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

 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

 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

 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

 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