Definition · Plain-language
Research misconduct
Research misconduct in U.S. federal policy means fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in research — not honest error or differences of opinion.
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.
Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism
U.S. federal policy defines research misconduct narrowly as three behaviours. 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 or results, so that the research record does not accurately reflect the work. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit. Together these are abbreviated FFP, and they cover misconduct in proposing, performing, reviewing or reporting research.
What it is not
The definition deliberately excludes honest error and differences of opinion. A genuine mistake, a defensible judgement call, or a scientific disagreement is not misconduct, however serious its consequences. To support a finding, the conduct must represent a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; have been committed intentionally, knowingly or recklessly; and be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. This high bar protects researchers from having ordinary error treated as wrongdoing.
How allegations are handled
For Public Health Service-funded research, the federal framework is 42 CFR Part 93, overseen by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) within HHS. Institutions are the front line: they conduct an inquiry to decide whether an allegation has substance, then, if warranted, a formal investigation, with ORI providing oversight and making final findings for PHS-supported work. Possible outcomes range from correction of the record to debarment from federal funding. Other agencies, such as NSF through its Inspector General, run parallel processes.
Key facts
At a glance
- Definition: fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in research
- Abbreviation: FFP
- PHS authority: Office of Research Integrity (ORI), 42 CFR Part 93
- Excludes: honest error and honest differences of opinion
- Standard: significant departure; intentional/knowing/reckless
- Proof: preponderance of the evidence
Common misconceptions
What people often get wrong
Often heard: Any mistake in a paper is research misconduct.
Actually: Honest error and honest differences of opinion are explicitly excluded. Misconduct requires fabrication, falsification or plagiarism committed intentionally, knowingly or recklessly.
Often heard: Research misconduct covers any unethical behaviour by a scientist.
Actually: The federal definition is limited to fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. Other concerns, such as authorship disputes or harassment, fall under different policies.
Often heard: The federal funder decides every misconduct case directly.
Actually: Institutions conduct the inquiry and investigation; agencies such as ORI provide oversight and make final findings for the research they fund.
Going deeper
