Findings of Research Misconduct

Notice is hereby given that ORI has taken final action in the following case:

Based on the report from Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL) and Respondent’s admission, ORI found that Mr. Adam C. Savine, former doctoral student, Department of Psychology, WUSTL, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by grants R56MH066078, F31DA032152, R21DA027821, and T32AG00030.

ORI found that the Respondent engaged in research misconduct by falsifying data that were included in the following 3 publications and 6 conference abstracts:

Publications

    1. Savine, A.C., & Braver, T.S. “Local and global effects of motivation on cognitive control.’ Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 12(4):692-718, 2012 Dec.

    2. Savine, A.C., McDaniel, M.A., Shelton, J.T., Scullin, M.K. “A characterization of individual differences in prospective memory monitoring using the Complex Ongoing Serial Task.’ J Exp Psychol Gen. 141(2):337-62, 2012 May.

    3. Savine, A.C., & Braver, T.S. “Motivated cognitive control: Reward incentives modulate preparatory neural activity during task- switching.’ J Neurosci. 30(31):10294-305, 2010 Aug 4.

Conference Abstracts

    1. Savine, A.C., & Braver, T.S. (November 2010) “The contextual and local effects of motivation on cognitive control.’ Psychonomics Society, St. Louis, MO.

    2. Savine, A.C., & Braver, T.S. (November 2010) “A model-based characterization of the individual differences in prospective memory monitoring.’ Psychonomics Society, St. Louis, MO.

    3. Savine, A.C., & Braver, T.S. (November 2010) “Motivated cognitive control: Reward incentives modulate preparatory neural activity during task-switching.’ Society for Neuroscience, San Diego, CA.

    4. Savine, A.C., & Braver, T.S. (June 2010) “Motivated cognitive control: Reward incentives modulate preparatory neural activity during task-switching.’ Motivation and Cognitive Control Conference, Oxford, England.

    5. Savine, A.C., & Braver, T.S. (January 2010) “Neural correlates of the motivation/cognitive control interaction: Activation dynamics and Performance prediction during task-switching.’ Genetic and Experiential Influences on Executive Function, Boulder, CO.

    6. Savine, A.C., & Braver, T.S. (June 2009) “Incentive Induced Changes in Neural Patterns During Task-Switching.’ Organization for Human Brain Mapping, San Francisco, CA.

As a result of the Respondent’s admission, the senior authors will request that the published papers be retracted or corrected.

ORI finds that Respondent falsified data and related text by altering the experimental data to improve the statistical results. Specifically, Respondent:

    1. Falsified data in Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2012 to show an unambiguous dissociation between local and global motivational effects. Specifically, Respondent exaggerated (1) the effect of incentive context on response times and error rates in Table 1 and Figures 1 and 3 for experiment 1 and (2) the effect of incentive cue timing on response times and error rates in Table 2 and in Figures 6, 9, and S2 for experiment 2.

    2. Falsified data in J Exp Psychol Gen. 2012 to show that prospective memory is influenced by three dissociable underlying monitoring patterns (attentional focus, secondary memory retrieval, information thresholding), which are stable within individuals over time and are influenced by personality and cognitive differences. Specifically, Respondent modified the data to support the three category model and to show (1) that individuals fitting into each of the three categories exhibited differential patterns of prospective memory performance and ongoing task performance in Tables 1-3; Figures 5-8, and (2) that certain cognitive and personality differences were predictive of distinct monitoring approaches within the three categories in Figure 9.

    3. Falsified data in J Neurosci. 2010 and mislabeled brain images to show that motivational incentives enhance task-switching performance and are associated with activation of reward-related brain regions, behavioral performance, and trial outcomes. Specifically, Respondent modified the data so that he could show a stronger relationship between brain activity and behavior in Table 2 and Figure 4 and used brain images that fit the data rather than the images that corresponded to the actual Talairach coordinates in Figure 3.

Mr. Savine has entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement and has voluntarily agreed for a period of 3 years, beginning on February 22, 2013:

    (1) To have his research supervised; Respondent agreed that prior to the submission of an application for U.S. PHS support for a research project on which his participation is proposed and prior to his participation in any capacity on PHS-supported research, Respondent shall ensure that a plan for supervision of his duties is submitted to ORI for approval; the supervision plan must be designed to ensure the scientific integrity of his research contribution; he agreed that he shall not participate in any PHS-supported research until such a supervision plan is submitted to and approved by ORI; Respondent agreed to maintain responsibility for compliance with the agreed upon supervision plan;

    (2) That any institution employing him shall submit, in conjunction with each application for PHS funds, or report, manuscript, or abstract involving PHS-supported research in which Respondent is involved, a certification to ORI that the data provided by Respondent are based on actual experiments or are otherwise legitimately derived and that the data, procedures, and methodology are accurately reported in the application, report, manuscript, or abstract;

    (3) To exclude himself voluntarily from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant; and

    (4) That the senior authors will request that the following papers be retracted or corrected: Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2012, J Exp Psychol Gen. 2012, and J Neurosci. 2010.

About these ads

1 Comment »

  1. Bhaskar said

    in my eRA commons showing my A1- R01 – not discussed but asking JIT.

    Here in eRA common website saying this way. If your grant got score 10 -30, you will get JIT link.
    Kindly advice

    [Important: The NIH provides the JIT (Just in Time) link in the Commons for applications receiving a percentile of less than 30 or for applications receiving a priority score of between 10 and 60 if no percentile is provided. Please await instructions from the NIH on whether to complete this information.]

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 266 other followers

%d bloggers like this: