Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)

Conflicts of Interest  Federal Researcher Training  Contact RCR

The Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Program at Ball State University is a comprehensive initiative dedicated to ensuring ethical, honest, and accountable conduct of research activities within the institution. Ball State requires all federally funded researchers, their key personnel, and their students to complete the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) RCR Basic Course – All Funded Research modules. See the CITI Program Manual for instructions on accessing this training.

Additional CITI training is also required of all investigators participating in research involving the use of human subjects, or animals, and certificates of completion are required at the time of protocol submission for review by the appropriate ethics boards (e.g., IACUC, IRB, etc). We have specific guidance related to training for federal researchers.

Authorship on a scientific publication and/or creative project is both a reward and a responsibility. The completion and signing on this agreement (Word) aids in the avoidance of conflicts on who should and will be included as an author on scholarly work. For specific rules and recommendations regarding who (in general) qualifies for authorship, please refer to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Research Integrity’s policy on authorship and publication or the Ball State General Authorship Guidelines.

All BSU researchers are encouraged to share their scholarly findings in the form accepted by the university. This web page serves as a general guideline for consideration of the important issues and questions surrounding authorship and publication.

  • Author: An individual who has made substantial intellectual contributions to a scientific investigation, usually through participation in drafting, reviewing, and/or revising the manuscript for intellectual content.
  • Authorship: The ability to publicly take responsibility for the contents of the project (e.g., being sufficiently knowledgeable about the project to be able to present it in a formal forum).
  • Collaborative Research: Equal partnership between two academic faculty members who are pursing mutually interesting and beneficial research, or ii. research involving investigators of differing stature, funding status, and types of organizations or institutions.
  • Data: Information collected for reference and analysis.
  • Data Ownership: Refers to both the possession of and responsibility for information.
  • Plagiarism: To steal and pass off the ideas or words of another as one’s own; literary theft.
  • Presentation: A demonstration or display of a project and project findings.
  • Publication: A structured and controlled means of communicating research results.

Lead Author

  • Assumes overall responsibility for the manuscript and often serves as the managerial and corresponding author.
  • Is not necessarily the primary investigator.

Co-Authors

Authors included in the project that are not the lead author.

Acknowledgements

Individual(s) who may have made some contribution to a publication, but who do not meet the criteria for authorship, including:

  • Staff
  • Editorial Assistants
  • Medical Writers
  • Others

The order of authorship should be based on the degree of importance of each author’s contribution to the project. This is a collective decision among the authors in a group.

Generally, examples of substantive contributions of authors include (but are not limited to) the following:

  • Aiding in the conceptualization of the hypotheses.
  • Designing the methodology of the investigation.
  • Significantly contributing to the writing of the manuscript.

These activities are not (alone) sufficient grounds for authorship:

  • Entering information into databases.
  • Collecting data (running subjects, collecting specimens, distributing and collecting questionnaires.)

Faculty-student collaborations should follow the same criteria to establish authorship. Mentors must exercise great care to neither award authorship to students who contributions do not merit it, nor deny authorship and due credit to the word of students.

Forms of unacceptable authorship include (but are not limited to) the following:

  • Ghost Authorship: occurs when a written work fails to identify individuals who made significant contributions to the research and writing of that work.
  • Guest Authorship: granted out of the appreciation of respect of an individual, or in the belief that expert standing of the guest will increase the likelihood of publication, credibility, or status of the work.
  • Gift Authorship: credit offered from a sense of obligation, tribute, or dependence, within the context of an anticipated benefit, to an individual who has not contributed to the work; also known as honorary authorship.

In the case of an authorship dispute (i.e. disagreement over authorship and order of authors), it is the responsibility of the group to resolve the problem. If a resolution cannot be reached, any concerned party from the group is encouraged to contact the Office of Research Integrity.

Research mentorships are mutually beneficial relationships where an experienced researcher, known as the mentor, shares their expertise, knowledge, and wisdom with a student or early-career researcher, the mentee. By modeling ethical research practices, mentors play a crucial role in educating mentees in responsible conduct of research (RCR).  

All BSU researchers are encouraged to utilize mentorship as a means of both professional development and responsible conduction of research. This web page serves as a general guideline for consideration of the important issues and questions surrounding mentorship.

Please check back during the fall of 2024 for updated mentoring resources including a new mentorship toolkit and mentorship agreement document.

Access the current Ball State University Mentoring Contract here. 

Mentorship Relationship Resources: 

Department of Health and Human Services: Responsible Conduct in Research Mentoring 

National Institutes of Health Mentoring Program: Setting Boundaries in Mentoring Relationships 

Columbia University: Guide to Best Practices in Faculty Mentoring 

 

Mentorship Agreement Resources:  

University of Iowa: Sample Mentoring Agreement  

University of Oklahoma: Undergraduate Research Mentoring Agreement 

Notice: New Mentorship Requirements for Those Receiving Support through National Science Foundation (NSF) funds (effective May 20, 2024) 

If seeking support from the NSF and the proposal includes support for graduate students or post-doctoral scholars, it is mandatory to submit a 1-page “Mentoring Plan” at the time of proposal submission. If funded, Individual Development Plans (IDP) must be developed for each graduate student or post-doctoral scholar, and these IDPs must be updated annually.   

