When I use a word . . . Academic integrity—felonies and misdemeanours

Academic norms

The definition of a “norm” in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) relevant to academic practice is “A standard or pattern of social behaviour that is accepted in or expected of a group.”1 In this case the group is the amorphous collection of academics, in whatever discipline they are involved.

The relevant definition of an academic is “a member of a university or college’s teaching or research staff.”2 However, there are individuals whom I would recognise as academics, working in institutions other than universities and colleges, for example, researchers in industrial companies of one sort or another. The definition needs to include those, and the OED offers what it calls a definition in a weakened sense, which I offer here in a slightly modified form: “a person interested in or excelling at pursuits involving reading, thinking, study, teaching, and research.” I have added the words “teaching” and “research,” and although I recognise that not all academics necessarily do both, nevertheless I think that to qualify for the title they should undertake at least one of those activities. Other activities that academics are expected to do from time to time, such as mentoring and publishing, need not be mentioned in the definition, not that they are not important, but because they are implied by the other activities and are in any case not always required.

This then raises the question of what academic norms should be. This is something that I have previously discussed, partly based on analyses by the sociologist Robert K Merton (1910–2003).3 They are:

● preservation of academic autonomy—obviating contradictory or disruptive influences from other spheres;

● integrity—public perception of which enhances the likelihood that scientific results will receive widespread acceptance in the absence of complete understanding of how they were achieved;

● a priori formulation of hypotheses, including prepublication of study protocols, and their proper evaluation in terms of their logical consistency and empirical evidence;

● the use of appropriate methods by which evidence is obtained;

● the use of appropriate methods for interpreting the accumulated knowledge so obtained;

● the need to take heed of the possible consequences of research, both intended and unintended;

● the use of comprehensible language in describing outcomes and their interpretation;

● universalism;

● communality;

● disinterestedness;

● organised skepticism, but limited to one’s own sphere of academic interest;

● appropriate curiosity;

● avoidance of inappropriate enthusiasm;

● respect for the work of others, in the absence of violations.

These norms are, as the definition puts it, accepted in or expected of academics, generally both. Together they constitute an academic ethic and imply an academic conscience. Some of them have been more recently introduced than others—this is an evolving field. One could now add, for example, something about the use of AI in aspects of research.

Violations: academic felonies and misdemeanours

Violation is infringement, breach, or contravention of a rule or regulation, a code or convention, a tenet or principle.4 It comes from the IndoEuropean root WEIƏ, to desire something or to pursue it vigorously. [The letter marked with the symbol <Ə >is an upper case schwa, a neutral vowel, pronounced “uh,” as heard in the pronunciation of words such as AK-uh-DEM-ik, or /ˌakəˈdɛmɪk/ in the International Phonetic Alphabet, IPA, where <ə> is the lower-case schwa.]

The IndoEuropean root gave the Latin noun vis, force, the verb violare, to treat with force, and violentus, vehement. From those we get the English words vim, violate, violent, and violation. Violations infringe by force.

Academic violations occur when academic norms are infringed. There are many ways in which this can happen, but I have not seen a satisfactory taxonomy that encompasses them all. One approach is to classify different types of violation according to the gravity of the offence. Traditionally, in law, this was done by distinguishing two major types of crime, felonies and misdemeanours. The distinction between these two types of crime lay in assessment of their gravity and therefore of the penalty required. The distinction between felonies and misdemeanours is now historic in the UK, having been abolished by the 1967 Criminal Law Act. However, it still holds in the USA.

A felony was regarded as being a graver offence than a misdemeanour, and the penalty demanded would usually involve forfeiture of lands and goods and in some cases loss of the rights associated with one’s rank and title, a process known as corruption of blood. Today’s academic equivalent might be degradation, in its literal sense of deprivation of an academic degree or title, such as a PhD or a professorship, or dismissal from a post.

A misdemeanour, an offence of lesser degree, literally misbehaviour, would have incurred a penalty short of demanding forfeiture of lands and goods. Today an academic misdemeanour might attract, for example, a reprimand, rejection of work for publication, or retraction of a published work.

