CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: research misconduct examples

  • Research Misconduct Examples: Why Reports Hide

    Research misconduct examples are well documented in scholarly literature and case databases, but the investigation reports that actually establish them almost never reach the public. In the UK and the US, institutions overwhelmingly keep findings, evidence and reasoning confidential even after a case closes — a practice that a small number of national bodies elsewhere have abandoned in favour of publishing final rulings.

    Research misconduct is fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research, as defined by the US Office of Research Integrity under 42 CFR Part 93. That definition is narrow by design. It is also, this piece argues, too often the only thing the public is allowed to see — the “what” without the “how we know.”

    What is research misconduct? Definitions and examples

    Fabrication, falsification and plagiarism — FFP — form the internationally recognised core of research misconduct, used by the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI), the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO), and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Fabrication means inventing data or results outright. Falsification means manipulating materials, equipment, images or data so the record misrepresents what actually happened. Plagiarism means presenting someone else’s ideas, data or words as one’s own without attribution.

    Beyond the FFP core, most UK institutional policies and UKRIO’s own guidance extend coverage to related breaches that damage the research record without always meeting the strict fabrication-falsification-plagiarism test:

    • Undisclosed conflicts of interest that could plausibly bias findings or peer review
    • Inappropriate authorship — denying credit to real contributors or granting it to non-contributors, a problem CASRAI’s contributor-role work in CRediT was originally built to address
    • Redundant or “salami-sliced” publication of the same dataset across multiple papers
    • Manipulation of the peer-review process, including fabricated reviewer identities
    • Paper-mill involvement — buying or selling fraudulent manuscripts dressed as original research

    Retraction Watch’s public database tracks the downstream signal of these failures — the retraction itself — but a retraction notice rarely explains what an investigation found. That gap between “a paper was retracted” and “here is the evidence” is the transparency problem this article addresses.

    Why do institutions keep investigation reports confidential?

    UK and US institutions cite broadly consistent reasons for withholding full reports, and some are genuinely legitimate. None justifies blanket non-disclosure once a case is closed and a finding is made.

    • Personnel-record status. Many US institutions classify misconduct files as personnel records, exempting them from public-records requests even at public universities.
    • Whistleblower protection. Confidentiality during an inquiry is defensible — it protects the person who raised the concern from retaliation while facts are established.
    • Reputational risk to the accused. Institutions worry that publishing findings, even redacted ones, will follow a researcher regardless of outcome.
    • Litigation exposure. Legal teams treat investigation reports as liability documents first and research-integrity documents second.
    • No statutory disclosure duty. Unlike the US, where ORI’s federal oversight of Public Health Service-funded research creates a disclosure mechanism, the UK has no national body with investigatory or publication powers.

    The UK’s 2019 Concordat to Support Research Integrity, coordinated by Universities UK, commits signatory institutions to publish an annual statement on how many misconduct allegations they received and investigated. It does not require publication of the underlying reports. This is the crux of the transparency debate: aggregate counts satisfy the letter of accountability while the substance — what was actually found, and how — stays locked in a drawer.

    The US system looks more transparent at first glance because ORI’s Case Summaries register is genuinely public. Read the fine print, though, and the scope narrows sharply: it covers only Public Health Service-funded research, only cases where ORI itself made a finding (institutions handle the great majority internally, without ORI referral), and only researchers currently serving an active administrative sanction — historical entries are removed once the sanction period expires.

    How do more transparent regimes handle disclosure?

    A handful of national systems have made a different bet: that publishing final misconduct decisions, with personal data appropriately redacted, strengthens rather than undermines trust in the research system.

    Jurisdiction Body Investigation outcomes published? Legal basis
    Denmark Danish Committees on Research Misconduct (Nævnet for Videnskabelig Uredelighed) Yes — final decisions published, with case facts, on a rolling basis Danish Act on Research Misconduct (2017)
    Norway National Commission for the Investigation of Research Misconduct (Granskingsutvalget) Yes — decisions published since the commission became operational in 2022 Research Ethics Act (2017, amended)
    Netherlands National Board for Research Integrity (LOWI) Advisory opinions published in anonymised form Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity
    United States Office of Research Integrity (ORI) Partial — case summaries for PHS-funded, ORI-adjudicated findings only 42 CFR Part 93
    United Kingdom None national; institutions decide individually Rare — annual aggregate statistics only, per the Concordat to Support Research Integrity No statutory research-misconduct framework

    Denmark and Norway share a structural feature the UK and US both lack: a single national committee with statutory authority to investigate and to publish. That centralisation removes the conflict of interest built into the UK and US model, where the institution investigating its own researcher is also the institution deciding whether the findings ever see daylight.

