Last cycle, one of my research paper was rejected because of formatting issues. I recently heard from someone that there may be a tool or software called something like “aclpubcheck” that can be used to check whether a manuscript follows the required submission format correctly.

Does anyone know the exact name of this software or tool?

Also, if there is no such reliable tool, what is the best way to make sure that a paper is formatted correctly before submission? Like, how do you usually verify margins, page limits, font size, template compliance, bibliography format, and other formatting requirements before submitting to a conference or journal?

Hi everyone,

I am currently dealing with issues related to academic fruad/ bullying and certain matters involving the university where I worked until two months ago. I have already filed a complaint, and an internal investigation is ongoing.

Several people have suggested that I contact IFUT for advice. I have sent them an email and am waiting for a reply, but I am not sure whether I am approaching them in the correct way.

Is there anyone here who is a member of IFUT? If so, kindly let me know. I have a few questions that I would really appreciate clarifying.

Thank you so much.

Earlier, I posted this incident in this group. Following that, there have been some developments, which I have updated here.

TL;DR:
I was a postdoctoral researcher at a prominent Irish university, funded by Science Foundation Ireland. Before two months of joining the institute, my boss asked me to add him and two of his associates as authors on papers I had already been working on with my students at my previous institution. They had made no contribution. They dont even know what the research is about or even the titles of the manuscript. I refused. After that, I was bullied, excluded from the lab, repeatedly told to “leave the job” and “go back to Asia,” and my contract was not renewed. I have WhatsApp evidence for the authorship demands and some of the exclusion. A research integrity investigation is now ongoing in the institute as per the advise from RIO (Research integrity Officer). I am considering a WRC case if the university does not provide a proper remedy.

For context, in academia, authorship on research papers is extremely important. Publications affect hiring, contract renewal, promotion, funding, and reputation. Adding non-contributors as authors is not a small issue. It can damage the ownership and credibility of the work, especially when the research was already done before joining a new institution.

Background

Before joining the Irish university, I was working as an assistant professor in my home country. Around two months before I joined the Irish university, my future PI contacted me and asked me to add him and two of his associates as authors on papers I was already working on with my own students at my previous institution. These people had made no contribution to the research.

I have WhatsApp messages where he demands he will be the last author and also asking two of his friends to be the coauthors. I was pretty much shocked.

After I joined the university, on my second day of employment, before I had even received my staff ID card, he again asked me for the list of all my research papers that I worked in my previous institute that I am about to submit and told me that his name and his friends’ names had to be added.

My co-authors (my own students) refused to add him. I eventually told him clearly that I could not add him because he and his associates had not contributed anything, and because the papers were already being developed before I joined the university. More over what he have asked me is a blatant fraud and if caught could destroy my career.

What happened after I refused

From the day I refused, the bullying started.

1. On the same day I said I could not add his name, he told me things like: “You leave and go back to Asia,” “Leave this job,” and “You are not fit for this.” This was only a few weeks after he had been praising my research.
2. He removed me from the team WhatsApp group. I begged him to add me back because I was afraid of losing the job just one month after joining, especially as I had relocated internationally. I also told him I was already under health-related stress, but he refused to add me back. This refusal is documented on WhatsApp.
3. After that, I was excluded from the lab. In meetings, he would not address me directly. For example, if he wanted me to open a laptop, he would tell someone else, “Ask him to open the laptop,” even though I was standing there. Meetings often ended with him telling me to leave the job or go back to Asia. These comments were usually made in our mother tongue.
4. In one meeting with another faculty member from the same country, he said that if someone is “disobedient,” he would chase that person back to the home country. The other faculty member seemed shocked and asked why he was speaking like that.
5. Later, without any formal HR communication, I was informally told through another lab member that I should report to a different senior professor. On paper, the PI was still my line manager. The senior professor was positive about my work, but I was not really treated as part of his group. I also told him what had happened. He acknowledged that it was wrong but did not seem interested in taking it further.
6. My contract was not renewed. As far as I know, I was the only person in that lab whose first contract was not extended.
7. I later learned that the PI was allegedly speaking badly about me to others in the university, saying I was difficult to work with. I believe this may have affected opportunities for me.

