Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Quality assessment of institutions’ reports on the investigation of research integrity

From: Quality of reports of investigations of research integrity by academic institutions

  Institutiona
1 2 4
Scope
 Includes executive summary No No No
 Clear and understandable In part In part In part
 Allegations clearly presented In part No No
 Charge to committee clearly described No No No
 Scope sufficient to address scientific integrity issues No No No
Investigative committee
 Appropriately constituted Cannot assess Cannot assess Cannot assess
 Any external members Yes Yes Cannot assess
 Potential conflicts of interest reviewed No No No
 Report indicates standards of due process and confidentiality followed No No No
 Respondent had opportunity to identify conflicts Cannot assess Cannot assess Cannot assess
 Any concern that committee lacked expertise and resources Yes Yes Yes
Evidence
 Report indicates evidence sequestered and protected No No No
 Description of evidence considered In part In part In part
 Respondent offered opportunity to respond Cannot assess Cannot assess Cannot assess
 Committee considered and addressed whether important evidence was unavailable In part Cannot assess In part
 Explanation for failure to review seemingly pertinent evidence In part No No
 Need for further evidence or additional analysis Yes Yes Yes
 List of individuals interviewed No No No
 Should others have been interviewed Cannot assess Cannot assess Yes
 Additional questions that should have been asked or evidence examined to reach a supportable conclusion Yes Yes Yes
Conclusion
 Report clearly states findings Yes In part In part
 Report clearly states conclusions Yes In part In part
 Evidence fully support conclusions Cannot assess No No
 Articulates and applies institutional policies No No No
 Recommendations clear and supported by report No No No
 Report describes and addresses requirements of external sponsors’ regulations No No No
 Overall assessment Not acceptable Not acceptable Not acceptable
  1. Derived from Gunsalus et al. Components considered to be adequately addressed are in italic type
  2. aInstitution 3 has not reported the results of its investigation