what is a research misconduct

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

Research Misconduct: Reasons and Types of Research Misconduct

Science and is built on the foundation of integrity and trust, and questionable research practices or research misconduct is counter-productive to the production and use of scientific knowledge. Not only does it dilute the research findings and lead to misinterpretations, it also leads to an overall loss of trust in the work done by the scientific community. Hence any kind of research misconduct or malpractice is considered a grave issue that needs to be strictly avoided. This makes it critical for scientists and researchers to gain an understanding of the best practices and ethical research to avoid unknowingly venturing into such grey areas. This article delves into what is scientific misconduct, different types of research misconduct, and 5 reasons for committing research misconduct.

Table of Contents

What is research misconduct?

Research misconduct or scientific misconduct refers to actions and behaviors by researchers that fail to honor the integrity of research. The Office of Research Integrity defines research misconduct as the falsification, fabrication or plagiarism in conducting, planning, reporting or reviewing research [1] .  Simply put, research misconduct is any intentional deviation from ethical research practices. A scientific misconduct example is deliberately creating names and details of survey participants for the purpose of generating data, which is an unethical research practice. Other common scientific misconduct examples include modifying or omitting data to influence study findings or withholding critical information from human participants in clinical trials or experiments.

Types of research misconduct

There are different types of research misconduct or scientific misconduct and unethical practices in research. The most serious ethical infractions are fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism in research. Some of the most common types of research misconduct have been detailed below.

• Fabrication: This refers to the practice of making up data without having done the required research. Research misconduct covers not only the act of fabrication, but also the sharing, discussing, or publishing of this fabricated data or results.
• Falsification: This type of scientific misconduct involves the wilful manipulation of data, materials, processes, or equipment to arrive at a predefined conclusion. One such example would be selectively omitting or changing data, which results in the erroneous representation of research results.
• Plagiarism: This is one of the most common types of scientific misconduct, and involves using another person’s ideas, content, writing, processes, or results without giving due credit. This also includes self-plagiarism , which occurs when you replicate your own writings or ideas from previously published research without providing proper credit.
• Authorship: This type of scientific misconduct in research includes attempts to assign false authorships without adequate contribution to research, mentioning authors without their consent, or failing to include authors who are original contributors. Naming authors in the wrong order or incorrectly is also considered unethical.
• Conflicts of interest: This can be classified under general scientific misconduct and involves lapses by researchers in declaring any conflict of interests in their research work. These conflicts of interest may be financial, personal, and professional and need to be reported appropriately to avoid any ethical issues.
• Approvals: One of the most important aspect of research that involves human or animal subjects is adhering to all the ethical approvals and legal guidelines. Non-compliance with this ethical mandate is considered a serious type of research misconduct.

5 Reasons for committing research misconduct

Over time there have been varied reasons for researchers to succumb to scientific misconduct. Let us look at 5 reasons for committing research misconduct.

• Career pressures : An important factor often associated with research misconduct is the undue pressure researchers face. They need to conduct original research in a fast-paced environment, publish frequently in peer reviewed journals, and procure funding for research projects to advance their research career. This along with the need to juggle multiple responsibilities against tight deadlines create undue stress to succeed at any cost, leading to a lack of care or even deliberate research misconduct.
• Researcher’s personal psychology: Some researchers may be overly driven by a desire to quickly attain a strong professional reputation or even financial gains, which could push them to research misconduct.
• Lack of appropriate training and skills: The lack of training on the best practices and ethical guidelines to be followed as researchers is another reason for research misconduct. Poor awareness and understanding on these issues often lead to unethical conduct in research.
• Insufficient supervision or mentoring: Related to the point above, this relates to situations where researchers, especially early career researchers, fail to receive sufficient and appropriate support from immediate supervisors or from their affiliated institution. A lack of oversight and guidance may knowingly or unknowingly lead to research misconduct.
• Inadequate knowledge: Scientific misconduct can occur if the researcher does not have sufficient knowledge of the topic/subject or on research best practices. Carelessness when conducting research and reporting it are also considered research misconduct.

Researchers and institutions should adopt various measures to prevent the occurrence of scientific misconduct. The most significant aspect is the provision of adequate training that builds researcher knowledge as to what constitutes research misconduct and how best to avoid this. It is vital for institutions to have guidelines and procedures related to good research practices and ethical conduct and ensure it is disseminated effectively among their research community.

It is also important for supervisors to mentor budding researchers on the correct procedures and practices, including what constitutes ethical misconduct in research. Without sufficient awareness, it will be difficult to effectively address this important issue. Finally, researchers must take it upon themselves to check the global standards and guidelines for ethical research to ensure they are not engaging in any scientific misconduct.

Q: What are the consequences of research misconduct?

Research misconduct, which includes fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, can lead to severe repercussions. These may involve damage to a researcher’s reputation, loss of funding, retraction of published papers, and academic sanctions. Additionally, it undermines scientific integrity, erodes public trust, and hampers the advancement of knowledge. Institutions may conduct investigations, resulting in job loss and legal actions. Overall, research misconduct has far-reaching negative impacts on individuals, institutions, and the scientific community as a whole.

Q: What are the major causes of research misconduct?

Research misconduct arises from various factors such as pressure to publish, competition for grants, and career advancement. Lack of supervision, inadequate training in ethical research practices, and poor research culture can contribute. High publication demands may drive researchers to cut corners, leading to fabrication of data, falsification of results, and even plagiarism. Ethical lapses might also stem from personal ambition, greed, or the desire to bolster one’s professional standing, ultimately undermining the credibility of scientific work.

Q: What is meant by falsification in research?

Falsification refers to the deliberate manipulation or alteration of research data, methods, or results to present inaccurate or misleading information. This unethical practice involves misrepresenting findings by selectively omitting data, changing results, or altering graphs and images. Falsification distorts the truth, compromises research integrity, and can have profound implications for scientific progress and public trust in research outcomes.

Q: What are some examples of scientific misconduct?

Scientific misconduct encompasses various behaviors such as plagiarism, where one presents others’ work as their own. Fabrication involves inventing data or results that do not exist. Falsification includes altering or manipulating data to fit a desired outcome. Misleading authorship and inadequate citation of sources are also forms of misconduct. Additionally, improper handling of human or animal subjects, failure to disclose conflicts of interest, and misrepresentation of credentials can occur. These actions breach ethical standards, erode scientific credibility, and can lead to severe consequences for individuals and the research community.

• Definition of Research Misconduct. The Office of Research Integrity. Available online at https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-research-misconduct

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

What is Research Impact: Types and Tips for Academics

Research in Shorts: R Discovery’s New Feature Helps Academics Assess Relevant Papers in 2mins 

Research ethics

Artificial Intelligence and the Field of Psychology

Leading the charge to address research misconduct

New guidance for protecting research participants

Thomas Plante investigates the ethical life

Facebook as a research tool

Learning from cases of research misconduct

Five principles for research ethics

APA Ethics Code Section 8: Research and Publication

Conflict of Interest (NIH Office of Extramural Research)

Conflicts of Interests in Research

Sample Policy and Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Scientific Misconduct

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

APA publications

Practical Ethics for Psychologists

Handbook of Research Ethics in Psychological Science

Essentials of Consensual Qualitative Research

Research Ethics in Psychological Science

Ethical Conflicts in Psychology, 5th Ed.

Further reading

On Being a Scientist: Conflicts of Interest

Resources for Research Ethics Education: Conflicts of Interests

Resources for Research Ethics Education: Whistleblowing

Responsible Conduct of Research Module on Conflicts of Interest

Responsible Conduct of Research Module on Research Misconduct

APA programs and governance

Committee on Animal Research and Ethics (CARE)

Committee on Human Research (CHR)

APA Ethics Office

• Subscribe to our Newsletter

popular searches

The Concordat to Support Research Integrity

Upcoming Webinar Series

Publications

Annual Conference

Research Ethics Support and Review

Code of Practice for Research

Checklist for Researchers

Checklist during COVID-19

Case Study Packs

Researcher Checklist of Ethics Applications

Concordat Self-Assessment Tool

What is research misconduct?

• Newsletter issues

Introduction

This guide aims to give useful information on allegations of research misconduct and research misconduct procedures, for anyone who has made an allegation or is considering doing so, who is subject to an allegation, or who is relatively new to research misconduct such as early-career researchers, journalists, or the public.

Misconduct in research can have serious consequences for individual researchers, employers, funders, research participants, and the wider public, and can damage public trust in research. Despite this, it is possible that some researchers are unfamiliar with what it is and how it is managed. This can mean that they find themselves ill-equipped to deal with a matter when it arises, either if they wish to raise a concern or deal with an allegation. The guide below demystifies research misconduct, what it is, and how it is managed and investigated. It has a focus on the UK.

Different organisations have differing definitions, but an overarching definition might be ‘behaviours that deliberately or recklessly fall short of the standards expected in the conduct of research’ , from the initial idea through to reporting outcomes.

As noted, it covers all stages in the research cycle and all aspects of it, for example the peer review process as well as misconduct in the actual conduct of the research. It is a spectrum rather than a hard and fast line. As noted above, a definition of research misconduct implies intent and/or recklessness in the behaviour, or a repeated pattern. A good general definition of research misconduct is in the Concordat to Support Research Integrity, under Commitment 4 .

Poor behaviour outside this definition is known as ‘questionable research practice’, in that it does not meet the ideal standard but does not quite reach the definition of research misconduct. Further information on questionable research practices (also known as QRPs) can be found here . Genuine errors and reasonable differences in approach and methodology are not research misconduct, however strongly people disagree.

Examples of research misconduct include:

• Using other people’s ideas, intellectual property, or work without their permission and/or acknowledging their input (plagiarism);
• Breaching legal, ethical and professional requirements needed for research, for example those needed for human research participants, animals, or human organs or tissue used in research, or for the protection of the environment. An example of this includes proceeding with research without ethical approval or not obtaining informed consent.
• Proceeding with research without necessary permissions and approvals in place;
• Making up data or results, or other aspect of the research such as patient consent (fabrication);
• Manipulating and/or selecting research processes, materials, equipment, data etc. to present a false impression or outcome (falsification);
• Misrepresenting data or other information;
• Failing to declare or appropriately manage conflicts of interest.

The ’standards expected’ are those that your employer will normally have put in place either in a Code of Practice for research or research handbook. You may also be informed of them during any induction, training and development. Funders of research also have expected standards in the conduct of research put in place, as do academic and learned bodies for their specific disciplines.

How are research misconduct allegations dealt with?

Most universities and other employers of researchers have set standards for good conduct in research that anyone undertaking research is expected to follow. This may take the form of a Code of Practice for Research. They will also have behavioural and disciplinary procedures in place for when these standards are breached. Potential matters of research misconduct may be complex and often require a level of expertise and disciplinary knowledge beyond standard workplace disciplinary offences. Investigations need to establish what has occurred and what is needed to correct the scholarly record, beyond establishing what a particular individual or group of individuals has done. For that reason, an investigation is normally held involving academic colleagues or ‘peers’.

The outcome of this investigation will vary depending on the findings, but the aim is to determine what has happened and who has done what, so that action can be taken, if appropriate, to rectify the matter, both in terms of a person’s behaviour and the research record, and any other consequences. The investigation itself is not a disciplinary process, though that may follow if it establishes that misconduct in research took place.

What is involved in a research misconduct investigation?

Research organisations normally have in place a procedure that sets out the process to be followed when an individual or group of individuals raises a concern relating to potential research misconduct is raised, as they are required to do by the Concordat to Research Integrity , the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity , and the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity .

Each research organisation will normally have developed its own procedure and is responsible for operating it and for publicising it to staff and the outside world. Many contain similar features and UKRIO has a model procedure that sets out what we believe to be best practice in this area.

Common features include:

• A matter is raised with the institution (it may be raised informally in the first instance). The person raising the concerns may be known as the initiator, complainant , or whistle-blower ;
• The relevant person within the institution (sometimes known as the responsible officer or ‘ Named Person’ ) will first need to determine whether what has been raised falls within the ambit of the procedure. If it does not, for example because what is alleged is not classified as research misconduct or it relates to research not conducted at the institution, then they will explain to the complainant why it cannot be investigated under this procedure and recommend an alternative course of action where appropriate.
• the matter relates specifically to the conduct of research;
• the behaviour alleged falls under the definition of research misconduct contained with the procedure; and
• the individual was either employed/a student/on an honorary or visiting contract at the institution, i.e., that the research was conducted under the auspices of the institution. If the matter relates to actions that took place elsewhere, it is not likely that the institution will be able to investigate.
• If it does fall within the auspices of the procedure, then an initial assessment of the information available and investigation is carried out to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of research misconduct to warrant a full investigation or whether alternative action should be taken. Alternative action may be for example referral to another organisation, that the matter can be addressed by education or training, or that the matter should be dismissed. The person or people against whom the allegations have been made (typically known as the respondent ) will be given the opportunity to respond to the concerns raised.
• If the initial investigation shows that there is sufficient cause for concern, then a panel including academic members of staff from within the institution and external to it will be established and a full investigation will be carried out.
• The panel will seek to determine whether there is evidence that research misconduct occurred, by whom and its level of intent and seriousness. It may also make recommendation on how to correct the record, for example if there have been publications that have been plagiarised from elsewhere or which include flawed, falsified, or fraudulent data. Alternatively, it may find that there is no substance to the allegations or evidence to support it, and that they were mistaken or malicious.
• It will produce a report of its findings, that will be sent to the Named Person. The Named Person will follow up the report by referring an individual to the institutional disciplinary proceedings, seek to correct the published record of the research in question, informing any funders or other bodies that need to be informed. Where it has been found that there was no substance to the allegations, they may take action to ensure the reputation of the individual against whom the allegations are made is preserved.
• In some cases, the individual against whom the allegations have been made will have the opportunity to appeal against the findings of the panel based on one or more grounds provided for appeal. In cases where the procedure permits this, the complainant can also appeal the findings. Where an appeal is possible, then a further process will take place, managed by someone other than the Named Person, to conduct a review or rehearing of the investigation. The outcome of this stage will be final.

Written by Nicola Sainsbury on behalf of UKRIO

Many universities have web pages on research integrity and misconduct, which provides information on what information and resources they have in place and where you should go if you would like advice.

• Concordat to Support Research Integrity. Universities UK, 2019. https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/topics/research-and-innovation/concordat-support-research-integrity
• Misconduct in research . In the Code of Practice for Research, UKRIO. https://ukrio.org/publications/code-of-practice-for-research/3-0-standards-for-organisations-and-researchers/3-16-misconduct-in-research/
• National Center for Professional & Research Ethics, & Retraction Watch. (2018). Peer Review Form for Research Integrity Investigation Reports. https://ethicscenter.web.illinois.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2018-04-18-peer-review-v4c.pdf
• Misconduct & Misbehaviors. Embassy of Good Science. https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Special:BrowseData/Theme?_search_Theme_Type%5B0%5D=Misconduct+%26+Misbehaviors
• Russell Group Statement of Cooperation in respect of cross-institutional research misconduct allegations. Russell Group, 2018. https://russellgroup.ac.uk/media/5708/russell-group-research-integrity-forum-statement-of-cooperation-may-2018.pdf
• Investigating Research Misconduct Allegations in International Collaborative Research Projects: A Practical Guide . OECD Global Science Forum, 2009. https://www.oecd.org/science/inno/42770261.pdf
• UKRIO resources https://ukrio.org/resources/?res_topic=Research%20misconduct&res_tag=ALL&res_srch=

Imperial College London Imperial College London

Latest news.

Neutrino discoveries and academic awards for excellence: News from Imperial

Imperial joins European discussion on accelerating innovation

Imperial to strengthen Transatlantic tech cooperation with new hub

• Research Office
• Research and Innovation
• Support for staff
• Research governance and integrity
• Research integrity
• What is research integrity?

What is research misconduct?

It is often defined by ‘falsification, fabrication and plagiarism’ and can include making up data or results, incorrectly attributing authorship, gift authorship, manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data, graphs, images or results.

Questionable research practices encompass a much wider group of misdemeanours, poor research design and other unhealthy practices. Some of these may be deployed in ignorance of the potential consequences for the integrity of the research rather than attempt to mislead – this is often referred to as ‘sloppy science’.

The Colleges Research misconduct policy details the procedures for reporting and investigation of potential research misconduct allegations.

What are the consequences of research misconduct?

The consequences of research misconduct can be severe including preventable illness or the loss of human life due to misinformation in the literature or continued citing of retracted work.  It can also result in wasted resources, both human and financial, when newer research or work is based on previous flawed or fraudulent research.

Funding agencies often require that cases of research misconduct are reported to them which can be damaging to the careers of those who commit misconduct and there is a financial cost to the institution in investigating allegations.

The retraction of papers and reputational risks of misconduct can be damaging to the research careers of those who commit misconduct

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Research Misconduct

Research misconduct damages the scientific enterprise, is a potential misuse of taxpayer dollars, and undermines the trust of citizens in government-funded research. Pursuing allegations of research misconduct — plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification — continues to be a focus of our investigative work. 

What is research misconduct?

According to NSF's Research Misconduct regulation (45 C.F.R. part 689), it's "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing or performing research funded by NSF, reviewing research proposals submitted to NSF, or in reporting research results funded by NSF." A finding of research misconduct requires proof by a preponderance of evidence that the act is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community and that the act be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.

How do you handle research misconduct allegations?

The following documents describe our procedures for handling allegations of research misconduct:

• Dear Colleague Letter
• NSF's Research Misconduct Regulation  
• Assessing Intent in Research Misconduct Investigations
• Assessing Intent in Verbatim Plagiarism Investigations

What have you found?

• View our  By the Numbers  page for aggregate data.
• Our Semiannual Reports to Congress  include summaries of selected research misconduct investigations (among others).
• Our  Case Closeout Memoranda  summarize the matter we investigated and the final outcome of the case.
• Read our report on Strategies to Prevent Plagiarism .
• Read our report on Institutions' Implementation of NSF's Responsible Conduct of Research Requirements .

Where can I find more information?

• View our  outreach presentations and articles for educational institutions and the research community.
• NSF's Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG)  describes its policies about research misconduct, potential consequences of research misconduct, and grantee responsibilities.
• The Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science  contains resources for teaching and learning about ethics in engineering and science, as well as the responsible conduct of research. (Any opinions, conclusions or recommendations expressed in their material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation Office of Inspector General.)

Research Misconduct

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.

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 such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. ' (§ 93.103, 42 CFR Part 93).

Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. ' (§ 93.103, 42 CFR Part 93).

Who : All individuals associated with the campus should report observed or suspected research misconduct to the Vice Chancellor for Research who serves as the campus designated Research Integrity Officer.

How : To make an allegation, please contact the Associate Vice Chancellor for Research at [email protected] or via phone is (510) 642-7540.

An allegation should, in addition to stating the nature of the suspected misconduct, present the evidence that leads the reporting individual to believe that an incident of research misconduct has occurred. 

Unsure : If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of research misconduct, he or she should contact the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research (VCRO) at (510) 642-7540 and ask to speak with the Associate Vice Chancellor for Research so as to discuss the suspected misconduct informally. If the circumstances described do not meet the definition of research misconduct, the AVCR will refer the individual or allegation to other offices or officials with responsibility for resolving the issue.

Please note that the informal discussion of possible research misconduct, as well as all subsequent stages in this procedure will be, as far as is feasible, treated as strictly confidential.

What Now : A detailed explanation of the investigation process can be found within the campus research misconduct policy on this page. 

