Taiwan’s National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) investigates allegations of research misconduct involving anyone who applies for, or receives, an NSTC academic award, research project, or other subsidy. Its procedure is set out in the Guidelines for Handling and Investigating Research Misconduct by the National Science and Technology Council (納入學術道德規範事件處理及審查要點), a regulation NSTC has amended twelve times since it was first promulgated on November 25, 1999 — most recently on May 2, 2024. This guide covers what the current version of the Guidelines actually requires: how misconduct is defined, who investigates a case, the timelines involved, and what penalties NSTC can impose. For background on NSTC itself — what the agency is, its funding role, and its name history (National Science Council → Ministry of Science and Technology → NSTC) — see CASRAI’s separate guide to Taiwan’s NSTC; that page does not cover the misconduct-investigation process, which is the subject of this one.
Scope: Who the Guidelines Apply To
Article 2 of the Guidelines applies them to researchers who apply to NSTC for, or have obtained from NSTC, any academic award, research project, or other related subsidy. In practice this means the Guidelines govern misconduct allegations tied to NSTC funding or NSTC-administered recognition specifically — they are NSTC’s own regulatory instrument, not a general national research-integrity statute covering all of Taiwan’s research activity regardless of funding source. A separate, broader reference document, NSTC’s Statement on Academic Ethics, sets out the underlying principles the Guidelines operationalize into a formal investigation procedure.
How NSTC Defines Research Misconduct
Article 3 lists eight categories of research misconduct by a researcher:
- Fabrication — making up application materials, research data, or research results that do not exist.
- Falsification — inappropriately altering application materials, research data, or research results.
- Plagiarism — appropriating another person’s application materials, research data, or research results without attributing the source; the Guidelines specify that extensively citing a source improperly is also treated as plagiarism.
- Self-plagiarism — using one’s own previously published work in a research project or paper without providing appropriate references.
- Duplicate publication — repeated publication of materials without clear references.
- Ghostwriting — a research paper, project application, or report of results written by someone other than the named author.
- Improper influence on peer review — use of illegal or inappropriate means to influence the review of a paper.
- Other violations of academic ethics confirmed as such at a meeting of NSTC’s Academic Ethics Review Committee — a catch-all category, not a fixed list.
Two things stand out for a research administrator comparing this to other national frameworks. First, NSTC’s list explicitly names self-plagiarism and duplicate publication as their own misconduct categories, separate from plagiarism and falsification — a broader definition than, for example, the U.S. Public Health Service framework at 42 CFR Part 93, which limits federal research misconduct to fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) and treats self-plagiarism as outside that definition. Second, ghostwriting and improper influence on peer review are named as distinct categories rather than folded into a general integrity clause. For CASRAI’s dictionary definitions of the individual concepts referenced above, see Fabrication, Falsification, Plagiarism, Self-plagiarism, and Duplicate publication.
Who Investigates: The Academic Ethics Review Committee
Article 4 establishes NSTC’s Academic Ethics Review Committee to review and investigate academic ethics cases. Per Articles 5 and 6, the Committee is convened by a Deputy Minister designated by the NSTC Minister, has 9 to 15 members (department heads within NSTC, a Ministry of Education representative, outside scholars/experts, and lawyers, none of whom are salaried for this role), and members serve two-year renewable terms. Under Article 7, an ordinary resolution requires at least two-thirds of members present, both to constitute a quorum and to approve; a motion to impose lifelong deprivation of funding privileges (the most severe penalty available, see below) requires at least three-quarters approval of members present — a deliberately higher bar for the most severe outcome.
How a Case Reaches Investigation
Article 8 allows NSTC to open a case on its own initiative or on a report from an outside party. Reported cases must use real names and addresses and be accompanied by documented evidence; anonymous reports are not handled unless they identify a concrete subject with sufficient supporting evidence. Cases outside NSTC’s competence are forwarded to the appropriate agency.
The Two-Stage Review Process
Article 9 sets out a two-stage procedure once a case clears initial intake:
Stage 1: Preliminary Review
The relevant NSTC department convenes an Inquiry Panel of at least three scholars or experts in the relevant field. If the Panel finds a suspected violation, it refers the case to the researcher’s affiliated school, organization, or institution for investigation — NSTC itself investigates directly only where the evidence is readily available and straightforward to evaluate. Article 10 sets out tie-breaking rules for which institution investigates when a case involves co-authors at different institutions: investigation follows the corresponding author’s institution, or (for multi-paper cases) the institution of whichever author corresponds most frequently, with NSTC designating an institution directly if neither rule resolves it. The investigating institution submits an investigation report to NSTC covering the cause of action, the respondent’s documented defense, investigation methods (including any analysis software used), findings on each reported item, and the institution’s own disciplinary decision, if any. The Inquiry Panel then reviews that report and, where it confirms a violation warranting escalation, prepares a preliminary-review report specifying the evidence, investigation methods, misconduct type(s), and a concrete penalty recommendation for the Academic Ethics Review Committee.
Stage 2: Secondary Review
Where the preliminary review confirms a violation, the case moves to the Academic Ethics Review Committee for full deliberation. The respondent must be given an opportunity to submit a written statement and, where necessary, a hearing. If an institution delays a case without valid reason or submits an incomplete investigation, NSTC’s own department may take over the investigation, return the case for re-investigation, or request supplementary information.