Complaints already filed

I filed a complaint with senior university officials. The senior research official who heard the matter appeared shocked and ordered a formal research integrity investigation. He seemed to understand the seriousness of the authorship issue, especially after seeing the WhatsApp messages showing that the PI asked to be added to my pre-existing research before I even joined the university.

However, that process appears to focus mainly on research misconduct and institutional accountability. There has been little clarity about whether I, as the complainant and victim, will receive any remedy.

Separately, I filed a bullying complaint with HR. However I have not received any reply from HR.

Evidence I have

I have WhatsApp evidence showing:

• The PI asked me, before I joined the university, to add him and two associates to papers they had not contributed to. (Explicit straight forward demand)
• He specified that he would be the last author. (Explicit straight forward demand)
• He shared Google Scholar profile links of the associates he wanted added.
• He repeatedly asked about the status of those papers before I joined.
• On my second day of employment, he asked for the list of all my papers.
• After I refused, he removed me from the team WhatsApp group.
• I begged to be added back, and he refused.

The verbal bullying inside meetings, I could not record the conversation. I do not expect lab members to support me because they may need to protect their own positions. But the forced authorship demands and some exclusion are documented.

My question

If the internal university process does not provide a proper remedy, I am considering taking the matter to the WRC.

Because from the perspective, I was asked to do a biggest academic research fraud and when I refused, I was bullied relentlessly.

For those familiar with Irish employment law, especially in universities or academic research settings, how strong is a case like this when there is written evidence of forced authorship demands, followed by exclusion, bullying, and non-renewal of contract?

Any guidance would be appreciated.

Sorry for a long post. Situation is very crazy and I dunno what to add and what to ignore. I have attached TL:DR in the beginning.

TL/DR:I am a former postdoctoral researcher who was employed at a prominent Irish university funded by Science Foundation Ireland. My job was to research and publish research papers. I was asked to commit research fraud, and when I refused, I was bullied relentlessly. Eventually, I am seeking advice on my rights under Irish employment law to file at the WRC.

For those who are not in academia: for context, in academia, research papers are not just optional outputs. They are the primary basis on which a researcher’s career is evaluated. Hiring decisions, contract renewals, promotions, funding opportunities, and professional reputation are all heavily dependent on publications. Authorship on a paper is treated as formal recognition of intellectual contribution, and the order of authors, for example, first or last author, carries specific meaning about who led or supervised the work. Being forced to add non-contributors as authors is therefore not a minor issue. It directly affects ownership of work, career progression, and future opportunities. Conversely, being denied fair authorship or having others claim credit can significantly damage a researcher’s track record and long-term career prospects.

Generally, after researching a topic for several months, and sometimes years, we submit the results of our research to a journal, where it goes through peer review before getting accepted.

Background

I was working as an assistant professor back in my home country when I got the postdoc offer from the Irish university.

Two months Before I even joined the university, my PI, Principal Investigator, contacted me and demanded that I add him and two of his associates as authors on research papers I had been working on with my own students at my previous institution. These people had made no contribution whatsoever to the research. I have WhatsApp evidence of these demands, including messages where he explicitly states that he will be the last author and provides the Google Scholar profile links of his associates. I did not even have a visa to come to Ireland at that point.

Evidence I have: I have WhatsApp evidence of these requests, including messages where he specifies that he will be the last author and shares the Google Scholar profiles of his associates.

After I joined the university, on my second day of employment, before I had even received my staff ID card, he demanded a list of all my research papers and told me that I had to add his name and his friends’ names to the papers.

For context: Generally, after you join a university, you perform experiments and research for several months, find results, and then publish. That is how publishing in a university as a postdoc works.

Evidence I have: WhatsApp messages where he asked this openly on my second day.

My co who are basically my own students refused to add him. So in the end, I told him I could not add him because he did not contribute anything to the papers, nor had his friends contributed anything to the papers, and that I had been working on this research for several months before I even joined the university, so I could not add him. I confronted him after one month of joining the university.

When I refused to comply with these demands, the bullying began. Some of the things the PI has done include:

1.) The day I said I would not add his name to the research papers, he said, “You leave and go back to Asia. You leave this job. You are not fit for this.” This is the same person who was praising my research just two weeks earlier.

