ARCHIVED - CIHR Report on Allegations of Non-Compliance with Research Policies (Fiscal Years 2000/01-2010/11)

WarningThis page has been archived. Please visit the Responsible Conduct of Research page for current information.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.

The graph and table below provide a statistical analysis of allegations of non-compliance with research policies submitted to CIHR between April 2000 and March 2011. A total of 97 allegations were received, the majority submitted by individuals and peer reviewers.

Graph

Detailed Breakdown of Research Integrity Files

Fiscal Year # allegations received by CIHR # allegations not pursued # allegations pursued # related to TCPS-I # related to TCPS-E # related to GAG, MOU, other* Misconduct found by Institution No misconduct found by Institution Active
2000-01 4 3 1 1 1 2 1 0 0
2001-02 8 4 4 4 1 3 3 1 0
2002-03 8 3 5 4 2 2 4 1 0
2003-04 11 2 9 9 1 1 4 5 0
2004-05 12 3 9 2 6 4 6 3 0
2005-06 5 1 4 4 0 1 1 3 0
2006-07 13 4 9 8 0 5 3 6 0
2007-08 6 2 4 3 1 2 2 2 0
2008-09 8 1 7 8 0 0 5 2 0
2009-10 9 2 7 8 0 1 2 2 3
2010-11 13 0 13 8 1 4 3 5 5
Total 97 25 72 59 13 25 34 30 8

*Includes allegations outside the mandate of CIHR

Types of allegations

Of the 97 allegations received since 2000,

  • 59 (61%) related to matters associated with the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Integrity in Research and Scholarship (TCPS-I), such as plagiarism, falsification of research results, and fraudulent data;
  • 13 (13%) related to matters associated to the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct of Research involving Humans (TCPS-E), such as ethics certification issues;
  • 17 (18%) related to matters associated with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and other policies, such as lack of adherence to CIHR's Grants and Awards Guide (GAG); and
  • 8 (8%) fell outside the mandate of CIHR.

Initial actions taken by CIHR

Of the 97 allegations received,

  • 72 (74%) were referred to the institution for action or the institution was required to provide information, as requested by CIHR's Research Integrity Committee or its Secretariat;
  • 25 (26%) were not pursued because,the information presented did not justify further action;
    • the matter was outside CIHR's mandate;
    • the source of the allegation was anonymous and the facts were not publicly available nor otherwise independently verifiable, or the source refused to or was unable to provide such information; and/or
    • of unreasonable delay between the alleged event and the receipt of the allegation.

Results of Institutional Investigations

Of the 72 allegations that were referred to institutions for investigation,

  • 34 (48%) were founded, meaning that the institution concluded that misconduct did occur;
  • 30 (42%) were either not sustained, were settled before a formal investigation was undertaken, or it was not possible for the institution to complete the investigation; and
  • 8 (10%) files remain active.

CIHR Recourse

  • CIHR took recourse in 14 of the 34 confirmed cases of misconduct.
  • Recourse is taken by CIHR only in serious matters, where institutional actions do not suffice.
  • Where misconduct centred on less-serious, procedural matters, and where these were effectively addressed by institutions, CIHR took no action.
  • To date, the types of recourse that CIHR has taken in matters of confirmed misconduct included rendering respondents ineligible for CIHR funding for periods ranging from 1 year to indefinitely; and declaring respondents ineligible to serve on peer review committees or any CIHR committee for a defined period of time.

Supplemental content (right column)