Research Misconduct: Policies, Definitions and Procedures

The University of California, Berkeley has a long history of effective and thoughtful policy development regarding the professional conduct of its members. In order to comply with Federal sponsor regulations and reassure the public and ourselves that our traditional standards are being upheld, we need to reaffirm our policies, to specify procedures and appropriate safeguards for handling investigations, and to foster an environment that discourages misconduct in all research. The following procedures conform to the Public Health Service {Department of Health and Human Services} Final Rule 42 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 93. While 42 CFR Part 93 applies to all individuals who may be involved with a project supported by, or who have submitted a grant application to, the Public Health Service (PHS), campus policy applies all University research whatever the funding source. It covers all allegations of research misconduct (as defined in Section 1.A) by a person who, at the time of the alleged misconduct, was officially affiliated with UC Berkeley, including but not limited to faculty, staff, students, postdoctoral scholars, and visiting scholars. The policy does not apply to research undertaken in fulfillment of a course requirement (unless there is an expectation of publication or dissemination outside the University of the results of such research).   INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED RESEARCH MISCONDUCT I.A  DEFINITION OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT  Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. a. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. b. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. c. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. d. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. ' (§ 93.103, 42 CFR Part 93). I.A.1 REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT A finding of research misconduct requires that -- a. There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and b. The misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and c. The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. I.B  DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY  The Chancellor delegates to the Vice Chancellor for Research (VCR) responsibility for:

• Coordination of all procedures related to allegations of research misconduct by anyone performing research under the campus' aegis.
• Fostering a research environment that discourages misconduct in all research.
• Dissemination of policy and maintenance of records related to misconduct in research.
• Appointment of an individual or a committee to conduct inquiries and investigations into allegations of research misconduct. If extramural funds are involved the Vice Chancellor determines whether law, regulation, or the terms or conditions of the award: (1) require notification of the sponsor; (2) specify time limits; or (3) require other actions to assure compliance. The Vice Chancellor for Research coordinates with the appointees, the Chancellor's Office, the Sponsored Projects Office, and other concerned parties to assure compliance.
• Assurance of appropriate confidentiality or anonymity, fairness and objectivity of proceedings.
• Assurance of a full and complete inquiry, investigation, and resolution process. Assurance that no real or apparent conflicts of interest arise in those appointed to pursue this process that they have the appropriate disciplinary expertise and that due regard is given to the prevailing standards of the field.
• Maintenance of confidentiality of records, in accord with established university policy, relating to the investigation and resolution of incidents of misconduct in research.
• If appropriate or required, the Vice Chancellor shall notify concerned parties such as sponsors, co-authors, collaborators, editors, licensing boards, professional societies, and criminal authorities of the outcome of investigations, taking care to clear the name of anyone falsely charged.
• Protecting, to the maximum extent possible, the positions and reputations of those persons who, in good faith, make allegations of research misconduct, and those against whom allegations of misconduct are not confirmed.
• Efforts to restore the reputation of persons alleged to have engaged in misconduct when allegations are not confirmed.

The Vice Chancellor for Research may designate a Research Integrity Officer (RIO) for assessing allegations of research misconduct and determining when such allegations warrant inquiries and for overseeing inquiries and investigations. Alternatively, the Vice Chancellor can, at his or her discretion, serve as the campus RIO. I.C  INQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATIONS INTO ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN RESEARCH  Existing campus policy and procedures assert the responsibility of Principal Investigators in maintaining ethical standards, and direct reporting of allegations to The Chancellor, The Vice Chancellor, Deans, Office of Student Conduct, or Internal Audit as appropriate. All individuals associated with the campus should report observed or suspected research misconduct to the Vice Chancellor for Research and/or the designated Research Integrity Officer. An allegation should, in addition to stating the nature of the suspected misconduct, present the evidence that leads the reporting individual to believe that an incident of research misconduct has occurred. The VCR or RIO will immediately respond, as outlined below, to each allegation or other evidence of possible misconduct. If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of research misconduct he or she should contact the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research (VCRO) (642-7540) and ask to speak with the Research Integrity Officer so as to discuss the suspected misconduct informally. If the circumstances described do not meet the definition or research misconduct, the RIO will refer the individual or allegation to other offices or officials with responsibility for resolving the problem. The informal discussion of possible research misconduct, as well as all subsequent stages in this procedure will be, as far as is feasible, treated as strictly confidential. The following describes procedures to be followed once an allegation or other evidence of misconduct is received. (1) PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT A. The Vice Chancellor for Research and /or the RIO promptly assesses the reported incident to determine if it constitutes a bona fide allegation of research misconduct—i.e., does the alleged incident fit the definition of research misconduct and is the evidence sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified? If it is concluded that a bona fide allegation of research misconduct has been made, the misconduct procedure enters its inquiry phase. (2) INQUIRY:

A. Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the Vice Chancellor for Research appoints one or more persons to conduct an inquiry to determine whether there is sufficient substance to the allegation to warrant a formal investigation. The purpose of the inquiry is not to reach a final conclusion as to whether misconduct occurred or who was responsible. This preliminary phase of information gathering and fact-finding should take no more than sixty calendar days from the receipt of the allegation unless circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If the inquiry phase must be extended beyond sixty days, the reasons for doing so should be documented. B. The RIO notifies the Respondent (the individual about whom misconduct allegations have been made) that an inquiry is being undertaken and of the procedure that will be followed; indicates the membership of the inquiry committee; and, describes the nature of the misconduct allegation(s).

B.1. The Respondent has five days to challenge, in writing, the committee's membership based on bias or conflict of interest. The RIO and/or the VCR will determine whether to replace the challenged member with a qualified substitute.

C. At the time of notification, and in the course of the inquiry, or of any subsequent investigation, the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research will sequester such information as is necessary to protect the integrity of the investigation.

C.1. Where appropriate, the respondent will be provided copies of, or reasonably supervised access to, the research records. C.2. All records of the Berkeley research misconduct proceeding will be retained for seven years after the proceeding's conclusion, or for seven years after any Office of Research Integrity proceeding – whichever is later.

D. If the research at issue receives or has received Federal funding, and, at any point during an inquiry or subsequent investigation, it is ascertained that any of following five conditions pertain, the campus will notify the sponsoring Federal agency (For example, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) of the Department of Health and Human Service (DHHS)).

a. Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects. b. HHS resources or interests are threatened. c. Research activities should be suspended. d. There is reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law. e. Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding. f. The research institution believes the research misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely so that HHS may take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved. g. The research community or public should be informed.

D. 1. In the case of federally funded research, the campus will take appropriate interim administrative actions to protect Federal funds and insure that the purpose of the Federal financial assistance is carried out. E. Matters pertaining to the inquiry will be treated confidentially to the maximum extent possible consistent with fact finding and required reporting to funding agencies. F. A written report of the inquiry shall be prepared that describes the evidence that was reviewed, summarizes any interviews that were conducted, and includes the conclusion of the inquiry. G. The individual(s) against whom the allegation was made shall be given a copy of the report of inquiry, and shall be invited to comment in writing. When comments are provided they will be included in the record. H . Upon receipt of the inquiry report, the VCR or RIO will make, in writing, the determination of whether an investigation is warranted. Records of the inquiry, including all documentary evidence, interview notes, the inquiry report, and the VCR's or RIO 's written determination shall be maintained in a secure manner for at least seven years.

H.1. If an inquiry is terminated before its completion, a report of the planned termination, including the reasons for such an action, should be made to those Federal funding agencies that require it (the Office of Research Integrity of DHHS, for example). H.2. The inquiry report and supporting documentation will be provided to relevant authorized federal agencies upon request.

I. If it is determined that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a formal investigation, the VCR or RIO shall (within 30 calendar days) initiate the process as follows: (3) INVESTIGATION: A. An Investigative Committee is appointed to determine whether research misconduct has occurred, and, if so, to make recommendations with respect to the imposition of disciplinary sanctions. The investigation phase should be completed within 120 days from the appointment of the investigative committee, unless circumstances warrant a longer period. If the investigation stage is extended beyond 120 days the reasons for doing so should be documented.

A.1. In the case of a faculty member , the investigative committee is appointed by the Vice Chancellor for Research (VCR). It will be constituted from members of the Academic Senate, and contain from one to three members. A larger committee may be appointed if in the opinion of the VCR it would facilitate the investigation. A.2. In the case of academic researchers (visiting scholars, post-doctoral fellows, professional researchers, non-faculty academics, etc.) , the Vice Chancellor for Research appoints an investigative committee that, typically, will include a member of the researcher's relevant peer group plus one or two members of the Academic Senate. A.3. In the case of a student , the Vice Chancellor for Research appoints an investigative committee of from one to three members of the Academic Senate.

B. When Federal funding is involved; the pertinent agency shall be informed that an investigation will be initiated within 30 days of the VCR's determination that there exists sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation of research misconduct.

B.1. When it is required by Federal funding agencies, such as ORI of DHHS, an extension of the investigation beyond 120 days must be requested from the relevant agency. The extension request should include an explanation for the delay, an interim report on the progress to date, an outline of what remains to be done, and an estimated date of completion.

C . The RIO will notify the Respondent(s) in writing that an investigation is being undertaken, will inform him/her of the allegations that are under investigation, as well as of the composition of the investigative committee and the procedures that will be followed in the course of the investigation. In the event that new allegations arise in the course of the investigation, the respondent will be so notified in writing.

C.1. The Respondent has five days to challenge, in writing, the committee's membership based on bias or conflict of interest. The RIO will determine whether to replace the challenged member with a qualified substitute.

D. The investigation will normally include examination of pertinent documents, including but not necessarily limited to relevant research data and proposals, publications, correspondence, and memoranda. Typically, the investigative committee will conduct interviews as part of its fact-finding process, including interviews with those making allegations of research misconduct and with the individual(s) against whom the allegations are made. Whenever it is feasible, investigators shall create and maintain recorded records of their interviews.

D.1. All individuals affected by the investigation will be accorded confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible in an investigation. D.2. If an investigation is terminated before its completion, a report of the planned termination, including the reasons for such an action, should be made to those Federal funding agencies that require it (the Office of Research Integrity of DHHS, for example).D.3. The campus will notify relevant Federal funding agencies if, during the course of the investigation, facts are disclosed that may affect current or potential Federal funding for individual(s) under investigation or that the Federal agency needs to know to ensure appropriate use of Federal funds and otherwise protect the public interest.

E. When the investigation is completed, the Chair of the investigative committee shall prepare, and submit to the Vice Chancellor for Research, a written report of the results, reviewing the facts, and stating the committee's findings. The VCR shall make the report available to the Respondent(s) for comment. In a separate communication to the VCR, the investigative committee shall offer its recommendations with respect to disciplinary sanctions, if any.

E.1. The respondent (s) shall have thirty calendar days to submit to the VCR comments on the investigative report.

F. When the investigative committee's report, and the respondent's comments , have been received, the Vice Chancellor for Research will:

F.1. If appropriate and/or required, communicate the committee's report and findings to relevant agencies external to the University.F.2 Based upon a reading of the Investigative Report and any comments thereon, the Vice Chancellor for Research (VCR) will make a determination of whether or not research misconduct has been committed. The VCR will issue a Final Report to the ORI or any external funding agency that requires it. T he final report to ORI, for example, must describe the policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted, how and from whom information was obtained, the findings, and the basis for the findings, and include an accurate summary of the views of any individual(s) found to have engaged in misconduct, as well as a description of any sanctions taken by the campus. Documentation to substantiate an investigation's findings will also be made available to the Director of ORI. F.3. The VCR decides whether or not to recommend the imposition of disciplinary sanctions to the Executive Vice Chancellor (EVC).

(4) DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE: A. If, in the case of a faculty member , the Vice Chancellor for Research together with the Executive Vice Chancellor intend to file charges pursuant to the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, the processing of those charges will proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Faculty Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures for the Berkeley Campus, as set forth in pages 8-12.

B. If, in the case of an academic researcher (Professional Research Series, Non-Faculty Academics, etc.) the VCR intends to impose disciplinary sanctions, the researcher is notified in writing of such intention, and is invited to respond to the allegations and proposed discipline in a personal conference with the VCR or RIO.

B.1. The researcher and the VCR or RIO, shall each be entitled to bring a representative of their choice to such a conference. If the VCR and the researcher arrive at a mutually agreeable settlement, the matter is disposed of in accordance therewith. B.2. If discipline is to be imposed upon the researcher pursuant to the settlement, or if there is no settlement, but the researcher has informed the Vice Chancellor for Research that he/she does not intend to contest the proposed discipline, the Vice Chancellor may thereupon impose such discipline. B.3. If discipline is imposed without the agreement of the researcher, the appeal process described in the Academic Personnel Manual section 140 ("Non-Senate Academic Appointees/Grievances") may be invoked.

C. If, in the case of a postdoctoral scholar, the investigative committee makes a finding of research misconduct, its report, the postdoctoral scholar’s response, and the recommendation of the Vice Chancellor for Research as to appropriate disciplinary sanctions, if any, are forwarded to the Chair of the postdoctoral scholars department, who, following the procedures set forth in Article 5 of the UAW post-doctoral scholar contract, decides with respect to the matter of discipline.

D. If,  in the case of students , the investigative committee makes a finding of research misconduct, its report, the student's response, and the recommendation of the Vice Chancellor for Research as to appropriate disciplinary sanctions, if any, are forwarded to the Office of Student Conduct, which following its procedures, decides with respect to the matter of discipline. E. The VCR shall report any disciplinary actions taken by the campus to ORI and to any other external funding agency that requires it.

updated 6/3/2013

• UC Berkeley Policy on Research Misconduct (pdf)
• Federal Research Misconduct Regulation
• For further assistance, please contact the Associate Vice Chancellor for Research  and Research Integrity Officer at [email protected] or (510) 642-7540. 

Research Misconduct

Policies and procedures.

MIT’s established processes for receiving and addressing allegations of possible misconduct in research conducted by members of the MIT community are set forth in MIT’s  Policies and Procedures   § 10.1 Procedures for Dealing with Academic Misconduct in Research and Scholarship :

• § 10.1.1 Unethical behavior in research and scholarship
• § 10.1.2 Definitions of Research Misconduct
• § 10.1.3 Responsibility To Report
• § 10.1.4 The Review Process
• § 10.1.5 Provisions Common to Misconduct Review Process

MIT's  supplement  to § 10.1 addresses additional criteria for allegations of misconduct in research sponsored by federal agencies.

The Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR) has identified suggested  best practices for preventing research misconduct , as well as helpful  resources .

Updated January 30, 2024

• About Ian Waitz
• Our Mission
• Engagement Principles
• Staff Directory
• Who Reports to the VPR?
• Infinite Mile Awards
• News and Announcements
• Labs, Centers and Institutes
• Assessing and Mitigating Risk
• Set Up Your CITI Account
• Take CITI Courses
• Affiliate Previous CITI Training
• Environmental Health and Safety
• Definitions
• Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs)
• Fundamental Research
• Regulations
• Restricted Party Screening
• Conference Presentations Abroad
• Financial Transactions
• International Research Collaborations
• International Scientists Visiting MIT
• International Shipping
• Cuba Travel Guidance
• Event and Program Vetting Information for Export Control
• Using Restricted Material at MIT
• Working with International Staff and Students
• Working with Lincoln Laboratory
• Forms and Tools
• Contact MIT Export Control
• Financial Conflicts of Interest in Research
• Grant Review and Other Academic Activities
• International Travel and Conferences
• Informal Collaborations
• Proposal Disclosures
• Protecting Inventions and Intellectual Property
• Countries Presenting Added Risk
• Regulations: Non-U.S. Activity
• The Entity List and Specially Designated Nationals
• Foreign Talent Programs
• Undue Foreign Influence
• Peer Review
• Procurement Integrity
• Research Compliance Committees
• Best Practices For Preventing Research Misconduct
• General Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices
• Professional Conduct
• Supplement to MIT Procedures 10.1 Research Misconduct
• Research Subjects
• RECR Training Reports
• RECR Notifications
• Calendar of Limited Submission Opportunities
• Early Career Award List
• Foundation Funding
• Internal Funding Opportunities
• Pivot Comprehensive Funding Search Tool
• Banting Fellowships
• Schmidt Science Fellowship
• Prestigious Prizes and Awards
• Broader Impacts Statements
• PI Guide to Writing a PIER Plan
• Research Development & Grant Writing News
• Policies and Procedures for VPR Units
• Policy on Late Submission of Proposals
• Principal and Other Investigator Status Guidelines and Process
• Guidelines for Fellowship Proposals - Proposing fellowship Activities
• Federal Lobbying Regulations
• Common Fellowship Sponsors
• Equalizing Insurance Costs
• Accounting and Operating Procedures
• Core Facilities and Service Centers
• Research Computing
• MIT Center for Clinical and Translational Research (CCTR)
• Instructions for Department Administrators
• Instructions for Financial Primary Authorizers
• Under-recovery Pilot
• Quick Guide for PIs

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research: Third Edition. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2009.

On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research: Third Edition.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

Some research behaviors are so at odds with the core principles of science that they are treated very harshly by the scientific community and by institutions that oversee research. Anyone who engages in these behaviors is putting his or her scientific career at risk and is threatening the overall reputation of science and the health and welfare of the intended beneficiaries of research.

Collectively these actions have come to be known as scientific misconduct. A statement developed by the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy, which has been adopted by most research-funding agencies, defines misconduct as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.” According to the statement, the three elements of misconduct are defined as follows:

• Fabrication is “making up data or results.”
• Falsification is “manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.”
• Plagiarism is “the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.”

In addition, the federal statement says that to be considered research misconduct, actions must represent a “significant departure from accepted practices,” must have been “committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly,” and must be “proven by a preponderance of evidence.” According to the statement, “research misconduct does not include differences of opinion.”

Some research institutions and research-funding agencies define scientific research misconduct more broadly. These institutional definitions may add, for example, abuse of confidentiality in peer review, failure to allocate credit appropriately in scientific publications, not observing regulations governing research, failure to report misconduct, or retaliation against individuals who report misconduct to the list of behaviors that are considered misconduct. In addition, the National Science Foundation has retained a clause in its misconduct policies that includes behaviors that seriously deviate from commonly accepted research practices as possible misconduct.

A Breach of Trust

Beginning in 1998, a series of remarkable papers attracted great attention within the condensed matter physics community. The papers, based largely on work done at Bell Laboratories, described methods that could create carbon-based materials with long-sought properties, including superconductivity and molecular-level switching. However, when other materials scientists sought to reproduce or extend the results, they were unsuccessful.

In 2001, several physicists inside and outside Bell Laboratories began to notice anomalies in some of the papers. Several contained figures that were very similar, even though they described different experimental systems. Some graphs seemed too smooth to describe real-life systems. Suspicion quickly fell on a young researcher named Jan Hendrik Schön, who had helped create the materials, had made the physical measurements on them, and was a coauthor on all the papers.

Bell Laboratories convened a committee of five outside researchers to examine the results published in 25 papers. Schön, who had conducted part of the work in the laboratory where he did his Ph.D. at the University of Konstanz in Germany, told the committee that the devices he had studied were no longer running or had been thrown away. He also said that he had deleted his primary electronic data files because he did not have room to store them on his old computer and that he kept no data notebooks while he was performing the work.

The committee did not accept Schön’s explanations and eventually concluded that he had engaged in fabrication in at least 16 of the 25 papers. Schön was fired from Bell Laboratories and later left the United States. In a letter to the committee, he wrote that “I admit I made various mistakes in my scientific work, which I deeply regret.” Yet he maintained that he “observed experimentally the various physical effects reported in these publications.”

The committee concluded that Schön acted alone and that his 20 coauthors on the papers were not guilty of scientific misconduct. However, the committee also raised the issue of the responsibility coauthors have to oversee the work of their colleagues, while acknowledging that no consensus yet exists on the extent of this responsibility. The senior author on several of the papers, all of which were later retracted, wrote that he should have asked Schön for more detailed data and checked his work more carefully, but that he trusted Schön to do his work honestly. In response to the incident, Bell Laboratories instituted new policies for data retention and internal review of results before publication. It also developed a new research ethics statement for its employees.

