Research misconduct according to federal regulations means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting results — the standard set by 42 CFR Part 93 and enforced by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Research Integrity (ORI). A revised version of that rule took effect for allegations received on or after 1 January 2026, and Lehigh University’s newly effective policy shows what compliance looks like in practice.
Research misconduct is fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research — not honest error or a legitimate difference of scientific opinion.
- What Counts as Research Misconduct Under Federal Regulations?
- What Changed Under the 2026 Public Health Service Rule?
- How Lehigh University Rebuilt Its Policy Around the New Rule
- Frequently Asked Questions
- What This Means for Other Institutions
What Counts as Research Misconduct Under Federal Regulations?
Under 42 CFR Part 93, research misconduct requires three elements to co-exist: a significant departure from accepted practices in the relevant research community, intent (committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly), and proof by a preponderance of the evidence. All three must be satisfied — a mistake alone, without intent, is not misconduct.
The regulation names three specific acts, commonly abbreviated FFP:
- Fabrication — making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
- Falsification — manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data so the research record is not accurately represented.
- Plagiarism — appropriating another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
The Office of Research Integrity, part of HHS, oversees Public Health Service (PHS)-funded research, while the National Science Foundation applies a near-identical definition to its own awards. Financial conflicts of interest, authorship disputes, and general workplace misconduct fall outside this federal definition, even where an institution’s own policy treats them separately.
What Changed Under the 2026 Public Health Service Rule?
HHS published a final rule revising 42 CFR Part 93 in the Federal Register on 17 September 2024 — the first substantive update since 2005. Under the rule, institutions must apply the new requirements to any allegation of research misconduct received on or after 1 January 2026; allegations received earlier remain governed by the 2005 text.
The revision responds to two decades of practical drift between the 2005 text and how research is actually conducted and investigated. Its most consequential changes include:
- The maximum time to complete an inquiry rises from 60 to 90 calendar days.
- The maximum time to complete an investigation, including drafting the final report, rises from 120 to 180 calendar days.
- Institutions may now use a Research Integrity Officer or another designated official to conduct an inquiry, rather than being required to convene a separate inquiry committee.
- “Intentionally,” “knowingly,” and “recklessly” receive codified definitions, and plagiarism is defined to exclude self-plagiarism and authorship disputes.
- Institutions gain clearer authority to disclose respondent, complainant, and witness identities to parties with a “legitimate need,” including journals, editors, and collaborating institutions.
ORI has told institutions they must submit policies and procedures that comply with the final rule alongside their annual report covering the 2025 calendar year, due on or before 30 April 2026 — giving research offices a hard, near-term compliance checkpoint even where no allegation has yet been received under the new rule.
How Lehigh University Rebuilt Its Policy Around the New Rule
Lehigh University’s Office of the Vice Provost for Research finalised a rewritten Research Misconduct Policy effective 1 January 2026, timed to the federal applicability date. Rather than a quiet administrative update, Lehigh ran the revision through a faculty working group with one representative per college, presented the draft to Faculty Senate in November 2025, and opened a public comment period before finalising the text — a governance pattern other institutions can replicate ahead of their own compliance deadline.
Who the Policy Covers and Who Runs It
The policy applies to all faculty, emeritus faculty, academic and professional staff, students, and independent contractors conducting research at Lehigh, regardless of whether the work is federally funded. A designated Research Integrity Officer (RIO) administers assessments, inquiries, and investigations, while a Deciding Official — ordinarily the Vice Provost for Research — makes the final determination and imposes any sanction, subject to a conflict-of-interest recusal.
Standard of Proof and Time Limits
Findings must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, with the burden of proof resting on the university rather than the accused researcher. Lehigh’s policy also carries a six-year time limitation on allegations, with exceptions where a continuing public health threat exists or where fabricated material is knowingly reused in a later, federally funded application. Institutional records must be retained for seven years following the close of a proceeding.
Lehigh’s Timelines Against the Federal Ceiling
The table below sets Lehigh’s adopted timelines directly against the federal maximums the 2026 rule now permits — a comparison the generic explainer pages on this topic do not make, because most predate Lehigh’s finalised text.
| Process stage | Federal ceiling (42 CFR Part 93, 2026) | Lehigh University policy |
|---|---|---|
| Assessment of a complaint | Not federally timed | Preferably within 1 week |
| Inquiry | 90 calendar days | 90 calendar days |
| Investigation | 180 calendar days | 180 calendar days |
| Respondent appeal | Not federally required | 15 days from final decision |
| Time limitation on allegations | 6 years (with exceptions) | 6 years (with matching exceptions) |
| Record retention post-proceeding | Institutional discretion | 7 years |
Two design choices stand out. First, Lehigh set its inquiry and investigation clocks at exactly the new federal ceilings rather than building in a stricter internal buffer — a defensible but notable choice research administrators at other institutions should weigh against their own caseload and staffing. Second, Lehigh added a 15-day respondent appeal window and a 7-year retention rule that the federal regulation does not itself mandate, addressing due-process and evidentiary gaps institutions have raised informally with ORI since 2005.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the federal definition of research misconduct?
The federal definition is fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting results, under 42 CFR Part 93. A finding also requires a significant departure from accepted practice, intent, and proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
What are the three types of research misconduct?
The three recognised types are fabrication (inventing data), falsification (manipulating data, materials, or processes so the record misrepresents the research), and plagiarism (using another person’s words, ideas, or results without credit). Together they form the “FFP” standard used across US federal agencies.
What is the US federal research misconduct policy?
The US federal policy is set out in 42 CFR Part 93, administered by the HHS Office of Research Integrity for Public Health Service-funded research. A 2024 final rule revised the policy for the first time since 2005, applying to allegations institutions receive on or after 1 January 2026.
What This Means for Other Institutions
Lehigh’s rewrite is a useful reference point because it shows the rule’s flexibility resolved into concrete, adoptable choices rather than remaining abstract. Institutions still finalising their own policies ahead of the 30 April 2026 annual-report deadline can treat Lehigh’s structure — RIO-led assessment, a fixed appeal window, and matched federal timelines — as one workable template, without needing to invent a compliance architecture from scratch.
The broader implication for research administration teams is procedural, not just definitional: the 2026 rule shifts discretion toward institutions on committee composition and disclosure, while tightening documentation and timeline expectations. Offices that treat this as solely a definitions update — rather than a governance and record-keeping one — risk falling short of ORI’s annual reporting requirement even if no misconduct allegation is ever filed under the new text.
Leave a Reply