Definition · Plain-language
Research misconduct
Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism — the "FFP" framework — committed in proposing, performing, reviewing or reporting research.
The step most authors miss
Doing CRediT right? Don’t stop at the statement.
A CRediT statement credits you inside one paper. The recognition CRediT was built for happens when those roles are tied to you, persistently. Sign in with your ORCID — free — and claim your CRediT contributions on casrai.org, the home of the standard. They become a verified, portable part of your identity, not a line that disappears into one PDF.
Free: claim your contributions, then export a journal-ready CRediT statement, schema.org structured data, JATS XML, CSV or BibTeX — and preview your public profile. A membership publishes that profile publicly and verifies the journals you serve.
The FFP framework
The dominant international definition centres on three core offences, often abbreviated FFP. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment or processes, or changing or omitting data so that the research record does not accurately reflect what was found. Plagiarism is appropriating another person’s ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit. This formulation, codified by the US Office of Research Integrity and echoed by national bodies worldwide, sets a deliberately narrow and serious threshold so that genuine misconduct is distinguished from ordinary scientific disagreement.
What it is not
A crucial part of the definition is its exclusions. Research misconduct does not include honest error — a genuine mistake in measurement, analysis or interpretation — nor does it cover legitimate differences of scientific opinion. The standard also generally requires that the act be committed intentionally, knowingly or recklessly, and that it represent a significant departure from accepted practices. This narrowness is intentional: it protects researchers who make good-faith mistakes or who challenge prevailing views, while reserving the grave label of "misconduct" for fabrication, falsification and plagiarism.
Detection, investigation and consequences
Allegations are typically handled through a formal institutional process of inquiry and investigation, often overseen by an oversight body and guided by publication-ethics bodies such as COPE for the journal’s role. Where misconduct is confirmed, the published record is corrected — most often through a retraction that removes the affected findings from the literature — and sanctions may follow, including funding debarment, loss of position and referral to professional regulators. Beyond questionable research practices, which sit on a spectrum below it, substantiated FFP is the most serious breach of research integrity precisely because it falsifies the shared evidence base.
Key facts
At a glance
- Definition: fabrication, falsification or plagiarism (FFP) in research
- Fabrication: making up data or results
- Falsification: manipulating or omitting data so the record is inaccurate
- Plagiarism: appropriating another’s work without appropriate credit
- Excludes: honest error and differences of opinion
- Consequences: investigation, retraction, funding sanctions and loss of position
Common misconceptions
What people often get wrong
Often heard: Any mistake in a published study counts as research misconduct.
Actually: No. The definition explicitly excludes honest error and differences of opinion. Misconduct requires fabrication, falsification or plagiarism, generally committed intentionally, knowingly or recklessly.
Often heard: Research misconduct covers anything questionable a researcher does.
Actually: The formal FFP definition is narrow. Many "questionable research practices" — such as selective reporting or poor record-keeping — are serious but sit on a spectrum below the formal threshold for misconduct.
Often heard: A retraction always means the authors committed misconduct.
Actually: Not necessarily. Retractions also correct honest error or unreliable findings. A retraction signals the work should not be relied upon; whether misconduct occurred is determined by a separate investigation.