A crucial distinction between falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (sometimes called FFP) and error or negligence is the intent to deceive. When researchers intentionally deceive their colleagues by falsifying information, fabricating research results, or using others’ words and ideas without giving credit, they are violating fundamental research standards and basic societal values. These actions are seen as the worst violations of scientific standards because they undermine the trust on which science is based.

Fabrication in a Grant Proposal

Vijay, who has just finished his first year of graduate school, is applying to the National Science Foundation for a predoctoral fellowship. His work in a lab where he did a rotation project was later carried on successfully by others, and it appears that a manuscript will be prepared for publication by the end of the summer. However, the fellowship application deadline is June 1, and Vijay decides it would be advantageous to list a publication as “submitted” rather than “in progress.” Without consulting the faculty member or other colleagues involved, Vijay makes up a title and author list for a “submitted” paper and cites it in his application.

After the application has been mailed, a lab member sees it and goes to the faculty member to ask about the “submitted” manuscript. Vijay admits to fabricating the submission of the paper but explains his actions by saying that he thought the practice was not uncommon in science. The faculty members in Vijay’s department demand that he withdraw his grant proposal and dismiss him from the graduate program.

Do you think that researchers often exaggerate the publication status of their work in written materials?

Do you think the department acted too harshly in dismissing Vijay from the graduate program?

If Vijay later applied to a graduate program at another institution, does that institution have the right to know what happened?

What were Vijay’s adviser’s responsibilities in reviewing the application before it was submitted?

Is It Plagiarism?

Professor Lee is writing a proposal for a research grant, and the deadline for the proposal submission is two days from now. To complete the background section of the proposal, Lee copies a few isolated sentences of a journal paper written by another author. The copied sentences consist of brief, factual, one-sentence summaries of earlier articles closely related to the proposal, descriptions of basic concepts from textbooks, and definitions of standard mathematical notations. None of these ideas is due to the other author. Lee adds a one-sentence summary of the journal paper and cites it.

Does the copying of a few isolated sentences in this case constitute plagiarism?

By citing the journal paper, has Lee given proper credit to the other author?

However, intent can be difficult to establish. For example, because trust in science depends so heavily on the assumption that the origin and content of scientific ideas will be treated with respect, plagiarism is taken very seriously in science, even though it does not introduce spurious results into research records in the same way that fabrication and falsification do. But someone who plagiarizes may insist it was a mistake, either in note taking or in writing, and that there was no intent to deceive. Similarly, someone accused of falsification may contend that errors resulted from honest mistakes or negligence.

Within the scientific community, the effects of misconduct—in terms of lost time, damaged reputations, and feelings of personal betrayal—can be devastating. Individuals, institutions, and even entire research fields can suffer grievous setbacks from instances of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. Acts of misconduct also can draw the attention of the media, policymakers, and the general public, with negative consequences for all of science and, ultimately, for the public at large.

• Cite this Page National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research: Third Edition. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2009. RESEARCH MISCONDUCT.
• PDF version of this title (494K)

Recent Activity

• RESEARCH MISCONDUCT - On Being a Scientist RESEARCH MISCONDUCT - On Being a Scientist

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Frequently Asked Questions

• Wh at is the Office of Research Integrity (ORI)?
• How was ORI’s authority established?
• I s ORI part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)?
• What is ORI’s mission?
• Wh at is “research misconduct”?
• What is the difference between a “complainant” and a “respondent ?
• How does ORI oversee research misconduct?
• W hat is the relationship between HHS and ORI when it comes to research misconduct findings and administrative actions imposed upon researchers found to have committed research misconduct?
• How does HHS determine what administrative actions may be made against respondents found to have committed research misconduct? 
• When ORI makes findings of research misconduct, what kind of administrative actions can HHS impose on a respondent?
• Can HHS also take action against an institution? 
• What actions cannot be taken by ORI?
• What are the potential outcomes from a finding of research misconduct by ORI?
• What is a voluntary agreement?
• What can happen to a researcher who is found to have committed misconduct by ORI?
• Can ORI make the researcher/institution return the money spent on a project in which misconduct was committed?
• Can ORI send a researcher to prison?
• Can ORI tell the public whether it is currently investigating someone or offer more details about the case, if ORI has published findings on a researcher?
• Can a respondent appeal HHS’s proposed administrative actions?  
• What is the Office of Research Integrity (ORI)? The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) oversees and directs U.S.  Public Health Service (PHS) research integrity activities on behalf of the Secretary of Health and Human Services . This includes oversight of research misconduct inquiries and investigations, as well as of institutional compliance.   Organizationally , ORI is located within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).  
• How was ORI’s authority established? ORI was established by Congress  in 1993 as an independent entity within HHS. The statute authorizing ORI’s responsibilities also directs entities (intramural or extramural research facilities) that perform U.S.  Public Health Service  (PHS)-sponsored biomedical or behavioral research to share responsibility for the integrity of the research process and to protect PHS funds from misuse. Subsequently, regulations were passed that implemented the requirements of this statute for ORI and PHS-funded institutions. Additional information on the history of ORI is available here .  
• Is ORI part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) ? No. NIH is an agency within HHS and is a component of the U.S.  Public Health Service  (PHS), as are the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and a number of other entities. Although ORI is also part of HHS, it is not part of NIH.  ORI’s predecessor office was part of NIH, but the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 established ORI as an independent entity within HHS and removed from funding agencies the authority to oversee misconduct allegations for research that they fund. Please go here to read about the history of ORI.  
• oversees and directs PHS research integrity activities on behalf of the HHS Secretary, including the oversight of research misconduct inquiries and investigations, education and training in the responsible conduct of research, activities designed to promote research integrity and prevent misconduct, and research and evaluation programs  
• makes findings of research misconduct and proposes administrative actions in connection with research conducted or supported by PHS  
• reviews institutional policies to ensure compliance with misconduct regulations.   
• What is “research misconduct”? Research misconduct (formerly called scientific misconduct) is a narrowly defined set of actions that call into question the scientific integrity of a body of work. Under the regulations that articulate ORI’s statutory authority, research misconduct is defined as "fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting research results....Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion" (42 C.F.R. Part 93). ORI’s regulatory authority is limited to the oversight of research misconduct involving PHS-funded research. Fraud, which is regulated by civil or criminal fraud statutes, is outside of the jurisdiction of ORI.  
• What is the difference between a “complainant” and a “respondent”?   A “complainant” is a person who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct. A “respondent” is a person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding.  
• How does ORI oversee research misconduct? Promoting research integrity is a responsibility shared between an institution that receives U.S.  Public Health Service  funding and ORI. In many situations, allegations are first brought to the attention of the research integrity officer at the institution where the alleged misconduct occurred. The institution must notify ORI if it determines that an investigation is warranted. Allegations of research misconduct also may come directly to ORI. In this scenario, ORI will assess the allegation to determine whether it falls within its jurisdiction. If it does, ORI then forwards the case to the institution where the alleged research misconduct took place for its subsequent inquiry and investigation (as warranted). ORI always is available to assist the institution with its inquiry and investigation to ensure that it follows the regulatory requirements.  ORI has no direct involvement in the decision-making by an institution. When an institution completes its investigation, ORI reviews the institution’s findings and process and then make its own independent findings. If ORI determines that misconduct has occurred, HHS imposes administrative actions ( see #8 ) that protect the public against any further misuse of public funds by the researcher.  If ORI does not issue findings against a respondent, this does not negate the institution’s findings. ORI’s findings are independent of the institution’s findings.  
• What is the relationship between HHS and ORI when it comes to research misconduct findings and administrative actions imposed upon researchers found to have committed research misconduct?   Under the statute and implementing regulations governing research misconduct processes, ORI and the Secretary of HHS (or his/her delegate) have unique roles and responsibilities to ensure a fair and impartial process. Whereas ORI makes a finding about misconduct, HHS is the entity that takes final administrative actions against a respondent as well as the entity that oversees the appeal process through the HHS Departmental Appeals Board.  In performing its oversight functions, specifically, ORI can conduct allegation assessments, determine jurisdiction, forward allegations to the appropriate institution or HHS component for inquiry and/or investigation, recommend that HHS perform an inquiry and/or investigation, notify U.S.  Public Health Service  (PHS) funding components or other Federal agencies of a finding so that they may recover PHS funds, review an institution’s findings and process, make a finding of misconduct, and propose administrative actions to HHS. HHS, in turn, imposes the final administrative actions. If the proposed action is suspension or debarment, HHS follows both the government-wide  and HHS-specific debarment regulations ( see #10 ).  
• How does HHS determine what administrative actions may be made against respondents found to have committed research misconduct? HHS imposes administrative actions ( see #10 ) based on the circumstances and severity of the misconduct. HHS also must consider whether there were any aggravating or mitigating factors in assessing the severity of administrative actions. HHS considers various factors, such as whether the misconduct was an isolated event or represented a pattern of behavior, the impact of the misconduct on the research record and on public health, the extent to which the respondent accepted responsibility for his/her action, the extent to which a respondent retaliated against persons involved in assessing misconduct and whether or not HHS found the respondent “presently responsible” to conduct U.S.  Public Health Service -funded research. To protect the public interest, the Federal Government ensures the integrity of Federal programs by conducting business only with responsible persons .   
• correction of the research record  
• letters of reprimand  
• inclusion of certifications or assurances to ensure compliance with PHS grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements (these are written attestations that the respondent’s future U.S.  Public Health Service  (PHS) grant submissions have been reviewed by the institution and do not contain falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism)  
• suspension or termination of PHS grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements  
• restrictions on specific activities or expenditures under an active PHS grant, contract, or cooperative agreement  
• special review of all PHS funding requests  
• supervision requirements on PHS funding  
• exclusion from participation in advisory roles to PHS  
• adverse personnel action of the respondent if s/he is a federal employee  
• suspension or debarment under two sets of regulations , which prohibit a person from participating in certain federal programs or transactions, such as federal grants and contracts  
• recovery of PHS funds sent to support activities that involved research misconduct ( see below )   
• other HHS administrative actions, including actions taken by the Office of Inspector General (could be civil or criminal proceedings), the PHS funding component, and the debarring official .  Under the regulations , ORI publishes notices of final agency findings of research misconduct, settlements, and HHS administrative actions. ORI does not have the statutory authority to issue subpoenas or to prosecute respondents, either civilly or criminally. However, if ORI believes that a criminal or civil fraud violation may have occurred, ORI is required to refer the matter to the appropriate office (the Department of Justice or the HHS Office of the Inspector General, for example) for further consideration. ORI has jurisdiction over a narrowly defined subset of activities that can occur in a research setting, limited to plagiarism, fabrication and falsification. Fraud regulated by civil or criminal fraud statutes is outside ORI’s jurisdiction.  
• issuing a letter of reprimand  
• directing HHS to handle research misconduct proceedings for PHS-funded research  
• placing the institution on special review status  
• publishing information about the institution’s noncompliance on ORI’s website  
• requiring the institution to take corrective actions  
• requiring the institution to adopt and implement an institutional integrity agreement  
• recommending that HHS debar the institution  
• other actions appropriate to the circumstances If an institution’s actions related to its research misconduct review process constitute a substantial or recurrent failure to comply, ORI may also revoke the institution’s assurance, thereby suspending PHS awards to that institution. ORI may make public any finding of institutional noncompliance and HHS compliance actions.  
• What actions cannot be taken by ORI? ORI proposes administrative actions to HHS, as outlined above, but does not have the statutory authority to undertake any civil or criminal justice proceedings. Under its regulations , if ORI believes that a criminal or civil fraud violation may have occurred, it must promptly refer the matter to the Department of Justice (DOJ), the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG), or other appropriate investigative bodies. ORI may provide assistance to the DOJ, OIG, U.S.  Public Health Service  offices, or other federal offices as well as state and local offices involved in investigating or otherwise pursuing research misconduct allegations or related matters.   
• What are the potential outcomes from a finding of research misconduct by ORI?   A finding of research misconduct may result in a voluntary agreement between HHS and the respondent, if settlement is in the best interests of the federal government and the public health or welfare. In this scenario, ORI makes misconduct findings and HHS imposes final administrative actions, through an agreement with the respondent, who, in turn, agrees not to contest the findings and administrative actions. If there is no settlement, HHS may issue a charge letter, notifying the respondent of the research misconduct findings and proposed administrative actions.  Once issued, a respondent then may contest either the research misconduct findings or the proposed administrative actions in accordance with Subpart E of the regulations .   
• What is a voluntary agreement? ORI may make a finding of research misconduct and seek to settle the matter with the respondent if it concludes that it is in the best interests of the federal government and public health or welfare. HHS administrative actions often include exclusion from participation in advisory roles to U.S.  Public Health Service  (PHS) (e.g., the respondent may not sit on a PHS agency study section during the exclusion period) with either debarment or a supervision requirement.  A supervision requirement means that the respondent must be supervised for a specified period for any PHS-supported research he or she conducts.  
• What can happen to a researcher who is found to have committed misconduct by ORI? The most egregious cases of research misconduct could result in government-wide debarment for a period of time from certain federal programs or transactions, such as federal grants and contracts [including U.S.  Public Health Service  (PHS)  and non-PHS funding] and Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. In cases in which the misconduct investigations uncover potential civil or criminal fraud or other illegal activities, additional legal proceedings and remedies may be pursued by other federal agencies, which can result in more severe outcomes, including permanent debarment, fines, and/or imprisonment.  
• Can ORI make the researcher/institution return the money spent on a project in which misconduct was committed? HHS (not ORI) can require an institution to return U.S.  Public Health Service  (PHS) funds that were spent on activities that involved research misconduct, as specified in the regulations . In this case, the funding agency (not ORI) usually works directly with the institution that received the funding to return PHS funds to that agency. There are policies and procedures in place both at the agencies and at the research institutions to perform such actions.  
• Can ORI send a researcher to prison? No. ORI does not have statutory authority to undertake any criminal actions and cannot send a respondent to prison. However, when a research misconduct investigation uncovers other misdeeds or allegations of criminal activity, ORI refers those through the appropriate channels to other agencies for further action.  ORI may provide expertise and assistance to such other agencies to the extent allowed by law.   
• Can ORI tell the public whether it is currently investigating someone or offer more details about the case, if ORI has published findings on a researcher? In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 , ORI is prohibited from disclosing information about individuals without the individual’s advance written consent. One exception to the Act is the “ routine use ” exception, which allows agencies to make certain third party disclosures in accordance with the agency’s system of records notice .  HHS has a routine use in its system of records notice for ORI’s research misconduct records that provides that after a final HHS finding of research misconduct, disclosure of the findings may be made to professional journals, other publications, news media, and others. This generally is done by publishing the findings in the Federal Register, the NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts, and the ORI website. Disclosure of the findings also is warranted when there is a need to correct or retract research results or published reports that have been affected by research misconduct. No information is released that would reveal a confidential source. ORI’s regulations  limit the disclosure of the identity of respondents and complainants in research misconduct proceedings, to the extent possible, to those who need to know, consistent with a thorough, competent, objective and fair proceeding, and as allowed by law. ORI also is directed to protect a complainant, witness or committee member from retaliation (an adverse action) for good faith cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding. All media queries should be made through our Public Affairs Office at [email protected] .  
• Can a respondent appeal HHS’s proposed administrative actions? Yes. A respondent found to have committed research misconduct and for whom administrative actions are recommended has the opportunity to contest ORI findings and HHS proposed administrative actions by requesting an administrative hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), as specified in Subpart E of the regulations . The subsequent ruling by the ALJ constitutes a recommended decision to the Assistant Secretary for Health, who has the option to review the ALJ’s recommended decision and then to affirm, reverse, or modify that decision, unless a debarment or suspension is recommended, in which case, the HHS Debarring Official would be the official who would make the final decision on the recommended debarment or suspension.  

Frequently asked questions

What is research misconduct.

Research misconduct means making up or falsifying data, manipulating data analyses, or misrepresenting results in research reports. It’s a form of academic fraud.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement but a serious ethical failure.

Frequently asked questions: Methodology

Attrition refers to participants leaving a study. It always happens to some extent—for example, in randomized controlled trials for medical research.

Differential attrition occurs when attrition or dropout rates differ systematically between the intervention and the control group . As a result, the characteristics of the participants who drop out differ from the characteristics of those who stay in the study. Because of this, study results may be biased .

Action research is conducted in order to solve a particular issue immediately, while case studies are often conducted over a longer period of time and focus more on observing and analyzing a particular ongoing phenomenon.

Action research is focused on solving a problem or informing individual and community-based knowledge in a way that impacts teaching, learning, and other related processes. It is less focused on contributing theoretical input, instead producing actionable input.

Action research is particularly popular with educators as a form of systematic inquiry because it prioritizes reflection and bridges the gap between theory and practice. Educators are able to simultaneously investigate an issue as they solve it, and the method is very iterative and flexible.

A cycle of inquiry is another name for action research . It is usually visualized in a spiral shape following a series of steps, such as “planning → acting → observing → reflecting.”

To make quantitative observations , you need to use instruments that are capable of measuring the quantity you want to observe. For example, you might use a ruler to measure the length of an object or a thermometer to measure its temperature.

Criterion validity and construct validity are both types of measurement validity . In other words, they both show you how accurately a method measures something.

While construct validity is the degree to which a test or other measurement method measures what it claims to measure, criterion validity is the degree to which a test can predictively (in the future) or concurrently (in the present) measure something.

Construct validity is often considered the overarching type of measurement validity . You need to have face validity , content validity , and criterion validity in order to achieve construct validity.

Convergent validity and discriminant validity are both subtypes of construct validity . Together, they help you evaluate whether a test measures the concept it was designed to measure.

• Convergent validity indicates whether a test that is designed to measure a particular construct correlates with other tests that assess the same or similar construct.
• Discriminant validity indicates whether two tests that should not be highly related to each other are indeed not related. This type of validity is also called divergent validity .

You need to assess both in order to demonstrate construct validity. Neither one alone is sufficient for establishing construct validity.

• Discriminant validity indicates whether two tests that should not be highly related to each other are indeed not related

Content validity shows you how accurately a test or other measurement method taps  into the various aspects of the specific construct you are researching.

In other words, it helps you answer the question: “does the test measure all aspects of the construct I want to measure?” If it does, then the test has high content validity.

The higher the content validity, the more accurate the measurement of the construct.

If the test fails to include parts of the construct, or irrelevant parts are included, the validity of the instrument is threatened, which brings your results into question.

Face validity and content validity are similar in that they both evaluate how suitable the content of a test is. The difference is that face validity is subjective, and assesses content at surface level.

When a test has strong face validity, anyone would agree that the test’s questions appear to measure what they are intended to measure.

For example, looking at a 4th grade math test consisting of problems in which students have to add and multiply, most people would agree that it has strong face validity (i.e., it looks like a math test).

On the other hand, content validity evaluates how well a test represents all the aspects of a topic. Assessing content validity is more systematic and relies on expert evaluation. of each question, analyzing whether each one covers the aspects that the test was designed to cover.

A 4th grade math test would have high content validity if it covered all the skills taught in that grade. Experts(in this case, math teachers), would have to evaluate the content validity by comparing the test to the learning objectives.

Snowball sampling is a non-probability sampling method . Unlike probability sampling (which involves some form of random selection ), the initial individuals selected to be studied are the ones who recruit new participants.

Because not every member of the target population has an equal chance of being recruited into the sample, selection in snowball sampling is non-random.

Snowball sampling is a non-probability sampling method , where there is not an equal chance for every member of the population to be included in the sample .

