CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: research integrity policy

  • Duke Research Misconduct Policy vs MIT, Stanford

    Duke, MIT and Stanford each operationalise the same federal research-misconduct standard through different institutional machinery. Duke routes allegations to a Misconduct Review Officer and a 24-hour Integrity Line; MIT centralises review under its Vice President for Research; Stanford assigns first-line assessment to school deans under a Research Policy Handbook chapter revised effective 1 January 2026. All three exist to satisfy one governing rule: the Public Health Service Policy on Research Misconduct.

    The federal policy on research misconduct — codified at 42 C.F.R. Part 93 and enforced by the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI) — defines research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Every US university that accepts Public Health Service funding, including Duke, MIT and Stanford, must maintain an institutional policy that meets this baseline, then layers its own governance, reporting channels, and disciplinary structure on top.

    How does Duke’s research misconduct policy define and handle allegations?

    Duke’s research misconduct policy is set out in the Duke University Policy and Procedures Governing Misconduct in Research, part of the Faculty Handbook and last updated in May 2023. Allegations are directed to a designated Misconduct Review Officer (MRO), or to a department chair, division chief, or dean, who must promptly forward the matter to the MRO.

    Duke also operates an Integrity Line — a 24-hour, anonymous telephone hotline (1-800-826-8109) — so that reporters can raise concerns without disclosing their identity. This dual-channel design (a named institutional officer plus an anonymous hotline) reflects a broader reform effort: Duke’s policy was revised to extend coverage beyond faculty to research staff, alongside wider research-integrity reforms following a 2019 case in which the university agreed to a $112.5 million False Claims Act settlement over fabricated data in federally funded pulmonary research, as reported by Science. That episode is a documented driver of the university folding staff explicitly into the policy’s scope, according to case-study materials prepared for the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR).

    How does MIT structure its research misconduct procedures?

    MIT’s framework sits in MIT Policies and Procedures §10.1, “Procedures for Dealing with Misconduct in Research and Scholarship,” last updated 10 December 2025. Oversight is centralised: every allegation, wherever it is first raised, must be conveyed promptly to the Vice President for Research (VPR), MIT’s designated Research Integrity Officer.

    MIT’s definition tracks the federal FFP triad — fabrication (making up data), falsification (manipulating materials or altering results), and plagiarism (appropriating another’s ideas or words without credit) — but adds a fourth category not found in the core PHS definition: deliberate interference, meaning intentionally causing material harm to another’s research, such as damaging equipment or deleting data. MIT’s policy also explicitly excludes self-plagiarism (text recycling) and authorship or credit disputes among former collaborators from the definition of misconduct, mirroring longstanding ORI guidance on plagiarism.

    What changed in Stanford’s research misconduct policy for 2026?

    Stanford’s governing chapter, Research Policy Handbook (RPH) 1.7, “Research Misconduct: Policy on Allegations, Investigations, and Reporting,” dates originally to 3 February 1983 but carries a current version effective 1 January 2026. The update aligns Stanford’s procedures with the 2024 Final Rule amending 42 C.F.R. Part 93 — the same federal regulation that governs Duke and MIT.

    Two provisions distinguish Stanford’s approach. First, the “Six-Year Rule” (42 C.F.R. §93.104): research misconduct allegations are only actionable if the conduct occurred within six years of the date Stanford or a federal agency received the allegation, subject to a “subsequent use” exception (if the respondent later cited or republished the disputed material) and a “public health and safety” exception. Second, first-line responsibility sits with the school dean, who must assess an allegation and, if it meets the definition, immediately open an inquiry and notify the Dean of Research — a more devolved structure than MIT’s single VPR intake point.

    How do Duke, MIT and Stanford compare side by side?

    The table below sets the three institutional policies against each other and against the federal baseline they all must satisfy.

    Institution Governing document First-line authority Reporting channel Misconduct definition
    Duke University Policy and Procedures Governing Misconduct in Research (Faculty Handbook, updated May 2023) Misconduct Review Officer MRO, department chair/dean, or anonymous Integrity Line FFP, per 42 C.F.R. Part 93; covers faculty and staff
    MIT MIT Policies and Procedures §10.1 (updated 10 Dec 2025) Vice President for Research Report to VPR, typically via supervisor or department head FFP plus deliberate interference; excludes self-plagiarism and authorship disputes
    Stanford University Research Policy Handbook 1.7 (current version 1 Jan 2026; original 1983) School dean, then Dean of Research Report to school dean for initial assessment FFP per 42 C.F.R. Part 93 (2024 Final Rule); six-year time limitation
    Federal baseline PHS Policy on Research Misconduct, 42 C.F.R. Part 93 HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI) Institutional report to ORI after a finding Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP)

    All three institutions converge on the same two-stage process required by federal policy:

    • An inquiry — a preliminary assessment of whether an allegation has substance and warrants formal review.
    • An investigation — a full evidentiary examination that produces findings reported to ORI when federal funding is involved.

    Common questions on federal and institutional research misconduct policy

    What is the US federal research misconduct policy?

