Concerning the definition, DEFORM made visible its involvedness. Official, regulatory definitions, even those widely referenced and implemented are not uncontested and carry different implications for identification and treatment of research misconduct (RM) cases. It is suggested that regulatory definitions must allow for identification of specific cases, provide guidelines for treatment and be flexible enough for identification and treatment of cases outside rigid perimeters. Given their implications for science and society, we suggest that it is best if RM regulatory definitions follow a principles-based, human rights approach. Through extended literature review, scientometric and discourse analysis, the UoC found that RM issues are of extended and increasing interest for scientists as the themes identified, topics addressed, causes and solutions suggested in large numbers of peer reviewed publications document. The extent and potential causality of the phenomenon and researchers’ actual engagement and experiences of RM (including questionable research practices) are investigated through the on-line questionnaire developed by the UoC team. Concerning responses to RM there is a need to study points of congruence and divergence between scientists and society at large as to what constitutes RM, how it should be dealt with and whether any aspects of the phenomenon are only warranted for peer responses.
Regarding motivation for RM the “promise tension” concept was introduced. The INSEEC team suggested that the source of misconduct relates to the tension between a research results promise (value creation promise) and the difficulty to reach this promise. Although not an excuse for misconduct it is suggested that the higher the difficulty to deliver, the higher the probability of misconduct to occur. Faced with “promise tension” research projects owners/sponsors have three pathways to choose from: (1) Retract and restart, (2) Redesign/end the research project, (3) Fraud. In the latter choice, institutional environments precluding alternate paths maybe a contributing factor. Misconduct cases and symptoms are, thus, to be considered globally, looking at research projects within their environment and planned use, and not with a unique focus on the direct perpetrator (the researcher).
Further, three numerical models (the Discovery Ratio (Dr), Occurrence(Or) and Visibility ratio (Vr)) were computed. The Or aims at forecasting potential occurrence of RM/fraud within a pool of research projects. To do so, INSEEC team computed the probability of misconduct within a global related infringement population (using a computed analogy between occupational crime and RM). The Dr covers the risk of being discovered within this occurrence perimeter. Finally, the Vr aims at computing the odd of a wrongdoer becoming visible, increasing thus, the potential of sanction implementation with further implications in increased financial interest in best practices. The concepts of severity and weighting as theorised by actuaries, were brought into the analysis in order to distinguish between different institutional responses. These are further project deliverables.
At this stage, DEFORM concludes that the structural, regulatory and institutional framework is potentially inadequately responding to RM. Improvements are studied which will show how the cost (including sanctions) of RM by all. This way, new practices may be realized moving away from stigmatizing isolated, individual researchers and focusing on the ‘science enterprise’ or else hold research and science accountable for not fulfilling their promises through societal and institutional pressures.
