<!DOCTYPE html>

<html data-programme="Research Integrity" data-course="Irresponsible Research Practices">

	<head>
		<title>The impact of irresponsible practice</title>
		<meta charset="UTF-8">
		<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge">
		<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">

		<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/project.min.css">
		<link id="basic-print" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/print.min.css" disabled>
		<link id="summary-print" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/print_interactive.min.css">
	<script type="text/javascript" src="../scripts_scorm_12/SCORM_12_APIWrapper.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="../scripts_scorm_12/courseFunctions.js"></script>
</head>

	<body onLoad="javascript:Initialize();" onUnload="javascript:Terminate();">
	  
		<div id="app" v-cloak>
			<base-container
				screen-id="irp_1_40"
				current-module = "Irresponsible Research Practices"
				page-title = "The impact of irresponsible practice"
				screen-time = "4"
				screen-time-period = "mins">

				<page-container>
					
					<page-row>
						<page-content-main>
							
							<p>The seriousness of an irresponsible practice is often judged on the basis of its impact. Two widely recognised types of intentional misconduct, falsification and fabrication, are seen as particularly serious because they usually invalidate the findings reported. A third widely recognised serious offence, plagiarism, is also significant because it can lead to researchers profiting (through promotions or grants) from work that they did not do themselves.</p>
							<p>However, QRPs can also have a significant impact, the costs of which can mount up quickly.</p>

						</page-content-main>

						<page-content-sidebar>

							<interactive-text>
								<!-- USEFUL LINKS START -->
								<pod variant="a" has-modal="true">
									<pod-heading>Useful links</pod-heading> <!-- pod title -->
									<pod-content></pod-content>
									<!-- pop-up pod content -->
									<pod-modal-heading>Useful links</pod-modal-heading>
									<pod-modal-content>
										<hosted-link id="RI_INT_irp_1_40">
											<p>The impact of misconduct on relationships and reputations:</p>
											<ul>
												<li><a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/09/13/columbia-says-historians-acclaimed-book-north-korea-was-plagiarized-publisher-says" target="_blank">Flaherty, 2019 &ndash; Fake Citations Kill a Career</a></li>
												<li><a href="https://retractionwatch.com/2019/09/17/columbia-historian-stepping-down-after-plagiarism-finding/" target="_blank">Marcus, 2019 &ndash; Columbia Historian Stepping Down after Plagiarism Finding</a></li>
											</ul>
											<p>The cost of errors:</p>
											<ul>
												<li><a href="https://www.nature.com/news/open-access-the-true-cost-of-science-publishing-1.12676" target="_blank">Van Noorden, 2013 &ndash; Open Access: The True Cost of Science Publishing</a></li>
												<li><a href="https://elifesciences.org/articles/02956" target="_blank">Stern <em>et al.</em>, 2014 &ndash; Research: Financial Costs and Personal Consequences of Research Misconduct Resulting in Retracted Publications</a></li>
											</ul>
											<p>The cost of exaggerating (hyping) expected findings:</p>
											<ul>
												<li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3079810/" target="_blank">Djulbegovic <em>et al.</em>, 2011 &ndash; Optimism Bias Leads to Inconclusive Results &ndash; An Empirical Study</a></li>
											</ul>
										</hosted-link>
									</pod-modal-content>
								</pod>
								<!-- USEFUL LINKS END -->
							</interactive-text>

						</page-content-sidebar>

						<page-content-main>

							<instructional-text class="non-interactive-swap-out"><p>The following activity presents examples of misconduct and QRPs. Reflect on each case and select all the answers that you consider to be potential costs of the irresponsible practice. Click "Check Answer" to discover if you were right and read the feedback. You can then click "Next" to proceed to the next example.</p></instructional-text>
							<instructional-text-accessible class="non-interactive-swap-in"><p>The following activity presents examples of misconduct and QRPs. Reflect on each case and select all the answers that you consider to be potential costs of the irresponsible practice. Continue on to the feedback to find out if you are correct. You can then proceed to the next example.</p></instructional-text-accessible>
							
