A.S.P.E.N. Policy on Academic Misconduct

Approved by the Board of Directors October 2006

 

This policy is intended to address how to respond to incidents of academic misconduct related to the Society’s journals, publications and abstract review process.  

 

Academic Misconduct Related to Publications

Academic misconduct relating to the journals and publications is defined as any instance that results in the publication of information that:

1. Is intentionally erroneous,
2. Has been published elsewhere by a different author and is not acknowledged (plagiarism), or
3. Has been published elsewhere by the same author and is not acknowledged (duplicate publishing, or self-plagiarism).

 

Intentionally erroneous information primarily involves research data that have been purposefully manipulated to provide misleading results that would not have otherwise been borne out; for example, inaccurately recording data to elicit the desired results.

 

Incidents of plagiarism occur when an author publishing in one of A.S.P.E.N.’s journals or other publications knowingly includes information previously published by a different author and does not acknowledge the original source or author.

 

Duplicate publishing occurs when an author publishing in one of A.S.P.E.N.’s journals or other publications includes information he or she has already published in a different publication without acknowledging or explaining the rationale for the duplication to the Editor of the A.S.P.E.N. journal or other publication.  If the author acknowledges that the material has been previously published in another form, publication of the material in an A.S.P.E.N. journal is left to the Editor’s discretion and no disciplinary action is warranted.

All three types of academic misconduct should be considered serious breaches in professionalism and, especially in cases of the first type, may result in patient care that is inappropriate or dangerous.  In addition, such incidents may expose the Society to possible litigation.  Therefore, each instance must be addressed thoroughly and promptly.  Any investigation should remain confidential until it is completed, and discretion should be used to protect the integrity of the process and the individuals involved, should the allegation prove false.

 

The Editor of the journal or publication in which the incident occurs should take the lead in resolving the matter.  The Editor should take the following steps when addressing incidents of possible academic misconduct:

1. Immediately notify the Managing Editor, who will notify the Executive Director of the possible academic misconduct (hereafter referred to as the “Allegation”).
2. If the Allegation has not been made in writing, request that this be done.
3. On receiving the written Allegation, determine if the Allegation has merit.  If it is found not to have merit, notify in writing the individuals who have brought the Allegation that a decision has been made not to investigate further and briefly describe the reasons for that decision.
4. If the Allegation is found to have merit, communicate with the individuals who brought the Allegation; also communicate with the author or authors involved and provide them with the opportunity to explain the incident.
5. Determine the extent and significance of the misconduct and notify the Managing Editor, who should notify the Executive Director before any other action is taken.  If appropriate, the Executive Director shall notify the Society’s attorney.
6. In collaboration with the Managing Editor and the Executive Director, choose one or more of the following actions depending on the determination made in step 5:

1. Request that the author(s) write a letter of acknowledgement and apology to be published in a subsequent issue of the journal.  In a publication, it may be issued as an errata.
2. Publish a statement of concern explaining the allegation to the public in a future issue of the journal. In a publication, it may be issued as an errata.
3. With the express approval of the Society’s corporate counsel, notify in writing the department heads of all the authors’ academic institutions that the incident has occurred.  This should be an objective, concise description of the incident.
4. Publish a retraction of the article in the journal.  In a publication, it may be issued as an errata.
5. Ban the author(s) from publishing in future A.S.P.E.N. journals and other publications.

7. Notify the author(s) in writing of the action proposed to be taken under section 6 and offer the author(s) the opportunity of a hearing within the next 60 days before a special committee appointed by the A.S.P.E.N. Board of Directors.  At such a hearing, the Editor shall support his or her recommendation and the author(s) involved shall be given the opportunity to respond.  Formal rules of evidence shall not apply and the Special Committee of the Board may consider any evidence it deems relevant.  Within one week of the conclusion of such hearing, the Committee shall notify the Editor and the involved author(s) of the action to be taken, which in no event may be more severe than that recommended by the Editor.

 

The Editor should make the final decision if there is disagreement about the appropriate course of action.  The Editor may choose to consult the Associate Editors or members of the Editorial Board before making the decision.

 

According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, editors have a responsibility to pursue possible scientific misconduct.  However, editors are not responsible for conducting a full investigation or deciding whether scientific misconduct occurred.  Those responsibilities rest with the institution where the work was conducted or with the funding agency.