Per NSF PAPPG 24-1, all proposals submitted to the NSF on or after May 20, 2024, that request support for graduate students or postdoctoral scholars must comply with the following:  

  • A mentoring plan must be submitted as a component of the proposal1. Mentoring plan requirements and recommendations can be found here. 

  • Mentoring plans are required for all graduate students and post-doctoral scholars receiving support through the project.  

  • Mentoring activities will be reviewed as part of the proposal under the NSF’s Broader Impacts criterion2. Information about how this criterion is evaluated can be found here.   

  • Principal Investigators (PIs) must report on mentoring activities in each annual and final annual report3. Information about certification requirements can be found here.  

  • If funded, an IDP must be created for each graduate student or post-doctoral scholar receiving support from the award. IDPs must be updated annually, and PIs or co-PIs must certify that each mentee has an IDP at the time of submitting each annual report and final annual report4. Information about IDPs will be made available here in the coming months.  

  • PIs participating in collaborative research shall follow the mentoring activities proposed in the plan submitted by the lead institution. Requirements for these plans set forth by the NSF are outlined here5. 

  • In circumstances where a sub-award is granted or all or part of an award is transferred, PIs or co-PIs must comply with the NSF’s mentorship agreement and IDP requirements listed here6.  

 

View BSU's Mentoring Plan Guidance Document here.

View NSF’s Mentoring Plan resource page here.

Mentoring plans should meet the following requirements:  

  • Those submitting a proposal to the NSF on or after May 20, 2024, that provides support to graduate students or post-doctoral scholars must submit a mentoring plan with the proposal.

  • Mentoring plan requirements7:

  • The plan should be one document, no longer than 1 page. 

  • The addition of the one-page document may not be used to circumvent the 15-page proposal limit.

  • Only one mentoring plan outlining mentoring activities for all graduate and post-doctoral students should be submitted with the proposal.

  • The mentoring plan may differentiate how mentoring activities will be used for graduate students and post-doctoral mentees. 

  • Examples of Mentoring Activities:

  • Training in responsible and ethical conduct of research 

  • Career counseling

  • Guidance on effectively collaborating with researchers from diverse disciplines and backgrounds

  • Training in proposal preparation

  • Guidance in academic presentations

  • Teaching and mentoring skills development guidance

PIs must certify that each postdoctoral scholar and graduate receiving support from the award has an Individual Development Plan (IDP) which maps educational goals, career exploration, and professional development. Project reports should address all mentorship activities under the Broader Impacts criterion, even when not directly related to the research. Reporting is not cumulative and should be written outlining only activities occurring throughout the current budget period. 8

Please work with your SPA Proposal Manager or the Responsible Conduct of Research Officer, when developing your plan for inclusion in your proposal. 

About the Training

Ball State University (BSU) strongly supports the ethical and responsible conduct of research, regardless of funding status or source through training in the responsible conduct of research (RCR).  RCR training is available to researchers through BSU’s partnership with the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI). The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) also provides in-person instruction in RCR as a supplement to CITI training. This training is open to all BSU faculty, students, and staff but is required of those researchers receiving federally funded awards.

To view Ball State University’s Office of Research Integrity Training Plan, click here.

CITI training is required of all investigators participating in research involving the use of human subjects, or animals and certificates of completion are required at the time of protocol submission for review by the appropriate ethics boards (e.g., IACUC, IRB, etc). RCR CITI Training is also required of all federally funded researchers at the point of award. Completion of these trainings is documented by the Cayuse Human Ethics platform if you are an employee at Ball State University.

CITI Training consists of a series of online modules, followed by brief quizzes. A score of at least 80% must be achieved on each post-module quiz for training to be considered sufficient. Instructions for registering and taking the RCR courses can be found on page 4 of the CITI Program Manual (PDF).

 

Responsible Conduct of Research Training

Real-time training in RCR is provided to researchers receiving federally funded support through BSU’s Responsible Conduct of Research Training Program, in addition to the online CITI RCR Training Courses. This training program provides investigators the opportunity to further their understanding of the core values of RCR by working through complex research ethics scenarios in a collaborative learning environment.   

Real-time training for researchers will be offered throughout the academic year. Ball State operates on a two-year training cycle. While there is no requirement to attend these sessions, certain awards may require researchers and their research teams to receive 8 hours of in-person training within a four year period or at each new stage in their career. It is our hope that our sessions will provide Ball State researchers with a way to meet these requirements, as well as recommended face-to-face training requirements by certain federal agencies.

Case Study Number One

Academic avoids jail after being found guilty of fraud for falsifying Parkinson's disease research to obtain $700,000 in research funding

Summary of misconduct

  • P.I. falsified Parkinson's research to obtain a $700,000 research grant.
  • Guilty of five charges of fraud and attempted fraud.
  • Attempted to user others' research as her own for grants and fellowship.
  • Was in a relationship with her superior who asked for the assistance.

Discussion

What implications does this have?

Case Study Number Two

Leading scientist suspended amid 'research misconduct' investigation

Summary of Misconduct

  • P.I. is under investigation for falsifying data (using rotated and reflected images in his papers)
  • Received about $12 million in funding for research of Cystic Fibrosis
  • Collaborated with universities across the world that are now having their credibility questioned

Discussion

Are researchers basing new research off of these findings?