2.) The same day, he kicked me out of the team WhatsApp group. He basically alienated me from the other lab members. I literally begged him to add me back to the team group because I was genuinely afraid that, just after a month of being in the job, I was going to get fired. And of course, it would be really shameful. So I literally had to beg him to add me back, and I told him that I am already a heart patient and I really did not need this much stress. Anyway, he refused to add me back to the group.

3.) Following that, the exclusion from the group and the discrimination began. In team meetings, he would not even address me directly. For example, If he wanted me to open a laptop, he would say to someone else, “Ask him to open a laptop,” despite me standing in front of him. Every meeting would end with “leave this job” or “go back to Asia.” He would say these things. The funny thing is that he is also from the same country and we speak the same language, and he says all these things in our mother tongue only.

4.) It did not happen just in the group. One day, we were meeting with another faculty member from another department who speaks the same mother tongue and is from the same country. In the meeting, he simply told that other faculty member that if someone is disobedient, he will chase that person back to the home country. He said that with such ferocity that the other faculty member was shocked and asked why he was speaking like this. That was a breaking point for me.

After that, I told him in the next meeting that I knew why he was doing this, and that if he once again did something like this to me, I would also reply to him in the same tone. At that point, it had been four months, and I was ready to even move out because it was so much torture. Every day was literally torture, honestly. Either he would say things like “leave this job,” or he would do things to discriminate against me and separate me from the group. Even in team outings, when he took the team for lunch, he would exclude me from this.

My only mistake was that I refused to do research fraud, something that could have totally destroyed my career.

5.) After this, he told another lab member to tell me that, hereafter, I should report to another senior professor there. Nothing was communicated to me, either by HR or by him, that I had been reassigned or anything. I was simply told that from next month, I should report to the other professor despite in paper he is still my boss. Following that, a few months went by, and that senior professor was always saying positive comments about my work, but anyway, he did not treat me as if I was part of his group. He would meet me once a month, say that I was doing a good job, and that was it.

In one of the meetings, I informed the senior professor what had really happened. He agreed what have happened is wrong but he shut down the conversation and seemsnot really intrested to talk more about it.

As expected, I was the only one in the lab not to be given a subsequent contract. In the lab’s history, I was the only one whose first contract was not extended. This is something I expected, so I was not shocked. I was, anyway, getting shortlisted for many lecturer positions in many universities in Ireland. So I was focusing on that, thinking I would leave this as a bad dream and move on.

6.) But I came to know that this man, my PI, not only tortured me, but also began to speak badly about me to others in the college, saying that I was difficult to work with or something like that. This close many opportunities for me too. That is where I got so angry and thought, screw this.

So I filed a complaint against him with higher officials in the university. When the higher official, who is kind of like a president for research, heard this, he expressed shock and ordered a formal investigation. It is ongoing. But he said he would focus on the research perspective and that the bullying aspect would be dealt with by HR. From the overall angle, he seemed shocked and supportive. He was saying that this is a really serious issue and that he could not believe the PI was able to do this so openly. He said that if this was proved, it would be the worst thing in the university and that the PI should not even be employed, but that HR has to take a decision. So he said all those things and ordered the investigation from his end, and it was able to happen.

7.) However, one thing that I observed from the president of research is that he was more focused on how, if this goes out, it will hurt the university, and how this is a big thing, the worst thing, and all those things. When I asked him how I would be compensated because I am the victim here, he did not reply much and did not give a clear answer, despite the fact that he himself clarified that this looks like a straightforward case, since I had shown him the WhatsApp messages where my investigator asked me to add him to my research work even before I joined the university.

I am waiting for the internal investigation to be over and if I am not satisfied, I am planning to file a WRC case, as I have nothing to lose at this point.

Separately, I have filed a bullying complaint with HR, who have confirmed that the workplace behaviour aspect falls under their process.

The RIO process appears focused on research misconduct and institutional accountability. There has been very little clarity on whether there is any form of remedy available to me as the complainant.