 

Academic Misconduct Related to the Abstract Review Process

Academic misconduct relating to the abstract review process is defined as submission of an abstract that is:

 

1. Intentionally erroneous,
2. Has been submitted elsewhere by a different individual and not acknowledged (plagiarism), or
3. Has been submitted elsewhere by the same author without acknowledgement (duplicate submission, or self-plagiarism).
4. Has been submitted by a member of the committee and/or his or her department, and the committee member does not declare a conflict of interest and recuse themselves from the review process.

 

Intentionally erroneous information primarily involves research data that have been purposefully manipulated to provide misleading results that would not have otherwise been borne out; for example, inaccurately recording data to elicit the desired results.

 

Incidents of plagiarism occur when the individual submitting an abstract for presentation at an A.S.P.E.N. meeting knowingly includes information previously presented or published by a different individual and does not acknowledge the original source.

 

Duplicate submission occurs when the individual submitting an abstract for presentation at an A.S.P.E.N. meeting includes information he or she has already presented at another meeting without acknowledging or explaining the rationale for the duplication to the chair of the A.S.P.E.N. Abstract Review Committee.  If the individual acknowledges that the material has been previously presented in another forum, acceptance of the material for A.S.P.E.N. is left to the committee’s discretion and no disciplinary action is warranted.

 

A conflict of interest occurs when a committee member does not disclose a potential conflict of interest with an abstract submission and participates in the scoring and review of that abstract.

 

All four types of academic misconduct should be considered serious breaches in professionalism and, especially in cases of the first type, may result in patient care that is inappropriate or dangerous.  In addition, such incidents may expose the Society to possible litigation.  Therefore, each instance must be addressed thoroughly and promptly.  Any investigation should remain confidential until it is completed, and discretion should be used to protect the integrity of the process and the individuals involved, should the allegation prove false.

 

The Chair of the Abstract Review Committee should take the lead in resolving the matter.  The Chair should take the following steps when addressing incidents of possible academic misconduct:

1. Immediately notify the Program Director for Research, who will notify the Executive Director of the possible academic misconduct (hereafter referred to as the “Allegation”).
2. If the Allegation has not been made in writing, request that this be done.
3. On receiving the written Allegation, determine if the Allegation has merit.  If it is found not to have merit, notify in writing the individuals who have brought the Allegation that a decision has been made not to investigate further and briefly describe the reasons for that decision.
4. If the Allegation is found to have merit, communicate with the individuals who brought the Allegation; also communicate with the individual or individuals who submitted the abstract and provide them with the opportunity to explain the incident.
5. Determine the extent and significance of the misconduct and notify the Program Director for Research, who should notify the Executive Director before any other action is taken.  If appropriate, the Executive Director shall notify the Society’s attorney.
6. In collaboration with the Program Director and the Executive Director, choose one or more of the following actions depending on the determination made in step 5:

1. Request that the individual(s) who submitted the abstract write a letter of acknowledgement and apology. If this occurs after the abstract has been presented at an A.S.P.E.N. meeting, the letter must be published in an appropriate A.S.P.E.N. communication.
2. With the express approval of the Society’s corporate counsel, notify in writing the department heads of all the authors’ academic institutions that the incident has occurred.  This should be an objective, concise description of the incident.
3. Ban the individuals(s) from submitting abstracts in the future.
4. In the case of a committee member, the committee member may also be removed from the committee and banned from serving on future A.S.P.E.N. committees.

7. Notify the individual(s) in writing of the action proposed to be taken under section 6 and offer the individual(s) the opportunity of a hearing within the next 60 days before a special committee appointed by the A.S.P.E.N. Board of Directors.  At such a hearing, the Chair shall support his or her recommendation and the individual(s) involved shall be given the opportunity to respond.  Formal rules of evidence shall not apply and the Special Committee of the Board may consider any evidence it deems relevant.  Within one week of the conclusion of such hearing, the Committee shall notify the Chair and the involved individuals (s) of the action to be taken, which in no event may be more severe than that recommended by the Chair.

 

The Chair should make the final decision if there is disagreement about the appropriate course of action.  The Chair may choose to consult the members of the Abstract Review Committee before making the decision.

 

The Role of the National Office

The national office—primarily the Executive Director and either the Managing Editor or Program Director for Research —should serve as advisors to the Editor or Chair in determining an appropriate course of action.  They may be asked to gather informal information regarding how other societies have approached similar incidents.  They will serve as the liaisons with the Society’s corporate counsel.   The national office should retain copies of all correspondence related to an investigation of potential academic misconduct.