This means that you cannot use inferential statistics and make generalizations —often the goal of quantitative research . As such, a snowball sample is not representative of the target population and is usually a better fit for qualitative research .

Snowball sampling relies on the use of referrals. Here, the researcher recruits one or more initial participants, who then recruit the next ones.

Participants share similar characteristics and/or know each other. Because of this, not every member of the population has an equal chance of being included in the sample, giving rise to sampling bias .

Snowball sampling is best used in the following cases:

• If there is no sampling frame available (e.g., people with a rare disease)
• If the population of interest is hard to access or locate (e.g., people experiencing homelessness)
• If the research focuses on a sensitive topic (e.g., extramarital affairs)

The reproducibility and replicability of a study can be ensured by writing a transparent, detailed method section and using clear, unambiguous language.

Reproducibility and replicability are related terms.

• Reproducing research entails reanalyzing the existing data in the same manner.
• Replicating (or repeating ) the research entails reconducting the entire analysis, including the collection of new data . 
• A successful reproduction shows that the data analyses were conducted in a fair and honest manner.
• A successful replication shows that the reliability of the results is high.

Stratified sampling and quota sampling both involve dividing the population into subgroups and selecting units from each subgroup. The purpose in both cases is to select a representative sample and/or to allow comparisons between subgroups.

The main difference is that in stratified sampling, you draw a random sample from each subgroup ( probability sampling ). In quota sampling you select a predetermined number or proportion of units, in a non-random manner ( non-probability sampling ).

Purposive and convenience sampling are both sampling methods that are typically used in qualitative data collection.

A convenience sample is drawn from a source that is conveniently accessible to the researcher. Convenience sampling does not distinguish characteristics among the participants. On the other hand, purposive sampling focuses on selecting participants possessing characteristics associated with the research study.

The findings of studies based on either convenience or purposive sampling can only be generalized to the (sub)population from which the sample is drawn, and not to the entire population.

Random sampling or probability sampling is based on random selection. This means that each unit has an equal chance (i.e., equal probability) of being included in the sample.

On the other hand, convenience sampling involves stopping people at random, which means that not everyone has an equal chance of being selected depending on the place, time, or day you are collecting your data.

Convenience sampling and quota sampling are both non-probability sampling methods. They both use non-random criteria like availability, geographical proximity, or expert knowledge to recruit study participants.

However, in convenience sampling, you continue to sample units or cases until you reach the required sample size.

In quota sampling, you first need to divide your population of interest into subgroups (strata) and estimate their proportions (quota) in the population. Then you can start your data collection, using convenience sampling to recruit participants, until the proportions in each subgroup coincide with the estimated proportions in the population.

A sampling frame is a list of every member in the entire population . It is important that the sampling frame is as complete as possible, so that your sample accurately reflects your population.

Stratified and cluster sampling may look similar, but bear in mind that groups created in cluster sampling are heterogeneous , so the individual characteristics in the cluster vary. In contrast, groups created in stratified sampling are homogeneous , as units share characteristics.

Relatedly, in cluster sampling you randomly select entire groups and include all units of each group in your sample. However, in stratified sampling, you select some units of all groups and include them in your sample. In this way, both methods can ensure that your sample is representative of the target population .

A systematic review is secondary research because it uses existing research. You don’t collect new data yourself.

The key difference between observational studies and experimental designs is that a well-done observational study does not influence the responses of participants, while experiments do have some sort of treatment condition applied to at least some participants by random assignment .

An observational study is a great choice for you if your research question is based purely on observations. If there are ethical, logistical, or practical concerns that prevent you from conducting a traditional experiment , an observational study may be a good choice. In an observational study, there is no interference or manipulation of the research subjects, as well as no control or treatment groups .

It’s often best to ask a variety of people to review your measurements. You can ask experts, such as other researchers, or laypeople, such as potential participants, to judge the face validity of tests.

While experts have a deep understanding of research methods , the people you’re studying can provide you with valuable insights you may have missed otherwise.

Face validity is important because it’s a simple first step to measuring the overall validity of a test or technique. It’s a relatively intuitive, quick, and easy way to start checking whether a new measure seems useful at first glance.

Good face validity means that anyone who reviews your measure says that it seems to be measuring what it’s supposed to. With poor face validity, someone reviewing your measure may be left confused about what you’re measuring and why you’re using this method.

Face validity is about whether a test appears to measure what it’s supposed to measure. This type of validity is concerned with whether a measure seems relevant and appropriate for what it’s assessing only on the surface.

Statistical analyses are often applied to test validity with data from your measures. You test convergent validity and discriminant validity with correlations to see if results from your test are positively or negatively related to those of other established tests.

You can also use regression analyses to assess whether your measure is actually predictive of outcomes that you expect it to predict theoretically. A regression analysis that supports your expectations strengthens your claim of construct validity .

When designing or evaluating a measure, construct validity helps you ensure you’re actually measuring the construct you’re interested in. If you don’t have construct validity, you may inadvertently measure unrelated or distinct constructs and lose precision in your research.

Construct validity is often considered the overarching type of measurement validity ,  because it covers all of the other types. You need to have face validity , content validity , and criterion validity to achieve construct validity.

Construct validity is about how well a test measures the concept it was designed to evaluate. It’s one of four types of measurement validity , which includes construct validity, face validity , and criterion validity.

There are two subtypes of construct validity.

• Convergent validity : The extent to which your measure corresponds to measures of related constructs
• Discriminant validity : The extent to which your measure is unrelated or negatively related to measures of distinct constructs

Naturalistic observation is a valuable tool because of its flexibility, external validity , and suitability for topics that can’t be studied in a lab setting.

The downsides of naturalistic observation include its lack of scientific control , ethical considerations , and potential for bias from observers and subjects.

Naturalistic observation is a qualitative research method where you record the behaviors of your research subjects in real world settings. You avoid interfering or influencing anything in a naturalistic observation.

You can think of naturalistic observation as “people watching” with a purpose.

A dependent variable is what changes as a result of the independent variable manipulation in experiments . It’s what you’re interested in measuring, and it “depends” on your independent variable.

In statistics, dependent variables are also called:

• Response variables (they respond to a change in another variable)
• Outcome variables (they represent the outcome you want to measure)
• Left-hand-side variables (they appear on the left-hand side of a regression equation)

An independent variable is the variable you manipulate, control, or vary in an experimental study to explore its effects. It’s called “independent” because it’s not influenced by any other variables in the study.

Independent variables are also called:

• Explanatory variables (they explain an event or outcome)
• Predictor variables (they can be used to predict the value of a dependent variable)
• Right-hand-side variables (they appear on the right-hand side of a regression equation).

As a rule of thumb, questions related to thoughts, beliefs, and feelings work well in focus groups. Take your time formulating strong questions, paying special attention to phrasing. Be careful to avoid leading questions , which can bias your responses.

Overall, your focus group questions should be:

• Open-ended and flexible
• Impossible to answer with “yes” or “no” (questions that start with “why” or “how” are often best)
• Unambiguous, getting straight to the point while still stimulating discussion
• Unbiased and neutral

A structured interview is a data collection method that relies on asking questions in a set order to collect data on a topic. They are often quantitative in nature. Structured interviews are best used when: 

• You already have a very clear understanding of your topic. Perhaps significant research has already been conducted, or you have done some prior research yourself, but you already possess a baseline for designing strong structured questions.
• You are constrained in terms of time or resources and need to analyze your data quickly and efficiently.
• Your research question depends on strong parity between participants, with environmental conditions held constant.

More flexible interview options include semi-structured interviews , unstructured interviews , and focus groups .

Social desirability bias is the tendency for interview participants to give responses that will be viewed favorably by the interviewer or other participants. It occurs in all types of interviews and surveys , but is most common in semi-structured interviews , unstructured interviews , and focus groups .

Social desirability bias can be mitigated by ensuring participants feel at ease and comfortable sharing their views. Make sure to pay attention to your own body language and any physical or verbal cues, such as nodding or widening your eyes.

This type of bias can also occur in observations if the participants know they’re being observed. They might alter their behavior accordingly.

The interviewer effect is a type of bias that emerges when a characteristic of an interviewer (race, age, gender identity, etc.) influences the responses given by the interviewee.

There is a risk of an interviewer effect in all types of interviews , but it can be mitigated by writing really high-quality interview questions.

A semi-structured interview is a blend of structured and unstructured types of interviews. Semi-structured interviews are best used when:

• You have prior interview experience. Spontaneous questions are deceptively challenging, and it’s easy to accidentally ask a leading question or make a participant uncomfortable.
• Your research question is exploratory in nature. Participant answers can guide future research questions and help you develop a more robust knowledge base for future research.

An unstructured interview is the most flexible type of interview, but it is not always the best fit for your research topic.

Unstructured interviews are best used when:

• You are an experienced interviewer and have a very strong background in your research topic, since it is challenging to ask spontaneous, colloquial questions.
• Your research question is exploratory in nature. While you may have developed hypotheses, you are open to discovering new or shifting viewpoints through the interview process.
• You are seeking descriptive data, and are ready to ask questions that will deepen and contextualize your initial thoughts and hypotheses.
• Your research depends on forming connections with your participants and making them feel comfortable revealing deeper emotions, lived experiences, or thoughts.

The four most common types of interviews are:

• Structured interviews : The questions are predetermined in both topic and order. 
• Semi-structured interviews : A few questions are predetermined, but other questions aren’t planned.
• Unstructured interviews : None of the questions are predetermined.
• Focus group interviews : The questions are presented to a group instead of one individual.

Deductive reasoning is commonly used in scientific research, and it’s especially associated with quantitative research .

In research, you might have come across something called the hypothetico-deductive method . It’s the scientific method of testing hypotheses to check whether your predictions are substantiated by real-world data.

Deductive reasoning is a logical approach where you progress from general ideas to specific conclusions. It’s often contrasted with inductive reasoning , where you start with specific observations and form general conclusions.

Deductive reasoning is also called deductive logic.

There are many different types of inductive reasoning that people use formally or informally.

Here are a few common types:

• Inductive generalization : You use observations about a sample to come to a conclusion about the population it came from.
• Statistical generalization: You use specific numbers about samples to make statements about populations.
• Causal reasoning: You make cause-and-effect links between different things.
• Sign reasoning: You make a conclusion about a correlational relationship between different things.
• Analogical reasoning: You make a conclusion about something based on its similarities to something else.

Inductive reasoning is a bottom-up approach, while deductive reasoning is top-down.

Inductive reasoning takes you from the specific to the general, while in deductive reasoning, you make inferences by going from general premises to specific conclusions.

In inductive research , you start by making observations or gathering data. Then, you take a broad scan of your data and search for patterns. Finally, you make general conclusions that you might incorporate into theories.

Inductive reasoning is a method of drawing conclusions by going from the specific to the general. It’s usually contrasted with deductive reasoning, where you proceed from general information to specific conclusions.

Inductive reasoning is also called inductive logic or bottom-up reasoning.

A hypothesis states your predictions about what your research will find. It is a tentative answer to your research question that has not yet been tested. For some research projects, you might have to write several hypotheses that address different aspects of your research question.

A hypothesis is not just a guess — it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations and statistical analysis of data).

Triangulation can help:

• Reduce research bias that comes from using a single method, theory, or investigator
• Enhance validity by approaching the same topic with different tools
• Establish credibility by giving you a complete picture of the research problem

But triangulation can also pose problems:

• It’s time-consuming and labor-intensive, often involving an interdisciplinary team.
• Your results may be inconsistent or even contradictory.

There are four main types of triangulation :

• Data triangulation : Using data from different times, spaces, and people
• Investigator triangulation : Involving multiple researchers in collecting or analyzing data
• Theory triangulation : Using varying theoretical perspectives in your research
• Methodological triangulation : Using different methodologies to approach the same topic

Many academic fields use peer review , largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the published manuscript.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure. 

Peer assessment is often used in the classroom as a pedagogical tool. Both receiving feedback and providing it are thought to enhance the learning process, helping students think critically and collaboratively.

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. It also represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field. It acts as a first defense, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to this stringent process they go through before publication.

In general, the peer review process follows the following steps: 

• First, the author submits the manuscript to the editor.
• Reject the manuscript and send it back to author, or 
• Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s) 
• Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made. 
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits, and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

Exploratory research is often used when the issue you’re studying is new or when the data collection process is challenging for some reason.

You can use exploratory research if you have a general idea or a specific question that you want to study but there is no preexisting knowledge or paradigm with which to study it.

Exploratory research is a methodology approach that explores research questions that have not previously been studied in depth. It is often used when the issue you’re studying is new, or the data collection process is challenging in some way.

Explanatory research is used to investigate how or why a phenomenon occurs. Therefore, this type of research is often one of the first stages in the research process , serving as a jumping-off point for future research.

Exploratory research aims to explore the main aspects of an under-researched problem, while explanatory research aims to explain the causes and consequences of a well-defined problem.

Explanatory research is a research method used to investigate how or why something occurs when only a small amount of information is available pertaining to that topic. It can help you increase your understanding of a given topic.

Clean data are valid, accurate, complete, consistent, unique, and uniform. Dirty data include inconsistencies and errors.

Dirty data can come from any part of the research process, including poor research design , inappropriate measurement materials, or flawed data entry.

Data cleaning takes place between data collection and data analyses. But you can use some methods even before collecting data.

For clean data, you should start by designing measures that collect valid data. Data validation at the time of data entry or collection helps you minimize the amount of data cleaning you’ll need to do.

After data collection, you can use data standardization and data transformation to clean your data. You’ll also deal with any missing values, outliers, and duplicate values.

Every dataset requires different techniques to clean dirty data , but you need to address these issues in a systematic way. You focus on finding and resolving data points that don’t agree or fit with the rest of your dataset.

These data might be missing values, outliers, duplicate values, incorrectly formatted, or irrelevant. You’ll start with screening and diagnosing your data. Then, you’ll often standardize and accept or remove data to make your dataset consistent and valid.

Data cleaning is necessary for valid and appropriate analyses. Dirty data contain inconsistencies or errors , but cleaning your data helps you minimize or resolve these.

Without data cleaning, you could end up with a Type I or II error in your conclusion. These types of erroneous conclusions can be practically significant with important consequences, because they lead to misplaced investments or missed opportunities.

Data cleaning involves spotting and resolving potential data inconsistencies or errors to improve your data quality. An error is any value (e.g., recorded weight) that doesn’t reflect the true value (e.g., actual weight) of something that’s being measured.

In this process, you review, analyze, detect, modify, or remove “dirty” data to make your dataset “clean.” Data cleaning is also called data cleansing or data scrubbing.

Anonymity means you don’t know who the participants are, while confidentiality means you know who they are but remove identifying information from your research report. Both are important ethical considerations .

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, or videos.

You can keep data confidential by using aggregate information in your research report, so that you only refer to groups of participants rather than individuals.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe.

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. These principles include voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, potential for harm, and results communication.

Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from others .

These considerations protect the rights of research participants, enhance research validity , and maintain scientific integrity.

In multistage sampling , you can use probability or non-probability sampling methods .

For a probability sample, you have to conduct probability sampling at every stage.

You can mix it up by using simple random sampling , systematic sampling , or stratified sampling to select units at different stages, depending on what is applicable and relevant to your study.

Multistage sampling can simplify data collection when you have large, geographically spread samples, and you can obtain a probability sample without a complete sampling frame.

But multistage sampling may not lead to a representative sample, and larger samples are needed for multistage samples to achieve the statistical properties of simple random samples .

These are four of the most common mixed methods designs :

• Convergent parallel: Quantitative and qualitative data are collected at the same time and analyzed separately. After both analyses are complete, compare your results to draw overall conclusions. 
• Embedded: Quantitative and qualitative data are collected at the same time, but within a larger quantitative or qualitative design. One type of data is secondary to the other.
• Explanatory sequential: Quantitative data is collected and analyzed first, followed by qualitative data. You can use this design if you think your qualitative data will explain and contextualize your quantitative findings.
• Exploratory sequential: Qualitative data is collected and analyzed first, followed by quantitative data. You can use this design if you think the quantitative data will confirm or validate your qualitative findings.

Triangulation in research means using multiple datasets, methods, theories and/or investigators to address a research question. It’s a research strategy that can help you enhance the validity and credibility of your findings.

Triangulation is mainly used in qualitative research , but it’s also commonly applied in quantitative research . Mixed methods research always uses triangulation.

In multistage sampling , or multistage cluster sampling, you draw a sample from a population using smaller and smaller groups at each stage.

This method is often used to collect data from a large, geographically spread group of people in national surveys, for example. You take advantage of hierarchical groupings (e.g., from state to city to neighborhood) to create a sample that’s less expensive and time-consuming to collect data from.

No, the steepness or slope of the line isn’t related to the correlation coefficient value. The correlation coefficient only tells you how closely your data fit on a line, so two datasets with the same correlation coefficient can have very different slopes.

To find the slope of the line, you’ll need to perform a regression analysis .

Correlation coefficients always range between -1 and 1.

The sign of the coefficient tells you the direction of the relationship: a positive value means the variables change together in the same direction, while a negative value means they change together in opposite directions.

The absolute value of a number is equal to the number without its sign. The absolute value of a correlation coefficient tells you the magnitude of the correlation: the greater the absolute value, the stronger the correlation.

These are the assumptions your data must meet if you want to use Pearson’s r :

• Both variables are on an interval or ratio level of measurement
• Data from both variables follow normal distributions
• Your data have no outliers
• Your data is from a random or representative sample
• You expect a linear relationship between the two variables

Quantitative research designs can be divided into two main categories:

• Correlational and descriptive designs are used to investigate characteristics, averages, trends, and associations between variables.
• Experimental and quasi-experimental designs are used to test causal relationships .

Qualitative research designs tend to be more flexible. Common types of qualitative design include case study , ethnography , and grounded theory designs.

A well-planned research design helps ensure that your methods match your research aims, that you collect high-quality data, and that you use the right kind of analysis to answer your questions, utilizing credible sources . This allows you to draw valid , trustworthy conclusions.

The priorities of a research design can vary depending on the field, but you usually have to specify:

• Your research questions and/or hypotheses
• Your overall approach (e.g., qualitative or quantitative )
• The type of design you’re using (e.g., a survey , experiment , or case study )
• Your sampling methods or criteria for selecting subjects
• Your data collection methods (e.g., questionnaires , observations)
• Your data collection procedures (e.g., operationalization , timing and data management)
• Your data analysis methods (e.g., statistical tests  or thematic analysis )

A research design is a strategy for answering your   research question . It defines your overall approach and determines how you will collect and analyze data.

Questionnaires can be self-administered or researcher-administered.

Self-administered questionnaires can be delivered online or in paper-and-pen formats, in person or through mail. All questions are standardized so that all respondents receive the same questions with identical wording.

Researcher-administered questionnaires are interviews that take place by phone, in-person, or online between researchers and respondents. You can gain deeper insights by clarifying questions for respondents or asking follow-up questions.

You can organize the questions logically, with a clear progression from simple to complex, or randomly between respondents. A logical flow helps respondents process the questionnaire easier and quicker, but it may lead to bias. Randomization can minimize the bias from order effects.

Closed-ended, or restricted-choice, questions offer respondents a fixed set of choices to select from. These questions are easier to answer quickly.

Open-ended or long-form questions allow respondents to answer in their own words. Because there are no restrictions on their choices, respondents can answer in ways that researchers may not have otherwise considered.

A questionnaire is a data collection tool or instrument, while a survey is an overarching research method that involves collecting and analyzing data from people using questionnaires.

The third variable and directionality problems are two main reasons why correlation isn’t causation .

The third variable problem means that a confounding variable affects both variables to make them seem causally related when they are not.

