How research misconduct findings work
In the United States, federal rules define research misconduct narrowly as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism, and set the standard of proof for a finding.
- ORI defines fabrication as making up data or results and recording or reporting them.1
- Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results so the research is not accurately represented in the research record.1
- Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.1
- Under 42 CFR 93.103, a finding requires a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community, misconduct committed intentionally, knowingly or recklessly, and proof by a preponderance of the evidence.2
- A revised version of the federal rule, published in the Federal Register on 17 September 2024, applies to allegations institutions receive on or after 1 January 2026.2,6
- Institutions usually investigate first. In the Anil Potti case, ORI's 2015 finding followed an investigation by Duke University and was published in the Federal Register.3
- Other countries use different bodies and definitions. In the Netherlands, three university committees jointly reported on Diederik Stapel, and in Japan a RIKEN committee judged the STAP papers.4,5
Sources
- US Office of Research Integrity, Definition of research misconduct
- Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 42 CFR Part 93, Public Health Service policies on research misconduct (17 September 2024)
- Federal Register, Findings of Research Misconduct (Anil Potti) (9 November 2015)
- University of Groningen, Eindrapport Stapel (28 November 2012)
- RIKEN, Report on STAP cell research paper investigation (31 March 2014)
- Federal Register, US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct (final rule) (17 September 2024)