						</page-content-main>
					</page-row>
					
					<page-row>
						<page-content-wide>
							
							<!-- ACTIVITY START -->
							<process restart="true" score="true" variant="mcq" show-in-accessible-version="false" class="non-interactive-swap-out">
								<process-page>
									<mcq allow-multiple-selections="true" reveal-correct-answer="true">
										<mcq-question>
											<h4>The impact of misconduct on relationships and reputations</h4>
											<p>In 2015, a prize-winning history book had to be corrected because the author plagiarised a significant portion of the book from another author and then concealed the plagiarism by fabricating references. As a result, the book prize was returned, the publisher had to correct the book, and the author was eventually asked to retire early (Flaherty, 2019).</p>
											<p><strong>While these are the direct impacts, what are the indirect impacts of a case such as this (select all the answers that apply)?</strong></p>
										</mcq-question>
										<mcq-options>
											<mcq-option correct>
												<mcq-answer><p>The university's reputation could suffer if it was slow to pursue the case or downplayed the seriousness of the misconduct</p></mcq-answer>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option correct>
												<mcq-answer><p>The publisher's reputation could suffer if it was less than candid when it corrected the book</p></mcq-answer>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option correct>
												<mcq-answer><p>Professional relationships could suffer if the author's colleagues disagreed on how seriously the irresponsible behaviour should be taken</p></mcq-answer>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option correct>
												<mcq-answer><p>The public could conclude that professional historians are no more honest than popular history programmes and historical reporting in the news</p></mcq-answer>
											</mcq-option>
										</mcq-options>
										<mcq-feedback>
											<p>In this case, the conduct of both the university and the publisher was questioned (Marcus, 2019).  However, irresponsible behaviour can also have unanticipated impacts on professional relationships and reputations.</p>
										</mcq-feedback>
									</mcq>
								</process-page>
								<process-page>
									<mcq allow-multiple-selections="true" reveal-correct-answer="true">
										<mcq-question>
											<h4>The cost of errors</h4>
											<p>You see a notice in a journal in your field of research stating that "This article has been retracted due to errors in the reported data".</p>
											<p><strong>What would you assume to be the financial cost of detecting and correcting the errors?</strong></p>
										</mcq-question>
										<mcq-options>
											<mcq-option incorrect>
												<mcq-answer><p>Little or no cost</p></mcq-answer>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option correct>
												<mcq-answer><p>Some cost, perhaps a few thousand pounds</p></mcq-answer>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option incorrect>
												<mcq-answer><p>Significant cost, perhaps as much as &pound;20,000</p></mcq-answer>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option incorrect>
												<mcq-answer><p>Very costly, perhaps as much as &pound;1,000,000</p></mcq-answer>
											</mcq-option>
										</mcq-options>
										<mcq-feedback>
											<p>If the error were due to some oversight and reported by the author, the cost would likely be below &pound;10,000 but more than &pound;1,000. Why is this? The average cost to the publisher of producing an article has been estimated to be between US$3,500 and US$4,000 (Van Noorden, 2013). If you add in the cost of reviewing time, the total can easily approach &pound;10,000.</p>
											<p>If the error were due to intentional research misconduct, then there might have been significantly higher costs involved. See the "Useful links" pod for a link to a case (Stern <em>et al.</em>, 2014) demonstrating the substantial financial burden of research misconduct. The costs of irresponsible behaviour can add up quickly and waste funds that could otherwise be spent on useful research.</p>
										</mcq-feedback>
									</mcq>
								</process-page>
								<process-page>
									<mcq allow-multiple-selections="true" reveal-correct-answer="true">
										<mcq-question>
											<h4>The cost of exaggerating (hyping) expected findings</h4>
											<p>To secure funding in competitive research areas, researchers will sometimes exaggerate what they hope to achieve or expect to find. For example, when applying for funding to test a new drug or device:</p>
											<ul>
												<li>An honest estimate of the likely outcome based on preliminary results suggests a 25% success rate</li>
												<li>The researcher inflates this estimate to 35% to make the test seem more significant.</li>
											</ul>
											<p><strong>What are the consequences of inflating the success rate in this way (select all the answers that apply)? </strong></p>
										</mcq-question>
										<mcq-options>
											<mcq-option incorrect>
												<mcq-answer><p>There will be no detrimental costs, as long as the final results are reported accurately, even if the 35% success rate is not achieved</p></mcq-answer>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option correct>
												<mcq-answer><p>The study will not be taken as seriously if the expected results are not achieved and this could delay the use of what might otherwise have been seen as a useful drug or device</p></mcq-answer>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option correct>
												<mcq-answer><p>The funds will be completely wasted if the exaggerated estimate is not achieved</p></mcq-answer>
											</mcq-option>
										</mcq-options>
										<mcq-feedback>
											<p>The inflated estimates of the success of the new drug might increase public attention, but if the estimate were overly optimistic, the funds spent on this project and the potential benefits of the new drug could be lost. This is due to the fact that, for findings to be valid in clinical trials, the predicted level of success must be achieved. Anything less is considered inconclusive. Therefore, the funds spent on the project would be wasted &ndash; any potential benefits of the new drug would be delayed until a new study could be conducted, and other researchers who were more honest would have missed out on funding. (For a study of this problem, see Djulbegovic <em>et al.</em>, 2011.)</p>
