Multi-institutional scientific research projects are increasingly common. Nevertheless, regulations and guidelines do not yet adequately address which entity should assume responsibility for research misconduct proceedings in multi-institutional research. This article explores the challenges of determining jurisdictional roles in research misconduct matters in collaborative science and proposes the application of a “jurisdictional interests test” as a framework for determining jurisdiction in multi-institutional research misconduct proceedings.

Researchers involved in research misconduct proceedings are increasingly threatening or bringing legal defamation claims against the institutions, complainants, and publications involved in the proceedings. Although defamation claims do not often succeed, they can nevertheless be costly and lengthy. This article analyzes certain defamation cases in the research misconduct space and provides advice for institutions and other involved parties seeking to minimize potential defamation liability associated with research misconduct proceedings.

This paper reflects on the availability of a key document in the research integrity landscape: Reports of institutional and university misconduct investigations. It reviews how universities have typically responded to calls for disclosure, offers suggestions to mitigate concerns, and argues that the failure to release such reports creates a critical evidence gap. It closes with a call for disclosure of such reports as a default.