PRC study plan

Map the full scope of Professional Research Conduct by listing every sub-area you can identify from your own knowledge, then flag which ones you cannot yet define in one sentence

Write a one-paragraph plain-language definition of research misconduct and distinguish it from honest error, questionable research practices, and fraud

Build a personal glossary spreadsheet with at least 25 terms (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, authorship, conflicts of interest, data retention, informed consent, IRB/ethics review, retraction, correction) and a working definition for each

Identify three realistic workplace scenarios where conduct rules would apply to your current or target role and note which rule governs each

Explain the difference between fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism using one original example of each that is not drawn from any published case

Describe the purpose and typical composition of an ethics review board or IRB and outline what a reviewer looks for in a protocol

Draft a checklist of the elements a research protocol must contain before it can be ethically reviewed (purpose, risks, benefits, consent process, data handling, withdrawal)

Practice applying the checklist to a hypothetical study you invent, and record which elements are weakest

Define authorship criteria and articulate why gift, ghost, and guest authorship are problematic

Explain how author order is normally determined and what to do when contributors disagree

Describe the disclosure obligations created by financial and non-financial conflicts of interest, and give two original examples of each

Write a short conflict-of-interest disclosure statement as if submitting your own work

Define data integrity, data provenance, and reproducible analysis, and explain how each supports trustworthy research

Describe reasonable data retention expectations and the privacy constraints that limit sharing

Explain what retraction and correction are, who decides, and how each is communicated

Identify the signs of image or figure manipulation that a reviewer should question

Explain the difference between plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and duplicate submission, and state when reusing your own text is acceptable

Describe how to paraphrase, quote, and cite correctly, and identify the three most common citation errors

Explain how to handle suspected misconduct: who to notify, what to document, and what confidentiality applies

Distinguish retaliation and whistleblower protection concepts and explain why they matter to reporting

Explain mentorship and supervision responsibilities, including training juniors in conduct standards and reviewing their work

Describe the responsibilities of a principal investigator for the conduct of a whole team

Explain peer review duties: confidentiality, impartiality, conflict disclosure, and timeliness

Draft feedback on a hypothetical manuscript in which you flag one integrity concern professionally and constructively

Synthesize the whole domain into a single outline covering all sub-areas you mapped in week 1, filling any remaining gaps

Answer 40 original practice questions you write yourself from your glossary and score your recall honestly

Re-explain the five weakest terms aloud without notes and record where you stumble

Identify which sub-areas still need review and rank them by risk of being tested

Review only your ranked weak areas from week 7 and close each gap with a written definition and example

Complete two timed full-domain review sessions and note your error patterns

Practice scenario questions where the right answer depends on distinguishing two similar concepts (for example, fabrication versus falsification)

Write a final one-page summary sheet you could reread in the last hour before the exam