The University of Southern California is committed to the creation of knowledge through research and scholarship. In this mission, USC seeks to ensure the highest degree of integrity in the design, conduct, and reporting of research. Towards this goal USC expects all members of the USC research community–faculty, staff, students, visiting researchers and collaborators–to adhere to the six foundational core values of research and scholarship:
- Objectivity – Objectivity in research is intended to ensure that researchers’ personal beliefs and qualities, motivations, position, material interests, field of specialty, prominence or other factors to not introduce biases into their work;
- Honesty – Research Institutions and stakeholders start with the assumption of honesty. Honesty is the principal value that underlies all of the other relationship values. For example, without an honest foundation, realizing the values of openness, accountability, and fairness would be impossible;
- Openness – Openness refers to the value of being transparent and presenting all the information relevant to a decision or conclusion. All data on which a result is based should be available to others so that they may reproduce and verify results and/or build on them;
- Fairness – The judging of others’ work for the purposes of funding, publication, teaching or deciding who is hired or promoted, should be done without bias;
- Accountability – All members of the research community are responsible for, and should stand behind their work, statements, actions, and roles in the conduct of their work;
- Stewardship – The research enterprise cannot continue to function unless the members of that system exhibit good stewardship both toward the other members of the system and toward the system itself. Good stewardship implies being aware of and attending carefully to the dynamics of the relationships within the lab, at the institutional level, and at the broad level of the research enterprise.
The reputation of our institution and our researchers is only as great as the integrity we personally practice. It is expected that all members of the USC community will be held accountable to this code. If any member of the USC community suspects this code has been violated, it is their responsibility to report such behavior.
Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training is one aspect of USC’s commitment to maintain the highest possible standards for integrity among its entire research community, including students, faculty and staff, as reflected in USC’s Code of Ethics.
Behavioral Scenario 1
Q – My PI gave me a manuscript of our laboratory’s work to review before submission for publication. In reviewing the data in the manuscript, I noticed that it did not match the raw experimental data. The paper proports that the results of the experiments were more significant than they actually were. My PI is a very prominent tenured professor. I am a second-year graduate student and do not want to jeopardize my career. Should I ignore this and say nothing?
A – No, you should not ignore this. As a member of the USC research community, it is your responsibility to stand behind the work coming out of your lab. This situation may be a result of an honest error. You should address these concerns with your PI. However, if you feel uncomfortable doing so you, or not satisfied with your PI’s response, should report your concerns to the USC Research Integrity Officer to review with your PI. You may do so anonymously and your concerns will remain confidential.
Behavioral Scenario 2
Q – I recently sat on a review panel that reviewed a proposal of a group work that is very similar to the work my lab does. I found one of the novel experiments that group proposed to be very useful in elucidating the research question my lab is asking. Is it acceptable to take this knowledge back to my lab and perform the experiment as relevant to my work?
A – No, this is not acceptable and is considered plagiarism of ideas. Sometimes a potential reviewer is presented with a very awkward problem when he/she is asked to review a grant proposal that is very close to his/her own work. By agreeing to review, the reviewer assumes an obligation to keep the data in confidence and not to use it for his/her own benefit. This can raise a problem when a reviewer receives a request to review a proposal which reports experiments that overlap with studies that the reviewer is already performing, planning to perform, or preparing for publication.
In the future, if you are asked to review a paper or proposal that is too similar to your research, you should decline the review. To review would present a “no-win” situation even if you act with the utmost integrity. If the proposal is good and you were to review it and recommend acceptance, you might well compromise your ability to publish your own work – this knowledge creates an immediate, significant conflict of interest. On the other hand, if the proposal proves to be flawed and you (with all integrity) were to recommend extensive revisions or rejection, the perception of misconduct could arise in the editor’s mind when your own related studies are submitted or published.
Behavioral Scenario 3
Q – The first ten of the twelve measurements we took in an experiment are very near the predicted value (all with a deviation under 1), but the last two are way off. We think we must have made some kind of mistake on those two measurements. We might have read the instrument wrong or made a mistake in writing down the value, or maybe the instrument was malfunctioning near the end (maybe it overheated). Since these two points are obviously incorrect, and the other ten provide ample confirmation of the hypothesis, we think we have enough data to write our article without further experiments. Is it necessary to mention the two outliers in our article?
A – Yes, you may exclude outliers from the overall conclusions of an experiment, but this must be explained with clarity wherever this research is presented in written or oral form. For the sake of transparency and reproducibility, all removed outliers must be described. Intentional “cherry-picking” of data can be considered research misconduct.
Behavioral Scenario 4
Q – After completing my Ph.D. at another institution I was offered an Assistant Professorship here at USC. I now have my own laboratory and trainees. I will soon be submitting a manuscript of my current lab’s work for publication. The conceptualization of the research design, the work, analysis, and writing of the manuscript were all carried out in my lab. Out of courtesy, and also to get an opinion, I gave the manuscript to my former advisor for comments. My advisor reviewed the manuscript and offered a few minor suggestions. He is now requesting authorship on the paper as an advisor and reviewer. Should he be included as an author?
A – Based on those facts, he should not be. Everyone who is listed as an author on a manuscript or creative work should have made a substantial, direct, intellectual contribution to that work. Honorary authorship of a former advisor is not appropriate. USC has a comprehensive guide for assigning authorship and for attributing contributions to research products and creative works. This guidance will help you to determine who should receive credit for authorship and other works.