Professional Research Conduct
This domain tests whether you can apply research-integrity norms to concrete situations: who qualifies as an author, how data must be recorded and kept, when a financial interest must be disclosed, and how allegations of misconduct are handled. Expect scenario items that ask for the next correct action rather than a definition.
Core rules
- Misconduct is a narrow category. Federal policy (42 CFR Part 93 for PHS-funded work) defines it as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) in proposing, performing, or reviewing research. Honest error and disagreement about interpretation are explicitly excluded.
- Authorship follows contribution, not seniority. The ICMJE criteria require all four: substantial contribution to conception/design or to acquisition/analysis; drafting or critical revision; approval of the final version; agreement to be accountable. General supervision, funding, or routine technical help does not qualify. Guest, ghost, and gift authorship are violations.
- Data belong to the institution, not the individual. Records must be durable, attributable, and available for verification. PHS rules require retention for three years after the final financial report; many institutions require five to seven. Raw data and the code that produced a figure should both be kept.
- Conflicts are disclosed, not avoided. PHS requires disclosure of significant financial interests (broadly, ≥$5,000 in value or any equity in a non-publicly-traded company) plus reimbursement of sponsored travel, with a 12-month look-back.
Worked example
A reviewer notices a submitted figure whose bands look identical to a published panel, only brighter. Reasoning: the first question is whether this is fabrication, falsification, or error. Image manipulation that changes the meaning of the data is falsification, so it is reported, not merely queried. The reviewer must not contact the author directly, must keep the submission confidential, and should notify the editor with the specific concern. The editor then triggers the institution's process: an inquiry to decide whether a formal investigation is warranted.
Traps
- Believing intent must be proven - it is not an element of an FFP finding, though honest error is a defense.
- Assuming the lab head is automatically an author.
- Sharing identifiable data with a collaborator without an IRB amendment or data-use agreement.
- Reaching for retraction when a correction would fix a minor error.