    The US federal research misconduct policy is the Public Health Service Policy on Research Misconduct, codified at 42 C.F.R. Part 93 and enforced by ORI. It applies to fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting PHS-supported research, and requires every recipient institution to maintain a compliant local policy.

    What is 42 CFR Part 93 research misconduct?

    42 C.F.R. Part 93 is the federal regulation setting the definitions, procedural standards, and reporting obligations that PHS-funded institutions — including Duke, MIT, and Stanford — must follow. A 2024 Final Rule to Part 93 took effect on 1 January 2026, updating provisions including the definition of plagiarism that institutions must now apply.

    What are the three types of research misconduct?

    The three federally recognised types are fabrication (inventing data or results), falsification (manipulating materials, equipment, or data so the research record is inaccurate), and plagiarism (using another’s ideas, processes, or words without credit). Honest error and legitimate differences of scientific opinion are explicitly excluded.

    What constitutes research misconduct according to federal regulations?

    A federal finding requires three elements together: a significant departure from accepted research practices, conduct committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly, and an allegation proven by a preponderance of the evidence. All three tests must be met before ORI or an institution can record a formal finding of misconduct.

    What this means for research administrators

    For research administrators, compliance officers, and institutional leaders, the practical lesson is that federal alignment does not mean procedural uniformity. Duke, MIT, and Stanford each satisfy 42 C.F.R. Part 93, yet route allegations through different first-line authorities — an MRO, a VPR, and a school dean respectively — and set different scope boundaries around staff coverage, deliberate interference, and time limitations. Institutions benchmarking their own research administration policy against peer practice should treat the federal rule as the floor, not the template, and expect further local revisions as the 2024 Final Rule to Part 93 continues to work through university policy cycles into 2026 and beyond.

    Given that Stanford’s update took effect only this year and MIT revised its procedures in December 2025, institutional research misconduct policies are clearly still catching up to the federal 2024 Final Rule — administrators reviewing their own institution’s policy should confirm which version of 42 C.F.R. Part 93 it currently cites before assuming compliance.

  • Scotland’s New Research Integrity Policy: What UK Institutions Must Do Before September 2026

    The Scottish Funding Council (SFC) approved a new research integrity policy in May 2026, and it takes effect on 1 September 2026 for every Scottish higher education institution that receives SFC research and innovation funding. The policy is not a rewrite of institutional codes of conduct — those remain the responsibility of individual universities — but it introduces a mandatory reporting relationship between institutions and their funder that did not previously exist in Scotland, and it gives research offices a firm compliance deadline to work against.

    For pre-award, governance and research integrity teams, the practical question is not whether the policy is welcome — it broadly restates principles already embedded in the UK-wide Concordat to Support Research Integrity — but what operational changes are needed before the start date, and how Scotland’s approach compares with the mechanisms already in place across the rest of the UK.

    What the Scottish Funding Council’s new policy requires

    The SFC policy defines research integrity in terms consistent with UK Research and Innovation’s (UKRI) own framing: research that is trustworthy, ethical and responsible, guided by five principles — honesty, rigour, transparency and open communication, care and respect, and accountability. Those five principles mirror the commitments set out in the revised Concordat to Support Research Integrity, so institutions already aligned with the Concordat are not starting from zero.

    The operative change is procedural. Under the new policy, institutions receiving SFC research and innovation funding must notify the Council of the outcome of any formal investigation into research misconduct, with a benchmark turnaround of no more than one month following the investigation’s conclusion. This is a step beyond the general expectation, long established through the Concordat, that funded organisations simply maintain “appropriate structures, policies and procedures” to support integrity — it creates a specific, time-bound reporting obligation tied to SFC funding.

    Three scope points matter for compliance planning:

    • The policy applies to Scottish higher education institutions that receive SFC research and innovation funding, and to research activity the Council funds directly.
    • The SFC will not act as an appeals body for individual misconduct cases, will not support individuals through investigations, and will not grant ethical clearance for research projects — those functions stay with the institution and, where applicable, research ethics committees.
    • The Council reserves the right to act where misconduct is reported, which may include action relating to individuals or a review of an institution’s own processes and systems — a lever that raises the stakes of a weak or slow internal investigation process.

    How it fits the UK-wide Concordat to Support Research Integrity

    The Scottish policy is explicitly framed as complementary to, not a replacement for, the Concordat to Support Research Integrity — the UK-wide framework signed by universities, funders and sector bodies and refreshed in April 2025. The revised Concordat broadened its recognition of contributors to research beyond principal investigators to include research-enabling staff such as technicians, data managers and research development professionals, and it updated its language on questionable research practices.

    The UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) updated its own UKRIO Code of Practice for Research to Version 3.5 in July 2025 specifically to align with the revised Concordat, adding new guidance on the responsible use of AI and other emerging technologies in research, and deliberately softening language around misconduct procedures to reduce the stigma that UKRIO’s own 2024 research found was discouraging staff from reporting concerns. Scotland’s new policy sits on top of this existing architecture: it does not change what “good research conduct” means, but it changes who has to be told when conduct falls short, and how quickly.