The directionality problem is when two variables correlate and might actually have a causal relationship, but it’s impossible to conclude which variable causes changes in the other.

Correlation describes an association between variables : when one variable changes, so does the other. A correlation is a statistical indicator of the relationship between variables.

Causation means that changes in one variable brings about changes in the other (i.e., there is a cause-and-effect relationship between variables). The two variables are correlated with each other, and there’s also a causal link between them.

While causation and correlation can exist simultaneously, correlation does not imply causation. In other words, correlation is simply a relationship where A relates to B—but A doesn’t necessarily cause B to happen (or vice versa). Mistaking correlation for causation is a common error and can lead to false cause fallacy .

Controlled experiments establish causality, whereas correlational studies only show associations between variables.

• In an experimental design , you manipulate an independent variable and measure its effect on a dependent variable. Other variables are controlled so they can’t impact the results.
• In a correlational design , you measure variables without manipulating any of them. You can test whether your variables change together, but you can’t be sure that one variable caused a change in another.

In general, correlational research is high in external validity while experimental research is high in internal validity .

A correlation is usually tested for two variables at a time, but you can test correlations between three or more variables.

A correlation coefficient is a single number that describes the strength and direction of the relationship between your variables.

Different types of correlation coefficients might be appropriate for your data based on their levels of measurement and distributions . The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r ) is commonly used to assess a linear relationship between two quantitative variables.

A correlational research design investigates relationships between two variables (or more) without the researcher controlling or manipulating any of them. It’s a non-experimental type of quantitative research .

A correlation reflects the strength and/or direction of the association between two or more variables.

• A positive correlation means that both variables change in the same direction.
• A negative correlation means that the variables change in opposite directions.
• A zero correlation means there’s no relationship between the variables.

Random error  is almost always present in scientific studies, even in highly controlled settings. While you can’t eradicate it completely, you can reduce random error by taking repeated measurements, using a large sample, and controlling extraneous variables .

You can avoid systematic error through careful design of your sampling , data collection , and analysis procedures. For example, use triangulation to measure your variables using multiple methods; regularly calibrate instruments or procedures; use random sampling and random assignment ; and apply masking (blinding) where possible.

Systematic error is generally a bigger problem in research.

With random error, multiple measurements will tend to cluster around the true value. When you’re collecting data from a large sample , the errors in different directions will cancel each other out.

Systematic errors are much more problematic because they can skew your data away from the true value. This can lead you to false conclusions ( Type I and II errors ) about the relationship between the variables you’re studying.

Random and systematic error are two types of measurement error.

Random error is a chance difference between the observed and true values of something (e.g., a researcher misreading a weighing scale records an incorrect measurement).

Systematic error is a consistent or proportional difference between the observed and true values of something (e.g., a miscalibrated scale consistently records weights as higher than they actually are).

On graphs, the explanatory variable is conventionally placed on the x-axis, while the response variable is placed on the y-axis.

• If you have quantitative variables , use a scatterplot or a line graph.
• If your response variable is categorical, use a scatterplot or a line graph.
• If your explanatory variable is categorical, use a bar graph.

The term “ explanatory variable ” is sometimes preferred over “ independent variable ” because, in real world contexts, independent variables are often influenced by other variables. This means they aren’t totally independent.

Multiple independent variables may also be correlated with each other, so “explanatory variables” is a more appropriate term.

The difference between explanatory and response variables is simple:

• An explanatory variable is the expected cause, and it explains the results.
• A response variable is the expected effect, and it responds to other variables.

In a controlled experiment , all extraneous variables are held constant so that they can’t influence the results. Controlled experiments require:

• A control group that receives a standard treatment, a fake treatment, or no treatment.
• Random assignment of participants to ensure the groups are equivalent.

Depending on your study topic, there are various other methods of controlling variables .

There are 4 main types of extraneous variables :

• Demand characteristics : environmental cues that encourage participants to conform to researchers’ expectations.
• Experimenter effects : unintentional actions by researchers that influence study outcomes.
• Situational variables : environmental variables that alter participants’ behaviors.
• Participant variables : any characteristic or aspect of a participant’s background that could affect study results.

An extraneous variable is any variable that you’re not investigating that can potentially affect the dependent variable of your research study.

A confounding variable is a type of extraneous variable that not only affects the dependent variable, but is also related to the independent variable.

In a factorial design, multiple independent variables are tested.

If you test two variables, each level of one independent variable is combined with each level of the other independent variable to create different conditions.

Within-subjects designs have many potential threats to internal validity , but they are also very statistically powerful .

Advantages:

• Only requires small samples
• Statistically powerful
• Removes the effects of individual differences on the outcomes

Disadvantages:

• Internal validity threats reduce the likelihood of establishing a direct relationship between variables
• Time-related effects, such as growth, can influence the outcomes
• Carryover effects mean that the specific order of different treatments affect the outcomes

While a between-subjects design has fewer threats to internal validity , it also requires more participants for high statistical power than a within-subjects design .

• Prevents carryover effects of learning and fatigue.
• Shorter study duration.
• Needs larger samples for high power.
• Uses more resources to recruit participants, administer sessions, cover costs, etc.
• Individual differences may be an alternative explanation for results.

Yes. Between-subjects and within-subjects designs can be combined in a single study when you have two or more independent variables (a factorial design). In a mixed factorial design, one variable is altered between subjects and another is altered within subjects.

In a between-subjects design , every participant experiences only one condition, and researchers assess group differences between participants in various conditions.

In a within-subjects design , each participant experiences all conditions, and researchers test the same participants repeatedly for differences between conditions.

The word “between” means that you’re comparing different conditions between groups, while the word “within” means you’re comparing different conditions within the same group.

Random assignment is used in experiments with a between-groups or independent measures design. In this research design, there’s usually a control group and one or more experimental groups. Random assignment helps ensure that the groups are comparable.

In general, you should always use random assignment in this type of experimental design when it is ethically possible and makes sense for your study topic.

To implement random assignment , assign a unique number to every member of your study’s sample .

Then, you can use a random number generator or a lottery method to randomly assign each number to a control or experimental group. You can also do so manually, by flipping a coin or rolling a dice to randomly assign participants to groups.

Random selection, or random sampling , is a way of selecting members of a population for your study’s sample.

In contrast, random assignment is a way of sorting the sample into control and experimental groups.

Random sampling enhances the external validity or generalizability of your results, while random assignment improves the internal validity of your study.

In experimental research, random assignment is a way of placing participants from your sample into different groups using randomization. With this method, every member of the sample has a known or equal chance of being placed in a control group or an experimental group.

“Controlling for a variable” means measuring extraneous variables and accounting for them statistically to remove their effects on other variables.

Researchers often model control variable data along with independent and dependent variable data in regression analyses and ANCOVAs . That way, you can isolate the control variable’s effects from the relationship between the variables of interest.

Control variables help you establish a correlational or causal relationship between variables by enhancing internal validity .

If you don’t control relevant extraneous variables , they may influence the outcomes of your study, and you may not be able to demonstrate that your results are really an effect of your independent variable .

A control variable is any variable that’s held constant in a research study. It’s not a variable of interest in the study, but it’s controlled because it could influence the outcomes.

Including mediators and moderators in your research helps you go beyond studying a simple relationship between two variables for a fuller picture of the real world. They are important to consider when studying complex correlational or causal relationships.

Mediators are part of the causal pathway of an effect, and they tell you how or why an effect takes place. Moderators usually help you judge the external validity of your study by identifying the limitations of when the relationship between variables holds.

If something is a mediating variable :

• It’s caused by the independent variable .
• It influences the dependent variable
• When it’s taken into account, the statistical correlation between the independent and dependent variables is higher than when it isn’t considered.

A confounder is a third variable that affects variables of interest and makes them seem related when they are not. In contrast, a mediator is the mechanism of a relationship between two variables: it explains the process by which they are related.

A mediator variable explains the process through which two variables are related, while a moderator variable affects the strength and direction of that relationship.

There are three key steps in systematic sampling :

• Define and list your population , ensuring that it is not ordered in a cyclical or periodic order.
• Decide on your sample size and calculate your interval, k , by dividing your population by your target sample size.
• Choose every k th member of the population as your sample.

Systematic sampling is a probability sampling method where researchers select members of the population at a regular interval – for example, by selecting every 15th person on a list of the population. If the population is in a random order, this can imitate the benefits of simple random sampling .

Yes, you can create a stratified sample using multiple characteristics, but you must ensure that every participant in your study belongs to one and only one subgroup. In this case, you multiply the numbers of subgroups for each characteristic to get the total number of groups.

For example, if you were stratifying by location with three subgroups (urban, rural, or suburban) and marital status with five subgroups (single, divorced, widowed, married, or partnered), you would have 3 x 5 = 15 subgroups.

You should use stratified sampling when your sample can be divided into mutually exclusive and exhaustive subgroups that you believe will take on different mean values for the variable that you’re studying.

Using stratified sampling will allow you to obtain more precise (with lower variance ) statistical estimates of whatever you are trying to measure.

For example, say you want to investigate how income differs based on educational attainment, but you know that this relationship can vary based on race. Using stratified sampling, you can ensure you obtain a large enough sample from each racial group, allowing you to draw more precise conclusions.

In stratified sampling , researchers divide subjects into subgroups called strata based on characteristics that they share (e.g., race, gender, educational attainment).

Once divided, each subgroup is randomly sampled using another probability sampling method.

Cluster sampling is more time- and cost-efficient than other probability sampling methods , particularly when it comes to large samples spread across a wide geographical area.

However, it provides less statistical certainty than other methods, such as simple random sampling , because it is difficult to ensure that your clusters properly represent the population as a whole.

There are three types of cluster sampling : single-stage, double-stage and multi-stage clustering. In all three types, you first divide the population into clusters, then randomly select clusters for use in your sample.

• In single-stage sampling , you collect data from every unit within the selected clusters.
• In double-stage sampling , you select a random sample of units from within the clusters.
• In multi-stage sampling , you repeat the procedure of randomly sampling elements from within the clusters until you have reached a manageable sample.

Cluster sampling is a probability sampling method in which you divide a population into clusters, such as districts or schools, and then randomly select some of these clusters as your sample.

The clusters should ideally each be mini-representations of the population as a whole.

If properly implemented, simple random sampling is usually the best sampling method for ensuring both internal and external validity . However, it can sometimes be impractical and expensive to implement, depending on the size of the population to be studied,

If you have a list of every member of the population and the ability to reach whichever members are selected, you can use simple random sampling.

The American Community Survey  is an example of simple random sampling . In order to collect detailed data on the population of the US, the Census Bureau officials randomly select 3.5 million households per year and use a variety of methods to convince them to fill out the survey.

Simple random sampling is a type of probability sampling in which the researcher randomly selects a subset of participants from a population . Each member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. Data is then collected from as large a percentage as possible of this random subset.

Quasi-experimental design is most useful in situations where it would be unethical or impractical to run a true experiment .

Quasi-experiments have lower internal validity than true experiments, but they often have higher external validity  as they can use real-world interventions instead of artificial laboratory settings.

A quasi-experiment is a type of research design that attempts to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. The main difference with a true experiment is that the groups are not randomly assigned.

Blinding is important to reduce research bias (e.g., observer bias , demand characteristics ) and ensure a study’s internal validity .

If participants know whether they are in a control or treatment group , they may adjust their behavior in ways that affect the outcome that researchers are trying to measure. If the people administering the treatment are aware of group assignment, they may treat participants differently and thus directly or indirectly influence the final results.

• In a single-blind study , only the participants are blinded.
• In a double-blind study , both participants and experimenters are blinded.
• In a triple-blind study , the assignment is hidden not only from participants and experimenters, but also from the researchers analyzing the data.

Blinding means hiding who is assigned to the treatment group and who is assigned to the control group in an experiment .

A true experiment (a.k.a. a controlled experiment) always includes at least one control group that doesn’t receive the experimental treatment.

However, some experiments use a within-subjects design to test treatments without a control group. In these designs, you usually compare one group’s outcomes before and after a treatment (instead of comparing outcomes between different groups).

For strong internal validity , it’s usually best to include a control group if possible. Without a control group, it’s harder to be certain that the outcome was caused by the experimental treatment and not by other variables.

An experimental group, also known as a treatment group, receives the treatment whose effect researchers wish to study, whereas a control group does not. They should be identical in all other ways.

Individual Likert-type questions are generally considered ordinal data , because the items have clear rank order, but don’t have an even distribution.

Overall Likert scale scores are sometimes treated as interval data. These scores are considered to have directionality and even spacing between them.

The type of data determines what statistical tests you should use to analyze your data.

A Likert scale is a rating scale that quantitatively assesses opinions, attitudes, or behaviors. It is made up of 4 or more questions that measure a single attitude or trait when response scores are combined.

To use a Likert scale in a survey , you present participants with Likert-type questions or statements, and a continuum of items, usually with 5 or 7 possible responses, to capture their degree of agreement.

In scientific research, concepts are the abstract ideas or phenomena that are being studied (e.g., educational achievement). Variables are properties or characteristics of the concept (e.g., performance at school), while indicators are ways of measuring or quantifying variables (e.g., yearly grade reports).

The process of turning abstract concepts into measurable variables and indicators is called operationalization .

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

• Prepare and organize your data.
• Review and explore your data.
• Develop a data coding system.
• Assign codes to the data.
• Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

There are five common approaches to qualitative research :

• Grounded theory involves collecting data in order to develop new theories.
• Ethnography involves immersing yourself in a group or organization to understand its culture.
• Narrative research involves interpreting stories to understand how people make sense of their experiences and perceptions.
• Phenomenological research involves investigating phenomena through people’s lived experiences.
• Action research links theory and practice in several cycles to drive innovative changes.

Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.

Operationalization means turning abstract conceptual ideas into measurable observations.

For example, the concept of social anxiety isn’t directly observable, but it can be operationally defined in terms of self-rating scores, behavioral avoidance of crowded places, or physical anxiety symptoms in social situations.

Before collecting data , it’s important to consider how you will operationalize the variables that you want to measure.

When conducting research, collecting original data has significant advantages:

• You can tailor data collection to your specific research aims (e.g. understanding the needs of your consumers or user testing your website)
• You can control and standardize the process for high reliability and validity (e.g. choosing appropriate measurements and sampling methods )

However, there are also some drawbacks: data collection can be time-consuming, labor-intensive and expensive. In some cases, it’s more efficient to use secondary data that has already been collected by someone else, but the data might be less reliable.

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organizations.

There are several methods you can use to decrease the impact of confounding variables on your research: restriction, matching, statistical control and randomization.

In restriction , you restrict your sample by only including certain subjects that have the same values of potential confounding variables.

In matching , you match each of the subjects in your treatment group with a counterpart in the comparison group. The matched subjects have the same values on any potential confounding variables, and only differ in the independent variable .

In statistical control , you include potential confounders as variables in your regression .

In randomization , you randomly assign the treatment (or independent variable) in your study to a sufficiently large number of subjects, which allows you to control for all potential confounding variables.

A confounding variable is closely related to both the independent and dependent variables in a study. An independent variable represents the supposed cause , while the dependent variable is the supposed effect . A confounding variable is a third variable that influences both the independent and dependent variables.

Failing to account for confounding variables can cause you to wrongly estimate the relationship between your independent and dependent variables.

To ensure the internal validity of your research, you must consider the impact of confounding variables. If you fail to account for them, you might over- or underestimate the causal relationship between your independent and dependent variables , or even find a causal relationship where none exists.

Yes, but including more than one of either type requires multiple research questions .

For example, if you are interested in the effect of a diet on health, you can use multiple measures of health: blood sugar, blood pressure, weight, pulse, and many more. Each of these is its own dependent variable with its own research question.

You could also choose to look at the effect of exercise levels as well as diet, or even the additional effect of the two combined. Each of these is a separate independent variable .

To ensure the internal validity of an experiment , you should only change one independent variable at a time.

No. The value of a dependent variable depends on an independent variable, so a variable cannot be both independent and dependent at the same time. It must be either the cause or the effect, not both!

You want to find out how blood sugar levels are affected by drinking diet soda and regular soda, so you conduct an experiment .

• The type of soda – diet or regular – is the independent variable .
• The level of blood sugar that you measure is the dependent variable – it changes depending on the type of soda.

Determining cause and effect is one of the most important parts of scientific research. It’s essential to know which is the cause – the independent variable – and which is the effect – the dependent variable.

In non-probability sampling , the sample is selected based on non-random criteria, and not every member of the population has a chance of being included.

Common non-probability sampling methods include convenience sampling , voluntary response sampling, purposive sampling , snowball sampling, and quota sampling .

Probability sampling means that every member of the target population has a known chance of being included in the sample.

Probability sampling methods include simple random sampling , systematic sampling , stratified sampling , and cluster sampling .

Using careful research design and sampling procedures can help you avoid sampling bias . Oversampling can be used to correct undercoverage bias .

Some common types of sampling bias include self-selection bias , nonresponse bias , undercoverage bias , survivorship bias , pre-screening or advertising bias, and healthy user bias.

Sampling bias is a threat to external validity – it limits the generalizability of your findings to a broader group of people.

A sampling error is the difference between a population parameter and a sample statistic .

A statistic refers to measures about the sample , while a parameter refers to measures about the population .

Populations are used when a research question requires data from every member of the population. This is usually only feasible when the population is small and easily accessible.

Samples are used to make inferences about populations . Samples are easier to collect data from because they are practical, cost-effective, convenient, and manageable.

There are seven threats to external validity : selection bias , history, experimenter effect, Hawthorne effect , testing effect, aptitude-treatment and situation effect.

The two types of external validity are population validity (whether you can generalize to other groups of people) and ecological validity (whether you can generalize to other situations and settings).

The external validity of a study is the extent to which you can generalize your findings to different groups of people, situations, and measures.

Cross-sectional studies cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship or analyze behavior over a period of time. To investigate cause and effect, you need to do a longitudinal study or an experimental study .

Cross-sectional studies are less expensive and time-consuming than many other types of study. They can provide useful insights into a population’s characteristics and identify correlations for further research.

Sometimes only cross-sectional data is available for analysis; other times your research question may only require a cross-sectional study to answer it.

Longitudinal studies can last anywhere from weeks to decades, although they tend to be at least a year long.

The 1970 British Cohort Study , which has collected data on the lives of 17,000 Brits since their births in 1970, is one well-known example of a longitudinal study .

Longitudinal studies are better to establish the correct sequence of events, identify changes over time, and provide insight into cause-and-effect relationships, but they also tend to be more expensive and time-consuming than other types of studies.

Longitudinal studies and cross-sectional studies are two different types of research design . In a cross-sectional study you collect data from a population at a specific point in time; in a longitudinal study you repeatedly collect data from the same sample over an extended period of time.

There are eight threats to internal validity : history, maturation, instrumentation, testing, selection bias , regression to the mean, social interaction and attrition .

Internal validity is the extent to which you can be confident that a cause-and-effect relationship established in a study cannot be explained by other factors.

In mixed methods research , you use both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods to answer your research question .

The research methods you use depend on the type of data you need to answer your research question .

• If you want to measure something or test a hypothesis , use quantitative methods . If you want to explore ideas, thoughts and meanings, use qualitative methods .
• If you want to analyze a large amount of readily-available data, use secondary data. If you want data specific to your purposes with control over how it is generated, collect primary data.
• If you want to establish cause-and-effect relationships between variables , use experimental methods. If you want to understand the characteristics of a research subject, use descriptive methods.

A confounding variable , also called a confounder or confounding factor, is a third variable in a study examining a potential cause-and-effect relationship.

A confounding variable is related to both the supposed cause and the supposed effect of the study. It can be difficult to separate the true effect of the independent variable from the effect of the confounding variable.

In your research design , it’s important to identify potential confounding variables and plan how you will reduce their impact.

