RCR In-Person Training/Discussion

In addition to the CITI online RCR course, one in-person RCR training/discussion opportunity must be completed biennially. In-person training will be made available through campus and departmental presentations. If preferred, researchers may schedule face-to-face RCR in-person instruction with ORI. 

RCR In-Person Training

Why is RCR training mandated?

“As a public institution of higher education, public confidence in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) by faculty, staff and students is critical.  We must promote and maintain a culture that is supported by an infrastructure that educates and assists in the ethical conduct of research.”

Lisa Cassis, PhD
UK Vice President for Research (VPR)

What is required?

There are two components to the required RCR training, both must be completed biennially:

  1. UK CITI RCR Basic online course which consists of 6 substantive modules in the initial stage, then 2 modules of your choice every two years (refresher stage).
  2. One-hour In-Person RCR training/discussion session.

How do I access the in-person training session/discussion?

After completion of the initial stage of the RCR Basic course, you will register and attend an RCR in-person training/discussion session for RCR credit at UK.

The in-person training/discussion sessions will be offered in-person or via Zoom by designated trainers and ORI staff members.

See scheduled training events [HTML]

Who needs to complete the in-person training/discussion?

The mandatory RCR training applies to all full-time faculty, staff, graduate students or trainees (undergraduates, postdoctoral fellows, visiting scientists) who participate in research or creative work. This mandate also includes any individual supported in part or fully through research funding, grants and contracts. 

When is the deadline to complete my first in-person training/discussion session?

Required personnel and students must complete the in-person training/discussion component 90 days after their initial start date.

Examples of the first 5 years of the ongoing RCR requirement

Timeline for individuals just beginning the RCR training requirement
Timeline for individuals that have already completed the UK CITI online RCR Course this year (initial stage or refresher stage)
Timeline for individuals that have completed the UK CITI online RCR course (initial or refresher) in 2022 but aren't able to attend a session until 2023 (How do you get both trainings on the same schedule/in the same year?)

 

Trainer Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What are incentives for becoming an RCR trainer?

  • You are helping to educate and prevent research misconduct at the University.
  • You are helping to improve a safe working environment at the University.
  • You are helping your colleagues fulfill a requirement.
  • You are helping your college maintain compliance with the RCR mandate.
  • You may be presented with opportunities for leadership, service, or governance at the University.
  • You may add your service to your curriculum vitae and annual performance evaluation.
  • You automatically receive credit for the training.
  • You learn from the discussions among the attendees.

How can I become a designated trainer?

  1. Complete this form, indicating whether you are willing to train outside your unit and/or to be the designated trainer for your college.
  2. Once received, an ORI RCR team member will reach out to you
  3. The ORI RCR team will add you to the RCR Train the Trainer Teams channel for you to access tools to guide you as a trainer.

What is the time commitment for a trainer?

Each session will have the following elements:

  • CHOOSE curriculum (see Cases below)
  • DECIDE the number of sessions/format
  • SECURE a location/link
  • SELECT registration method (ORI RCR Team can help)
  • ADVERTISE to your area(s) (Can be added to the RCR Events page)
  • FACILITATE the session(s) (ORI RCR Team provides the instructional guides)
  • SUBMIT the attendance (via the ORI RCR provided form)

*Preparing for the session will take additional time outside of the one (1) hour interaction.

What are the training session requirements?

  1. The session must be at least one (1) substantive contact hour.
  2. Must discuss at least two (2) different case topics from the pre-approved cases or approved external resources.
  3. Attendance must be taken and submitted.

How do I get an external resource approved?

  1. Prior to conducting the training session, submit a brief description of the content to RCR@uky.edu (subject heading “Biennial RCR in-person training”)
  2. You will receive an email stating whether the cases are approved.
  3. If approved, you may move forward with your session.
  4. If not approved, please choose from the pre-approved cases.

*If approval is not acquired prior to the session, the attendees will not receive credit.

How do I set up a training/discussion session?

  1. Decide if your session(s) will be in a physical location and/or via Zoom.
  2. Schedule a room and/or create a Zoom meeting to get the link needed to access the training.
  3. Contact jen.hill@uky.edu for a registration link. (The required information in the form is the required information needed to log the training completion.) *It is recommended that the session be capped at 25 to facilitate discussion. If you would like a different cap, please indicate this in the email.
  4. Send an email to the RCR-required individuals in your area offering your session. 
  5. Email jen.hill@uky.edu with your session details to be added to the internal calendar.

