A research misconduct policy is the institutional and federal framework that defines fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) in research, and sets out how allegations are reported, investigated, and adjudicated. Lehigh University’s new research misconduct policy took effect on 1 January 2026, and it is not an isolated update: dozens of US research universities revised their policies for the same date, all responding to the first substantial rewrite of the federal research misconduct rule in two decades.
Research misconduct policy in the United States is not institutional discretion. Any university receiving Public Health Service (PHS) funding — the great majority of federally funded research institutions — must maintain a policy satisfying 42 CFR Part 93, administered by the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI). When that regulation changes, every covered institution’s policy changes with it. That happened in 2024, and 1 January 2026 is when the consequences arrived on campus.
- What does Lehigh’s new research misconduct policy change?
- What is the federal research misconduct policy institutions must follow?
- What changed in the 2024 ORI Final Rule (42 CFR Part 93)?
- Which other universities are revising policies for 2026?
- Common questions on research misconduct policy
- What this means for research administrators
What does Lehigh’s new research misconduct policy change?
Lehigh’s Office of Research Integrity finalised its revised policy on 19 December 2025, in a notice from Naomi E. Coll, Director of Research Policy and Compliance, confirming that the policy would take effect on 1 January 2026. The document sets out how the university assesses, inquires into, and investigates allegations of research misconduct against academic, scientific, and professional staff, students, and contractors, regardless of funding source.
What distinguishes Lehigh’s process is its provenance rather than its content: the policy was drafted by a faculty working group with one representative from each college, presented to the Faculty Senate in November 2025, and opened to a university-wide online public comment period before finalisation. That sequence — draft, Senate review, public comment, publication — is now a template other institutions are following as they race the same federal deadline.
What is the federal research misconduct policy institutions must follow?
The federal research misconduct policy originates with the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s 2000 Federal Policy on Research Misconduct and is codified for PHS-funded research at 42 CFR Part 93. It defines research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results — honest error and honest differences of opinion are explicitly excluded.
A formal finding requires three elements together: a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community, conduct that was intentional, knowing, or reckless, and proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Non-PHS agencies apply parallel rules — the National Science Foundation administers its own version at 45 CFR Part 689 — so multi-funder institutions must reconcile more than one regulatory text in a single policy.
What changed in the 2024 ORI Final Rule (42 CFR Part 93)?
ORI published its final rule in the Federal Register on 17 September 2024 — the first substantive revision to the 2005 regulation. The rule became legally effective on 1 January 2025, but institutions only had to apply it to allegations received on or after 1 January 2026, which is why the current wave of policy rewrites is landing now rather than a year ago.
- Defined intent standard: “Intentionally,” “knowingly,” and “recklessly” — previously undefined terms central to any finding — now carry fixed regulatory definitions.
- New “institutional record” definition: the rule specifies, for the first time, exactly which documents (inquiry and investigation reports, sequestered evidence indexes, appeal records) must be compiled and preserved.
- Seven-year retention rule: institutions must secure the institutional record and all sequestered evidence for seven years after the proceeding — or any related HHS proceeding — concludes, whichever is later.
- Longer inquiry window: the initial inquiry phase is extended from 60 to 90 days, giving Research Integrity Officers more time before deciding whether a full investigation is warranted.
ORI has confirmed it will not require institutions to submit revised policies until the annual report covering 2025 is filed, due by 30 April 2026 — but the policies themselves, and the procedures behind them, must already be in force for any allegation received from 1 January 2026 onward.
Which other universities are revising policies for 2026?
Lehigh is one of a cohort. Institutional policy pages and faculty handbooks show a cluster of revisions timed to the same compliance date, though each institution has followed its own governance path to get there.
| Institution | Policy action | Date | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lehigh University | New research misconduct policy finalised | Effective 1 Jan 2026 | Faculty working group, Senate review, public comment |
| Columbia University | Revised policy approved by University Senate | Approved 12 Dec 2025; effective 1 Jan 2026 | Realigns definitions with the PHS Final Rule |
| Auburn University | Policy on Research Misconduct republished | 21 Nov 2025 | Updated allegation-resolution framework |
| Ohio State University | Research Misconduct policy revised | March 2025 | Among the earliest movers ahead of the deadline |
| Wayne State University | Interim Research Misconduct Policy (26-01) | Interim, 2025–26 cycle | Document numbering signals the 2026 compliance cycle |
| Duke University | Misconduct in Research policy (established) | Bound to 42 CFR Part 93 / 45 CFR Part 689 | Long-cited model policy; must reflect the revised rule by the deadline |
The pattern is consistent: governance bodies — Faculty Senate, University Senate, or equivalent — are being used explicitly to legitimise the revision, not just administrative sign-off. That marks a shift from prior cycles, where research misconduct policy updates were typically handled as compliance housekeeping rather than faculty-governance business.
Common questions on research misconduct policy
What are the three forms of research misconduct under US federal policy?
US federal policy recognises three forms of research misconduct: fabrication (making up data or results), falsification (manipulating materials, equipment, or data so the research record is inaccurate), and plagiarism (appropriating another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without credit). This “FFP” definition has applied since the 2000 OSTP policy and is unchanged by the 2026 rule.
What is considered research misconduct in the US?
Conduct only counts as research misconduct if it is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community, committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly, and proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Honest error, differences of scientific opinion, and most authorship disputes are explicitly excluded from the definition.
What is 42 CFR Part 93?
42 CFR Part 93 is the codified federal regulation — the Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct — that sets binding rules for how PHS-funded institutions must respond to allegations. Its 2024 revision, effective for allegations from 1 January 2026, is the first major overhaul since 2005 and drives the current round of university policy rewrites.
What does the federal research misconduct policy cover?
The federal research misconduct policy covers federally funded research and funding proposals across all fields — including medicine, social sciences, engineering, and statistics — conducted at universities, federal laboratories, and other funded research institutions. It governs the inquiry, investigation, and adjudication phases but does not supersede separate rules on human-subjects protection, animal welfare, or financial conflicts of interest.
What this means for research administrators
The consequences of research misconduct under the federal framework range from correction of the research record and letters of reprimand to suspension of funding, debarment from future federal awards, and referral for civil or criminal fraud proceedings. For research administrators, the sharper immediate risk is procedural: if an institution’s inquiry, evidentiary, or retention procedures do not match the 2026 rule, findings made under a defective process are vulnerable on appeal.
Three takeaways follow. First, Research Integrity Officers should confirm their policy explicitly defines “intentionally,” “knowingly,” and “recklessly” in the regulatory terms now fixed by the final rule, rather than leaving them undefined as most pre-2026 policies did. Second, retention schedules need extending to the mandated seven years and mapped against the newly defined “institutional record.” Third, institutions routing revisions through faculty governance — as Lehigh, Columbia, and Auburn have done — are building a stronger due-process record that may matter if a finding is later contested.
The compliance clock does not stop at 1 January. ORI’s own review of revised policies, via the annual report covering 2025, falls due on 30 April 2026 — a second checkpoint on which institutions treated this as a genuine revision to research administration practice, and which merely updated a document to survive it.