    Scotland versus the rest of the UK: a comparison

    No other UK funding council currently mandates misconduct-outcome reporting on the same timetable as the SFC. The table below sets out how the main frameworks compare for a Scottish, UK-wide and cross-border institution.

    Framework Scope Misconduct reporting to funder Status from September 2026
    SFC Research Integrity Policy Scottish HEIs receiving SFC research/innovation funding Mandatory outcome notification, benchmark of one month post-conclusion Mandatory, funding-linked
    Concordat to Support Research Integrity (2025) UK-wide, all signatory institutions and funders General expectation of appropriate structures and annual statements; no fixed reporting clock Voluntary sector commitment
    UKRI Guidance on Investigation of Research Misconduct Organisations holding UKRI grants, UK-wide Requires investigation of allegations against funded staff/students; reporting terms set out in grant conditions Grant-condition based
    UKRIO Code of Practice for Research (v3.5) Any UK or international research organisation, adoptable in full or in part No reporting mandate; benchmark and advisory framework only Voluntary adoption

    The practical effect for cross-border institutions — a Scottish university with UKRI grants, for example, or a UK-wide research group with a Scottish node — is that the SFC clock now runs in parallel with, not instead of, existing UKRI grant conditions and Concordat commitments. Research offices need a single misconduct-tracking process that can satisfy the tightest of the applicable deadlines, rather than separate parallel logs.

    What pre-award and research offices must change before September 2026

    With roughly two months between SFC approval and the effective date, research integrity and governance teams have a narrow window to close gaps. The priority actions are:

    • Map the reporting chain. Confirm who in the institution is authorised to notify the SFC of an investigation outcome, and build the one-month clock into the misconduct investigation procedure itself, not as an afterthought once a case closes.
    • Audit investigation timelines. If current misconduct procedures routinely run beyond a month from conclusion to formal sign-off, the reporting deadline effectively compresses the institution’s own internal process.
    • Update the annual statement on research integrity. Institutions already produce a Concordat-aligned annual statement; this is the natural place to reference the new SFC notification duty and evidence compliance.
    • Brief research ethics committees and REI managers. The SFC has been explicit that it will not adjudicate individual cases or grant ethical approval, so institutions cannot rely on the Council to absorb any of that governance load.
    • Cross-check against UKRI and other funder conditions. Where a case involves UKRI or other funding alongside SFC money, confirm which reporting obligation applies first and ensure both are met.

    Questions institutions are asking

    What is a research integrity policy?

    A research integrity policy is an institutional or funder document setting out the standards of honesty, rigour, transparency, care and accountability expected in research, alongside the roles, training and procedures — including misconduct investigation — that put those standards into practice across the research lifecycle.

    What is the Concordat to Support Research Integrity?

    The Concordat to Support Research Integrity is a UK-wide sector agreement, signed by universities, funders and representative bodies, committing signatories to five shared responsibilities for maintaining rigour, transparency and accountability in research, most recently revised in April 2025.

    Who investigates research misconduct in the UK?

    Individual institutions investigate research misconduct allegations under their own procedures, informed by the UKRIO Code of Practice for Research; funders such as UKRI and, from September 2026, the SFC in Scotland, set reporting conditions but do not conduct the investigations themselves.

    What happens if an institution breaches its research integrity policy?

    Consequences depend on the framework: internally, breaches can trigger disciplinary action up to dismissal; externally, funders including the SFC can review an institution’s processes and systems, and in serious cases reconsider its funding relationship, though the SFC has stated it will not act as an appeals body.

    Implications beyond Scotland

    Scotland’s move is likely to be watched closely by the other UK nations’ funding bodies as a test case for whether time-bound, funder-mandated misconduct reporting improves transparency without overwhelming research offices. For institutions operating research programmes across borders — a common pattern for Russell Group and consortium-led projects — the immediate implication is administrative: misconduct-case tracking systems built around a single national timetable now need to accommodate a jurisdiction-specific clock for any Scottish-funded strand of work.

    There is also a signalling effect for research culture more broadly. Mandatory outcome reporting, even where the funder is explicit that it will not re-adjudicate cases, tends to raise the internal profile of misconduct procedures and can influence how quickly institutions resource investigation teams. Given UKRIO’s own 2024 finding that fear of stigma was a barrier to reporting concerns, institutions would do well to pair procedural compliance with the destigmatising language changes UKRIO built into Version 3.5 of its Code, rather than treating the SFC deadline as a purely administrative exercise.

    What to watch next

    Three things are worth tracking as the September 2026 start date approaches: whether the SFC publishes supporting guidance or a template notification form ahead of the deadline; whether other UK funders signal an intention to introduce comparable time-bound reporting; and how the first wave of notified outcomes, likely to surface in aggregate through SFC or Universities Scotland reporting during 2027, shapes the sector’s view of whether mandatory reporting changes behaviour or simply changes paperwork. Research offices that treat the current window as a chance to audit and tighten investigation timelines — rather than a compliance box to tick in August — will be best placed regardless of how the policy evolves.