Responsible Conduct of Research Resources
The TTU Office of Research Integrity works to promote safe, responsible, and productive research practices. The associated Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training supplements research training provided by exceptional Texas Tech faculty to raise trainee awareness of professional standards of research ethics, integrity, and safety, and of challenges they may face throughout their careers. The Office of Research Integrity provides RCR education and guidance on effective research practices such as data management, personnel management, time management, safety in research, intellectual property, management of conflict of interest, ethical use of humans in research, ethical use of animals in research, social responsibility for research, effective collaboration, and research misconduct.
Policies and Resources
Texas Tech Policies
Responsible Conduct of Research Articles
Articles below written by Marianne Evola (unless otherwise noted)
Responsible Research & Conduct
"The Dog Ate My Data" and Other Excuses Commonly Given for Alleged Misconduct
Excuses Provided by Researchers Facing Allegations of Misconduct
Protecting Against Protocol Shift: Endless and Exhausting Vigilance
The Growing Need for Transparency: A Source of Frustration and Pride
Working Alone: A Challenge to Responsible Research Conduct
Best Practices versus the "Wild West Nature of Basic Science"
Defining Responsible Conduct of Research
Responsibility, Perception And Oversight And An Awesome 4-Wheeling Vacation
Frankenstein and other Science Fiction: Responsible Research Teaching Tools
Tools for Responsible Research
Negative Results: The Data are the Data
The Logic of Responsible Conduct of Research Training
Cultural Differences and Knowledge About Responsible Research Conduct
Objectivity, Bias and (Financial) Conflict of Interest
Responsible Conduct in Research (RCR) Training – Why Participate?
Social Responsibility, the Lesser Discussed Parameter of Responsible Research Conduct
Knowing Right from Wrong is Not the Same as Doing Right and Wrong
Safety & Compliance
The Nitpicky People: Why Compliance Committees and Personnel Attend to Details
University Bureaucracy: Research Facilitation or Compliance?
Never Work Alone - Safety Hazards
Sexual Assault - The Undiscussed Safety Issue
Data Management
The Utility of Data Management Plans and Other Written Protocols
Challenges For Data Management
The Use of Checklists for Lab and Data Management
Research Collaboration
How Frankenstein Bridges the Sciences and the Humanities
Guest column by Kelsie Jackson
Collaboration: The Scholarly "Marriage"
The Importance of Difficult Dialogues
Mentorship
Finding the Right Research Lab: A Website for Reviewing Research Mentors
The Persistence of the Mentor/Protégé Power Dynamic
Should I Stay? Deciding Whether to Stay With a Lab or Mentor
Choosing a Mentor or Research Group
Mentoring Undergraduate Assistants is Valuable Career Training for Graduate Students
Paraphrasing, Plagiarism & Authorship
Paraphrasing Software: A New Source of Awkward Sentences and an Obstacle to Intellectual Growth
Self-Plagiarism: Can You Steal From Yourself?
Defining Authorship: Thoughts on a Necessary Conversation
The ‘Re-’s of Responsible Research
Research Communication
The Critical Role of Peer Review in Ethical Communication
Academic Communication: Just the Facts or Are We Salesmen?
Professional Development
The Significance and Fragility of Professional Reputations
Reputation, Perception of Conflict of Interest and Potential for Bias in Research
The Difficulties of Asking for Help: A Weakness of High Achievers
Imposter Syndrome: No, You Were Not Mistakenly Accepted to Graduate School
Perceptions of Bias: A Source for Scandal
Confessions and Enlightenment of a Reluctant Student of Statistics
Tips From A Recovering Procrastinator
Human Subjects
Ethical Training for Student Researchers Working with Human Research Subjects
The Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) Office and the Institutional Review Board (IRB)
When Exempt Does Not Mean Exempt - IRB
Ethical Treatment of Human Subjects in Research Should be Important to Everyone
Publishing Research
Is the Research World Facing a Crisis of Reproducibility?
What is the Goal of Retraction?
Retraction Watch as a Tool to Promote Responsible Conduct in Research
Enhancing Communication and Understanding with the New ARRIVE Guidelines for Publication
Innovation
Intellectual Property: A Whole Lot More Than Copyrights and Patents
Sponsor Requirements and Guidance
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Science Foundation (NSF)
Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP)
Office of Research Integrity (ORI)
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Samples of Professional Association Guidance
American Anthropological Association (AAA), 2012
American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2009
American Educational Research Association (AERA), 2011
American Physical Society (APS), 2001
American Psychological Association (APA), 2010
Developing Professional Skills
Ten Simple Rules Collection – Each article in "Ten Simple Rules" provides a quick, concentrated guide for mastering some of the professional challenges that scholars face in their careers. Examples include Ten Simple Rules for a good data management plan, for establishing international collaborations, and to win a Nobel Prize.
Making the Right Moves – Based on workshops co-sponsored by the Burroughs Wellcome Fund and HHMI, this book provides practical advice from seasoned investigators and includes chapters on laboratory leadership, getting funded, project management, and teaching and course design.
