The first half of this week I've been in CLE at CWRU to attend the ARIO conference because I'm the RIO for UCANR. During the meeting we have really focused on not just RM but also FFP, hearing from ORI and NIH, both units under HHS. Did you get all of that?

Fun fact: CWRU is Case Western Reserve University. My oldest sister earned a BS and MS from CWRU. This is my first time on the campus and it is huge! I thought MSU and UF were spread out but when you throw in the Cleveland Clinic and all of the museums, etc. they don't even come close to the CWRU footprint.

The important one to know: FFP which stands for Fabrication, Falsification, and Plagiarism. FFP is a component of RM (research misconduct) which also includes determination of who was involved and how. I think the reason it's important to know is obvious, particularly for an organization that has integrity as a core value and whose brand is grounded in providing unbiased, science-based information.

One more acronym I learned – COPE. No, this is not related to after hour activities to relieve stress from the day. It stands for Committee on Publication Ethics and is a group based out of England that supports and develops ethical guidelines for publication, including procedures. We talked quite a bit about the challenges journal editors face in addressing research complaints including responsiveness of the institution's RIO (Research Integrity Officer), balancing journal confidentiality with the ORI (Office of Research Integrity – a federal agency) investigation, and the time needed for due diligence versus a complainant's desire for quick action.

There have been interesting conversations and case studies. Sadly, I have dismissed graduate students because I questioned their research ethics and my concerns proved valid. In another case, I didn't accept an applicant because the research proposal that I required as part of my consideration process for prospective PhD students was plagiarized (yes, I checked these things). It is unfortunate that such things happen in science. This doesn't help the general public trust science.

We also talked about RCR (Responsible Conduct for Research) training requirements. This was something that I had to complete as a researcher – usually an online training requirement. Graduate students had to complete a semester of seminars or take a course to meet their requirement plus I had to provide a minimum number of hours training during lab meetings. Even though I just renewed my annual trainings for UC ANR 5 months ago, I can't remember if this was one of the trainings. I need to confirm that it was and that all of our academics are taking these trainings. In particular, something that helps us better understand our rights and obligations as coauthors and co-PIs. Or perhaps something that improves understanding of the need for publishers to provide transparency in peer review processes. It's another training, yes. But it's a small price given our commitment to integrity.

My biggest take home is my own liability if a PI misuses funds. While I knew that, I wasn't aware of the conspiracy clause or the impact of the Yates memo in holding individuals accountable, including criminal charges, in addition to the corporation/institution. Yikes! I need to ask more questions of PIs, more frequently.

This evening I head back to CA to visit with the Riverside and San Bernardino County UCCE offices tomorrow. No more rainy Cleveland (CLE).