ArticlePDF Available

Harassment should count as scientific misconduct

Authors:

Abstract

Scientific integrity needs to apply to how researchers treat people, not just to how they handle data, says Erika Marín-Spiotta. Scientific integrity needs to apply to how researchers treat people, not just to how they handle data, says Erika Marín-Spiotta.
Harassment should count
as scientific misconduct
Scientific integrity needs to apply to how researchers treat people, not just to
how they handle data, says Erika Marín-Spiotta.
I
n the past year, allegations of egregious sexual harassment and even
assault have emerged across the spectrum of science. Nature has
already run several stories on the topic just this quarter.
When I talk to senior scientists, many view harassment as an injustice
that happens somewhere else, not in their field or at their institution.
But data suggest that the problem is ubiquitous. In separate surveys of
tens of thousands of university students across Australia, the United
Kingdom and the United States, upwards of 40% of respondents say
that they have experienced sexual harassment. A survey last year by the
US National Postdoctoral Association found that 28% of respondents
reported experiencing at least one instance of harassment while they
were trainees; offenders were predominantly reported as being faculty
or staff members (go.nature.com/2ju83ox). Neither are faculty members
safe from mistreatment by colleagues.
Research culture and policies are quick to
denounce plagiarism, data fabrication and mis-
management of funds, yet we have too long
ignored the mistreatment of people.
Science is a social endeavour; ignoring
harassment perpetuates a culture in which
people who experience or witness hostile behav-
iours are afraid to speak up, cannot do their best
work, or leave science altogether. Last September,
the American Geophysical Union (AGU) defined
harassment, bullying and discrimination as scien-
tific misconduct, and outlined consequences. The
greater scientific community should do the same.
My colleagues and I are developing a pro-
gramme to reduce harassment in the geosciences
— one of the least diverse scientific disciplines — supported by the US
National Science Foundation (NSF). The project, ADVANCEGeo,
equips bystanders to respond to and prevent harassment in the field,
lab, office and at conferences, and advocates for inclusion of the subject
in courses on ethical research conduct.
Our efforts are part of a growing movement. Just this year, both the
US NSF and the UK Wellcome Trust put forward policies targeting
harassment by grant recipients. Many scientific societies have codes of
conduct that specifically prohibit harassment at meetings, and some,
such as the American Astronomical S ociety and the Geological Soci-
ety of America, address the professional treatment of others in their
general codes of ethics.
Harassment, bullying and discrimination damage science at the
individual, community, institutional and societal levels. The behav-
iours cause health problems, fear, mistrust, depression and trauma.
That results in decreased productivity and the exclusion of people who
might have led highly satisfying scientific careers and made important
contributions.
Less-represented populations are disproportionately affected. A 2017
study in astronomy and planetary science found that women of colour
were more likely than other groups to report skipping professional
events because they felt unsafe (K. B. H. Clancy et al. J. Geophys. Res.
Planets 122, 1610–1623; 2017). In a 2016 sur vey of physicists identifying
as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer (LGBTQ), one-third of
respondents reported that they had considered leaving their institutions;
this group was also more likely to have experienced or witnessed hostile
behaviours (see go.nature.com/2wczfih). Other groups are also likely to
be vulnerable, but data are sparse.
Why aren’t the laws already in place against harassment sufficient?
People cannot count on their enforcement, especially given that imbal
-
ances of power in academia favour the perpetrators. Fear of retaliation
also keeps people from reporting to employers in the first place.
Defining harassment as misconduct provides more ways of deter
-
ring it. For example, the AGU has developed processes for investigating
allegations, including for addressing concerns that
might not rise to the level of a formal complaint.
Sanctions might include being barred from meet-
ings or publishing in society journals, or the denial
of an award. To be clear, when talking about har-
assment, I am not referring to socially awkward
interactions but to well-defined and documented
behaviours—such as unwanted groping and
requests for sexual favours—that create a hostile
work environment.
A better sense of how and how often harass-
ment happens in science would help to convince
the community of its pervasiveness, and counter
mistaken beliefs that it is not common in the
workplace. We also need more data on the
experiences of people from under-represented
groups, and on how hostile climates affect efforts to maintain diversity.
We must craft effective interventions. Courses in responsible
research conduct, currently a requirement for trainees, should cover
how to prevent and respond to harassment and bullying. Institu-
tions should offer in-person training, including discipline-specific
scenarios that people can relate to. Departments should commu-
nicate their workplace values publicly. This is starting to happen.
For example, the geosciences department at Middle Tennessee
State University in Murfreesboro has crafted a code of conduct that
describes principles and practices for professional behaviour, adapted
from the AGU’s. Scientific societies have also made plans to offer
bystander-intervention training at their conferences.
