Lee should strive to ensure that the proposal’s review of the literature is accurate. Finally, Lee should imagine what might happen if the author of the journal paper is asked to review Lee’s proposal.


Peter’s most obvious option is to discuss the situation with his research adviser, but he has to ask himself if this is the best alternative. His adviser is professionally and emotionally involved in the situation and may not be able to take an impartial stance. In addition, because the adviser is involved in the situation, she may feel the need to turn the inquiry into a formal investigation or to report the inquiry to her supervisors.

Peter should also consider whether he can discuss the situation directly with Jimmy. Many suspicions evaporate when others have a chance to explain actions that may have been misinterpreted.

If Peter feels that he cannot talk with Jimmy, he needs some way to discuss his concerns confidentially. Maybe he could turn to a trusted friend, another member of the faculty (such as a senior or emeritus professor), someone on the university’s administrative staff, or an ombudsman designated by the university. That person can help Peter explore such questions as: What is known and what is not known about the situation? What are the options available to him? Why should he not put his concerns in writing, an action likely to lead to a formal investigation?


Although the instructional modules do not risk harming the students’ health, because Antonio plans to publish the results, he must obtain IRB approval. Since the research study focuses on teaching techniques in an educational setting, this study would likely be exempt from full IRB review, but it is the IRB that decides that. Antonio should consider whether any incentives that he gives for testing the

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement