental authorship practices that may not be considered misconduct, such as honorary authorship, demanding authorship in return for access to previously collected data or materials, or denying authorship to those who deserve to be designated as authors;
  • Not retaining or making data, code, or other information/materials underlying research results available as specified in institutional or sponsor policies, or standard practices in the field;
  • Neglectful or exploitative supervision in research;
  • Misleading statistical analysis that falls short of falsification;
  • Inadequate institutional policies, procedures, or capacity to foster research integrity and address research misconduct allegations, and deficient implementation of policies and procedures; and
  • Abusive or irresponsible publication practices by journal editors and peer reviewers.

There has been a documented rise in research misconduct, and it is believed the same is true for DRPs, so it is up to all researchers to maintain the highest standards of integrity in all aspects of their research.

Contact Information

Investigation Support for Research Noncompliance

The Research Integrity division provides investigative support to all divisions within 2RISE when UM is notified of a potential noncompliance issue.

Being an investigative division allows us to provide our expertise when assessing potential noncompliance, while the specific division maintains leadership over the matter.

Grant Disputes/Departmental Support

The Research Integrity division provides mediation support upon request to all departments and centers at UM when any issue arises that could hamper UM’s research.

Sometimes it is beneficial for an independent party to help find a needed solution.

Contact Information

RCR Training

The Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) is defined by the NIH as scientific investigation with integrity, applying ethical principles and professional norms. The University of Miami trains researchers through foundational and advanced RCR education, including standardized modules and face-to-face sessions, to ensure compliance with federal agency policies.

Responsible Conduct of Research Training

Contact Information

University of Miami Authorship Guidelines

Authorship has important implications and carries substantial responsibilities. Authorship of books and journal articles is used in evaluation of scholars for jobs, promotions, grants/fellowships, and awards. In turn, authors are those who can be assigned responsibility both for the accuracy of published data and conclusions and for any ethical or scientific concerns that arise; they may also own or control data, tissues, reagents and other scientific materials discussed in the published work.

As commonly understood, an author is someone who is an originator of a novel written work. In scholarly journals and other outlets for scholarly publication, an author is understood as someone who has made a substantial intellectual contribution to the published work.

These guidelines cover authorship in books, scientific journals, conference proceedings, published abstracts, scientific posters, grant proposals, and other scholarly works.

Although efforts have been made to be as general in scope as possible, it must be acknowledged that the guidelines outlined below are most clearly relevant to scholarly works in STEM or social science fields, and do not account for all differences in practices in different scholarly fields.

Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in scholarly works is prohibited, as are the practices known as “guest authorship”, “courtesy authorship”, and “ghost authorship” (or ghostwriting). Criteria for authorship can be summarized as follows:

  • Authorship should be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design of research, or to the gathering, analysis or interpretation of data; 2) drafting or reviewing the work for intellectual content; and 3) approval of the final version to be published. Authors should meet each of the 3 criteria. Acquisition/provision of funding, collection of data, supervision of the research group, or occupation of a leadership position (e.g., department chair) does not, by itself, suffice for authorship.
  • When a large group is involved, the members should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript. Each of these individuals should meet the 3 criteria for authorship defined above. When submitting a manuscript authored by a group, the lead/corresponding author should identify all individual authors as well as the group name, if applicable.
  • All persons named as authors should qualify for authorship, and all persons who qualify should be listed as authors.
  • Each author should have sufficient knowledge of the work to take public responsibility for at least those portions of the work in which they are involved. Where feasible, a summary of author contributions (e.g., conceived and designed research, performed research, analyzed results, wrote initial draft, edited manuscript) should be clearly and explicitly listed in the publication. One useful taxonomy can be found in the CRedIT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) system developed by the Consortium Advancing Standards in Research Administration Information (CASRAI).
  • Those who contribute to the research in a published work but who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgments. Examples include persons who provided purely technical help (such as performing experiments under direction), writing assistance, or financial support. If assistance is provided with study design, data collection or analysis, or preparation of the manuscript, the authors should disclose the identities of the individuals who provided such assistance and the entity providing financial support for this assistance (if any) in the Acknowledgements. Individuals, such as students, fellows, and research assistants, who provide substantial technical support for the research should be given the opportunity to contribute intellectually as well, so as to qualify for authorship. Persons and groups who have made substantial contributions to the work may be acknowledged under categories such as “participating investigators,” and their functions or contributions should be described—for example, “provided advice on study design”, “critically reviewed the initial proposal”, “provided technical assistance”, or “enrolled study participants.” Persons listed in the Acknowledgements should be asked for permission to be listed, since acknowledgement of contributions to an article may imply agreement with or endorsement of the work’s findings or conclusions. If these persons have left the institution and are not reachable by the other authors, they may be acknowledged upon agreement by the senior author(s).

Decisions about inclusion/exclusion of authors, and their listed order in the published work, should be made jointly by the authors. A person may refuse to be listed as an author despite having made substantial intellectual contributions; this however may not be done deliberately to subvert the prohibition on “ghost authorship” described below.

Discussions about authorship and author order should occur as early in the research process as feasible, to reduce the probability of later disputes. These discussions should be re-opened when required by changes to the direction or scope of the project. The “lead” (senior or corresponding) author(s) should lead authorship discussions.