Improved ethics training across career levels should draw from
the social and behavioural sciences to lay bare the power dynamics
and behaviours that allow harassment, bullying, racism and sexism
to persist in the sciences. The integrity of the scientific enterprise
demands that we stop tolerating such behaviours.
Erika Marín-Spiotta heads the Biogeography and Biogeochemistry
Research Group at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, USA.
e-mail: advancegeopartnership@gmail.com
IMPROVED ETHICS
TRAINING SHOULD
LAY BARE
POWER DYNAMICS
AND BEHAVIOURS
THAT ALLOW
HARASSMENT.
ANN OLSSON
10 MAY 2018 | VOL 557 | NATURE | 141
WORLD VIEWA personal take on events
... Recently, some commentators have argued that the federal definition of research misconduct should be expanded to include sexual (or other) harassment, sabotaging research, deceptive use of statistics, and failing to disclose a significant conflict of interest (Botkin, 2018;Marín-Spiotta, 2018). However, there is no indication that the federal definition will be changed anytime soon, because categories of misbehavior other than FFP are (1) already covered by other laws or policies, (2) are not a significant threat to research integrity because they are very uncommon, or are (3) difficult to define (Resnik, 2019). ...
Chapter
Full-text available
To promote ethical conduct in science, government funding agencies, academic institutions, and professional journals have defined some types of seriously unethical behaviors as research misconduct and have developed policies and procedures for reporting, investigating, and adjudicating allegations of misconduct. Behaviors that are not as egregious as misconduct but are still regarded as unethical are called questionable research practices. Although there is considerable variation in research misconduct definitions used by different organizations and nations, most of them classify data fabrication or falsification or plagiarism as misconduct. This chapter will distinguish between research misconduct, questionable research practices, and fraud; describe policies and procedures related to misconduct; review some famous cases of misconduct; examine the prevalence and causes of misconduct; and discuss ways of preventing misconduct.KeywordsResearch misconductQuestionable research practicesEthicsFabricationFalsificationPlagiarismAuthorship
Article
Background The crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem. The purpose of the scoping review was to explore ‘ What does the evidence say about the ‘problem’ with ‘poor’ research culture, what are the benefits of ‘good’ research culture, and what does ‘good’ look like?’ Aims To examine the peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore the interplay between research culture, open research, career paths, recognition and rewards, and equality, diversity, and inclusion, as part of a larger programme of activity for a research institution. Methods A scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence was mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022. Results 1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review, resulting in 102 records included in the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability. Conclusions There are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals’ well-being, career progression and performance.
Article
Full-text available
Several Western studies have documented the problem of psychological violence in a university environment. In Morocco, to our knowledge, no study has made it possible to describe the psychological violence suffered by higher education professors at the University. This review of writings on psychological violence in a university environment revealed that this phenomenon is distinct from aggressiveness, and that psychological and professional attacks directed against teachers are very frequent and constitute a real scourge. The scientific research consulted clearly shows that higher education institutions are subject to uncivil behavior. The majority of the main perpetrators of psychological violence are faculty members, managers and line managers. Incidents of psychological violence lead to numerous mental health problems for victims and negative impacts on their professional practice. In order to promote a workplace free of psychological violence, it is essential to conduct local research to document teachers' perceptions of this incivility. Additionally, laws and policies that aim to combat this social problem should be developed and implemented.
Article
Background The crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem. The purpose of the scoping review was to explore ‘ What does the evidence say about the ‘problem’ with ‘poor’ research culture, what are the benefits of ‘good’ research culture, and what does ‘good’ look like?’ Aims To examine the peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore the interplay between research culture, open research, career paths, recognition and rewards, and equality, diversity, and inclusion, as part of a larger programme of activity for a research institution. Methods A scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence was mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022. Results 1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review, resulting in 102 records included in the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability. Conclusions There are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals’ well-being, career progression and performance.
Article
Research misconduct, broadly defined as acts of fabrication, falsification and/or plagiarism, violate the value system of science, cost significant wastage of public resources, and in more extreme cases endanger research participants or members of the society at large. Determination of culpability in research misconduct requires establishment of intent on the part of the respondent or perpetrator. However, "intent" is a state of mind, and its perception is subjective, unequivocal evidence for which would not be as readily established compared to the objective evidence available for the acts themselves. Here, we explore the concept of "intent" in research misconduct, how it is framed in criminological/legal terms, and narrated from a psychological perspective. Based on these, we propose a framework whereby lines of questioning and investigation , as defined by legislative terms and informed by the models and tools of psychology, could help in establishing a preponderance of evidence for culpable intent. Such a framework could be useful in research misconduct adjudica-tions and in delivering sanctions. ARTICLE HISTORY
Article
Research misconduct, broadly defined as acts of fabrication, falsification and/or plagiarism, violate the value system of science, cost significant wastage of public resources, and in more extreme cases endanger research participants or members of the society at large. Determination of culpability in research misconduct requires establishment of intent on the part of the respondent or perpetrator. However, “intent” is a state of mind, and its perception is subjective, unequivocal evidence for which would not be as readily established compared to the objective evidence available for the acts themselves. Here, we explore the concept of “intent” in research misconduct, how it is framed in criminological/legal terms, and narrated from a psychological perspective. Based on these, we propose a framework whereby lines of questioning and investigation, as defined by legislative terms and informed by the models and tools of psychology, could help in establishing a preponderance of evidence for culpable intent. Such a framework could be useful in research misconduct adjudications and in delivering sanctions.
