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:
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 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 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: 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. Research Misconduct Fabrication Falsification Plagiarism Additional References: The process for reviewing allegations is as follows:Research Misconduct
Definitions
Process
Back to Tabs
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.
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’
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.
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: 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 InformationDetrimental Research Practices
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.Investigation Support for Research Noncompliance
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 InformationGrant Disputes/Departmental Support
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 InformationRCR Training
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:
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.