Prevent research misconduct instead of waiting for it to happen – what a concept! But it’s actually not that hard. It’s similar to other types of crime prevention – don’t make the crime tempting and easy to execute.
One of the best ways to prevent crime in the workplace is not hiring criminals. This is also a good way to prevent research misconduct among academics working at institutions of higher education – don’t hire people who are guilty of it! This blog post will focus on describing a simple screening process that can be done on job applicants in academia to help you avoid hiring scientists who don’t follow the rules. This blog post will end with a few other tips – for both colleagues and leaders in academia – about how to prevent research misconduct in the workplace.
Why it is Important to Prevent Research Misconduct – the Arday Affair
Before I continue too far, I want to take the opportunity to elevate YouTube creator (and Substack author) Chris Brunet, who produces content focusing on research misconduct, mostly in the field of economics which is his field of expertise. Please follow his content if you are interested in research misconduct and investigative journalism.
A lot has been written on the Arday affair, but I especially want to point you to a video Chris Brunet published on his YouTube channel.
The video gives a lot of background about Jason Arday, a professor at the University of Cambridge (in the United Kingdom), who took his own life after being investigated and fired under allegations of research misconduct. While I encourage you to watch the whole video – which traces Arday’s life from youth to the current time – I want to focus on the part where he was hired as a professor at the University of Cambridge in 2023. If in 2023, Arday had been screened for plagiarism prior to his hiring, it would have been found that he had committed rampant plagiarism in his PhD thesis, as well as several academic papers. Presumably, if Cambridge had realized this when he was being considered as a job candidate, he would not have been hired. Yet, he was not screened, and was hired anyway.
Unfortunately, his hiring led to accusations of his research misconduct eventually being identified and magnified, and him getting on the radar of many different people who wanted him investigated, as Chris covers in his video. This ultimately led to Arday taking his own life. My argument is that had the University of Cambridge acted more responsibly, this whole affair could have been avoided, and Arday might still be alive today.
Checking for Plagiarism
As many people know, there are simple ways to check for plagiarism. There is a lot of available plagiarism-checking software. Many institutions use TurnItIn. I am not a big fan of TurnItIn because it tries to oversimplify the investigation of plagiarism – but I still think it can be useful if deployed properly by a human (and not some sort of automated, artificial-intelligence-enabled process).
I looked up an example of a TurnItIn report – you can find one here. I made a diagram so I can explain exactly what I mean.
As you can see in the diagram, there are two kinds of plagiarism highlighted – entire passages that are highlighted in yellow, and some phrases that are highlighted in purple. Then there is a “similarity index” of 18%. The similarity index is literally meaningless, because the phrases highlighted in purple are obviously not plagiarism. But the entire sentences that are highlighted in yellow – those are plagiarism, and because the report lists the original document that was plagiarized, these can be verified.
TurnItIn generates a lot of false positives, which is why TurnItIn software is not ideal and has many complaints. However, if you use it right, and use your own judgment with respect to what it highlights, you can get a very good read on whether someone is actually plagiarizing or not. Further, you can use other software to validate what you find, as well as dig into the original documents highlighted by the software to ensure the accusation of plagiarism is actually correct.
But Arday Didn’t Just Do Plagiarism
As Chris pointed out in his video, Arday apparently also committed research misconduct by way of data falsification. It is much harder to investigate this type of research misconduct. But my point is he apparently engaged in plagiarism first, before the data falsification.
When I used to work in the juvenile justice system, it was understood that truancy – meaning kids not going to school – was a huge risk factor for criminality. Not all kids who got in trouble with the law started out as truant, but being truant led to a lot of illegal behavior.
A parallel can be seen with academics and plagiarism. Plagiarism is often one of the first types of research misconduct done by academics who go on to do other kinds of research misconduct. And like truancy, it is relatively easy to catch with software like TurnItIn if it is used right. Therefore, I strongly advocate that every institution hiring academics should check their existing published works – including their doctoral dissertations – for plagiarism before they are hired.
Whose Fault was the Arday Affair?
Chris Brunet says in his video,
A lot of people are blaming white supremacy or the media. There are literally hundreds of articles with the exact same title, which is “The Media Lynched Jason Arday”. I think this is lazy, and missed the mark, because if you commit rampant fraud, and you are called out for it, it’s not really the person’s fault for calling you out for it, it’s your own fault.
Up to here, I agree with Chris Brunet. It’s this next part I don’t agree with:
And so, ultimately, I think what happened here is that the liberal establishment promoted Jason Arday beyond his capabilities, and held him to a lower standard, and did not give him any scrutiny, and just clapped along, because they wanted this DEI mascot to hold up to the world, to prove how enlightened they are.
The reason I don’t agree with this is that although Jason Arday happened to be Black, most of the people caught after years of research misconduct are actually white. This is because academia is literally filled with white people, and if you look at the leadership in most colleges in the United States, the UK, Canada, and other countries that are majority white, you’ll find that most of the academics working there are white people.
That’s not saying that white people are more likely to engage in research misconduct – it’s just saying that it’s proportional to the background population. It’s just numbers. So how did all those white people who committed serial research misconduct get hired into higher levels of academia? Was the so-called liberal establishment clapping along with them because they were DEI mascots? Obviously not.
So while Chris Brunet blames the so-called “liberal establishment”, I actually blame the academic institutions. The reason that Arday and other academicians of all races who engage in serial research misconduct are able to do so is that these institutions literally do not do anything to prevent it. It’s like they are leaving a $20 bill out and expecting people not to steal it.