Discrete and continuous variables are two types of quantitative variables :

• Discrete variables represent counts (e.g. the number of objects in a collection).
• Continuous variables represent measurable amounts (e.g. water volume or weight).

Quantitative variables are any variables where the data represent amounts (e.g. height, weight, or age).

Categorical variables are any variables where the data represent groups. This includes rankings (e.g. finishing places in a race), classifications (e.g. brands of cereal), and binary outcomes (e.g. coin flips).

You need to know what type of variables you are working with to choose the right statistical test for your data and interpret your results .

You can think of independent and dependent variables in terms of cause and effect: an independent variable is the variable you think is the cause , while a dependent variable is the effect .

In an experiment, you manipulate the independent variable and measure the outcome in the dependent variable. For example, in an experiment about the effect of nutrients on crop growth:

• The  independent variable  is the amount of nutrients added to the crop field.
• The  dependent variable is the biomass of the crops at harvest time.

Defining your variables, and deciding how you will manipulate and measure them, is an important part of experimental design .

Experimental design means planning a set of procedures to investigate a relationship between variables . To design a controlled experiment, you need:

• A testable hypothesis
• At least one independent variable that can be precisely manipulated
• At least one dependent variable that can be precisely measured

When designing the experiment, you decide:

• How you will manipulate the variable(s)
• How you will control for any potential confounding variables
• How many subjects or samples will be included in the study
• How subjects will be assigned to treatment levels

Experimental design is essential to the internal and external validity of your experiment.

I nternal validity is the degree of confidence that the causal relationship you are testing is not influenced by other factors or variables .

External validity is the extent to which your results can be generalized to other contexts.

The validity of your experiment depends on your experimental design .

Reliability and validity are both about how well a method measures something:

• Reliability refers to the  consistency of a measure (whether the results can be reproduced under the same conditions).
• Validity   refers to the  accuracy of a measure (whether the results really do represent what they are supposed to measure).

If you are doing experimental research, you also have to consider the internal and external validity of your experiment.

A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population . Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research. For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.

In statistics, sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population.

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research project . It involves studying the methods used in your field and the theories or principles behind them, in order to develop an approach that matches your objectives.

Methods are the specific tools and procedures you use to collect and analyze data (for example, experiments, surveys , and statistical tests ).

In shorter scientific papers, where the aim is to report the findings of a specific study, you might simply describe what you did in a methods section .

In a longer or more complex research project, such as a thesis or dissertation , you will probably include a methodology section , where you explain your approach to answering the research questions and cite relevant sources to support your choice of methods.

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem.  We  are always here for you.

• Email [email protected]
• Start live chat
• Call +1 (510) 822-8066
• WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Our team helps students graduate by offering:

• A world-class citation generator
• Plagiarism Checker software powered by Turnitin
• Innovative Citation Checker software
• Professional proofreading services
• Over 300 helpful articles about academic writing, citing sources, plagiarism, and more

Scribbr specializes in editing study-related documents . We proofread:

• PhD dissertations
• Research proposals
• Personal statements
• Admission essays
• Motivation letters
• Reflection papers
• Journal articles
• Capstone projects

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker is powered by elements of Turnitin’s Similarity Checker , namely the plagiarism detection software and the Internet Archive and Premium Scholarly Publications content databases .

The add-on AI detector is powered by Scribbr’s proprietary software.

The Scribbr Citation Generator is developed using the open-source Citation Style Language (CSL) project and Frank Bennett’s citeproc-js . It’s the same technology used by dozens of other popular citation tools, including Mendeley and Zotero.

You can find all the citation styles and locales used in the Scribbr Citation Generator in our publicly accessible repository on Github .

Research Misconduct

What is research misconduct.

Research misconduct is defined by federal law and university policy as fabrication, falsification and/or plagiarism in proposing or performing research or in reporting research results.

• 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 such that the research is not accurately represented in the research records.
• Plagiarism is the appropriation (using) of another person’s ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit. 

An honest error, differences of opinion, and authorship/credit disputes do not constitute research misconduct.

Definitions:

Research Integrity Officer (RIO): the individual responsible for oversight of research misconduct at the University.

Respondent: the individual about whom an allegation of research misconduct has been made

Complainant: the individual who makes an allegation of research misconduct

A finding of research misconduct requires that the respondent engages in conduct which constitutes a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community and that the misconduct is committed intentionally, knowingly or recklessly.

What is the process for investigating a research misconduct allegation?

When the Office of Research Compliance and Integrity or the University Research Integrity Officer (RIO) receives an allegation of research misconduct from a complainant, the RIO conducts a preliminary assessment to determine whether 1) the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct and 2) the allegation is credible and specific enough so that evidence of the misconduct can be identified. Often, faculty members or staff who have expertise in the subject area assist with the assessment.

If the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct and there is sufficient evidence to support an allegation of misconduct, the RIO appoints a panel of UC Merced faculty and/or staff members who have the expertise to review the matter. The inquiry panel reviews available evidence and interviews key witnesses. If the inquiry panel concludes there is evidence of research misconduct, the next step is a full investigation.

During an investigation, a separate panel of experts explores the evidence in depth and interviews all relevant witnesses. At the conclusion of the investigation, the panel makes a recommendation regarding whether the respondent engaged in research misconduct and, if so, whether the respondent acted intentionally, knowingly or recklessly.

The panel’s recommendation is transmitted to the RIO, who decides whether to accept the panel’s conclusions.

The Office of Research Compliance and Integrity has developed the UC Merced Research Misconduct Policy outlining procedures taken when an allegation of research misconduct is received.

Please see this policy below for more detail about the assessment, inquiry, and investigation process and the rights of the individuals involved.

How can I avoid being involved in research misconduct?

Research misconduct investigations are difficult for everyone involved, particularly the respondent. The following are some strategies researchers can employ to avoid being the subject of an allegation of research misconduct:

• Discuss authorship with all research collaborators at the outset of a project so everyone involved understands who will be listed as an author, and the expectations regarding the use of the data by those involved in the research.
• Monitor the research in which you are involved –- inform your staff, students and collaborators, that you will verify data collection, entry and reporting. Ask questions about questionable results.
• Set reasonable expectations about the time it will take to collect the necessary data.
• Maintain thorough and complete research records.
• Respect the research process.
• Do not stray from the protocol without obtaining the necessary approvals.
• Communicate any actual or perceived problems with the research. Most research misconduct allegations are the product of communication difficulties between researchers.
• Carefully and accurately report the research. Be specific about methods and procedures used and the data obtained.
• Thoroughly review all papers where you are listed as an author.
• Do not give or agree to guest-author status.
• Promote research integrity –- teach the responsible conduct of research in your courses and labs and encourage attendance at Responsible Conduct of Research programs sponsored by the Office of Research Compliance and Integrity.

How do I report suspected research misconduct?

If you suspect that research misconduct has occurred, you can report your suspicion directly to the UC Merced RIO, Vice Chancellor Gillian Wilson at  [email protected] . 

If you are not sure whether your complaint constitutes a complaint of research misconduct, you can consult with Leslie Teixeira-Porto at  [email protected] or 209.259.8335 or with the RIO, VCR Wilson confidentially.

Resources on Research Misconduct

• Office of Research Integrity
• Department of Health and Human Services
• Federal Policy on Research Misconduct 42 CFR 50, 93
• UC Merced Policy and Procedures on Research Misconduct
• UC Statement of Ethical Values
• UC Policy on Research Misconduct
• Making the Right Moves: A Practical Guide to Scientific Management for Postdocs and New Faculty Members
• ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research

Additional Links

• Executive Leadership
• University Library
• School of Engineering
• School of Natural Sciences
• School of Social Sciences, Humanities & Arts
• Ernest & Julio Gallo Management Program
• Division of Graduate Education
• Division of Undergraduate Education

Administration

• Office of the Chancellor
• Office of Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
• Equity, Justice and Inclusive Excellence
• External Relations
• Finance & Administration
• Physical Operations, Planning and Development
• Student Affairs
• Research and Economic Development
• Office of Information Technology

University of California, Merced 5200 North Lake Rd. Merced, CA 95343 Telephone: (209) 228-4400

• © 2024
• About UC Merced
• Privacy/Legal
• Site Feedback
• Accessibility

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Reporting Allegations of Research Misconduct or Scientific Integrity Concerns

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is a global leader in public health. As such, CDC requires that its science is conducted responsibly, with integrity, and meets current ethical standards. CDC treats scientific integrity very seriously. Please contact us with any concerns.

Under applicable federal regulations found at 42 CFR Part 93, research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research misconduct does not include honest errors, differences of opinion, or authorship disputes.

The CDC Scientific Integrity Officer (SIO) in the CDC Office of Science receives and assesses good faith allegations of research misconduct and other scientific integrity concerns. Persons with concerns about possible research misconduct may request an informal consultation with the SIO to discuss the concerns in a hypothetical manner, prior to submitting formal written allegations. Confidentiality will be maintained to the extent possible.

Allegations or questions may be shared with the Scientific Integrity Officer (SIO) at [email protected] .

Submitting an allegation:

Written allegations should be submitted directly to the SIO as soon as research misconduct is suspected.

To enable a more thorough assessment of your concerns, when submitting your allegation, please include as much of the following information as possible:

• Describe your concern, including what research you believe has been falsified, fabricated or plagiarized, and how.
• Describe the research records, research process, presentations or publications you believe are affected, including any relevant details, such as dates, times, locations, and citations.
• If possible, name the individuals you believe may have committed the alleged misconduct, any witnesses, and, if known their CDC affiliations and contact information.
• Include any other information you believe is relevant or supporting documents.

CDC reviews allegations of research misconduct through a standardized process consistent with the CDC Research Misconduct Policy  and Public Health Service Regulations , available at these links.  Federal law protects whistleblowers from retaliation.

To discuss scientific integrity concerns or report suspected research misconduct , contact the CDC Scientific Integrity Official:  [email protected] .

To receive email updates about this page, enter your email address:

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

HHS Finalizes Rule on Research Misconduct to Foster Research Integrity

ORI issued the 2024 Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct to increase transparency, efficiency, and objectivity in research misconduct proceedings

Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), finalized the 2024 Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct. This rule updates the 2005 regulation and clarifies requirements for addressing research misconduct in PHS-funded research.

“The research landscape has changed over the past 20 years, thanks to new technology, scientific advances, and the globalization of research. To preserve the integrity of the research that we help to fund, it is necessary to update the regulations around how that research is conducted. And that is what we are doing today,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra. “The Biden-Harris Administration continues to support cutting-edge research to help discover novel treatments for various illnesses, including cancer, and to address the health effects of climate change. The successful results of this work save countless lives worldwide and helps to improve the health and well-being of all Americans.”

This updated regulation clarifies both ORI’s regulatory oversight responsibilities and the role of PHS-funded organizations in institutionalizing research integrity in addition to refining requirements for addressing research misconduct in PHS-funded research.

“ORI’s role in overseeing research integrity activities for PHS funding is critical to ensuring pioneering research is conducted with integrity,” said Admiral Rachel Levine, Assistant Secretary for Health. “The 2024 Final Rule aims to increase collaboration, transparency and efficiency in an ever-evolving research landscape that is much needed to bring life-saving treatments and interventions to those who need it the most.”

The 2024 Final Rule highlights several major updates to the 2005 regulation:

• Clarifying institutional confidentiality obligations and identifying areas of institutional discretion, such as notifying journals to correct the research record due to a finding of research misconduct.
• Providing a clearer description of research misconduct investigation requirements, distinguishing requirements for transcribed interviews, the pursuit of leads, and addressing situations involving multiple respondents.
• Acknowledging institutional discretion to make determinations of honest error and the application of subsequent use exception when evidence of misconduct occurred.
• Describing the institutional assessment as a pre-investigation phase within the purview of institutional best practices and realistic timelines—while clarifying institutional documentation requirements for ORI oversight.
• Extending the timeline of institutional inquiries from 60 to 90 days. The updated regulation also clarifies that formal transcribed interviews are not required during assessments and inquiries.
• Highlighting that institutional findings are separate from ORI findings and clarifying institutional discretion to publish findings if they so choose.
• Providing a clear appeal process and administrative remedies for respondents.
• Adding commonly used definitions to clearly highlight how these concepts are applied by ORI when conducting oversight of research misconduct proceedings.

“The research landscape has changed over the past 20 years with new technology, scientific advances, and globalization, which increases the need for ORI to remain nimble and collaborative. ORI is committed to keeping up with the needs of the research community,” said ORI Director Sheila Garrity. “The Final Rule aims to adapt to our current time, support our colleagues in the research community, and fortify ORI’s role in fostering research integrity and preserving public trust in science for future generations.”

The Final Rule takes effect January 1, 2025, and becomes applicable on January 1, 2026. In the coming months, ORI plans to release sample policies and guidance to help prepare PHS-funded entities. The Final Rule can be found here https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2024-20814/public-health-service-policies-on-research-misconduct .

Sign Up for Email Updates

Receive the latest updates from the Secretary, Blogs, and News Releases

Subscribe to RSS

Receive latest updates

Related News Releases

Biden-harris administration issues proposed rule to expand access to life-saving organs for people with hiv, alison barkoff announces departure from hhs, breaking language barriers: hhs issues division-specific language access plans from across the department, related blog posts.

OCIO Embracing Diversity: A Celebration of Cultures through Food

Navigating Section 752: Insights from Program Managers on Success, Challenges, and Tools for Change

OCIO’s “Team of Teams”

Media inquiries.

For general media inquiries, please contact  [email protected] .

Disclaimer Policy: Links with this icon ( ) mean that you are leaving the HHS website.

• The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cannot guarantee the accuracy of a non-federal website.
• Linking to a non-federal website does not mean that HHS or its employees endorse the sponsors, information, or products presented on the website. HHS links outside of itself to provide you with further information.
• You will be bound by the destination website's privacy policy and/or terms of service when you follow the link.
• HHS is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on private websites.

For more information on HHS's web notification policies, see Website Disclaimers .

Explanations of Research Misconduct, and How They Hang Together

• Open access
• Published: 19 May 2021
• Volume 52 , pages 543–561, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Tamarinde Haven   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4702-2472 1 &
• René van Woudenberg   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1169-6539 1  

12k Accesses

7 Citations

20 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In this paper, we explore different possible explanations for research misconduct (especially falsification and fabrication), and investigate whether they are compatible. We suggest that to explain research misconduct, we should pay attention to three factors: (1) the beliefs and desires of the misconductor, (2) contextual affordances, (3) and unconscious biases or influences. We draw on the three different narratives (individual, institutional, system of science) of research misconduct as proposed by Sovacool to review six different explanations. Four theories start from the individual: Rational Choice theory, Bad Apple theory, General Strain Theory and Prospect Theory. Organizational Justice Theory focuses on institutional factors, while New Public Management targets the system of science. For each theory, we illustrate the kinds of facts that must be known in order for explanations based on them to have minimal plausibility. We suggest that none can constitute a full explanation. Finally, we explore how the different possible explanations interrelate. We find that they are compatible, with the exception of explanations based on Rational Choice Theory and Prospect Theory respectively, which are incompatible with one another. For illustrative purposes we examine the case of Diederik Stapel.

Similar content being viewed by others

What Crisis? Management Researchers’ Experiences with and Views of Scholarly Misconduct

Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies

Systemic explanations of scientific misconduct: provoked by spectacular cases of norm violation.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Over the past few years, interest in research misconduct has substantially increased (Gunsalus 2019 ). While not everyone agrees about what should be labeled a research mis behavior , there is general consensus on what has been called research mis conduct : falsification, fabrication and plagiarism (FFP) (Lafollette 2000 ; Steneck 2006 ). This consensus is reflected in codes of conduct, both national and international (ECoC 2017 ; NCCRI 2018 ).

This paper has a twofold aim. First, to explore and discuss a number of possible explanations of research misconduct, and second to use this as a case study for the more philosophical question: how do these different explanations relate to one another: are they compatible, or are they not?

This paper potentially has practical relevance in that explanations of research misconduct can be expected to give a handle on what can be done to prevent research misconduct. This being said, this paper focuses on explanation, not prevention.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sect.  1 we describe various types of research misconduct, and describe one actual case for concreteness’ sake, as well as for the sake of future reference. Section  2 discusses what to expect from an explanation. The next section presents and discusses a number of explanations of research misconduct and explores what needs to be known if those explanations are to have some minimum level of credibility. In Sect.  4 we discuss the more philosophical question of how these explanations hang together. We conclude with some overall remarks.

2 Research Misconduct

The most extreme kinds of research misbehaviors—fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP)—are at the same time not the most frequent ones (Martinson et al. 2005 ; Fanelli 2009 ). Much more frequent are the numerous ‘minor offences’, the many cases of ‘sloppy science’, the ‘questionable research practices’ (QRPs) (Steneck 2006 ). According to recent surveys, examples of frequent QRPs are: failing to report all dependent measures that are relevant for a finding (Fiedler and Schwarz 2016 ), insufficient supervision of junior co-workers (Haven et al. 2019 ); selective citing to enhance one’s own findings or conviction; and not publishing a ‘negative’ study (Bouter et al. 2016 ; Maggio et al. 2019 ). Despite their presumed frequency, assessment of the wrongness of the QRPs can be less than straightforward. Here, context, extent and frequency matter. The wrongness of FFP is more evident and codes of conduct are typically developed in order to prevent these. (For an excellent overview of different reasons for using a wide or narrow concept of research misconduct, see Faria 2018 ).

The reason why research misconduct needs to be prevented is somewhat different for falsification and fabrication compared to plagiarism. Whereas falsification and fabrication distort the creation of scientific knowledge, plagiarism need not distort the field nor hamper its progress. Plagiarism fails to connect the knowledge to its proper origin, but it need not distort scientific knowledge per se (Steneck 2006 ; Fanelli 2009 ). Also, explanations for plagiarism can be expected to differ from explanations for falsification and fabrication. Some plagiarism, for example, is committed by non-fluent English authors who borrow well-written sentences or even entire paragraphs for their own work, which is an explanation that is not available for cases of falsification and fabrication. We therefore focus on the latter two.

For illustrative purposes, we will examine a case of actual research misconduct in order to review the applicability of explanatory theories of research misconduct. We chose the case of Diederik Stapel for two main reasons. First, because his fraud has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Second, because there is sufficient publicly available information about the case: information about the committees’ way of assessing the case, as well as about Stapel’s own responses and reflections on his case. The more details of a case that are available, the better we can discuss the explanatory power of the theories we shall review. With the disclaimer that it is not our aim to provide an explanation of Stapel’s fraudulent behavior, and that others have produced interesting accounts of it (for example, see Abma 2013 ; Zwart 2017 ), we now offer a very brief description of the Stapel case.

Diederik Stapel was a professor of cognitive and social psychology. His research included topics such as the influence of power on morality, the influence of stereotyping and advertisements on self-perception and performance, and other eye-catching topics (Vogel 2011 ). He was an established figure whose findings often appeared in (inter-)national newspapers. Stapel was accused of data falsification by three whistle blowers from within Tilburg University, where Stapel was employed in 2011, the year the case became public. In total, three committees investigated whether Stapel’s work at the University of Amsterdam, University of Groningen and finally University of Tilburg, was indeed fraudulent (Levelt Committee, Noort Committee, Drenth Committee 2012 ). The committees established that, whilst the studies were carefully designed in consultation with collaborators, Stapel fabricated the data sets from scratch. In another variant, the data were gathered but altered by Stapel after a student-assistant had forwarded them to him. Finally, Stapel had at times reached out to colleagues inviting them to use some data he claimed to have ‘lying around’.

Stapel has admitted that he engaged in these practices. The committees concluded that Stapel intentionally falsified and fabricated data. None of Stapel’s co-authors were found to have collaborated with him in this regard. We will provide more information about the case as we proceed.