What do I need to do to prepare for the session?

  1. View/choose 2 cases from different categories from our webpage. (If using an external resource, please see instructions above.)
    • Each video is secured, you will need to log in to view the video using your linkblue ID and password.
  2. Access/read the instructional guides for the videos you chose if using cases from our pre-approved library.
  3. If you choose to use the registration form provided by the ORI RCR team, the day before your training session, or when you have reached the capped number of attendees, Jen Hill will send you an Excel spreadsheet with the registered attendees so that you may send out a meeting invitation.
  4. If you have a low number of registrants, and you are willing, please email jen.hill@uky.edu to post the session on the RCR Events page to offer the session to the general UK Research public.

How do I facilitate the training/discussion session?

  1. You will need to verify that each registrant attended the session (ex. use the provided registration list as a checklist). Submission of attendance indicates you are verifying each individual attended.
  2. If you are using an intro, (provided by the ORI RCR team) you will present those slides.
  3. When you are ready, you will present the cases.
  4. At the end of each case, there are discussion questions. You will facilitate discussion, with audience participation, using the questions provided for each case.

Sample session format:

  • Introduction
  • Case Study
  • Review Questions
  • Audience-led discussion or follow-up questions
  • Review core concepts, provide feedback & additional resources

How do I submit the list of attendees for them to receive credit for the training/discussion?

  1. Using the registration spreadsheet provided or the template provided (all fields must be completed electronically), you will submit via the submission form.

    *Submission of the attendance list indicates you have verified each individual attended.

    Fields that must be present in order for attendees to receive credit:
    • First Name,
    • Last Name,
    • UK ID
    • linkblue ID
    • Date Completed
  2. There is a survey once you have submitted the form. This is not required but would be appreciated to help us improve the program.

When do the sessions need to be completed?

While this will be ongoing as new individuals are added to the requirement, the initial stage of the requirement will be complete as of May 31st, 2023 when everyone listed as RCR-required will need to have training completed.

Once the initial stage is complete, the sessions should be offered so those that are due for training may have the option.

What are best practices?

  1. Limit each session to 25 participants to facilitate discussion
  2. Zoom meetings: require that participant cameras are on
  3. Choose a couple of backup cases to present if time permits.
  4. Utilize instructional guides provided by the ORI RCR team
  5. Utilize active learning to facilitate discussion, rather than lecture.
    • Guide to appropriate approach by prompting discussion and involving the audience
    • Prompt with follow-up questions provided by the ORI RCR team

Mentoring

 

A postdoctoral scholar is considering sharing data with another research group despite his clear conflict of interest and without consulting his mentor.  [01:13]

Two postdoctoral scholars are considering whether a different approach to mentoring would help their careers. [01:37]

 

Nicole is a graduate student who is struggling to meet and work effectively with her mentor.

[02:02]

A postdoctoral scholar is leaving for a new job and has concerns about restrictions his mentor has placed on his future research plans.  [03:12]

 Marty is a graduate student working in Dr. Smith's research group and has just returned from a long summer vacation where he made plans to defend his Ph.D. by the end of the upcoming semester. He also started the process of searching for and applying for jobs post-graduation. [02:07]

 

 

Peer Review

 

 A young researcher learns her idea has been scooped by a peer reviewer on a grant she previously submitted. [02:21]

 A PI receives harsh feedback on a peer review and is considering trying to obtain specific results to get a high-impact publication. [01:10]

A PI is purposely stalling a peer review she has to complete so her colleague can publish ahead of the competitor.  [02:39]

A PI is pressuring junior faculty members to complete his peer review responsibilities and is not disclosing this information. [01:35]

 

Research Misconduct

 

 A PI is reviewing a grant application and decides his lab is better equipped to run the experiments. [02:03]

 A PI discovers his student has altered his CV to add a degree the student does not have. [02:29]

 A DGS discovers a student has been plagiarizing his academic assignments. [01:20]

 An instructor at a university where he teaches undergraduate writing courses learns he has landed a lucrative book deal with a publisher. He is pressed for time to complete the final draft of the book he is writing. [2:01]

 

Conflict of Interest

 

A researcher has his post-doc study a new drug. He gets an incentive for researching the drug and presenting the date at a conference. The postdoc finds some serious side effects and the researcher chooses to not present those at the conference. [01:24] 

A researcher at a university, where he also serves as an IRB reviewer, is trying to rush to get an IRB review done because he is being pressured by his colleagues to join them for a departmental outing after work. Upon opening the IRB protocol, he realizes it has been submitted by a fellow researcher. [1:59] 