Science Careers – Career tools and advice from AAAS
ORI – Office of Research Integrity, US DHHS. Click on RCR Resources on the blue ribbon to open a menu of resources. Two of the best are
- The Lab – an interactive movie (English, Spanish, or Chinese) that allows you to make decisions about questionable research practices
- The Research Clinic – a simulated research study that lets you become the PI, a research coordinator, an RA, or an IRB Chair
Defining Authorship & Credit
Peer Review Confidentiality Requirements
Peer reviewers must preserve confidentiality throughout the review process. This obligation requires awareness that some practices are unacceptable when serving as a peer reviewer. For example, it is unacceptable to do any of the following without receiving prior permission from the funding agency or journal editor/publisher:
- Ask students or anyone else to conduct or contribute to a proposal or manuscript review you were asked to complete.
- Use an idea or information contained in a grant proposal or in an unpublished manuscript
before it becomes publicly available.
Discuss grant proposals or manuscripts you are reviewing with internal or external colleagues (administrators, supervisors, peers, subordinates, students, etc.), family members (spouses/partners, children, etc.) or friends. - Provide paper or electronic copies of grant proposals or manuscripts you are reviewing to internal or external colleagues (administrators, supervisors, peers, subordinates, students, etc.), family members (spouses/partners, children, etc.) or friends.
- Retain a copy of the reviewed material after the review is completed. Generally, manuscripts and grant proposals should be shredded or returned after the review is complete.
Adhering to the confidentiality of peer review processes is also essential when serving as a manuscript author or contributor to a research proposal. You should not contact review panel members or journal reviewers to discuss your submission before or after review.
Please consider the following points regarding confidentiality requirements during the peer review process:
Non-Disclosure
Treat all information provided in grant applications and manuscripts, including project
details, budget information and personal data, as strictly confidential. Disclosing
any of this information to unauthorized individuals violates your confidentiality
agreement.
Privacy Protection
Pay close attention to protecting the privacy of applicants submitting grant proposals
and manuscripts. Any personal or sensitive information shared within grant applications
and manuscripts should be handled with the utmost care to prevent unauthorized access
or disclosure.
Professionalism and Respect
Demonstrate professionalism and respect for applicants by maintaining strict confidentiality.
Doing so upholds your commitment to ethical conduct and ensures all applicants are
treated fairly and without bias during the review process.
Data Security
Ensure that all electronic and/or physical copies of grant applications and manuscripts
are stored securely and accessed only by authorized personnel involved in the review
process. Safeguarding data security is critical to preventing any unauthorized breaches
of confidentiality.
Questions regarding peer review and confidentiality should be addressed to Dr. Alice Young or Dr. CassiDe Street in the Office of Responsible Research.
Texas Tech expects faculty serving as peer reviewers to understand and abide by these confidentiality principles and their written agreements with external agencies and publishers. Thank you for your commitment to upholding confidentiality requirements in peer reviews.
Setting Up Collaborations
Questions for Scientific Collaborators - NIH
Tools for Handling Conflict - NIH Office of the Ombudsperson
Key Skills for Success - NIH Office of the Ombudsperson
Ten Simple Rules for a Successful Collaboration – PLOS Computational Biology
Ten Simple Rules for a Successful Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration - PLOS Computational Biology
Chapter 12: Setting up Collaborations – Making the Right Moves, HHMI
Setting Up Your Research Group
Create a Handbook for your research group
Use a Handbook or Group Manual to describe roles and expectations, and to provide links to important tools and systems.
ARTICLES ABOUT HOW TO Create a handbook
-
- 2023 | Research Culture: Why every lab needs a handbook | eLife (elifesciences.org)
- 2022 | Research Culture: Welcome to the lab | eLife (elifesciences.org)
- 2020 | How to… write a lab handbook (rsb.org.uk)
- 2019 | Creating a New Member Handbook | ORI - The Office of Research Integrity (hhs.gov)
- 2019 | Why some professors welcome new lab members with clear expectations—in writing | Science | AAAS
- 2018 | The key to a happy lab life is in the manual (nature.com) (behind paywall) and 1d2439_3e6a79b742134144b20662f7d6794d51.pdf (alylab.org) (copy posted on author's website)
Examples of handbooks & Group Manuals
-
- Prof. Kate Laskowski (Evolution & ecology, UC Davis) | Lab values & expectations – Laskowski Lab at UC Davis
- Prof. Mariam Aly (Cognitive psychology, UC Berkeley) | labmanual/aly-lab-manual.pdf at master · alylab/labmanual · GitHub
Prof. Anne McNeil (Chemistry, U Mich) | GroupManualJune2015.pdf (umich.edu)
Managing Your Research Group
-
- 2022 | 10 Simple Rules for a Supportive Lab Environment | Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience | MIT Press
- 2022 | Strategies on how to maximize the moment as a junior faculty - PMC (nih.gov)
- 2021 | A guide to setting up and managing a lab at a research-intensive institution | BMC Proceedings | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)
- 2019 | Ten simple rules towards healthier research labs | PLOS Computational Biology
- 2010 | At the Helm: Leading Your Laboratory (2nd ed.) by Kathy Barker (book available @TTU Library)
- An Ageless Classic | Making the Right Moves | HHMI
Thoughtful Advice For Thinking Through New Challenges
Office of Research & Innovation
-
Address
Texas Tech University, 2500 Broadway, Box 41075 Lubbock, TX 79409 -
Phone
806.742.3905 -
Email
vpr.communications@ttu.edu