    What does the secrecy cost — and what should change?

    Withholding investigation reports has three concrete costs. First, it prevents the research community from learning the specific mechanics of a case — which is precisely what field-level prevention requires. A retraction notice reading “concerns about data integrity” teaches almost nothing; a published finding detailing exactly which images were duplicated, or which patient records were invented, teaches a field how the fraud was constructed and how it was caught.

    Second, it fuels distrust in the institutions research administrators run. When a case surfaces only through journalism or a whistleblower’s own account — rather than the institution’s — the institution looks like it concealed wrongdoing rather than corrected it, whatever the reality.

    Third, it weakens deterrence. Sanctions that never become public carry a materially smaller reputational cost, changing the incentive calculation for researchers weighing whether to cut corners.

    None of this requires abandoning legitimate protections. A workable model — closer to Denmark’s than the UK’s current default — would:

    1. Publish final findings only, after due process concludes, never mid-investigation
    2. Redact personal data unrelated to the finding itself, while naming the researcher where a finding of misconduct is confirmed and sanctioned, consistent with COPE’s retraction guidelines
    3. Separate the publication decision from the investigating institution, ideally through a national or sector body — the role UKRIO could grow into if given statutory footing
    4. Require research integrity offices to log outcomes in a format compatible with existing registries, including Retraction Watch’s database and journals’ own correction records

    UKRIO’s current remit is advisory, not investigatory — it cannot compel disclosure. Extending it, or creating a UK equivalent of Denmark’s committee, would close the gap between the UK’s stated commitment to research integrity and its practice of keeping the evidence for that commitment confidential.

    Common questions on research misconduct

    What counts as research misconduct?

    Research misconduct is fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research. It excludes honest error and genuine differences of scientific opinion. UK guidance from the UK Research Integrity Office also treats undisclosed conflicts of interest and data manipulation as misconduct.

    What are the three types of research misconduct?

    The three internationally recognised types are fabrication (inventing data), falsification (manipulating materials or altering results), and plagiarism (presenting others’ work as one’s own). This FFP framework, used by ORI and COPE, deliberately excludes honest error and normal scientific disagreement.

    What is considered the most serious form of research misconduct?

    Fabrication is generally treated as the most severe form because it invents an entire dataset or result rather than distorting a real one. In practice, sanctions are often harshest for falsification in clinical or biomedical research, where fabricated or altered findings carry direct patient-safety consequences.

    Investigation-report secrecy is a policy choice, not a technical necessity. Denmark and Norway show that publication and due process are compatible; the UK’s Concordat shows that aggregate transparency, absent case-level disclosure, is not the same thing as accountability. Research administrators and research integrity offices weighing their own disclosure policy now have a working alternative model to point to, not just a set of reasons to say no.

  • Research Misconduct Investigations: How ORI and UKRIO Procedures Compare

    Grant administrators rarely encounter research misconduct allegations often — but when one arrives, the clock starts immediately, and the procedural path depends entirely on which side of the Atlantic the funding sits. A US Public Health Service (PHS) grant triggers a federally regulated process overseen by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI); a UK Research England or UKRI grant triggers an institution-led process shaped, but not enforced, by the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO). Confusing the two — assuming ORI’s binding timelines apply to a UK case, or that UKRIO can compel an outcome the way ORI can — is a common and costly error for administrators managing cross-border collaborations.

    This guide sets out, side by side, what each body actually is, how each defines misconduct, and how the investigation stages differ — so administrators handling an allegation tied to a grant know which rulebook applies.

    How ORI and UKRIO define research misconduct

    Both frameworks agree on a common core — fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) — but they diverge sharply in scope.

    ORI operates under 42 CFR Part 93, the PHS Policies on Research Misconduct. Its definition is deliberately narrow: research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. A finding requires three elements to be met: a significant departure from accepted practices in the relevant research community; committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Honest error and legitimate differences of scientific opinion are explicitly excluded.

    UKRIO, by contrast, works from a broader, non-statutory definition: “behaviours that deliberately or recklessly fall short of the standards expected in the conduct of research.” Its guidance, aligned with the UK Concordat to Support Research Integrity (Universities UK, 2019), extends beyond FFP to cover breaches of ethical approval, undeclared conflicts of interest, and mismanagement of research data — while also naming a distinct, lower-severity category, “questionable research practices” (QRPs), for avoidable errors that fall short of intentional misconduct.

    Regulator versus adviser: two different roles

    The most consequential difference is not definitional but structural: ORI is a federal oversight body; UKRIO is an independent charity with no regulatory power.

