Research Integrity Report: Misconduct Case at Chalkman University

This report addresses a hypothetical case of research fraud at Chalkman University involving Professor Jahnhoff, a highly regarded oncology researcher. The report answers two key questions: First, it outlines the preliminary inquiries the university should undertake in response to allegations of data falsification and sexual misconduct, including assessing the facts, preparing a written report, and conducting interviews. Second, it discusses the institutional and other ramifications of the alleged misconduct, such as potential penalties from the ORI, reputational damage, financial costs, and social costs like delays in health warnings. The report references relevant literature to support its analysis, adhering to APA guidelines, including running headers and page numbers. The case highlights the importance of research integrity and the consequences of misconduct in academia.

Running head: RESEARCH INTEGRITY
Research integrity
Name of the student:
Name of the University:
Author’s note

1RESEARCH INTEGRITY
Answer 1:
In the hypothetical case of research fraud, Professor Jahnhoff was charged of faking research
data. The whistleblower alleged that he had excluded participants for no reason leading to
ground breaking research outcomes which may not be legitimate. The whistleblower has also
charged the professors related to sexual misconduct. This case is an example of dishonesty in
research and data falsification. In response to this allegation, some of the preliminary inquiries
that his university should do include the following:
1. Firstly, the institution must assess the facts of the allegation and the inquiry must be
completed within 60 days. A written report is prepared and Professor Jahnhoff will be
informed about the allegation. The written inquiry will summarize the evidence reviewed
and the conclusion made. The report can be given to the accused person (Russo 2019).
2. Based on the validity of the inquiry, the university can start investigation within 30 days
of inquiry. The decision to investigate must be reported to the Director, Office of
Research Institute (ORI)
3. After this, interview with both the accused person and the informants should be done.
This should be followed by preparation of investigation report and submission of the
report to the ORI. The investigation needs to be completed within 120 days.
4. After the investigation, if the allegation is proved, then the university can impose suitable
penalties on the professor (Mayer & Miner, 2018).
The review of the case also presented evidence for sexual harassment during the research
process. Separate inquiry for this can also be initiated and the research institution can take
steps to prevent and address behavior that damages research integrity. This will lead to

2RESEARCH INTEGRITY
implementation of regulatory frameworks too so that allegations of irresponsible behavior
can be investigated and corrective actions are taken on time (Benya, 2019).
Answer 2:
A case of research misconduct leads to disciplinary actions not only on the alleged person
but also on the university from the where the accused person was doing research. The
institutional ramifications in response to the falsification of data are that if the accused is proved
guilty, then the ORI may impose certain penalties on the institution too (Mahmud & Bretag,
2014). Other possible ramifications include reputation cost because loss in prestige or reputation
of the research institution employing the author of a falsified paper. Apart from direct financial
cost to the accused person, such case of misconduct can also lead to additional financial cost for
the institution. For example, they will have to incur expense for investigating the case and paying
additional funds to settle the civil litigation connected to the case. If Professor’s allegation is
proved true, then it would lead to many social costs too. For example, research characterized by
misconduct will delay the issuance of health warning or any preventive steps following the
research result (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017). There is
possibility of other variety of costs such as damage to the individuals and opportunity cost
associated with reputation cost and social cost.

3RESEARCH INTEGRITY
References
Benya, F. (2019). Treating Sexual Harassment as a Violation of Research Integrity. Issues in
Science and Technology, 35(2), 56-59.
Mahmud, S., & Bretag, T. (2014). Fostering integrity in postgraduate research: An evidence-
based policy and support framework. Accountability in research, 21(2), 122-137.
Mayer, T., & Miner, L. (2018). Policy on Misconduct in Research 1.0 Purpose. Policy, 11, 8.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Fostering integrity in
research. National Academies Press.
Russo, C. J. (2019). Scholarly Misconduct: Law Regulation, and Practice by Ian Freckelton.