Modus Operandi of Professor Jahnhoff: A Research Misconduct Report

This report analyzes the case of Professor Friedrich Jahnhoff, an oncology researcher at Chalkman University, accused of research misconduct. The report examines the allegations made by Dr. Marita Grosvenor, a former student, who accused Professor Jahnhoff of data fabrication, manipulation, lack of guidance, and inappropriate behavior. The analysis draws upon the provided scenario, relevant legal cases, and the concept of modus operandi to determine the potential patterns of misconduct. The report considers the professor's protective stance on data, his alleged control over collaborators, and his successful grant record as factors contributing to the potential for misconduct. The report concludes that Professor Jahnhoff's modus operandi may involve data fabrication and manipulation, and if these allegations are proven, he could face severe consequences. The report also references the definition of research misconduct, highlighting fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism as key components. The report aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the case and its implications within the context of research ethics and academic integrity.

Running head: MODUS OPERANDI OF PROFESSOR JAHNHOFF
MODUS OPERANDI OF PROFESSOR JAHNHOFF
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note

1MODUS OPERANDI OF PROFESSOR JAHNHOFF
Issue
In this paper, the issue to be discussed is whether the modus operandi of Professor
Jahnhoff creates any research misconduct or research fraud.
Rule
From this given scenario it has been observed that several methods are available to for
committing research misconduct. For instance, taking the advantage of the works completed by
other is a method of modus operandi for committing research misconduct (Al-Adawi, Ali & Al-
Zakwani, 2016). In short, it can be said that the methods of modus operandi for committing
research misconduct includes secreting and fabricating data, manipulating data, utilizing co-
authors, eminence, undertaking multiple cite research, and avoiding ethics committees.
On the other hand, research misconduct can be defined as fabrication, misrepresentation
or plagiarism in suggesting, carrying out, or revising research or in case of reporting the results
of research. Research misconduct takes place when the data have been fabricated or falsified by a
researcher. Not only that, if information or ideas within a research report have been plagiarized
by a researcher, then it is also considered to be a research misconduct (Resnik et al., 2015).
In Mehta vs Ohio University [2012] Ohio 3677 case, the evidences proved that plaintiff
has failed to perform his duties of mentoring and guiding the students of the Ohio University,
and for this kind of negligence, the plagiarism occurred. The statement of the University Dean
also implied the negligence of the plaintiff, which was true. Based upon the evidences, the court
held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defamatory statements made against him was
false. Therefore, the court held the plaintiff liable and had given its judgement in favour of the
university (Titus, 2014).

2MODUS OPERANDI OF PROFESSOR JAHNHOFF
In Croce vs Sanders [2017] case, several allegations have been made against the
professor of medicine of the Ohio State University regarding scientific misconduct, data
falsification and institutional enquiry. His defamation claim aginst David Sanders of Purdue
University and the New York Times was dismissed by the Court, and he has removed from his
position. his publication were also retracted and corrected (Michalek et al., 2010).
Analysis
In this given scenario, Professor Friedrich Jahhoff is an award winner oncology
researcher at Chalkman University. He is aged about 54 years, married and is the father of two
children. A 26 years old student, namely Dr Marita Grosvenor, who has recently obtained her
P.hd blows a whistle against Professor regarding the use of data. She also states that professor
does not guide the students appropriately and spend most of his times outside the university. The
professor is also very protective about access to his data and concerned about plagiarized data by
rival researchers. She also alleges professor for fabricating data and sexual overtures. All of these
allegations are punishable offense in the US under the ground of research misconduct.
As per the allegations made by Marita Grosvenor and applying the rules of Stapel Fraud
case, it can be said that the modus operandi of Professor Jahhoff in any research misconduct in
which he has engaged in fabricating and manipulating data.
As per the allegations made by Marita Grosvenor and applying the rules of Wakefield
Fraud case, it can be said that the modus operandi of Professor Jahhoff in any research
misconduct in which he has engaged in manipulating data.
Apart from that he also acts unethically with her student and did not help the students and
in this way failed to perform his duties to monitor the students

3MODUS OPERANDI OF PROFESSOR JAHNHOFF
By applying the rules of Mehta vs Ohio University [2012] Ohio 3677 and Croce vs
Sanders [2017] case, it can be said that if the allegations will be proved by institutional inquiry,
then Professor Friedrich Jahhoff will be held liable by the court.
Conclusion
Therefore, from the above discussion, it can be concluded that by reviewing the
allegations and rules of several cases, it can be said that the modus operandi of Professor Jahhoff
in any research misconduct in which he has engaged in fabricating and manipulating data. If
those allegations will be proved by institutional inquiry, then proper actions can be taken against
Professor Friedrich Jahhoff.

4MODUS OPERANDI OF PROFESSOR JAHNHOFF
Reference
Al-Adawi, S., Ali, B. H., & Al-Zakwani, I. (2016). Research Misconduct: The peril of publish or
perish. Oman medical journal, 31(1), 5.
Michalek, A. M., Hutson, A. D., Wicher, C. P., & Trump, D. L. (2010). The costs and
underappreciated consequences of research misconduct: a case study. PLoS
medicine, 7(8).
Resnik, D. B., Neal, T., Raymond, A., & Kissling, G. E. (2015). Research misconduct definitions
adopted by US research institutions. Accountability in research, 22(1), 14-21.
Titus, S. L. (2014). Evaluating US medical schools' efforts to educate faculty researchers on
research integrity and research misconduct policies and procedures. Accountability in
research, 21(1), 9-25.