BackgroundAcademic institutions play important roles in protecting and preserving research integrity. Concerns have been expressed about the objectivity, adequacy and transparency of institutional investigations of potentially compromised research integrity. We assessed the reports provided to us of investigations by three academic institutions of a large body of overlapping research with potentially compromised integrity.MethodsIn 2017, we raised concerns with four academic institutions about the integrity of > 200 publications co-authored by an overlapping set of researchers. Each institution initiated an investigation. By November 2018, three had reported to us the results of their investigations, but only one report was publicly available. Two investigators independently assessed each available report using a published 26-item checklist designed to determine the quality and adequacy of institutional investigations of research integrity. Each assessor recorded additional comments ad hoc.ResultsConcerns raised with the institutions were overlapping, wide-ranging and included those which were both general and publication-specific. The number of potentially affected publications at individual institutions ranged from 34 to 200. The duration of investigation by the three institutions which provided reports was 8–17 months. These investigations covered 14%, 15% and 77%, respectively, of potentially affected publications. Between-assessor agreement using the quality checklist was 0.68, 0.72 and 0.65 for each report. Only 4/78 individual checklist items were addressed adequately: a further 14 could not be assessed. Each report was graded inadequate overall. Reports failed to address publication-specific concerns and focussed more strongly on determining research misconduct than evaluating the integrity of publications.ConclusionsOur analyses identify important deficiencies in the quality and reporting of institutional investigation of concerns about the integrity of a large body of research reported by an overlapping set of researchers. They reinforce disquiet about the ability of institutions to rigorously and objectively oversee integrity of research conducted by their own employees.

中文翻译：

---

学术机构研究诚信调查报告的质量

背景学术机构在保护和维护研究诚信方面发挥着重要作用。人们对可能损害研究诚信的机构调查的客观性、充分性和透明度表示担忧。我们评估了三个学术机构向我们提供的对大量重叠研究的调查报告，这些研究的完整性可能受到损害。方法2017 年，我们向四个学术机构提出了对由一组重叠的研究人员共同撰写的超过 200 篇出版物的完整性的担忧。研究人员。各机构均已展开调查。截至 2018 年 11 月，已有三人向我们报告了调查结果，但只有一份报告是公开的。两名研究人员使用已发布的 26 项清单独立评估了每份可用报告，该清单旨在确定研究诚信机构调查的质量和充分性。每位评估员都会临时记录额外的评论。结果向各机构提出的担忧是重叠的、范围广泛的，包括一般性的和针对特定出版物的担忧。个别机构可能受影响的出版物数量为 34 至 200 种。提供报告的三个机构的调查持续时间为 8 至 17 个月。这些调查分别覆盖了 14%、15% 和 77% 的可能受影响的出版物。对于每份报告，使用质量检查表的评估者之间的一致性分别为 0.68、0.72 和 0.65。只有 4/78 个单独的清单项目得到了充分解决：另外 14 个项目无法评估。每份报告总体上都被评为不充分。报告未能解决特定于出版物的问题，并且更侧重于确定研究不端行为，而不是评估出版物的完整性。结论我们的分析发现，机构调查的质量和报告存在重大缺陷，这些缺陷是对由一个机构报告的大量研究的完整性的担忧。重叠的研究人员组。它们加剧了人们对机构严格、客观地监督其员工所进行的研究的完整性的能力的担忧。