So I have the evidence, basically WhatsApp evidence, for many of the things, including him asking me to add him and his friends to the research papers that my students worked on back when I was in my home country, around two months before I joined the institute. In between these two months, he asked me many times about the status of the research of my students and those things. He also demanded that I give him the list of papers on the second day of me joining the institute. On the day I was kicked out of the WhatsApp group, I was begging him to add me back, and his refusal was also recorded in WhatsApp. So these things are documented. How he treated me inside the room is basically my word versus his word, because I do not think anyone in the lab would say anything supportive for me, as they have to safeguard their own position. I do not even blame them. But for the other aspects, I have proof.

How strong is my case, with the evidence? Any guidance from those familiar with Irish employment law, particularly in an academic or university context, would be very helpful.

Hi everyone, 

I have opted for formal investigation as like most of the people in reddit have suggested. I’m looking for advice from anyone who has gone through a formal research misconduct investigation at a university, especially in terms of what to expect and what outcomes are realistic. 

Here’s my situation: 

I filed a complaint with the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) regarding serious misconduct by my PI. When I first spoke to the RIO, he expressed strong concern and said that if what I reported is true, it is a very serious issue. He was particularly surprised that this behaviour was done so openly. He even mentioned that someone engaging in this kind of conduct may not belong in academia, although he said that would ultimately be up to HR. 

I provided WhatsApp chat evidence. In those messages, my PI explicitly told me to: 

• Add him as the last author  
• Add two of his associates as co-authors

  

There was no ambiguity in his wording. 

However, in his response, my PI claimed that he never asked for authorship and was only checking whether I was conducting research “correctly. And everything else I  misunderstood” This was clearly contradicted by the chat evidence, which I re-submitted to the RIO. The RIO acknowledged that the messages are quite direct. 

At one point, I was asked whether I would consider an informal resolution. I explained that while I am aware of how serious this case is, I really don't want to relive the trauma. It was pretty traumatic. I have been applying for new positions and getting shortlisted but many professors who were talking nicely in the beginning back off after some time. I came to know that behind the back this PI speak many things negatively about me too. 

Because of the mental strain, I said I would consider an informal resolution if the university could offer something like a bridge contract until I secure my next position. I clarified that the bridge contract should mean I will be working with another senior professor and not him. However, the RIO indicated that the case is likely too serious for informal handling. He said even if I will be satisfied with that, from the university stand point of view, the case is too serious. 

As expected, informal resolution was rejected, and a formal investigation committee has now been established. 

Also I was clarified that the committee will be investigating the research misconduct only and it is the HR that will investigate the bullying aspect. 

But one thing I am struggling to understand. Throughout this process, most of the conversation has been about how serious this is for the institution, the reputational consequences, how hard it is and about the procedural implications, and so on. Very little has been said about how this process benefits me as the person who experienced the misconduct, the bullying, and the career damage that followed. 

I specifically raised the impact this has had on me , the sustained bullying after I refused the demands, being excluded from team communications, being the only one whose contract was not renewed, and subsequently discovering that negative comments were being made about me to people in my field. I asked what I could expect in terms of acknowledgement or remedy for what I went through. I did not get a clear answer. 

So my questions are: 

1. For those who have gone through a formal research misconduct investigation, does the process offer any remedy or compensation to the complainant, or is it purely about institutional accountability and consequences for the respondent? 
2. Is the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) the only realistic route to any form of personal compensation? 
3. Should I be raising the question of personal remedy directly with the Inquiry Panel when they meet me, or is that outside their scope?

 

----------------------------------

For those new to my story, what led in to this , the full story is as below.

TL;DR: I was hired for a postdoc in one of the prestigious university in Ireland, and my PI asked to be added as last author on papers he had no contribution to, even before I joined. I refused, after which he bullied and excluded me and later spread negative comments about me. I have WhatsApp evidence and have filed a complaint. I am now deciding between a formal investigation and an informal resolution. 

Full Story: (For those who is patient enough 😛 ) 

I connected with a professor from a well-known Irish university who offered me a postdoc, and since we are from the same country and speak the same language, I felt comfortable accepting it. At that time, I had two years of experience as an Assistant Professor and had published more than 30 papers, mostly in high-impact journals. My work is interdisciplinary, and I had built a strong group of students who worked with me on several papers. The professor seemed very interested in collaborating and had ambitious plans, but issues started even before I joined. Around three months before moving, he asked how many papers I was working on, and when I told him, he immediately asked me to add his name to all of them. He also asked me to include two of his associates who were not even affiliated with the university. These were papers my students had worked on for months, and none of them had any contribution or expertise in that area. I was uncomfortable but had already resigned from my previous job, so I delayed the issue and hoped things would improve after joining. 

