I have made formal allegations of misconduct (i.e. fraud) against some academic researchers. The following describes what happened after I filed the allegations.
P.I. Kuniholm & S.W. Manning
One allegation of research misconduct that I made was against Sturt W. Manning. Manning was then a professor at the University of Reading, in England. My allegation was filed with the Vice Chancellor of the university. The vice chancellor, though, refused to investigate my allegation. I was told by telephone that the university had no procedures for investigating such allegations, because their professors always acted with integrity.
Another allegation of research misconduct that I made was against Peter Ian Kuniholm. Kuniholm is a professor at Cornell University, in the U.S.A. My allegation was filed with the Dean of Faculty. Under regulations in the U.S.A., institutions that receive funds from certain government agencies are required to conduct an inquiry when a misconduct allegation is made. So an inquiry was undertaken. Kuniholm was asked for the names of colleagues who would examine my allegation. There were four such colleagues (two of whom had done work with him in the area of research in which I was alleging misconduct). Imagine a defendant in a jury trial who gets to select the members of the jury—that, in effect, is what happened. Of course each of the four colleagues said that Kuniholm was not guilty.
Kuniholm had received millions in research funds from the U.S. National Science Foundation. So I reported Kuniholm to the NSF's Office of Inspector General. The OIG subsequently issued a memorandum on the allegation. The memorandum comprised two paragraphs. One paragraph summarized the situation. The other said the OIG had “determined that there was no evidence to support the allegation”; the determination was given without basis.
Addendum. Kuniholm became emeritus, and Manning moved to Cornell to assume Kuniholm's position.
A third allegation of research misconduct was made against Wei-Chyung Wang. Wang is a professor at the University at Albany, State University of New York. My allegation was filed with the Vice President for Research in August 2007. Afterwards, I published an article about the fraud allegation (reference below).
Later, the university conducted a preliminary inquiry. In February 2008, the inquiry concluded: it unanimously recommended a full investigation. During the subsequent investigation, I was not interviewed: contrary to the university's policies, federal regulations, and natural justice. I was allowed to comment on the report of the investigation, before the report's release, but I was not allowed to see the report: truly Kafkaesque. The report, which is still not available, apparently concluded that there was no fraud.
Wang had received millions in research funds from the U.S. Department of Energy. So I reported Wang to the DOE's Office of Inspector General. The OIG concluded that the allegation was unsubstantiated; no explanation or elaboration was given.
Some additional notes on this allegation, together with supporting documentation, are here.
|•||Remarks on Keenan [Energy & Env., 2007]|
|•||Remarks on Manning et al. [Radiocarbon, 2002]|
|•||Remarks on Pearson et al. [J.Arch.Sci., 2009]|
My report to the universities of Reading and Cornell:
Anatolian tree-ring studies are untrustworty (updated version).
Decision of the Inquiry at Cornell:
Walcott C. (2004), Inquiry of Academic Misconduct.
My report to the University at Albany:
Wei-Chyung Wang fabricated some scientific claims.
My article on the allegation against Wang:
Keenan D.J. (2007), “The fraud allegation against some climatic research of Wei-Chyung Wang”, Energy & Environment, 18: 985–995. doi: 10.1260/095830507782616913.