Research Integrity is the expectation that each member of the University of Toronto has a responsibility to foster intellectual honesty and to be vigilant regarding the conduct of research and scholarship, whether their own or others.
The University’s Policy on Ethical Conduct in Research requires members to follow “the highest standards of ethical conduct in every aspect of research including applications, proposals, the research itself, reports and publication.” These standards of ethical conduct are consistent with the requirements of granting agencies and others who sponsor research at the University.
Ensuring research integrity is the responsibility of all members of the University who are involved in research.
U of T strives to uphold the highest standards of research integrity and will respond to allegations of research misconduct according to the Framework to Address Allegations of Research Misconduct.
“Research misconduct” refers to any research practice that deviates seriously from the commonly accepted ethics/integrity standards or practices of the relevant research community and includes but is not limited to intentional fabrication, falsification and plagiarism as defined by the University’s Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters.
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 – 2018
|Complaints Received 1||9||7||5||7||6||6||6||46|
|Preliminary Inquiries Conducted 4||9||7||5||7||6||6||6||46|
|Investigations Conducted 2,4||2||3||0||0||3||2||0||10|
|Research Misconduct Confirmed 3,4||4||0||1||0||2||1||0||8|
|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||Failure to follow direction of ACC (1 instance), Breach of privacy/failure to follow direction of REB/failure to reveal COI (1 instance)||Failure to follow direction of REB|
Information current as of April, 2019.
- 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.