After I joined, the situation escalated quickly. On my second day, before I even received my university email or ID, he demanded a list of papers where his name would be included. When I pushed back and explained my students’ concerns, he said at least his name should be added and even asked me to withdraw submitted papers and resubmit them with him as last author. After I refused, his behavior changed completely. He became rude and hostile only toward me, continued pressuring me even during holidays, told me to leave the job and go back to India, removed me from the team WhatsApp group, and refused to add me back. In meetings, he avoided speaking to me directly and instead communicated through others. Within 20 days, he also asked me to stop working on the topic I was hired for and move to a different one. In one meeting, in front of another faculty member, he said that if someone was disobedient, he would send them back to India, which shocked the other person as well. That was when I finally stood up to him. 

After that, he stopped supervising me and moved me under another senior professor, who treated me professionally and gave me positive feedback. Despite that he (the original) was my PI still. Despite everything, I still managed to publish three strong papers during my contract, but I was the only one not given a continuation. After leaving, I started applying for jobs, and I later learned from a professor who knows both of us that my PI had been spreading negative comments about me, saying I created problems. I also noticed that some faculty who were initially interested in collaborating with me started distancing themselves. 

I filed a complaint with the Research Integrity Officer and submitted all the WhatsApp evidence. The officer expressed shock and said this is a serious issue. However, my PI responded by claiming that I misunderstood everything and that he never asked for authorship, which is directly contradicted by the messages.  

 

Hi everyone, 

I have opted for formal investigation as like most of the people in reddit have suggested. I’m looking for advice from anyone who has gone through a formal research misconduct investigation at a university, especially in terms of what to expect and what outcomes are realistic. 

Here’s my situation: 

I filed a complaint with the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) regarding serious misconduct by my PI. When I first spoke to the RIO, he expressed strong concern and said that if what I reported is true, it is a very serious issue. He was particularly surprised that this behaviour was done so openly. He even mentioned that someone engaging in this kind of conduct may not belong in academia, although he said that would ultimately be up to HR. 

I provided WhatsApp chat evidence. In those messages, my PI explicitly told me to: 

• Add him as the last author  
• Add two of his associates as co-authors

  

There was no ambiguity in his wording. 

However, in his response, my PI claimed that he never asked for authorship and was only checking whether I was conducting research “correctly. And everything else I  misunderstood” This was clearly contradicted by the chat evidence, which I re-submitted to the RIO. The RIO acknowledged that the messages are quite direct. 

At one point, I was asked whether I would consider an informal resolution. I explained that while I am aware of how serious this case is, I really don't want to relive the trauma. It was pretty traumatic. I have been applying for new positions and getting shortlisted but many professors who were talking nicely in the beginning back off after some time. I came to know that behind the back this PI speak many things negatively about me too. 

Because of the mental strain, I said I would consider an informal resolution if the university could offer something like a bridge contract until I secure my next position. I clarified that the bridge contract should mean I will be working with another senior professor and not him. However, the RIO indicated that the case is likely too serious for informal handling. He said even if I will be satisfied with that, from the university stand point of view, the case is too serious. 

As expected, informal resolution was rejected, and a formal investigation committee has now been established. 

Also I was clarified that the committee will be investigating the research misconduct only and it is the HR that will investigate the bullying aspect. 

But one thing I am struggling to understand. Throughout this process, most of the conversation has been about how serious this is for the institution, the reputational consequences, how hard it is and about the procedural implications, and so on. Very little has been said about how this process benefits me as the person who experienced the misconduct, the bullying, and the career damage that followed. 

I specifically raised the impact this has had on me , the sustained bullying after I refused the demands, being excluded from team communications, being the only one whose contract was not renewed, and subsequently discovering that negative comments were being made about me to people in my field. I asked what I could expect in terms of acknowledgement or remedy for what I went through. I did not get a clear answer. 

