Research Misconduct Analysis: Chalkman University Case Study Report

This report analyzes a research misconduct case involving Professor Friedrich Jahnhoff, an oncology researcher at Chalkman University. The report addresses the allegations of data plagiarism, arrogant behavior, and sexual overtures made against him. It explores the professor's personal attributes, the characteristics of senior researchers involved in misconduct, the motivations behind intellectual dishonesty, and potential defenses against the accusations. The analysis draws upon provided references, including lecture slides and scholarly articles, to provide a comprehensive understanding of the case and the broader issues of research ethics and academic integrity within the context of a Masters of Research Administration assignment. The report aims to offer a detailed examination of the situation, supported by relevant literature, to assess the complexities and potential consequences of the alleged misconduct.

RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
0
RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author’s note:

1RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
Introduction
In the given scenario, an oncology researcher of Chalkman University Prof. Friedrich
Jahnhoff has been alleged of using plagiarised data in his research paper, his arrogant behaviour,
and sexual overtures to the victim named, Dr Marita Groverson. This paper aims to analyse the
most relevant personal attributes of the accused, research misconduct of senior researchers, risk
of intellectual dishonesty, and the response of such allegation against the professor.
Discussion
Question 1
In the given scenario, several behaviours of the senior researcher have been disclosed by
the victim in the complaint. The most relevant and likely behaviour of that researcher towards
the misconduct is that he is very protective regarding the access of data, which is used by him at
the time of research. The professor has concerned regarding the sensitivity and confidentiality of
the intellectual property such as research paper, and also expressed that the rival researchers may
plagiarise those data.
Question 2
Several times the senior researchers may be engaged in the research misconduct. The
senior researchers are highly intelligent in their field, and they are very keen on such
prominence, as well as for pre-eminence (Galbraith, 2017). They have invested their personal
activities for the growth of their career and reputation is one of the important factors of such
misconduct (Fang et al., 2014). One of the main characters of them is that they are often self-
referential and narcissistic. Generally, they are in an underlying discernment of anxiety and it has

2RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
reduced the sense of ethical respectability of them. it may be mentioned that they consist of a
strong capacity of rationalizing of the intellectual dishonesty.
Question 3
There are several reasons for taking such risk of the intellectual dishonesty of the senior
researcher Prof. Jahnhoff, which may affect the history fo international reputation and
achievements. At the time of misconducting the research data, the senior researchers are too
intelligent to be caught by other junior researchers. Self-destructive is one of the reasons for such
research misconduct of the seniors (Freckelton, 2016). Psychological rush to achieve fame for
any research and rebelliousness to establish the processes and such ethics are the reasons for
such research misconduct. The senior researchers have been suffered from such addictive
behaviour, inadequate mentoring, the pressure of publishing the journal, job insecurity and
narcissism is one of the leading causes of the fraudulent activities of those researchers (Davis,
Riske-Morris & Diaz, 2007).
Question 4
The professor can take several defences against the allegations of such misconduct of the
research, which have been brought against him. The defendant can show in his research papers
that the use of several technical data can not be changed; thus, it may have come under the
plagiarism. There are several numerical data or information of any research material which can
not be changed; otherwise, it will be the wrong information for that research, and it will not meet
the outcome of the study (Marsden & Pingry, 2018). He can take the defence of ‘fair use
doctrine’, where the legislation of the US has permitted the limited usage of any copyrighted
paper without any permission granted from the original copyright holder (Von Lohmann, 2017).

3RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
Conclusion
Therefore, it may be concluded in this context that the senior research scholars may make
the misconduct of their research by using data of other’s research papers. However, the accused
researcher may take the defence of using technical words or numerical data in his research paper
which can not be removed. He is also able to take the defence of ‘fair use doctrine’ for using data
from other research papers.

4RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
References
Davis, M. S., Riske-Morris, M., & Diaz, S. R. (2007). Causal factors implicated in research
misconduct: Evidence from ORI case files. Science and engineering ethics, 13(4), 395-
414.
Fang, F. C., Casadevall, A., Steen, R. G., & Stern, A. M., (2014). Financial costs and personal
consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications. Elife, 3, e02956.
Freckelton, I. R. (2016). Scholarly Misconduct: Law, Regulation, and Practice. Oxford
University Press.
Galbraith, K. L. (2017). Life after research misconduct: Punishments and the pursuit of second
chances. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 12(1), 26-32.
Marsden, J. R., & Pingry, D. E. (2018). Numerical data quality in IS research and the
implications for replication. Decision Support Systems, 115, A1-A7.
Von Lohmann, F. (2017). Fair use as innovation policy. In Copyright Law (pp. 169-205).
Routledge.