How to Improve Research Misconduct Handling: Experts Disagree on Best Approach

Research misconduct handling remains a contentious issue in the scientific community, with a new survey revealing sharp disagreements between those who investigate misconduct within institutions and independent researchers who expose ethical breaches. The survey, recently published as a preprint on Zenodo, highlights the ongoing divide between institutional integrity officers and so-called scientific “sleuths” particularly over how allegations such as plagiarism, data manipulation, and falsification should be addressed.

These differences underline the growing tension between institutional frameworks and independent efforts to uphold scientific integrity. While both groups agree that misconduct harms research credibility and must be addressed, their perspectives on how to handle cases differ significantly.

Sleuths vs. Integrity Officers: A Divided Front

The survey, led by retired psychologist and research integrity advocate Dorothy Bishop of the University of Oxford, gathered input from 79 participants ranging from sleuths and institutional officers to researchers and journal editors, mostly from Europe.

Both groups acknowledged that academic pressure to publish may encourage unethical behavior. However, less than 6% of sleuths believed current reporting systems are effective, compared to 77% of integrity officers. Sleuths often criticize institutional investigations as slow, inconsistent, and riddled with conflicts of interest.

Can Institutions Investigate Their Own Researchers Fairly?

The survey showed 64% of integrity officers preferred a self-regulatory model, where institutions investigate their own researchers. In contrast, only 28% of sleuths supported this approach. Critics argue that institutions may be reluctant to sanction prominent researchers, creating a conflict of interest and reducing accountability.

René Aquarius, a sleuth and neurosurgery researcher from Radboud University Medical Center in the Netherlands, noted the frustration among independent watchdogs. Many feel that clear-cut cases of misconduct are not being acted on swiftly or transparently.

The Call for External Oversight

A shared concern across both groups is the lack of an independent national body to handle misconduct allegations. Seventy-five percent of sleuths and 59% of integrity officers supported the idea of an external agency operating independently of government influence. Although some European countries have national-level organizations that review investigations, most institutions still retain control over disciplinary action.

Bert Seghers, president of the European Network of Research Integrity Offices, emphasized that even in countries with centralized oversight, sanctions remain the responsibility of the home institutions.

Retraction Timelines and Institutional Delays

Another major area of disagreement was the timeline for retracting flawed research. A strong majority (81%) of sleuths favored immediate retraction of studies that show clear signs of misconduct, even before the end of formal investigations. Only 55% of integrity officers agreed.

Seghers argues that while timely retractions are important, they must be based on thorough and well-documented evidence. He suggests creating a “fast-track” system for clear cases to balance urgency with fairness.

What Happens After Misconduct Is Confirmed?

When it comes to consequences, the contrast in opinions deepens. About 86% of integrity officers recommended retraining individuals found guilty of serious misconduct, while just 33% of sleuths agreed. Critics argue that retraining alone is insufficient and that stricter measures—such as limiting supervisory roles or grant access—should be considered.

Seghers, siding with the sleuths, stated that stronger preventative actions are necessary to reduce repeat offenses and protect the integrity of the academic environment.

Bridging the Gap for Better Oversight

Despite their differences, both groups recognize the need for better communication and shared standards. Aquarius emphasized the importance of open dialogue to bridge the gap and develop practical solutions that both institutional bodies and independent actors can support.This survey marks a step toward creating more transparent and effective policies for research misconduct handling, with hopes that the findings will inspire reform and collaboration at both institutional and international levels.