This page describes the policy of the Scientific Red Cards website concerning the following points:

1. Criteria for publication registration
2. Types of misconduct
3. Institutions considered as legitimate to assess misconduct
4. Removal of publications from the list
5. Requests

1. Criteria for publication registration

In order to be included in the list of publications associated with misconduct, a publication must meet two requirements:

1/ be associated with one of the types of misconduct defined below (section 2), which refer to the definitions of the European Science Foundation (ESF) Member Organisation Forum on Research Integrity [1] and the Office of Research Integrity (ORI, associated to the US Public Health Service) [2];

AND

2/ have been

• assessed by institutions dealing with scientific misconduct and defined by the criteria detailed below (section 3);
• or acknowledged by at least one of the authors in a note published in a journal referenced on the databases PubMed or Web of Science.

2. Types of misconduct

The types of misconduct for which a publication can be recorded on this website are the following:

• Fabrication: making up results and recording them as if they were real;
• Falsification: manipulating research processes or changing or omitting data;
• Plagiarism: the appropriation of other people’s material without giving proper credit;
• Other forms of misconduct including failure to meet clear ethical and legal requirements such as misrepresentation of interests, breach of confidentiality, lack of informed consent and abuse of research subjects or materials. Misconduct also includes improper dealing with infringements, such as attempts to cover up misconduct and reprisals on whistleblowers.

These types are based on the definitions of misconduct by the ESF Member Organisation Forum on Research Integrity and the ORI [3,4]. The definition of misconduct of the ORI consists of the first three types only (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism). The ESF Member Organisation Forum on Research Integrity adds to these 4 categories a 5th category: "minor misdemeanours (which) may not lead to formal investigations, but are just as damaging given their probable frequency, and should be corrected by teachers and mentors". This category is not included here as it is not relevant for the purpose of this website, which focuses on publications.

There is a continuum between all these misbehaviours. Therefore, we defined three categories to help the reader identify the different types of misconduct. But these categories neither refer to any official classification, nor suggest any hierarchy in the seriousness of the types of misconduct.

3. Institutions considered as legitimate to assess misconduct

The ESF Member Organisation Forum on Research Integrity has identified four types of institutions that "have an obligation to raise awareness and share information about good research practices to promote research integrity":

• Academies of Science
• Universities and Research performing organisations
• Funding organisations
• Science journals and magazines editors

This website accepts and publishes assessments of misconducts only from institutions belonging to one of these types of institutions. Assessments from science journals and magazines editors will be considered only for misconduct cases related to ethical and editorial practices (4th type of misconduct as defined in section 2).

4. Removal of publications from the list

A publication can be removed from the list of publications associated with scientific misconduct in the following cases:

• if the institution that assessed the misconduct publicly acknowledges that this judgment was erroneous and retracts the conclusions of the inquiry;
• in case the assessment of misconduct was only that of the authors: if the authors who previously acknowledged misconduct retracts their confession and deny they were responsible of misconduct as they initially claimed, by publishing a note in a journal referenced on the databases PubMed or Web of Science;
• if the editors of the website wish to remove a given element, on condition that the editors publish a note on the website explaining the reason of the removal;
• if the assessment of misconduct corresponding to the publication is no longer available on the website of the institution that provided the assessment (except if the assessment is a public document). In that case, the editors will remove the corresponding publications, within a period of 6 months.

In all these cases, the removal of a publication will be mentioned on the website blog with a description of the reasons of this removal.

5. Requests

In case a person wants to object to the registration of a publication, he or she can contact the website editors at contact[AT]scientificredcards.org. The editors will take this email into consideration and give an appropriate answer within 3 months after reception of the email.

References

1. ESF Member Organisation Forum on Research Integrity
   http://www.esf.org/activities/mo-fora/research-integrity.html
2. Office of Research integrity (ORI)
   http://ori.hhs.gov/
3. Fostering Research Integrity in Europe – Executive Report, by the ESF Member Organisation Forum on Research Integrity (2010)
4. Definition of misconduct, by the ORI