When it comes to downloads, it might not seem like a big deal. Earlier this month, a statistical journal decided to retract a little-cited 2008 paper on the social networks of author-coauthor relationships after it emerged that parts were plagiarized from textbooks and Wikipedia. The fact that this caused a wave of glee to ripple through the climate change blogosphere requires some explaining.
The paper's two authors, Yasmin Said and Edward Wegman, both of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, are also the authors of the infamous 2006 report to Congress, which they co-authored with statistician David Scott of Rice University in Houston, Texas. The report focused on climatologist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University in University Park and suggested that he worked in an isolated social network separate from "mainstream statisticians" and that he had such close ties to the rest of the field that a truly independent peer review of his work was impossible. This report became known as the Wegman Report and was often cited by climate change skeptics.
This social network analysis by Mann and his co-authors—with Mann's name removed—was reduced to an academic paper and published two years later in the journal Computational Statistics & Data Analysis. It was this document that the magazine decided to withdraw. So it seems likely that the plagiarism in the 2008 document is also present in the 2006 Congressional report. Still doesn't seem like a big deal?
That doubts about the 2006 report have resulted in concrete action is largely due to the excellent work of an anonymous climate blogger named Deep Climate. His website first reported the plagiarism in another part of a congressional report in December 2009. One of those whose work was plagiarized is Raymond Bradley, director of the Center for Climate Systems Research at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Ironically, Bradley was one of the co-authors of the climate reconstructions criticized by the Wegman report. Alerted by Deep Climate, Bradley complained to George Mason University last March 5.
If the work in question has been cited in policy debates, there is good reason to rush.
Wegman accused a graduate student of plagiarism. Daniel Walsch, a spokesman for George Mason University, says an internal review of the matter began in the fall. He could not estimate when the review would be completed, and until it is, he says the university considers it a "personnel matter" and will not comment further. He adds that the review is still at the "investigation" stage to determine whether a full investigation should be carried out. "It's not as important whether it's fast or slow as it is thorough and fair," says Walsch.
The fact that 14 months have passed since Bradley's complaint has not been resolved is disheartening but not unusual. A review of George Mason University's misconduct policy suggests that investigations should be resolved within one year of the first complaint, including time for an appeal by the faculty member in question. According to the university's own timeline, the initial investigation was supposed to be completed within 12 weeks of the first complaint — in May 2010. But there is plenty of room for expansion, and like many universities, George Mason seems content to drag it out.
Lengthy misconduct investigations serve no one, except perhaps university public relations departments, which may hope that by the time it's over, everyone will have forgotten about the case. But in cases like Wegman's, where the work in question has been cited in policy debates, there is good reason to rush. A policy based on rotten research is likely to have its weaknesses. Those who have been wronged deserve a resolution. And it is hard to imagine that those who were wrongly accused enjoy months of living under a cloud.
So what incentives do universities need to step up? Agencies such as the U.S. Office of Research Integrity and funding agency ethics offices should take charge of slow investigations and require adherence to the timelines outlined in university policies. But the agencies themselves weren't exactly paragons of swift justice. The Office of Research Integrity's most recent annual report — for 2008 — said cases closed that year spent an average of 14.1 months at the agency. Perhaps it should fall to the accrediting agencies to enforce prompt investigations. Tom Benberg, vice president of the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools — the agency that accredits George Mason University — says his agency could investigate if the university repeatedly ignored its own policies on the timing of misconduct investigations. For it to take off, he said, someone would have to file a well-documented complaint.
Even if funding and accrediting agencies do not apply pressure, universities should take the initiative to move investigations forward as quickly as possible while allowing time for due process. Once the investigation is complete, the institution should be as transparent as possible about what happened. Especially when it comes to public funds or at public universities, the taxpayer has a right to know what happened when documents are withdrawn — even if the faculty member in question is ultimately exonerated. This cleans up the scientific record, clears the air, and kicks the legs out from under any conspiracy theories. Through you, George Mason University.
You must be logged in to post a comment.