So my questions are: 

1. For those who have gone through a formal research misconduct investigation, does the process offer any remedy or compensation to the complainant, or is it purely about institutional accountability and consequences for the respondent? 
2. Is the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) the only realistic route to any form of personal compensation? 
3. Should I be raising the question of personal remedy directly with the Inquiry Panel when they meet me, or is that outside their scope?

 

----------------------------------

For those new to my story, what led in to this , the full story is as below.

TL;DR: I was hired for a postdoc in one of the prestigious university in Ireland, and my PI asked to be added as last author on papers he had no contribution to, even before I joined. I refused, after which he bullied and excluded me and later spread negative comments about me. I have WhatsApp evidence and have filed a complaint. I am now deciding between a formal investigation and an informal resolution. 

Full Story: (For those who is patient enough 😛 ) 

I connected with a professor from a well-known Irish university who offered me a postdoc, and since we are from the same country and speak the same language, I felt comfortable accepting it. At that time, I had two years of experience as an Assistant Professor and had published more than 30 papers, mostly in high-impact journals. My work is interdisciplinary, and I had built a strong group of students who worked with me on several papers. The professor seemed very interested in collaborating and had ambitious plans, but issues started even before I joined. Around three months before moving, he asked how many papers I was working on, and when I told him, he immediately asked me to add his name to all of them. He also asked me to include two of his associates who were not even affiliated with the university. These were papers my students had worked on for months, and none of them had any contribution or expertise in that area. I was uncomfortable but had already resigned from my previous job, so I delayed the issue and hoped things would improve after joining. 

After I joined, the situation escalated quickly. On my second day, before I even received my university email or ID, he demanded a list of papers where his name would be included. When I pushed back and explained my students’ concerns, he said at least his name should be added and even asked me to withdraw submitted papers and resubmit them with him as last author. After I refused, his behavior changed completely. He became rude and hostile only toward me, continued pressuring me even during holidays, told me to leave the job and go back to India, removed me from the team WhatsApp group, and refused to add me back. In meetings, he avoided speaking to me directly and instead communicated through others. Within 20 days, he also asked me to stop working on the topic I was hired for and move to a different one. In one meeting, in front of another faculty member, he said that if someone was disobedient, he would send them back to India, which shocked the other person as well. That was when I finally stood up to him. 

After that, he stopped supervising me and moved me under another senior professor, who treated me professionally and gave me positive feedback. Despite that he (the original) was my PI still. Despite everything, I still managed to publish three strong papers during my contract, but I was the only one not given a continuation. After leaving, I started applying for jobs, and I later learned from a professor who knows both of us that my PI had been spreading negative comments about me, saying I created problems. I also noticed that some faculty who were initially interested in collaborating with me started distancing themselves. 

I filed a complaint with the Research Integrity Officer and submitted all the WhatsApp evidence. The officer expressed shock and said this is a serious issue. However, my PI responded by claiming that I misunderstood everything and that he never asked for authorship, which is directly contradicted by the messages.  

 

Hi everyone, 

I have opted for formal investigation as like most of the people in reddit have suggested. I’m looking for advice from anyone who has gone through a formal research misconduct investigation at a university, especially in terms of what to expect and what outcomes are realistic. 

Here’s my situation: 

I filed a complaint with the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) regarding serious misconduct by my PI. When I first spoke to the RIO, he expressed strong concern and said that if what I reported is true, it is a very serious issue. He was particularly surprised that this behaviour was done so openly. He even mentioned that someone engaging in this kind of conduct may not belong in academia, although he said that would ultimately be up to HR. 

I provided WhatsApp chat evidence. In those messages, my PI explicitly told me to: 

• Add him as the last author  
• Add two of his associates as co-authors

  

There was no ambiguity in his wording. 

However, in his response, my PI claimed that he never asked for authorship and was only checking whether I was conducting research “correctly. And everything else I  misunderstood” This was clearly contradicted by the chat evidence, which I re-submitted to the RIO. The RIO acknowledged that the messages are quite direct. 

At one point, I was asked whether I would consider an informal resolution. I explained that while I am aware of how serious this case is, I really don't want to relive the trauma. It was pretty traumatic. I have been applying for new positions and getting shortlisted but many professors who were talking nicely in the beginning back off after some time. I came to know that behind the back this PI speak many things negatively about me too. 