										</mcq-feedback>
									</mcq>
								</process-page>
							</process>
							<!-- ACCESSIBLE START -->
							<accessible-block class="non-interactive-swap-in">
								<h3 class="">Question 1 of 3:</h3>
								<h4 class="">The impact of misconduct on relationships and reputations</h4>
								<p>In 2015, a prize-winning history book had to be corrected because the author plagiarised a significant portion of the book from another author and then concealed the plagiarism by fabricating references. As a result, the book prize was returned, the publisher had to correct the book, and the author was eventually asked to retire early (Flaherty, 2019).</p>
								<p><strong>While these are the direct impacts, what are the indirect impacts of a case such as this (select all the answers that apply)?</strong></p>
								<h4 class="">Answer options:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>The university's reputation could suffer if it was slow to pursue the case or downplayed the seriousness of the misconduct</li>
									<li>The publisher's reputation could suffer if it was less than candid when it corrected the book</li>
									<li>Professional relationships could suffer if the author's colleagues disagreed on how seriously the irresponsible behaviour should be taken</li>
									<li>The public could conclude that professional historians are no more honest than popular history programmes and historical reporting in the news</li>
								</ul>
								<h4 class="">The correct answers are:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>The university's reputation could suffer if it was slow to pursue the case or downplayed the seriousness of the misconduct</li>
									<li>The publisher's reputation could suffer if it was less than candid when it corrected the book</li>
									<li>Professional relationships could suffer if the author's colleagues disagreed on how seriously the irresponsible behaviour should be taken</li>
									<li>The public could conclude that professional historians are no more honest than popular history programmes and historical reporting in the news</li>
								</ul>
								<h4 class="">Feedback:</h4>
								<div class="">
									<p>In this case, the conduct of both the university and the publisher was questioned (Marcus, 2019).  However, irresponsible behaviour can also have unanticipated impacts on professional relationships and reputations.</p>
								</div>
								<hr>
								<h3 class="">Question 2 of 3:</h3>
								<h4 class="">The cost of errors</h4>
								<p>You see a notice in a journal in your field of research stating that "This article has been retracted due to errors in the reported data".</p>
								<p><strong>What would you assume to be the financial cost of detecting and correcting the errors?</strong></p>
								<h4 class="">Answer options:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Little or no cost</li>
									<li>Some cost, perhaps a few thousand pounds</li>
									<li>Significant cost, perhaps as much as £20,000</li>
									<li>Very costly, perhaps as much as £1,000,000</li>
								</ul>
								<h4 class="">The correct answer is:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Some cost, perhaps a few thousand pounds</li>
								</ul>
								<h4 class="">Feedback:</h4>
								<div class="">
									<p>If the error were due to some oversight and reported by the author, the cost would likely be below £10,000 but more than £1,000. Why is this? The average cost to the publisher of producing an article has been estimated to be between US$3,500 and US$4,000 (Van Noorden, 2013). If you add in the cost of reviewing time, the total can easily approach £10,000.</p>
									<p>If the error were due to intentional research misconduct, then there might have been significantly higher costs involved. See the "Useful links" pod for a link to a case (Stern <em>et al.</em>, 2014) demonstrating the substantial financial burden of research misconduct. The costs of irresponsible behaviour can add up quickly and waste funds that could otherwise be spent on useful research.</p>
								</div>
								<hr>
								<h3 class="">Question 3 of 3:</h3>
								<h4 class="">The cost of exaggerating (hyping) expected findings</h4>
								<p>To secure funding in competitive research areas, researchers will sometimes exaggerate what they hope to achieve or expect to find. For example, when applying for funding to test a new drug or device:</p>
								<ul>
									<li>An honest estimate of the likely outcome based on preliminary results suggests a 25% success rate</li>
									<li>The researcher inflates this estimate to 35% to make the test seem more significant.</li>
								</ul>
								<p><strong>What are the consequences of inflating the success rate in this way (select all the answers that apply)? </strong></p>
								<h4 class="">Answer options:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>There will be no detrimental costs, as long as the final results are reported accurately, even if the 35% success rate is not achieved</li>
									<li>The study will not be taken as seriously if the expected results are not achieved and this could delay the use of what might otherwise have been seen as a useful drug or device</li>
									<li>The funds will be completely wasted if the exaggerated estimate is not achieved</li>
								</ul>
								<h4 class="">The correct answers are:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>The study will not be taken as seriously if the expected results are not achieved and this could delay the use of what might otherwise have been seen as a useful drug or device</li>
									<li>The funds will be completely wasted if the exaggerated estimate is not achieved</li>
								</ul>
								<h4 class="">Feedback:</h4>
								<div class="">
									<p>The inflated estimates of the success of the new drug might increase public attention, but if the estimate were overly optimistic, the funds spent on this project and the potential benefits of the new drug could be lost. This is due to the fact that, for findings to be valid in clinical trials, the predicted level of success must be achieved. Anything less is considered inconclusive. Therefore, the funds spent on the project would be wasted &ndash; any potential benefits of the new drug would be delayed until a new study could be conducted, and other researchers who were more honest would have missed out on funding. (For a study of this problem, see Djulbegovic <em>et al.</em>, 2011.)</p>
								</div>
							</accessible-block>
							<!-- ACCESSIBLE END -->
							<!-- ACTIVITY END -->