 Bill finishes his dissertation and works on getting a patent. In the meantime, he gets a new position in a new company and his previous work could be useful for his new job. However, the patent hasn’t been approved yet. He would put the approval in jeopardy if he introduces this new tool to his new workplace. [02:22] 

A PI suspects several researchers in her department are using NSF-funded research money to fund their personal interests and contacts the NSF to report it.  [01:26] 

 

Data Management

 

 [Clinical Scenario] A physician doing a repository leaves the University. Her patient’s want their samples to be removed from the original University and go with the physician, the University gets legal involved as they feel they “own” the samples. [01:40]

Fred is at the NIH and is ready to publish. After presenting his manuscript they find some original data is missing as it was accidentally permanently deleted.  [01:23]

CDC asks a hospital director to preform HIV tests on all blood samples (without consent) and send the de-identified results to the CDC.  [01:19]

A new member joins the lab and hope to continue a project from a former graduate student. She begins by repeating the last few experiments and gets different results. They look at the previous student’s data and can not locate the raw data files.  [01:20]

 

Reproducibility

 

A postdoc reviews data of a manuscript they are preparing and notices some data is not consistent with the primary source data. [00:49]

 [STEM Case Study] Two competing labs are working on similar projects and asks to use the other labs cell lines and transgenic mice. Each lab is reluctant to share. [01:25]

 Two lab members working on the same manuscript and one member discovers that the data doesn’t match up, discusses with PI and PI isn’t concerned. [01:50]

 [STEM Case Study] Laboratory purchases a new commercial cell line that the lab down the hall is currently using. They repeat the experiments the other lab does and gets very different results. What could cause this? [01:50]

 

Plagiarism

                               

                         

While reading a draft of a new manuscript from a PI in his department, the Department Chair notices that the PI used references to her own articles without citing them. He also notices that she has copied entire sections from other journal articles without proper citation. She feels that she provided proper citation. [01:29]

 

Safe Work Environment

[STEM Case Study] Martha is new in town and her mentor, Dr. Gilmore, offered to show her around. Martha agreed but later felt uncomfortable when Dr. Gilmore took her to bars and quiet parks which made her feel like he may have viewed it as a date. [01:03]

 Li Yan and Ralph are coworkers. After getting to know each other at work they go out on a single date. Li Yan decides dating is not a good idea and explains her stance to Ralph. [01:52] 

Sharon moved into a new position and Paul is her supervisor. Paul is friendly and helps her get familiar with her new job duties. Paul starts having uncomfortable conversations with Sharon. [01:13] 

Leonard is a clerk typist for a large company who hopes to advance to a career in customer relations. Leonard has recently applied for an open promotional position that is customer-facing. Leonard’s boss, Margaret tells him if he wants the job, he had better look “more normal." [01:33] 

Lexie works in Dr. Henry’s lab with two other individuals, Connie and Ralph. Lexie is often asked to work overtime and stay late finishing up experiments because her colleagues have children and are unable to stay after hours. [01:41]

A group of female students work under their faculty advisor of the same gender. They get a new male student in the lab and notice a stark difference in their PI’s behavior. [02:44]

Minju is a researcher working under the direction of her mentor, Dr. Adams. Minju is struggling with her mentor as she feels he treats her and another researcher (Stephanie) differently than the rest of the group. [03:00]

 Sarah is a graduate student in Dr. Morris’ research group. Dr. Morris reminds Sarah and another graduate student about an upcoming departmental party and encourages the two students to attend. Dr. Morris pulls Sarah aside to tell her privately that she should refrain from referring to her significant other as such since it may make people uncomfortable. [01:40]

 

More Safe Work Environment scenarios coming soon!

 

DHHS ORI Cases

Video Category(ies)

 

 

 

Mentoring

 

Reproducibility

 

[03:46]

 

Mentoring

 

Data Management

 

Reproducibility

 

[02:57]

 

Reproducibility

 

Data Management

 

Research Misconduct

 

[04:07]

 

Research Misconduct

 

Mentoring

 

Conflict of Interest

 

[02:12]

 

Research Misconduct

 

Mentoring

 

[01:57]

 

Research Misconduct

 

Data Management

 

Reproducibility

 

[02:14]

 

Research Misconduct

 

Data Management

 

Reproducibility

 

[03:44]

 

 

Peer Review

 

Conflict of Interest

 

[02:52]