3 What to Expect From an Explanation

It is fair to say that currently, we have no single unifying theory of explanation (Woodward starts his book with a similar remark, see Woodward ( 2003 )). What we have is a wide assortment of ideas that are all claimed to be at least sometimes relevant for understanding explanation. One idea is that explanation is closely linked with causation : an explanation of X can be achieved by pinpointing the causal factors relevant to X. Another that it is closely linked to laws : an explanation of X is achieved by referring to laws under which X can be subsumed. Yet another idea is that explanation is linked with unification : an explanation of the phenomena X, Y and Z is achieved by showing that X, Y and Z are special cases of a more general phenomenon GP. A further idea is that explanation sometimes has to do with reasons (as opposed to causes): an explanation of a person’s action A is achieved by citing her reasons, i.e. her beliefs and desires, for doing A. Footnote 1 In the social and behavioural sciences, this idea is sometimes coupled with the idea mentioned above that explanation is linked with laws. This approach to explaining human behaviour aims to formulate empirical generalizations of the form: If person P desires D, and believes that action A is the most efficient means of attaining D, then P does A. The hope is that such generalizations can be improved so as to state genuine laws, laws that enable prediction. Whether this hope is a realistic one need not detain us here. The important point to note is that reference to a person’s reasons often has explanatory force.

However, it is often not just a person’s reasons that have explanatory force; they often have it in conjunction with what we shall call “affordances”: the specific situations in which a person acted and in which certain possibilities are open to him. The explanation of the fact that A shot B cannot consist of merely citing A’s desire that B be dead and his belief that pulling the trigger was a way to attain that goal. A factor in the explanation should surely be the availability of a gun to A. The availability of the gun is a contextual affordance for A.

We should add that some behaviors can be explained independently of the actor’s reasons, and independently even of the actor’s being aware of displaying those behaviors. There are unconscious influences on human behavior, like the biases and heuristics that psychologists have been researching, and reference to them can also do explanatory work (see Gilovich 1991 ; Kahneman 2011 ).

To conclude: if we want to explain cases of research misconduct, we should pay attention, among possible others, to the following factors:

I: the desires and beliefs of the misconductor, meaning his or her (motivating) reasons;

II: the contextual affordances available to the misconductor;

III: unconscious influences Footnote 2

In an actual case of misconduct, all these factors may be at work. We should therefore heed the distinction between partial and full explanations. A full explanation of an event specifies all the factors that jointly guarantee the occurrence of the event. A partial explanation, by contrast, specifies a factor, or several factors, that facilitate the occurrence of the event, but do not guarantee it. It remains an open question (for us at least) whether full explanations of human behavior are even possible.

Explanations in the social sciences can take various forms. One that will figure quite prominently in our discussion are inferences to the best explanation (IBEs). A key feature of IBEs is that the factor doing explanatory work is not directly observed, but concluded to. Footnote 3

4 Explanations of Research Misconduct

In a helpful article, Benjamin Sovacool ( 2008 ) distinguishes three ‘narratives’ about research misconduct: one in terms of (1) impure individuals, another in terms of the (2) failures of this-or-that particular university or research institute, and yet another in terms of (3) the corrupting structure of the practice of modern science as such—three narratives that he suggests are incommensurable. Even if these narratives do not explain in any straightforward way individual cases of research misconduct, they are helpful for two reasons.

First, narratives can deliver cognitive goods that are distinct from explanations—they can provide understanding. And, as Peter Lipton ( 2009 ) has argued, there can be understanding without explanation. Even if we have no explanation of Stapel’s fraudulent behavior, it does give insight into the whole affair if the evidence indicates that Stapel was only one bad apple, or if it indicates that the institute at which he worked was failing in important respects, or if the whole structure of science turns out to be corruptive. Second, Sovacool’s narratives are helpful as they do point to places we could look for explanations. For example, the narrative that a case of research misconduct is due to an impure individual (and not a failing research institute, nor something like the corruptive structure of science as such) does not explain in any detail why Stapel engaged in the misbehavior he did, but the narrative (if true) does point to what is needed for such an explanation: the nature of his impure character needs to be understood, so that we can see how Stapel’s specific impurity led to the misbehaviors that made him notorious. Likewise, the narrative that the misconduct is due to a failing research institute does not explain Stapel’s behavior, but it does point (if true) to where to look for an explanation: to the operative rules and procedures of the institute, perhaps, to its ‘culture’ or ‘climate’ (‘there was an atmosphere of terror’), etc.

Of course, things get complicated here. For if Stapel’s misbehaviors are due exclusively to factors covered in the narratives about the institutions he was part of (or about the structure of science as such), then we should expect other members of those institutions to have displayed similar misbehaviors—which, as far as we know, they have not. And this is a reason for thinking that Stapel’s misbehaviors are due not exclusively to institutional failings, but also, say, to personal impurities like character flaws. The distinction between partial and full explanations is a recognition of this complication.

We draw attention to the fact that whereas explanations under Sovacool’s first narrative will typically refer to type I and III factors (beliefs and desires; unconscious influences), explanations under Sovacool’s second and third narrative will refer to type II factors (contextual affordances). Since all these factors, possibly and likely, can play a role in cases of research misconduct, we need not assume that the explanations under Sovacool’s three narratives are per se incommensurable if that entails they are incompatible. In fact, as we will argue in Sect.  4 , most of these explanations are compatible with each other, as they are partial at best.

To conclude: Sovacool’s narratives do not offer explanations of cases of research misconduct, but they point to where to look for explanations. We discuss six Footnote 4 different (types of) theories that might help explain research misconduct. Footnote 5 Our aim here is to specify what we need to know about a specific case in order for such explanations to get a good start. Whether they are credible, is a further issue. We begin with four theories that fall under Sovacool’s first kind of narrative.

4.1 First: Rational Choice Theory

Sometimes labeled ‘rational choice theory’, this theory has its origins in economics. It starts from an individual that is portrayed as rationally considering different options to tackle a particular problem. Rational Choice says that an individual actor faced with a risky outcome selects the specific behavioral action that yields the maximized anticipated payoffs, where the utility of his behavior is weighted by the probabilities of its occurrence. The domain of the utility function is absolute benefits and costs. The individual weighs the costs and benefits attached to each option, and next makes the calculation, on the basis of which she makes a decision. Footnote 6 This theory, that refers to type I factors only (beliefs and desires), is appealed to in the research integrity literature by Wible ( 1992 ) as well as by Lacetera and Zirulia ( 2011 ).

Suppose we apply this theory to Stapel’s case. We will first describe what we think needs to be the case if this theory is going to provide an adequate explanation of his misconduct. Next we discuss whether (we know) these things are indeed the case.

If this theory is to explain Stapel’s misconduct, we should envisage Stapel as a rational agent Footnote 7 who is calculating the costs and benefits, i.e. the utility, of cheating compared to playing it fair (i.e. observing the rules and principles that we now find in the numerous Codes of Responsible Conduct of Research). The benefits of (undetected) cheating probably include: more publications (or: more publications with outcomes that would be considered remarkable), which would contribute to greater prestige, which would increase the chances of obtaining more research funds, which would mean gaining more visibility, power and influence. The costs of cheating probably include: the fear of being found out (and fear of whatever else is set in motion by it: retraction of publications, loss of research funds, loss of prestige, loss of job, etc.), which means that one must always be on one’s guard; loss of self-respect; not contributing to the (great!) cause of science. The costs of playing it fair include, probably: often having research results that are not significant and/or interesting, which decreases the likelihood of one’s research being published, which decreases the chances of getting research funds, and of making an impact. The benefits of playing it fair include: doing what one, from a moral point of view, ought to do, behaving in a responsible way (and virtue is its own reward, as the proverbial wisdom has it); increasing the chance that you will have research results that are genuine contributions to the cause of science; increasing the chance of receiving recognition that is based on substance.

If rational choice theory is going to give an adequate explanation of the falsifications and fabrications committed by Stapel, he must have engaged in a cost/benefit analysis of the cheating option as compared to the playing fairly option—and on that basis have decided that falsification and fabrication ‘pay’.

Is there any evidence that Stapel did engage in a cost/benefit analysis of this sort? There are two main types of possible evidence here: the misconduct investigation reports and Stapel’s own accounts. From the report (Levelt et al. 2012 ) on Stapel’s misconduct, we could deduce that the costs—at least, the fear of being found out—seemed low: “It was easy for researchers to go their own way. Nobody looked over their shoulder…” (p. 39). Stapel’s own account Footnote 8 also points in this direction: “So when I started to fake my studies, it was very, very easy. I was always alone. Nobody checked my work; everyone trusted me. I did everything myself. Everything. I thought up the idea, I did the experiment, and I evaluated the results. I was judge, jury, and executioner. I did everything myself because I wanted to be one of the elite, to create great things and score lots of major publications” (p. 118–119).

Yet, it remains somewhat questionable whether Stapel actually engaged in a cost/benefit analysis. But this does not mean that the rational choice theory explanation is false or wrong. Stapel’s engaging in such an analysis is at least a possible outcome of a rational choice IBE, for his fabrications and falsifications may be best explained by his having made a cost/benefit analysis. Whether it indeed is the best explanation, depends, of course, on the strength of alternative explanations. Moreover, as we noted, explanations can be partial . Rational choice theory, then, may offer only a part of a full (or fuller) explanation. As a matter of fact, this IBE, even if it is correct, can at best be a partial explanation only. For, as we suggested in the previous section, there must be contextual affordances (so type II factors), in this case: structures and systems that allow for the possibility of falsification and fabrication. And these affordances fall outside the scope of rational choice theory, as do type III factors.

4.2 Second: Bad Apple Theories

Like rational choice theory, this theory too has its roots in economics. Here, the individual is depicted as someone with a flawed (moral) character. This flawed character is subsequently causally linked to corrupt acts. Greed is sometimes deemed to be an element in a flawed character. An example of a full-scale faulty character has been labelled in the literature as the Machiavellian personality type, that deems that the prestige associated with a particular goal justifies any means to attain it, even if those would be seen as unethical. Hren et al. ( 2006 ) studied Machiavellism in relation to moral reasoning and Tijdink et al. linked personality types such as a Machiavellian character to research misbehaviour (Tijdink et al. 2016 ). Bad apple theories refer to type I factors only—to reasons that motivate certain characters to behave in certain ways.

If we apply this theory to Stapel and ask what should be the case if bad apple theories are to provide an adequate explanation of his misconduct, it is clear that he needs to have, or at the time have had, a flawed moral character—he needs to have a Machiavellian personality type for example, or some other flawed moral character. Footnote 9

Is there evidence that Stapel had a flawed moral character at the time—evidence coming from psychologists and psychiatrists, for example, who have done something like a personality-analysis on him? The only evidence that would point in that direction appears in Stapel’s own book (Stapel 2014 ): “ It takes strong legs to carry the weight of all that success. My legs were too weak. I slipped to the floor, while others—maybe wobbling, maybe with a stick to lean on—managed to stay upright. I wanted to do everything, to be good at everything. I wasn’t content with my averageness; I shut myself away, suppressed my emotions, pushed my morality to one side, and got drunk on success and the desire for answers and solutions.” (p. 148, emphasis original). Yet, this one passage seems insufficient as a basis for a solid psychological verdict on his character, and as far as we know we have nothing else to go on that is publicly available and would reliably demonstrate a flawed character.

Note that when we refer to a flawed character, we do not mean to insinuate that Stapel had no moral awareness whatsoever. The report (Levelt et al. 2012 ) on his misconduct explicitly mentions that he taught the research ethics course. Stapel’s account (Stapel 2014 ) confirms this: “I’m the teacher for the research ethics course, in which I get to discuss all the dilemmas with which I’m confronted every day, and for which I always make the wrong choice.” (p. 129).

Even if we have no solid basis to draw a conclusion about Stapel’s moral character, this doesn’t mean a bad apple explanation can be ruled out. For it is possible to make an IBE, based on a bad apple theory, to the effect that Stapel’s fraudulent conduct is best explained by the fact that he had, at the time, a flawed (moral) character. Whether this is really the best explanation, depends, again, on the strength of the available alternatives.

It seems clear, however, that bad apple theories, even insofar as they are correct, cannot give us a full explanation of Stapel’s misconduct. For there must be contextual affordances that allow flawed moral characters to commit acts of fabrication and falsification—and these are part of a full(er) explanation of the misconducts at hand.

4.3 Three: General Strain Theory

Another theory that could be headed under the individual narrative is General Strain Theory (henceforth: GST) as originally developed by Agnew ( 1992 ) who worked in the sociology of crime. GST sees misconduct as originating in stress or strain. These states of stress and strain bring about a negative emotional state in the researcher, like anger, sadness or depression—which are, broadly speaking, type I factors. As a third step, GST posits that the behavioral strategies researchers adhere to in order to cope with these negative states differ, and, importantly, strategies may include deviant behavior (in our case: research misconduct). This theory, which has been coined as playing a role in explaining research misbehavior by Martinson et al. ( 2010 ), is put forth in the Institute of Medicine’s report Fostering Integrity in Research (NASEM 2017 ), and recently came forward in research by Holtfreter et al. ( 2019 ) wherein they asked US scientists what factors they believed to play a role in research misconduct.

If this theory is to do explanatory work, we need to know whether Stapel faced prolonged stressful situations, so prolonged that they put him in a persistent negative state. The report on Stapel’s misconduct is silent on this issue. In his book, Stapel himself, though, talks of a persistent state of stress he experienced: “Nothing relaxes me any more… but I feel stressed and restless. I want everything, and everything has to happen now. I want out. I don’t want to have to write papers any more. I want to start over, get away from this fantasy world I’ve created, get out of this system of lies and half-truths, to another city, another job” (Stapel 2014 , 131). However, he experienced this after he got into the habit of altering his data.

GST theory presupposes that behavioral strategies to cope with the negative emotional states differ. Thus, whereas Stapel’s colleagues facing similar strains found other ways to cope, he turned to deviant behavior. But this is also a caveat: What exactly made Stapel turn to deviant strategies? Perhaps his environment was crucially different in some way, which fueled his urge to create spectacular results? In any case, GST can thus, at best, be a partial explanation. That is not to say that GST can be ruled out entirely, as it is possible, via an IBE, that his misconduct could be explained by GST—whether that is also the best explanation depends on the explanatory force of the alternative theories.

4.4 Four: Prospect Theory

The final theory that we shall consider under Sovacool’s first narrative is prospect theory. The roots of prospect theory lie in the psychology of risk, but the theory has also been used in behavioral economics. In their study of risky choice, Kahneman and Tversky ( 1979 ; Kahneman 2003 ) found that individuals are more strongly motivated by fear of loss than potential gain, and are inclined to avoid risk when faced with potential gains, yet seek risk when faced with potential losses. Bearing in mind that the reference point of the individual researcher matters (their context—whether that is one in which the researcher is faced with potential losses or gains), prospect theory would predict that researchers faced with potentially losing their job, tenure or other meaningful resources would be more prone to take risks, or in our case, to engage in research misconduct, than colleagues who face no such threats. This theory refers to type I and II factors, as the behavioral tendencies involved may, but need not, go unnoticed by the subject. The National Academies’ report Fostering Integrity in Research offers this as a possible explanation in its chapter on the causes of deviance (NASEM 2017 ).

For this theory to explain Stapel’s deeds, we need to know whether, at the point in time when he falsified or fabricated datasets, he was faced with the threat of losing his job, or tenure, or other meaningful resources. In addition, it would be useful to know if the opposite situation occurred, where Stapel was faced with a potential gain, perhaps greater chance of having his research accepted in a high-impact journal through the risky behavior of falsifying his data, and decided against it.

Stapel’s book contains a passage of his reflection that reads: “There was no pressure, no power politics, no need to produce patents or pills, to compete in the marketplace or make a pile of money. It was always purely academic, scientific research, which makes any form of cheating even harder to understand.” ( 2014 , 188). Another passage seems to point more at the potential for gain as a driving force: “I couldn’t resist the temptation to go a step further. I wanted it so badly. I wanted to belong, to be part of the action, to score. I really, really wanted to be really, really good. I wanted to be published in the best journals and speak in the largest room at conferences.” (p. 102–103).

The report (Levelt et al. 2012 ) does not provide direct information on these issues, but it does detail that 55 of Stapel’s publications rested on falsified or fabricated data. Even if we put aside the idea that different papers can be based on the same dataset, how often can one be faced with potentially losing their job, tenure or another meaningful resource? It seems likely that there were other factors at play, too. Again, that is not to say that prospect theory cannot be an explanation for research misconduct, but that it can at best be a partial explanation. And even if, in Stapel’s case, there was no direct evidence that he feared losing his job, this potential threat could be inferred via an IBE. This in turn sparks the question whether it is also the best explanation, given its competitors.

We now move on to consider a theory that aims to explain misconduct by referring to the institutions and organizations in which the perpetrator works, and thereafter to a theory that aims to explain it by referring to the structure of the practice of modern science in general. Explanations based on these theories refer to type II factors, contextual affordances.

4.5 Five: Organizational Culture Theories

These theories find their roots in organizational psychology. They have in common that they consider people as working in an organization with a specific culture and a particular structure, and argue that these have an effect on individuals and their behavior. An assumption underlying these theories is that there is a causal path from a certain organizational culture, to a particular mental state, to an individual’s behavior.

One particular organizational culture theory, called organizational justice theory, is based on the idea that people who perceive themselves to be treated fairly by their organization, Footnote 10 behave more fairly themselves. Conversely, when the organizational procedures are perceived as unfair, people are more likely to engage in acts that make up for the perceived unfairness, e.g. falsifying or fabricating their data. Martinson and colleagues (Vries et al. 2006 ; Crain et al. 2013 ) have investigated this theory and they report that researchers who perceived their treatment as unfair were more likely to engage in research misconduct.

There are various ways in which the organization can influence the behavior of researchers, and the organization itself is not immune to external influences. Footnote 11 The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) report Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment that Promotes Responsible Conduct (IOM 2002 ) conceptualized the research organization as an open systems model. Within the organizational structure itself, there are policies and procedures in place that influence researchers, and within the organizational processes the IOM report emphasizes the role of leadership and supervision. These last two are especially important, as studies on the organizational climate in academic and other settings found that organizational leadership, ethics debates and ethical supervision were associated with an ethical climate. The system is open in that it produces various outputs in the form of papers and other research related activities that in turn influence organizational inputs through funding and human resources, which in turn influence the organization again.

Another idea is that the organisational dynamics themselves can take such a form that everyone in the organization begins to engage in questionable practices. This type of unethical conduct may then become so frequent that it slowly becomes the normal way of conducting research.

If we apply this theory to the misconduct of Stapel and ask what should be the case if his misconduct is to be adequately explained by it, we must say that the culture and structure of the organizations he was employed by, somehow induced his conduct. Either there should be indications that he was mistreated by his organizations or there should be evidence that his work environment was perverted altogether. Delving deeper: Is there information available on their policies, the degree to which leadership emphasized integrity, or whether open debates about integrity issues were a regular occurrence? There must, perhaps, have been reward systems in place that triggered misconduct, or some element of an organization’s culture that did the trick.

So, if such an explanation is to work for the Stapel case, what we need is insight into the culture and structure of the organizations that he worked with. Stapel seems to believe that culture played a role (Stapel 2014 , 171): “I’m not the only bad guy, there’s a lot more going on, and I’ve been just a small part of a culture that makes bad things possible.” Even if there was no direct evidence available about Stapel’s research culture, it might be possible to make an IBE here too: from his misconduct we can draw conclusions suggesting a bad organizational culture and bad organisational structures—the latter explaining the occurrence of the former.