						</page-content-wide>
					</page-row>
					
					<page-row>
						<page-content-sidebar>

							<interactive-text>
								<!-- KEY POINTS ICON START -->
								<icon-key-points></icon-key-points>
								<!-- KEY POINTS ICON END -->
							</interactive-text>

							<accessible-text>
								<!-- USEFUL LINKS START -->
								<pod variant="a" has-modal="true">
									<pod-heading>Useful links</pod-heading> <!-- pod title -->
									<pod-content></pod-content>
									<!-- pop-up pod content -->
									<pod-modal-heading>Useful links</pod-modal-heading>
									<pod-modal-content>
										<hosted-link id="RI_INT_irp_1_40">
											<p>The impact of misconduct on relationships and reputations:</p>
											<ul>
												<li><a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/09/13/columbia-says-historians-acclaimed-book-north-korea-was-plagiarized-publisher-says" target="_blank">Flaherty, 2019 &ndash; Fake Citations Kill a Career</a></li>
												<li><a href="https://retractionwatch.com/2019/09/17/columbia-historian-stepping-down-after-plagiarism-finding/" target="_blank">Marcus, 2019 &ndash; Columbia Historian Stepping Down after Plagiarism Finding</a></li>
											</ul>
											<p>The cost of errors:</p>
											<ul>
												<li><a href="https://www.nature.com/news/open-access-the-true-cost-of-science-publishing-1.12676" target="_blank">Van Noorden, 2013 &ndash; Open Access: The True Cost of Science Publishing</a></li>
												<li><a href="https://elifesciences.org/articles/02956" target="_blank">Stern <em>et al.</em>, 2014 &ndash; Research: Financial Costs and Personal Consequences of Research Misconduct Resulting in Retracted Publications</a></li>
											</ul>
											<p>The cost of exaggerating (hyping) expected findings:</p>
											<ul>
												<li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3079810/" target="_blank">Djulbegovic <em>et al.</em>, 2011 &ndash; Optimism Bias Leads to Inconclusive Results &ndash; An Empirical Study</a></li>
											</ul>
										</hosted-link>
									</pod-modal-content>
								</pod>
								<!-- USEFUL LINKS END -->
							</accessible-text>
							
