Summary of Research Misconduct Complaints Processed by the University of Toronto under the University of Toronto Framework to Address Allegations of Research Misconduct (the “Framework”)
Calendar Years 2012 – 2016
|Complaints Received 1||9||7||5||7||6||34|
|Preliminary Inquiries Conducted 4||9||7||5||7||6||34|
|Investigations Conducted 2,4||2||3||0||0||3||10|
|Research Misconduct Confirmed 3,4||4||0||1||0||1||6|
|Nature of the Research Misconduct Confirmed||Redundant publication (1 instance), Misleading publication in internal funding application (failure to obtain agreement of named co-applicants) (1 instance), Breach of funding terms (1 instance), Plagiarism (1 instance)||Misleading publication||Breach of privacy, Failure to follow direction of REB, Failure to reveal COI|
Information current as of December, 2017.
- Complaints over which the University had jurisdiction. If a complaint is made against a person who has an appointment at, or conducts research in, a fully affiliated or community affiliated teaching hospital, institutional jurisdiction over the complaint is determined in accordance with the Faculty of Medicine Research Misconduct Framework Addendum: Procedures for Determining Jurisdiction in Complaints Involving Certain Non-University Institutions.
- The Framework identifies a two-stage process: an initial gathering and review of information at an preliminary inquiry stage and, if recommended by the inquiry, a subsequent investigation.
- Includes confirmation of research misconduct at any stage in the process.
- Cases are listed by the year in which the complaint was received. Inquiries, investigations and final confirmation of misconduct may have occurred in a calendar year subsequent to the year of the complaint, but they have been attributed to the year when the complaint was received.