So what should the University of Cambridge have done to prevent the Arday affair? They should have checked his doctoral dissertation and existing published works for plagiarism as part of his hiring process. They should check everyone’s published works for plagiarism routinely before they hire anyone. It’s that simple. If that had done that, they would have found Arday’s plagiarism before he was hired, and not hired him, and he might be alive today.
But What About Preventing Other Research Misconduct?
Plagiarism is kind of a “sentinel event” for research misconduct. Francesca Gino, a Harvard researcher currently accused of serious research misconduct (including data falsification) was found to have plagiarized from blogs and news reports in the books she wrote. Had Harvard (or even the publisher of her books) routinely checked her work for plagiarism, they might have found it and prevented her from engaging in further research misconduct.
There are many other cases of academics who plagiarize a lot before they are caught, and when they are caught, they are found to be doing other types of research misconduct as well. If you want more examples, just read RetractionWatch. Researchers like Arday who are shown to have engaged in serial research misconduct get bolder and bolder until there are eventually some bright red flags and someone notices, as what happened with Arday. Then, there is some huge investigation, a lot of accusations flying around, and lots of damage that needs to be cleaned up – including article retraction and people getting fired. All of this could be prevented if faculty who publish (and especially those who publish a lot) are routinely screened by their academic institution for plagiarism.
Three Tips to Prevent Embarrassing Research Misconduct
As promised, I will now provide three tips on how to prevent research misconduct other than plagiarism. These are not foolproof, but they will reduce the likelihood such academics will engage in research misconduct once they are hired.
1. Make sure scientific papers reporting original research actually are associated with a real dataset
When you work as a faculty at a college and go to publish a peer-reviewed paper, you usually have to report it somewhere. Otherwise, you won’t get support for the publication fee, and also, you won’t get credit for it that you need for your tenure packet or promotion. It is at that point that some routine investigation should be done.
If you collected your own human research data, you would have needed some sort of ethical board approval (or exemption). Can you demonstrate that you got this? Also, where are these data you collected? Does more than one person on your team have access to them? Can anyone verify that you didn’t make up the data yourself?
As I was writing this, I came across the case of Sarah Baldeo, who is the founder and CEO of ID Quotient Advisory Group, a business in Canada that has been around for at least two years. According to RetractionWatch, after Baldeo published a single-authored paper about generative artificial intelligence reliance and executive function attenuation, some researchers read the paper and identified issues:
Their concerns included inconsistencies in graphs and results, study design, “erroneous” references and a lack of ethics approval.
The paper claims to have data from 1,923 individuals who participated in a behavioral study. The journal requested the data from her, which she never supplied, so a lot of people out there believe she probably just fabricated the dataset – and the journal ended up retracting the paper.
I had never heard of ID Quotient Advisory Group before this, and now I am sure I will never hire them. According to LinkedIn, ID Quotient Advisory Group has 11-50 employees. So Baldeo, as the CEO, could have set up internal policies that enforce research teams to cross-check their data, and to ensure all studies are approved by an independent ethical body. Maybe she didn’t fabricate the dataset – who knows? But if she had set up these internal checks, it would have prevented this embarrassing highly-public retraction that now has severely tarnished the reputation of a business she founded.
In the past, I have been approached by academics who are asking me to analyze their data. Yet, they can’t provide me with any evidence that they got ethical approval to collect the data. They can’t show me an approval letter, any data collection forms, or any research protocols. I literally have no evidence that they didn’t just make up the data. In those cases, I say, “See ya!”
Maybe instead of collecting your own data, you downloaded it from some web site. Can this be verified? Can someone else go download the same data and verify that the variables in it match the variables you are writing about?
This is not a very heavy investigation to do. Data falsification is still possible – but if scientific writers know that these verification steps are going to happen, they will be less likely to just make up data out of thin air.
2. Make research teams write extensive research protocols that are on file before collecting data
In the 1990s, having an extensive research protocol associated with research studies – especially human research studies – was expected. Research protocols were often over 100 pages long. However, over the years, ethics boards have become overburdened, so these days, they just ask you to submit a basic research plan for review.
While I understand this is useful to streamline the work of the ethics board, research teams should also required to have a fully-documented research protocol that exists in the background, and serves as the controlling document for the proposed study. All members of the research team should have at least read-only access to this so they can look information up and follow it.
This is a good way of preventing “hypothesis-creep”, where papers on a study conveniently reword their hypothesis after getting their data. It’s also a good way of making sure papers honestly report the methods they used to conduct their research.
3. Have policies surrounding the use of datasets in statistical analysis, as well as mandate the storage of official computer code associated for each analysis that can be reviewed
I can’t tell you how many times I have encountered research teams that are confused as to which dataset was used for which analysis, and what happened to the statistical code that was used. Many research teams literally have no data curation. This is a huge research misconduct risk.
If I come into a project and I’m trying to help a research team publish, and they can’t find or verify what dataset or code was used in analyses up to that point, I literally have to start over. I have to ensure the provenance of the original raw dataset I’m going to use, and I have to make my own code. Otherwise, I can’t be sure of what happened before I got there.
Read all of our data science blog posts!
Prevent research misconduct, and the consequences and drama that goes with it. Use some simple, practical strategies I describe in my blog post.