						</page-content-sidebar>

						<page-content-main>
							
							<p>These scenarios show that the relationship between the perceived seriousness of an irresponsible behaviour and its real impact is not always obvious. Seemingly inconsequential cases that are easily dismissed as 'bending the rules' can be as harmful and costly to research as intentional efforts to deceive. And because they are usually more common than cases of intentional deception, the cumulative impact of QRPs is probably greater than that of deliberate misconduct.</p>

							<h3>Your experience</h3>
							
							<p>To illustrate how seemingly minor misbehaviours can have serious impacts, consider your own experience.</p>
							
							<instructional-text><p>Choose the options that best reflect your experience in the poll, clicking "Vote" to submit your responses and compare your experiences with those of the others taking this course. Your responses will be recorded anonymously.</p></instructional-text>
							<instructional-text-accessible><p>Consider each question and choose the option that best reflects your experience.</p></instructional-text-accessible>
							
							<!-- ACTIVITY START -->
							<process show-in-accessible-version=false>
								<process-page>
									<!-- POLL START -->
									<poll poll-id="10394711" noscript-text="Has your research been delayed because a colleague did not share information or materials they were supposed to?"></poll>
									<!-- POLL END -->
								</process-page>
								<process-page>
									<!-- POLL START -->
									<poll poll-id="10488811" noscript-text="Have you ever failed to get credit for your work because someone did not include your name on a publication resulting from that work?"></poll>
									<!-- POLL END -->
								</process-page>
								<process-page>
									<!-- POLL START -->
									<poll poll-id="10488812" noscript-text="Has someone used material from a manuscript you submitted for publication or presentation without getting permission or giving you credit?"></poll>
									<!-- POLL END -->
								</process-page>
								<process-page>
									<!-- POLL START -->
									<poll poll-id="10488814" noscript-text="Have you ever wasted time building on or using research results that later turned out to be false or misleading?"></poll>
									<!-- POLL END -->
								</process-page>
							</process>
							<!-- ACTIVITY END -->
							<!-- ACCESSIBLE START -->
							<accessible-block>
								<h4>Question 1 of 4:</h4>
								<p>Has your research been delayed because a colleague did not share information or materials they were supposed to?</p>
								<ul>
									<li>Often</li>
									<li>Occasionally</li>
									<li>Once</li>
									<li>Never</li>
									<li>Not applicable</li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 2 of 4:</h4>
								<p>Have you ever failed to get credit for your work because someone did not include your name on a publication resulting from that work?</p>
								<ul>
									<li>Often</li>
									<li>Occasionally</li>
									<li>Once</li>
									<li>Never</li>
									<li>Not applicable</li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 3 of 4:</h4>
								<p>Has someone used material from a manuscript you submitted for publication or presentation without getting permission or giving you credit?</p>
								<ul>
									<li>Often</li>
									<li>Occasionally</li>
									<li>Once</li>
									<li>Never</li>
									<li>Not applicable</li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 4 of 4:</h4>
								<p>Have you ever wasted time building on or using research results that later turned out to be false or misleading?</p>
								<ul>
									<li>Often</li>
									<li>Occasionally</li>
									<li>Once</li>
									<li>Never</li>
									<li>Not applicable</li>
								</ul>
							</accessible-block>
							<!-- ACCESSIBLE END -->
							
							<p>When you can relate to the impact that seemingly less consequential misbehaviour can have on your research, it is easier to understand the potential ramifications that QRPs can have on research as a whole.</p>
							
							<h3>Summary</h3>
							
							<p>Intentional misconduct, such as fabrication, falsification and plagiarism, is obviously wrong and can have detrimental impacts on research.  While less obvious, the same is true of QRPs. In short, any practice that falls short of responsible behaviour is unacceptable. This is why it is so important to be aware of practices to avoid, and the support that is available to help you conduct yourself as a responsible researcher.</p>
						
						</page-content-main>
					</page-row>
					
				</page-container>
			</base-container>
		</div> <!-- END content wrapper -->
		
		<!-- scripts -->
		<script src="../js/vendor.min.js"></script>
		<script src="../js/vue-components.min.js"></script>
		<script>
			new Vue({
			  el: "#app",
			  data: {},
			  mounted: function () {
				var core = document.createElement('script');
				core.src = "../js/core.min.js";
				document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(core);

				var project = document.createElement('script');
				project.src = "../js/project.min.js";
				document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(project);
			  }
			});
		</script>

	</body>
</html>