Article
Full-text available
Background The crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem. The purpose of the scoping review was to explore ‘What does the evidence say about the ‘problem’ with ‘poor’ research culture, what are the benefits of ‘good’ research culture, and what does ‘good’ look like?’ Aims To examine the peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore the interplay between research culture, open research, career paths, recognition and rewards, and equality, diversity, and inclusion, as part of a larger programme of activity for a research institution. Methods A scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence was mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022. Results 1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review, resulting in 102 records included in the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability. Conclusions There are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals’ well-being, career progression and performance.
Article
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the creation of safe academic (education and research) environments that offer proper protections to adult academics and staff, so that academia and society at large may benefit from the fruits of safe workplaces. Not all academic environments are entirely safe, and there are recorded cases of victims of harassment and sexual abuse. Design/methodology/approach Given that co-workers in a laboratory, or research subjects in a research project, may be victims of harassment or sexual abuse, and that the same individuals may then become co-authors or anonymized research subjects, respectively, in academic papers, there is a need to appreciate what structural protection exists for such victims at the post-publication level. What should academia do with the literature of legally recognized sex offenders who have published in peer-reviewed and indexed academic journals? Findings Currently, there is no specific guidance by ethics organizations (e.g., Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) to deal with this issue, so protective mechanisms for adult victims, as well as punitive measures against perpetrators at the post-publication stage, are needed. Originality/value There may be career-altering repercussions – personal, professional and reputational – for co-authors of legally recognized sex offenders in papers published in peer-reviewed and indexed journals. There may also be life-altering outcomes to victims of sexual abuse who are the study subjects of such papers. Thus, a robust form of post-publication protection (and justice) based on unbiased and independent ethical and legal investigations, coordinated by editors, publishers and research institutes, needs to be established.
Article
Full-text available
A retraction notice is a formal announcement for the removal of a paper from the literature, which is a weighty matter. Xu et al. (Science and Engineering Ethics, 29(4), 25 2023) reported that 73.7% of retraction notices indexed by the Web of Science (1927–2019) provided no information about institutional investigations that may have led to the retractions, and recommended that Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) retraction guidelines should make it mandatory to disclose institutional investigations leading to retractions in such notices. While this recommendation would add to the transparency of the retraction process, a blanket mandate as such could be potentially problematic. For research misconduct (RM)-positive cases, a mandatory investigative disclosure may be abused by some to deflect responsibility. More importantly, a mandatory disclosure could harm authors and institutions in RM-negative cases (i.e. those stemming from honest errors with no misconduct). I illustrate with case vignettes the potential epistemic injustice and confusion that a mandate for investigation disclosure in retraction notices could incur, and suggest a more nuanced approach to its implementation.
Article
Scientific research is supposed to acquire or generate knowledge, but such a purpose would be severely undermined by instances of research misconduct (RM) and questionable research practices (QRP). RM and QRP are often framed in terms of moral transgressions by individuals (bad apples) whose aberrant acts could be made conducive by shortcomings in regulatory measures of organizations or institutions (bad barrels). This notion presupposes, to an extent, that the erring parties know exactly what they are doing is wrong and morally culpable, but had nonetheless proceeded to commit wrongful acts. However, a confession of intent to deceived is often not readily admitted by perpetrators of RM. I posit that beyond the simplistic notion of conscious moral transgression, deficits in epistemic virtues and/or the prevalence of epistemic vices have important roles to play in initiating and driving RM/QRP. For the individual perpetrator, deficits in epistemic virtues could lead to or amplify errors in one’s desperate attempt to be accomplished or to excel, and pushes one across the ethical line or down the slippery slope of misconduct. Likewise, a lack of epistemic virtue within perpetrators’ institution or organization could make it conducive for deceitful acts and suppress indications and warning signs for the former. Furthermore, epistemic vices exhibited by reviewers, editors and journals could also promote RM/QRP. In this view, epistemic failings, rather than widespread moral deficiencies of individuals within the research ecosystem, may underlie the prevalence of RM/QRP.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.