Case Study in Research Integrity: This Application Feels Familiar

Imagine you are reviewing an application for an NIH study section meeting, and you come across an application that seems just a bit too familiar. The scientific question falls within your wheelhouse. The methods and strategies seem spot on. And isn’t that how you format your text? In this case study, we will discuss how plagiarism in the grant application process is handled at NIH and remind the research community about the importance of maintaining confidentiality of the peer review process. The scenario presented is based on real-world events, with all names and identifiers removed or changed. Dr. ABC found themselves in this situation. While serving as a peer reviewer, they were assigned an application containing sections that looked very similar to their own application submitted several years prior. The current application identifies Dr. XYZ as the project’s lead, who also serves as principal investigator on other NIH awards. ABC immediately contacted the NIH Scientific Review Officer overseeing the study section to share their concerns. The Scientific Review Officer asked the NIH Office of Extramural Research (OER) to take a look and see if plagiarism may have occurred with XYZ’s application. Upon closer inspection, the text in the Procedures and Data Collection sections were found to be too similar to text from ABC’s applications to be coincidental. Looking back at the roster from when ABC’s original application was reviewed, NIH staff identified a f...
Source: NIH Extramural Nexus - Category: Research Authors: Tags: blog Open Mike case study Confidentiality Peer review research misconduct Source Type: funding