Timelines
Article 11 sets binding review timeframes, with extensions available where necessary:
- Preliminary review: must generally complete within six months of case acceptance. Within that window, an institution conducting its own investigation must complete it within four months of the case being referred to it by NSTC; cases NSTC investigates directly must complete within four months of acceptance.
- If new evidence is submitted during the review period, the clock restarts from the date of the last referral or the receipt of the new evidence.
- Secondary review: must complete within two months of the preliminary review’s completion.
Penalties
Article 13 authorizes the Academic Ethics Review Committee to impose one or more of the following, scaled to the severity of the violation, once it is proven by definite evidence:
- A written warning.
- Suspension of eligibility to apply for or execute NSTC-subsidized projects, or to apply for or receive NSTC awards, for one to ten years — or, for the most severe cases, lifelong deprivation of that privilege (the penalty requiring the three-quarters supermajority noted above).
- Recovery of part or all of the subsidy, financial reward, scholarship, or grant.
- Withdrawal of related awards already granted.
Article 14 requires disclosure of disciplinary outcomes to the public, scaled to severity, except for minor cases (defined as a suspension of two years or less). Article 15 requires written notice of the outcome to the complainant, the respondent, and the respondent’s institution, and requires that institution to report back to NSTC on its own explanations, review, and corrective action regarding the disciplined researcher. Article 16 requires confidentiality for information gathered during the investigation and specifically protects the complainant’s identity, though NSTC may make appropriate public statements where a case involves the public interest.
Institutional Obligations
Because the first-line investigation in most cases falls to the researcher’s own institution rather than NSTC directly, an institution receiving NSTC subsidies has a standing obligation to cooperate: forming Inquiry Panels’ counterpart investigation teams, meeting the Article 11 timelines, and submitting a complete investigation report in the format Article 9 specifies. A research administrator at an institution that receives NSTC funding, or that is coordinating with a Taiwanese partner institution on a jointly authored paper or a collaborative award, should treat this obligation as a live compliance requirement, not a background policy detail — an incomplete or delayed institutional investigation is itself a basis for NSTC’s department to take the case over directly under Article 9.
Why This Matters Outside Taiwan
For a non-Taiwanese co-author, collaborating institution, or journal handling a submission with an NSTC-funded Taiwanese researcher, three practical implications follow from the structure above: first, an allegation touching an NSTC-funded project or award is investigated under this specific procedure, not under whatever the non-Taiwanese partner’s own national framework provides; second, because co-authorship investigation jurisdiction under Article 10 follows the corresponding author’s institution, a non-Taiwanese corresponding author on a paper with an NSTC-funded co-author may find their own institution named as the investigating body even where NSTC issued the underlying subsidy; and third, the confidentiality obligation under Article 16 means outside parties (including a journal considering a related retraction or correction) should expect limited visibility into an ongoing NSTC case until a disciplinary outcome is publicly disclosed under Article 14. For general background on how institutional versus funder jurisdiction is typically allocated in a misconduct case, see CASRAI’s guide on institutional vs. federal jurisdiction in research misconduct cases and the general walkthrough of how a research misconduct investigation actually works.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do NSTC’s Guidelines for Handling and Investigating Research Misconduct apply to all Taiwanese researchers, or only NSTC-funded ones?
Only researchers who have applied for, or received, an NSTC academic award, research project, or other related subsidy (Article 2). Misconduct allegations unconnected to NSTC funding or recognition fall outside this specific procedure, though Taiwanese universities and research institutions typically maintain their own parallel academic-ethics policies covering non-NSTC-funded activity.
Does Taiwan’s NSTC treat self-plagiarism as research misconduct?
Yes. Article 3 lists self-plagiarism as its own distinct category of research misconduct, separate from plagiarism, defined as using one’s own previously published work in a project or paper without appropriate references. This is broader than the U.S. federal PHS definition, which does not classify self-plagiarism as research misconduct.
How long does an NSTC research misconduct investigation take?
Under Article 11, preliminary review is generally expected to complete within six months of case acceptance (with the investigating institution given four months of that window to complete its own investigation), and the secondary review by the Academic Ethics Review Committee within two months after that, with extensions available where necessary. New evidence submitted mid-review restarts the applicable clock.
What is the harshest penalty NSTC can impose for research misconduct?
Lifelong deprivation of the privilege to apply for or receive NSTC subsidies, projects, or awards (Article 13, Clause 2). Because of its severity, this specific penalty requires at least three-quarters approval of Academic Ethics Review Committee members present, a higher bar than the two-thirds required for other Committee resolutions.
Who actually conducts the investigation into an NSTC misconduct allegation — NSTC itself or the researcher’s institution?
Ordinarily the researcher’s affiliated institution investigates, under referral from NSTC’s Inquiry Panel, and submits a formal investigation report back to NSTC (Article 9). NSTC investigates directly only where the evidence is readily available and straightforward to evaluate, or where an institution fails to complete its investigation properly within the required timeline.
Is NSTC’s Guidelines document the same as Taiwan’s national Code of Conduct for Research Integrity?
No. The Guidelines for Handling and Investigating Research Misconduct are NSTC’s own procedural regulation for cases tied to its funding and awards. Taiwan also has a separate, broader Code of Conduct for Research Integrity intended as general guidance across the research community, and individual universities maintain their own academic-ethics regulations layered on top of both.