Felonies

At the severe end of the violations spectrum the main term that has been used to describe academic research felonies is “research misconduct.” This term was first used in the 1980s,5 most notably by the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI), newly formed under the 1985 Health Research Extension Act.6 An earlier term, “deception,” was originally used to describe the failure of researchers in psychology and other academic disciplines to inform participants in research studies about aspects of studies in which they were being asked to participate, and especially failing to give them information sufficient to obtain properly informed consent.7 The term was subsequently extended to various types of manipulations in field and laboratory techniques in social science research.8

Research misconduct is generally taken to cover three main types of research felony, as defined by the ORI: “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results” The ORI also defines these three types separately:

(a) Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

(b) Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

(c) Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

All of these are serious offences, worthy of the term “felony.”

In clarification, the ORI also adds that “Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.”

Misdemeanours

The usual term for academic misdemeanours is “questionable research practices.” The earliest use that I have found of this term is from 1948, in a joint statement from the American Marketing Association, the Market Research Council, and the American Association of Public Opinion Research on standards for professional practices: “This organization will not: … Knowingly deviate from established research standards or indulge in questionable research practices in order to ‘prove’ a case.”9 Even before that, others had referred to “questionable research work of students” 10 and “questionable research instrument[s],”11 and many other later examples can be found. However, in today’s context it started to become fashionable in 2012.12 Adapting a previously published definition of the longer term.13 I define research misdemeanours as “practices deliberately affecting the design, analysis, or reporting of research, intended or having the potential to be used in order to present biased evidence in favour of an assertion or hypothesis.”

Misdemeanours are of various types, including failure to publish a protocol in advance of a study, selective reporting of findings, selective analysis, misleading interpretations, inappropriate or omitted citation of published evidence, and inappropriate statistical analysis, including rounding down of P values.14

How common is it?

Interest in research felonies has increased enormously since the 1980s, suggesting an increase in prevalence, or at least an increase in awareness. When I carried out a PubMed search using the term “research” linked to either “misconduct” or “deception,” restricting the search to titles only, over 800 hits emerged. From 1973 to 1989 inclusive, 25 publications were listed, of which six appeared in 1989. Thereafter the numbers climbed steadily:

1990-4: 36

1995-9: 55

2000-4: 64

2004-9: 101

2010-14: 207

2015-19: 202

2020-4 (projected): 194

Interest now appears to have reached a plateau.

Of all my PubMed hits only two were systematic reviews. One dealt with the prevalence of felonies and misdemeanours15 and the other with interventions to prevent the former.16

The results of the latter were, not unexpectedly, disappointing. The authors concluded that “the evidence base relating to interventions to improve research integrity is incomplete and the studies that have been done are heterogeneous [and] inappropriate for meta-analyses, and their applicability to other settings and population is uncertain.”

The results of the former were, although perhaps unsurprising, certainly of concern. In a meta-analysis of data published in 42 articles between 1992 and 2020, covering 23 228 researchers and PhD students from 18 countries undertaking 571 studies, the felonies fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism were estimated to have occurred in 1.9% (95% CI 1.0–3.5%), 3.3% (95% CI 2.2–5.0%), and 3.2% (95% CI 1.9–5.5%) respectively. Misdemeanours were estimated to have occurred in 12.5% (95% CI 10.5–14.7%). Although most studies of misdemeanours have restricted themselves to different types of research activities, the authors of this study estimated that misdemeanours in mentoring and trainee responsibilities occurred at a rate of 12.9% (95% CI 6.7–23.5%).

Factors that seem to affect the risk of misdemeanours include the type of an individual’s contract, the stage of their career, their academic field, their stated degree of commitment to academic norms, and sex, women being apparently less likely to report that they have committed misdemeanours.17

However, these studies were based on self-reported behaviours, and I think it likely that the extent to which different factors are responsible may have been skewed, and that the likely prevalences of both types. felonies and misdemeanours, are higher than one would want, although probably estimated at lower than they truly are.

Specific examples of academic felonies and misdemeanours deserve more detailed examination, and I hope to explore them in future columns.