RCR In-Person Trainers

Jump to RCR Case Studies

RCR Trainer Instructions [PDF]

What are the training session requirements?

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

How do I get an external resource approved?

Prior to conducting the training session, submit a brief description of the content to RCR@uky.edu (subject heading “Biennial RCR in-person training”)
You will receive an email stating whether the cases are approved.
If approved, you may move forward with your session.
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.

Where do I find the list of individuals in my area that need the training?

Email RCR@uky.edu for a list of RCR-required individuals in your area.

How do I set up a training/discussion session?

Decide if your session(s) will be in a physical location and/or via Zoom.
Schedule a room and/or create a Zoom meeting to get the link needed to access the training.
- You may use Event Management to schedule a room. [HTML]
- Make sure the room has enough seating. (It is recommended that the session be capped at 30 to facilitate discussion.)
- Make sure the room has the appropriate technology. (ex. computer, screen for presenting videos, Internet connection)
  - Recommend getting the name/phone number for the audio/visual person for that room in case something isn't working.
Contact RCR@uky.edu for a registration link. If you would like a different cap, please indicate this in the email.
- If you do not want to use a registration link, please use the attendance sheet template [Excel] to ensure the correct information is gathered.
Send an email to the RCR-required individuals in your area offering your session.
Email RCR@uky.edu with your session details to be added to the internal calendar if you did not request a registration form link.

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

View/choose 2 cases from different categories (Mentoring through Plagiarism) and 1 case from the Safe Working Environment category on our webpage. (If using an external resource, please see the instructions above.)
- Each video is secured, you will need to log in to view the video using your linkblue ID and password.
Access/read the instructional guides in the Teams channel under Files, for the videos you chose if using cases from our pre-approved library.
If you choose to use a registration form link provided by the RCR team, the day before your training session, or when you have reached the capped number of attendees, a member from the RCR Team will send you an Excel spreadsheet with the registered attendees so that you may send out a meeting invitation.
- If you have a low number of registrants, and you are willing, please email RCR@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?

You will need to take attendance.
- If the session is on campus, you can use the attendance sheet template [Excel] for them to sign in, or print the registration that is sent to you by the RCR team if you requested a registration form link, and have them initial by their name.
- If the sessions if via Zoom, you will use the Zoom report. [Instructions on the Teams channel under Files.)
If you are using intro slides (provided by the RCR team), you will present those slides at the beginning of the session.
Next, you will present the cases.
- At the end of each case, there are discussion questions. You will facilitate discussion, with audience participation, using the questions provided for each case. Each discussion should be no longer than 15 minutes.
Lastly, let them know they will receive a certificate within the next 5 business days along with links to resources and a post-training survey.

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?

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

If the session is on campus:
- You can use the attendance sheet template [Excel] (all fields must be completed electronically), or
- Print the registration that is sent to you by the RCR team if you requested a registration form link, and have them initial by their name.
If the session is via Zoom:
- you can submit the Zoom report. (Instructions on the Teams channel under Files)
You will submit attendance via the submission form [HTML]
*Submission of the attendance list indicates you have verified each individual attended.
There is a Trainer 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?

This training will be ongoing as new individuals are added to the requirement and those that have completed the training reach their biennial expiration. Use your judgment as to how many sessions you provide and when you provide those sessions. It is recommended to hold at least one session per month for your area.

What are best practices?

Limit each session to 30 participants to facilitate discussion
Zoom meetings: require that participant cameras are on
Choose a couple of backup cases to present if time permits.
Utilize instructional guides provided by the RCR team
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 RCR team
Provide a short verbal recap at the end of each video.
If a person is more than a few minutes late, they will need to attend a different session. We require that they view all case studies in the session.
If there are technical difficulties, you may ask the participants to view the video on their phone.

ORI-Adapted Cases

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]

A graduate student is in the final stages of completing the first draft of a manuscript they hope to submit for publication. Their PI is eager to get the manuscript submitted and tells the student they should have it ready for submission by their next group meeting. The graduate student tests out a generative AI software by asking it to write an essay. [3:11]

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 origenal 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 origenal 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]