Because of the mental strain, I said I would consider an informal resolution if the university could offer something like a bridge contract until I secure my next position. I clarified that the bridge contract should mean I will be working with another senior professor and not him. However, the RIO indicated that the case is likely too serious for informal handling. He said even if I will be satisfied with that, from the university stand point of view, the case is too serious. 

As expected, informal resolution was rejected, and a formal investigation committee has now been established. 

Also I was clarified that the committee will be investigating the research misconduct only and it is the HR that will investigate the bullying aspect. 

But one thing I am struggling to understand. Throughout this process, most of the conversation has been about how serious this is for the institution, the reputational consequences, how hard it is and about the procedural implications, and so on. Very little has been said about how this process benefits me as the person who experienced the misconduct, the bullying, and the career damage that followed. 

I specifically raised the impact this has had on me , the sustained bullying after I refused the demands, being excluded from team communications, being the only one whose contract was not renewed, and subsequently discovering that negative comments were being made about me to people in my field. I asked what I could expect in terms of acknowledgement or remedy for what I went through. I did not get a clear answer. 

So my questions are: 

1. For those who have gone through a formal research misconduct investigation, does the process offer any remedy or compensation to the complainant, or is it purely about institutional accountability and consequences for the respondent? 

2. Is the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) the only realistic route to any form of personal compensation? 

3. Should I be raising the question of personal remedy directly with the Inquiry Panel when they meet me, or is that outside their scope?

 

----------------------------------

For those new to my story, what led in to this , the full story is as below.

TL;DR: I was hired for a postdoc in one of the prestigious university in Ireland, and my PI asked to be added as last author on papers he had no contribution to, even before I joined. I refused, after which he bullied and excluded me and later spread negative comments about me. I have WhatsApp evidence and have filed a complaint. I am now deciding between a formal investigation and an informal resolution. 

Full Story: (For those who is patient enough 😛 ) 

I connected with a professor from a well-known Irish university who offered me a postdoc, and since we are from the same country and speak the same language, I felt comfortable accepting it. At that time, I had two years of experience as an Assistant Professor and had published more than 30 papers, mostly in high-impact journals. My work is interdisciplinary, and I had built a strong group of students who worked with me on several papers. The professor seemed very interested in collaborating and had ambitious plans, but issues started even before I joined. Around three months before moving, he asked how many papers I was working on, and when I told him, he immediately asked me to add his name to all of them. He also asked me to include two of his associates who were not even affiliated with the university. These were papers my students had worked on for months, and none of them had any contribution or expertise in that area. I was uncomfortable but had already resigned from my previous job, so I delayed the issue and hoped things would improve after joining. 

After I joined, the situation escalated quickly. On my second day, before I even received my university email or ID, he demanded a list of papers where his name would be included. When I pushed back and explained my students’ concerns, he said at least his name should be added and even asked me to withdraw submitted papers and resubmit them with him as last author. After I refused, his behavior changed completely. He became rude and hostile only toward me, continued pressuring me even during holidays, told me to leave the job and go back to India, removed me from the team WhatsApp group, and refused to add me back. In meetings, he avoided speaking to me directly and instead communicated through others. Within 20 days, he also asked me to stop working on the topic I was hired for and move to a different one. In one meeting, in front of another faculty member, he said that if someone was disobedient, he would send them back to India, which shocked the other person as well. That was when I finally stood up to him. 

After that, he stopped supervising me and moved me under another senior professor, who treated me professionally and gave me positive feedback. Despite that he (the original) was my PI still. Despite everything, I still managed to publish three strong papers during my contract, but I was the only one not given a continuation. After leaving, I started applying for jobs, and I later learned from a professor who knows both of us that my PI had been spreading negative comments about me, saying I created problems. I also noticed that some faculty who were initially interested in collaborating with me started distancing themselves. 

I filed a complaint with the Research Integrity Officer and submitted all the WhatsApp evidence. The officer expressed shock and said this is a serious issue. However, my PI responded by claiming that I misunderstood everything and that he never asked for authorship, which is directly contradicted by the messages.