Research misconduct

Research misconduct has no single global definition. What counts as misconduct, who investigates it, and what standard of proof applies all vary by jurisdiction — conflating them is a common and consequential error, especially for cross-border collaborations and journals with international authorship.

In the United States, the federal definition administered by the Office of Research Integrity (42 CFR Part 93) restricts research misconduct to fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. A finding requires all three elements of the regulation’s own test: the conduct is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; it was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The definition explicitly excludes honest error and honest differences of opinion — not a footnote, but the mechanism that keeps ordinary correction, good-faith retraction, and legitimate methodological disagreement outside the misconduct system.

Other jurisdictions draw the boundary more broadly. The UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) — an independent charity, not a statutory regulator — works from the UK Concordat to Support Research Integrity, which reaches beyond FFP to practices such as undisclosed conflicts of interest and pressuring research environments; UKRIO itself has no investigatory power, and UK institutions retain responsibility for their own cases. ALLEA’s European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity similarly extends beyond FFP, and ENRIO, the European Network of Research Integrity Offices, coordinates practice across national bodies whose own statutory powers vary widely — most are advisory, like UKRIO, not investigatory. A researcher or journal operating across borders cannot assume the US FFP-only standard applies elsewhere, or that a broader European finding meets the US preponderance-of-evidence bar.

Research misconduct is distinct from questionable research practices (QRPs), which fall short of the threshold above but still erode trust — p-hacking and HARKing are typically addressed through journal policy, not a misconduct finding. See falsification, fabrication, and the falsification vs fabrication comparison for how the FFP categories differ from each other, and CASRAI’s guide to how a research-misconduct investigation actually works for the mechanics of a finding once a jurisdiction’s threshold is met.

Checking this against the jurisdiction that actually applies

Which definition governs a specific case — the US ORI’s FFP-only test, the UK Concordat’s broader reach, or ALLEA’s European code — depends on which institution, which funder, and which jurisdiction’s process is actually opened. The page above states each framework’s general boundary, not how they resolve against each other in a mixed case.

Ask CASRAI: A UK collaborator’s institution treats a case as research misconduct under the wider UK Concordat definition, but the same conduct would not meet the US ORI’s FFP-only test — which standard governs a jointly authored, jointly funded paper?

It answers with its sources linked, so you can open each one and check it yourself, and it says so when our sources don’t cover a question. Two questions a day are free while you are signed out, no account and no card. Everything CASRAI publishes stays free to read.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the US definition of research misconduct cover anything beyond fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism?

No. The federal definition administered by the Office of Research Integrity (42 CFR Part 93) restricts research misconduct to fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research, and a finding also requires intent (intentional, knowing, or reckless conduct) and proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Does honest error count as research misconduct?

No. The 42 CFR Part 93 definition explicitly excludes honest error and honest differences of opinion — that exclusion is the mechanism that keeps ordinary correction, good-faith retraction, and legitimate methodological disagreement outside the misconduct system entirely.

Do UK and European research-integrity bodies use the same FFP-only definition as the US?

No. The UK Concordat to Support Research Integrity and ALLEA’s European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity both reach beyond FFP to practices such as undisclosed conflicts of interest and pressuring research environments, and most European bodies — including UKRIO — are advisory rather than investigatory, unlike the US’s statutory ORI process.

Is a questionable research practice the same thing as research misconduct?

No. Questionable research practices such as p-hacking and HARKing fall short of the misconduct threshold and are typically addressed through journal policy rather than a formal misconduct finding, even though they can still erode trust in the same way misconduct does.

References

• US Office of Research Integrity, 42 CFR Part 93 (definitions at 93.103, 93.211, 93.212, 93.227, 93.234)
• UKRIO Code of Practice for Research (2009, updated 2022)
• ALLEA European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2023)