    • ORI sits within the US Department of Health and Human Services and directly oversees how institutions handle misconduct allegations tied to PHS-funded research (including NIH grants). It can conduct its own oversight review of an institution’s findings, recommend administrative actions, and refer findings to the HHS Departmental Appeals Board.
    • UKRIO was established as an independent advisory charity in 2006. It publishes a model investigation procedure that UK research organisations may adopt or adapt, offers case-by-case advice, and promotes good practice — but it does not investigate cases itself, does not mandate a single national procedure, and has no statutory sanctioning power.

    UK funders address this gap contractually rather than through a regulator. UKRI’s Guidance for Research Organisations on the Investigation of Research Misconduct (April 2025) requires any organisation receiving UKRI funding to investigate allegations against staff or students under its own Grant Terms and Conditions, with UKRI able to take funding action if an organisation fails to do so.

    How an investigation actually runs, stage by stage

    Both systems separate a preliminary triage stage from a full inquiry, but they name and time these stages differently.

    Stage ORI (US, PHS-funded research) UKRIO model (UK institutions)
    Trigger Allegation received by institution’s Research Integrity Officer Concern raised with a “Named Person” or responsible officer
    Triage Assessment: does the allegation meet the FFP definition and involve PHS funding? Initial assessment: does it fall within the misconduct procedure’s scope?
    Formal fact-finding Inquiry (institution-level, time-limited) Initial investigation to establish if there is a case to answer
    Full review Investigation, following a sufficient inquiry finding Full investigation by an academic panel, including external members
    Standard of proof Preponderance of the evidence Not codified nationally; set by each institution’s procedure
    External oversight ORI oversight review of institutional findings; report to PHS agency None mandatory; UKRIO offers advice only
    Appeal route HHS Departmental Appeals Board Institutional appeal, managed by someone other than the original Named Person

    Under the UKRIO model, once a panel reports its findings, the Named Person decides on next steps: referral to institutional disciplinary proceedings, correction of the published record, and notifying relevant funders. Where allegations are not upheld, the same procedure is meant to protect the reputation of the person accused — a feature both systems share in principle, though neither publishes comparable statistics on false-allegation rates.

    Answer-first: common questions on research misconduct

    What are the three types of research misconduct?

    Both ORI and most UK institutional policies converge on the same core triad: fabrication (inventing data or results), falsification (manipulating research materials, equipment, or data to misrepresent results), and plagiarism (using another person’s ideas, processes, or words without credit). This is often abbreviated FFP.

    What are some examples of research misconduct?

    Common examples include inventing patient consent records, selectively deleting inconvenient data points, copying text or images from another paper without attribution, and misrepresenting the outcome of a statistical test. UKRIO guidance also treats proceeding without required ethical approval as a form of misconduct, even without FFP intent.

    What counts as research misconduct?

    Conduct counts as misconduct when it represents a significant, intentional or reckless departure from accepted research standards — not an honest mistake or a genuine scientific disagreement. ORI requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence; UKRIO-aligned institutions apply a similar intent-based threshold under their own procedures.

    What this means for research administrators

    For administrators managing grants that cross jurisdictions — a common scenario in NIH-funded international collaborations or Horizon Europe partnerships involving UK institutions — three practical points follow from the comparison above:

    • Know which body has enforcement power. Only ORI can conduct oversight review and refer a case to a federal appeals process; UKRIO cannot compel an institutional outcome.
    • Check the funder’s own reporting clause. UKRI’s April 2025 guidance obliges the receiving institution — not UKRIO — to investigate and report; PHS grant terms impose parallel obligations that run through ORI.
    • Do not assume a single global timeline. ORI-regulated inquiries and investigations run to defined federal timeframes; UKRIO-aligned UK procedures are set institution by institution, so the applicable deadline sits in the local Code of Practice for Research, not in UKRIO’s own documents.

    Administrators supporting research administration functions across both systems should hold copies of both the relevant institutional misconduct procedure and the specific grant terms — the procedural detail, not the high-level definition, is where jurisdictional mismatches cause delay.

    Where the two systems are heading

    Both frameworks are converging on the same underlying principle even as their governance models remain distinct: misconduct findings should correct the scholarly record, not just discipline an individual. UKRI’s 2025 guidance tightened institutional reporting obligations, and ORI continues to publish case summaries and administrative actions as a transparency mechanism. Neither change closes the structural gap — one system regulates, the other advises — so for the foreseeable future, administrators handling cross-border allegations will need to work both playbooks rather than assume one substitutes for the other.

    As with contributor-role standards, where CASRAI originated the CRediT taxonomy in 2014 and the standard is now stewarded by NISO as ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022, research integrity governance illustrates a broader pattern in research administration: originating bodies and enforcement bodies are frequently separate, and knowing which is which is a prerequisite for compliant practice.