Note that when a publication is substantially based on the work comprising a student’s dissertation, the student should be the primary author. Each research group leader should ensure that each member of the research team understands the group's authorship policies and practices. This information should ideally be conveyed in writing at the time that a person joins the research group.

When disputes about author inclusion or author order arise, they should be handled by consensus among the group of authors, or, if necessary, by disinterested individuals chosen as mediators by the group; e.g., the consult service offered by the Miller School of Medicine Institute for Bioethics & Health Policy.

If the mediators selected by the author group cannot provide a resolution acceptable to the group, the dispute should be brought to research leadership for review and advice. Final decisions about authorship, where disagreement still exists, are made by the senior author(s).

The practice of “ghost authorship” or “ghostwriting”, in which a person who has made substantial intellectual contributions to the writing of a submitted article is not listed as an author, is prohibited.

People who make substantial intellectual contributions to the writing of a manuscript should be allowed to approve the final version and thus to qualify for authorship.

The practice of “guest authorship” or “courtesy authorship”, in which a person is listed as an author despite failing to meet the criteria for authorship, is prohibited.

As with all research-related work, fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in the writing of grant proposals is prohibited. “Self-plagiarism”, in which investigators “re-cycle” their own writing (previously used in other documents) may be acceptable in grant proposals.

Data, written material, or figures originated by or obtained from individuals who are not members of the research team may not be used in a grant proposal without explicit written permission from (and acknowledgement of) the individuals who originated the work.

Agreements about who will be Principal Investigator(s), Co-Investigators, unpaid collaborators/consultants, etc. and their (paid and unpaid) efforts should be joint decisions of the investigators involved. Discussions about these issues should occur as early as possible in the grant writing process.

Submittal of the same or substantially similar grant proposals to more than one funding agency is permissible, as long as 1) this is permitted by each of the involved funding agencies; 2) this is made clear in any “Other Support” sections of the relevant grant proposals; and 3) agencies are notified of any scientific/financial overlap in grant funding by the time of award(s).

In the case of “limited submissions”, where there are limits on the number of proposals that may be submitted by the University or an individual school, investigators must make clear at the time of the competition whether they plan to submit a substantially similar grant to a different agency.

It is inappropriate to submit the same or a substantially similar manuscript to more than one outlet at the same time, unless this practice is explicitly permitted or is disclosed and agreed to by each outlet.

Authors should therefore wait until a review decision has been made before submittal to a different outlet.

Editors generally assume that they are being given an exclusive opportunity to review and publish, which is necessary to avoid the possibility that they go to the trouble and expense of reviewing an article that is then withdrawn and published elsewhere

Various pressures have been known to lead some scholars to attempt to publish the same or a substantially similar document more than once – in different journals and/or under different titles.

If this is done with the intent to inflate a scholar’s curriculum vitae (CV), or otherwise deceive supervisors, reviewers, or readers, it is inappropriate, constitutes research misconduct, and may also constitute a copyright violation.

If a journal or book editor wants to include a closely related version of a previously published document, this may be permissible if it is adequately disclosed to readers and documented as such on the author’s CV.

Guidelines by John L. Bixby, PhD, revised January 24, 2020. These guidelines, in part, closely adhere to principles developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Editing help and important suggestions were contributed by Kenneth Goodman, Reid Cushman, Richard Bookman, Douglas Anderson, Mary Moore, Susan Morgan, Ali Mosser, Rebecca Adkins, and Cindy Augustyn.

Scientific Peer Review: What to do (and not do)

Accordion Group

Do

Open All Tabs
  • Principal Investigator

    • Disclose all potential conflicts about reviewers in your grant application (including, but not limited to, all individuals who reviewed or communicated about your application)
    • Know all rules, regulations, policies and requirements regarding the review process
    • Contact the appropriate individual (e.g., SRO for NIH) about any potential inappropriate communications or conflicts not disclosed in the application

  • Reviewer

    • Complete and submit your conflict of interest form and/or disclose all potential conflicts. Conflicts may include:
      • Serving as PI or key personnel on an application under review
      • The potential to receive a direct or indirect financial benefit
      • An employee of the PI or institution of an application
      • Applications that include professional associates or personal relationships
      • Appearance of a conflict
    • Keep all grant applications and materials strictly confidential
    • Notify the appropriate individual if you discover additional conflicts once you begin your review
    • Immediately disclose any inappropriate communications such as request for a favorable review
    • Leave the room prior to any discussion for an application in which you are in conflict
    • Destroy or return all documents as instructed or required

Don't

Open All Tabs
  • Principal Investigator

    • Contact reviewers on the study section reviewing your application to request or provide information about the review
    • Attempt to influence the outcome of the review or reviewer(s)
    • Send information or data directly to a reviewer
    • Attempt to access information reviewed to the review of the application

  • Reviewer

    • Discuss the grant application with anyone outside of the review panel – before, during or after the meeting
    • Discuss the grant applications with review panel members before the meeting
    • Bring up concerns of scientific misconduct during the review meeting, discuss them privately with the appropriate person (e.g., SRO for NIH)
    • Mention previous scores received by the application or compare an application to another
    • Discuss funding, budget or administrative issues

Standards and Guides

Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest in Publications and Presentations

A guide from our Office of Disclosures and Relationship Management

Integrity and Confidentiality in NIH Peer Review

The National Institutes of Health's extensive resource for reviewers and applicants

Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

The latest guidelines from the Committee on Public Ethics (COPE).
Top