Interestingly, the report (Levelt et al. 2012 ) about Stapel’s misconduct devotes an entire chapter to the culture in which his fraud took place. It is described as “a culture in which scientific integrity is not held in high esteem” (p. 33) and “even in the absence of fraud in the strict sense, there was a general culture of careless, selective and uncritical handling of research and data.” (p. 47). This may prompt one to believe that the culture indeed played a role in fostering Stapel’s fraudulent behavior. However, the report (Levelt et al. 2012 ) presents culture as an explanation for why the fraud could sustain for so long—“The Committees are of the opinion that this culture partly explains why the fraud was not detected earlier.” (p. 47)—not as one that brought about the fraud. Of course, this does not preclude the organizational culture from being a potential explanatory factor in the origination of the misconduct as well.

Are there indications that Stapel was structurally undervalued by his respective organizations, and treated unfairly? The report’s (Levelt et al. 2012 ) information points in the opposite direction: “These more detailed local descriptions also reveal Mr Stapel’s considerably powerful position, at any rate within the University of Groningen and even more so within Tilburg University. At the University of Amsterdam he already enjoyed a reputation as a ‘golden boy’.” (p. 38). To our knowledge, there is no public evidence of a culture that treated researchers unfairly or that suggests Stapel’s deeds could be interpreted as a means to make up for perceived unfairness done unto him.

Can we know enough about the organization’s culture and the structures of the units Stapel belonged to? Perhaps we can. But even if we do, the organizational culture explanation can at best be a partial one. For many other individuals who worked in the same organization, have not (we assume this to be so) committed acts of fabrication and falsification. For this reason we may think of an organization’s climate and structure as contextual affordances that do not forestall misconduct, and do not cause it either, but do enable it.

Until a certain stage of investigation, it is possible to propose an organizational culture explanation of Stapel’s behavior, namely as long as we have no evidence that any of the other explanations even partly explain it. At a later stage of the investigation, however, it should be possible to have more direct access to the organizational culture, as it should in principle be observable.

4.6 Six Footnote 12 : Ethos of Public Administration

Ethos of public administration theories, at times labelled Taylorism or New Public Management (NPM) theories, have their roots in economics, and, applied to research misconduct, fall under Sovacool’s third kind of narrative. These theories center around a complex set of ideas and concepts: specialization, command, unity, efficiency and atomism. The ideas that connect these concepts are, firstly, that individuals are naturally isolated from one another and that only an organization, through a chain of command and a sense of mission, can unify individuals into a single, efficient and rational working unit. The second is that individuals tend to laziness, selfishness and are not interested in any social good beyond their own individual good, and that therefore organizational unity and discipline must always be maintained.

The perverting influences of NPM or Taylorism on the academic system can be expressed through different phenomena that Halffman and De Radder ( 2015 ) eloquently captured in their Academic Manifesto . They describe, among other phenomena, the “measurability for accountability” (p. 167), meaning the obsession with output quantifiers, be it publication indices, metrics, or impact factors. They also elaborate on the “permanent competition under the pretense of ‘quality’” (p. 168), referring to the ‘hypercompetition’ where researchers compete against each other for funding in a ‘winner takes it all’ system, where it is the junior staff that do the bulk of the work, faced with temporary contracts and poor career opportunities (Halffman and Radder 2015 ).

Now, this extreme emphasis on effectiveness and performance can come at the cost of neglecting ethical issues and crowding out the values that motivate professional behavior and institute the organization’s mission. When this happens, it can lead to corrupt individuals. Overman et al. ( 2016 ) seem to subscribe to this proposition when they write: “Academic misconduct is considered to be the logical behavioral consequence of output-oriented management practices, based on performance incentives.” (p. 1140).

If this theory is going to explain Stapel’s misconduct, what should be the case is that he worked in an organization with a strong focus on performance and output in a way that crowds out values and the acknowledgement thereof. Perhaps he started out with an intrinsic desire to do good research. However, the more his work’s merit was determined by performance indicators and the more the focus was put on effectiveness, the more this intrinsic motivation was replaced by a desire to do good according to these performance indicators—to be effective and publish lots of papers. In addition, the emphasis on these performance incentives shifted attention away from responsible conduct of research.

Is there evidence that Stapel worked in such a system? Overman and colleagues describe that performance indicators indeed have become more evident among academic institutions in The Netherlands (they draw on research by Teelken ( 2015 )). Do we have evidence that increased emphasis on performance accounts for Stapel’s actions? His own account acknowledges the pressures in contemporary science: “Science is an ongoing conflict of interests. Scientists are … all in competition with each other to try and produce as much knowledge as possible in as short a time, and with as little money, as possible, and they try to achieve this goal by all means possible. They form partnerships with business, enter the commercial research market, and collect patents, publications, theses, subsidies, and prizes.” (Stapel 2014 , 189–190).

Perhaps we should consider the role of these performance indicators plus the reality of hypercompetition as biasing Stapel’s view on research. Under their influence, he unconsciously focused more and more on effectiveness at the expense of ethical conduct. At some point, effectiveness itself became his main desire. One is reminded of Goodheart’s law: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure”.

However, we are again left with the question why these indicators biased Stapel towards extreme efficiency and not his peers. Maybe his affordances were different from those of his peers, but these fall outside the scope of this theory. Hence the ethos of public administration or NPM, even if it is an acceptable explanation of misconduct, can best be thought of as a partial explanation.

As with the other theories, even if (so far) there is no direct evidence that a case of scientific fraud was caused (at least in part) by excessive emphasis on effectiveness and performance indicators, excessive emphasis could, indirectly, be inferred via an IBE. In which case the question arises whether it is also the best explanation, given its competitors.

5 Are the Different Explanations of Research Misconduct Compatible?

Having discussed six explanations of research misconduct, and having explicated what, for each of them, needs to be the case if they are to be accurate, if only partial, explanations, we now address the second question that we have for this paper: how do these explanations relate to each other? Two different explanations of the same phenomenon, E1 and E2, can be compatible, or they can be incompatible. And if they are compatible, further qualifications can be added—for example that E1 and E2 “add up”, or that they reinforce each other, or that one weakens the other. We will see examples below of each of these sorts of relationships.

Given that we have six explanations on our hands, this means there are 15 pairs of explanations to consider. We can reduce this number because each of the four explanations under the first narrative are in their nature compatible with the explanations under the second (institutional) and third (system of science) narratives. This is in the nature of the case, as the first focus on qualities of the misconductor, and the latter two on contextual affordances—none of which, we suggested, constitute full explanations. We do not want to make this point only at this abstract level, but want to offer one illustration. Consider bad apple explanations and organizational culture explanations. It would seem that such explanations (of the same behavior) are at least compatible. If cheating can be adequately, if only partly, explained by reference to the ill treatment that the cheater has suffered in an earlier stage, then this explanation can be augmented by the additional explanation that the cheater has a failed moral character. And if cheating can adequately, if only partly, be explained by reference to the culture within the organization that the cheater worked with, then this explanation can be augmented by the additional explanation that the cheater has a failed moral character. So these explanations are at least compatible. At least , for it is possible (and plausible) that these explanations reinforce each other in this way: failed moral characters will tend to make organizational cultures bad, and bad organizational culture will tend to make moral characters fail. Failed moral characters in organizations with a bad culture, will tend to feel at home like fish in water. Applied to Stapel: the explanation of his misconduct can be explained by reference to his failed moral character (to akrasia perhaps), but also by reference to the culture of the organizations with which he worked. And the two explanations can reinforce each other, as bad characters breed bad cultures, and bad cultures breed bad characters.

As is in the nature of the case, the explanations under the second and third narratives, being Organizational Culture explanations and NPM explanations, are compatible as well. This point can also be made in a more concrete way. Since NPM will foster a particular kind of culture within an organization, and since a particular kind of culture will be especially sensitive to the down-sides of NPM, explanations of misconduct that refer to culture and to NPM are compatible, and they even reinforce each other. Applied to Stapel’s case, his misconduct can be explained, partly, by reference to organizational culture, and this can be augmented (and so make for a more complete explanation) by reference to the down-sides of NPM—and these two reinforce each other.

Since the first narrative covers four explanations, there are six pairs to check for compatibility. The first pair we consider is Rational Choice explanations and Bad Apple explanations. We may feel pulled in two directions here. Suppose someone is a bad apple, i.e. displays a defective moral character (perhaps the person suffers from akrasia), then we may think that his choice can never be rational, because his defective moral character prevents him from making such a choice. On the other hand, if making a rational choice consists of weighing the costs and benefits of an action as compared to alternative actions, then it would seem that someone with a defective moral character can engage in rational choice making as well—even if the outcome of the calculation is not what we would like it to be. Since it is formal (“means-end”) rationality that rational choice theory works with, it seems that a rational choice explanation is compatible with a bad apple explanation of the same behaviour. Applied to the Stapel case: an explanation of his misconduct in terms of character flaws (like akrasia) is compatible with the claim that his choice to cheat was the outcome of a rational cost–benefit analysis.

The second pair of explanations we consider is Rational Choice and General Strain. This pair puts before us the question whether strain and stress prevent a person from making a rational choice. On the face of it, stress and strain may lead a person to select a goal that he would not have selected in the absence of it; and given the goal, he may have calculated the means to attain it. Alternatively, a person may have set himself a goal, while stress and strain influence the calculation of the means to attain it. The influence may be that certain means become live options that were dead, or that options that were alive, die. But given the options, a stressed person may still make what he thinks is a fair calculation—fair not in a moral but in a formal sense. Either way, the explanations based on Rational Choice and General Strain are compatible. Applied to the Stapel case: stress and strain may have led him to set the goal of achieving high-profile publications, and rational choice deliberation suggested to him that fabrication and falsification were the ways to attain that goal. Alternatively, Stapel had set himself the goal of achieving high-profile publications, and strain and stress led him to calculate that fabrication and falsification were the best ways to attain the goal.

Third, Rational Choice and Prospect Theory, by contrast, do not deliver compatible explanations. For the former assumes that an actor will always seek maximal gains based on the probability of occurrence, while the latter says that fear of loss tends to be a much stronger motivator of behavior than the potential for gain, and also that individuals tend toward risk aversion when confronted with potential gains but bias toward risk seeking when confronted with avoiding potential losses.

Applied to Stapel: Rational Choice explains his fraudulent behavior by reference to a rational calculation he has made so as to have maximal gains, while Prospect Theory predicts that, given Stapel’s stable job’s situation (he had a tenured position with no fear of losing it), he would be less likely to make the risky choices that he did make.

The incompatibility should come as no surprise, as Prospect Theory was expressly developed as an alternative to Rational Choice (Thomas and Loughran 2014 ).

General Strain and Bad Apple approaches are compatible. If stress and strain induce deviant behavior, then it does so in virtuous persons and bad apples alike. Strain explanations and bad apple explanations are compatible, and they may even reinforce each other, in that it is plausible to think that bad apples make even worse choices if they also experience stress and strain—and that strained persons make worse choices if they have flawed moral characters. Applied to Stapel: if he had a flawed moral character, he may already have been open to cheating, but if he was also under stress and strain, then the cheating option may have become even more salient.

Prospect Theory and Bad Apple theory are also compatible. As indicated, Prospect Theory predicts that people faced with the prospect of losing their job or other meaningful resources, will be more inclined to take risks—and if this holds, it holds for bad and good apples alike. The two explanations of behavior it suggests, can both be correct, if only partially. Applied to our case: if we counterfactually assume that Stapel’s position was at stake, and also that he had a flawed moral character, then both these factors can be referred to for explanatory purposes—and both explanations can be correct.

The sixth and final pair to consider is that of Prospect and General Strain. Strain and stress may be real in a person who, when faced with serious loss of meaningful resources, is more prone to take risks than when not so faced. Hence, two explanations of a person’s behavior based on their own respective theories, can both be true and hence be compatible. However, if a person is experiencing stress and strain, while at the same time there is no threat of loss of meaningful resources, then the two theories yield incompatible explanations. After all, Prospect Theory tells us that people are risk-aversive. The impulse to deviant behavior generated by strain and stress would be mitigated by the impulse to risk-aversion. In that case we might say that the two theories are compatible—but that the explanations do not reinforce each other, nor do they add up, but rather the one weakens the other in the sense that the effect that one theory predicts does not occur to the degree it would have in the absence of the other effect. If we again assume that Stapel was experiencing stress and strain (which already motivated him towards deviant behavior) and he was also facing the threat of losing meaningful resources (which inclined him to take more risks than he would otherwise have taken), then the explanations reinforce each other. But if he was experiencing stress and strain, yet there was no fear of losing meaningful resources, then the theories lead us to expect deviant behavior to a lesser degree than if there was also a threat of loss.

6 Concluding Remarks

We have discussed six explanations of research misconduct, and how they relate to each other. We argued that most theories are compatible with each other, with the exception of Rational Choice and Prospect. Suppose now we concentrate on explanations that are compatible. Can we conclude that those pairs offer full explanations? For a number of reasons we cannot. First, we have only looked at pairs among the six theories we have discussed. But triplets of them may offer fuller explanations, and quartets of them even fuller. Second, there are explanations of research misconduct that we have not discussed, but that can be added to the fold. Footnote 13 Third, a large body of research that investigates research misconduct takes the form of correlation ‘theories’ that map significant correlations between (some measure of) research misconduct and some other factor of interest. Of course, correlation does not equal causation. Take this one step further: on a narrow reading of theory—“an idea that is used to account for a situation”—it seems incorrect to speak of correlation theories . Correlations map temporal co-occurrence beyond some degree of doubt. The idea or link that is to explain this co-occurrence is often thought up post-hoc as a rationalization, but it is not (yet) a fully-fledged theory.

However, that does not render correlational research meaningless for explaining research misconduct. Similar to narratives, correlational research results deliver cognitive goods—they give knowledge about factors that in some way play into the misconduct. Along that same line of reasoning, they serve as a pointer for further theorizing that may at some point be formalized into a theory.

Still, we are left with the question whether it is sensible to suppose that, drawing on all correlational research and supplemented with the types of theories we reviewed here, one can fully explain research misconduct. There seem two avenues to take, both reconcilable with what we argued above, and these avenues are connected to one’s stance on free will. Either one believes that humans are free and this will render some part of their behaviour—especially complex behaviors, like research misconduct—inexplicable. Or one believes that humans are not free and that scholars have not yet found the (final) key to the explanatory puzzle. It seems natural to think that this key, if it exists, is to be found somewhere along the lines of unconscious factors that influence human behavior, such as biases or heuristics. We tend to the first view.

A further point we would like to make is that although this paper is focused on theories coined to explain falsification and fabrication, these theories also seem relevant when explaining lesser trespasses, such as QRPs. In fact, for those QRPs that teeter on the edge of falsification—take p -hacking or HARKing (hypothesizing after results are known)—it seems natural to suspect that when we apply the theories reviewed here to explain the occurrence of those QRPs, we likely run into similar problems that we encountered when trying to explain research misconduct. And since explanations of research misbehavior—here encompassing both FFP and QRPs—feed into our ideas about prevention of research misbehavior, extending our theories and models on how to explain may help us to prevent.

A further point we would like to make is that although various theories have been used to explain research misbehavior of individual scientists, our discussion brought to light that in order for such explanations to have some minimal level of plausibility, we need to know quite a bit about the personal situation of the researcher, as well as her contextual affordances at an institutional level. The suggestion of our paper is that such knowledge is not easily obtained.

Our final point concerns the role of the Stapel case in our discussion. It should be clear that we have not tried to offer the fullest possible explanation of his fraudulent behavior. We have used Stapel merely to illustrate the kinds and amounts of facts that should be known if an explanation of research misconduct, based on any of the six theories discussed in this paper, is to have minimal plausibility.

We note that reasons can serve different roles: they can be motivating and they can, even at the same time, be normative . P’s motivating reasons are the reasons for which P did A— the considerations in light of which P did what she did, and that motivated her for doing A. Normative reasons are the reasons that P would cite in favor of her action A, reasons that would show that A was the sensible, or right thing to do. This way of making this distinction is borrowed from Dancy ( 2000 ). Anscombe ( 2005 ) offers a subtle analysis of the notion “explaining behavior”.

Note that the factors we describe seem to match up with what has been termed levels of explanation, e.g. an explanation using desires and beliefs would be an explanation on the personal level, etc. (see Owens 1989 ). Yet, we will not focus on the question of whether an explanation on one level is more fundamental than an explanation on another; our aim is merely to assess the plausibility of the explanations and whether they are compatible with each other.

See Lipton ( 2008 , Ch. 4). Standard examples of IBEs are the doctor’s inference that his patient has measles, since this is the best explanation of the symptoms; and the astronomer’s inference to the existence and motion of Neptune, since that is the best explanation of the observed perturbations of Uranus.

Our search for theories was guided by a similar endeavor of Gjalt de Graaf’s ( 2007 ), in which he discusses a number of theories that purport to explain corrupt or fraudulent behavior in public administration, such as taking bribes. We supplemented his list with additional theories where relevant. Interestingly, de Graaf also included correlation ‘theories’, but as these are not theories in that they do not contain an idea about the explanatory mechanism, we do not review them in-depth but will elaborate briefly on their relevance in the concluding section.

Note that the (types of) theories De Graaf ( 2007 ) reviewed are theories of human behavior that come from different fields such as economics, sociology or criminology and seem to work on different levels. Hence, these theories often apply to terrains beyond fraud in public administration and may not even have been designed to explain fraud in public administration, but have been appealed to to explain fraud in public administration. In a similar vein, we explore whether these theories that have been coined to explain research misconduct are actually applicable and compatible.

We are aware that rational choice theory is sometimes used as a general paradigm that is not to be applied to individual cases because the notion of a “rational choice” is deemed to be no more than a useful theoretical fiction. We side with those authors that have used rational choice theory to shed light on individual cases of human behavior.

What does it mean to be a ‘rational’ agent in this case? In jurisprudence, an important consideration for holding someone accountable is whether that person had the right mentality, or mens rea . The four generally distinguished levels of mentality are purpose, knowledge, recklessness and negligence. Each of these correspond to a different extent to which the researcher, in our case Stapel, could be held accountable for his deeds, with the first being the highest level of accountability, purpose. Stapel’s case maps most closely onto this level—in his own writings, he is explicit about his intention to deceive others. The mental state of knowledge would look something like this: a colleague of Stapel had reasonably strong doubts about Stapel’s conduct, but decided to work with him regardless. Recklessness could perhaps be applied to cases of falsification, where a researcher runs a data analysis she does not fully understand and finds a significant result that she reports regardless. The level of negligence does not seem to work in our case, as it is unlikely to engage in misconduct out of negligence. So if one applies rational choice theory to cases of misconduct, one should be clear about whether that conduct was intentional, with knowledge, reckless or negligent, as rational choice theory seems more apt to explain cases where the trespasser had a mens rea of purpose or knowledge, compared to negligence or recklessness.

Note that this regards the translation of Stapel’s 2012 autobiographical book by Brown ( 2014 ). Caution is needed when interpreting these statements, as it is arguably oratio pro domo . Stapel seems to acknowledge this as his foreword reads: “This is my own, personal, selective, biased story about my downfall.” (p. iii). Similar to Zwart ( 2017 ), it is not our primary concern whether “the autobiographical account actually corresponds with the facts… but rather what can be learned and gained from this ego-document” (pp. 211–212).

Although we mostly discuss moral character flaws, it seems plausible that intellectual character flaws, such as insouciance, play a similar role—insouciance example taken from Cassam ( 1992 ).

The organization is often studied through the organizational culture (the values, beliefs, and norms that help shape members’ behavior) and the organizational climate, defined as "the shared meaning organizational members attach to the events, policies, practices, and procedures they experience and the behaviors they see being rewarded, supported, and expected” (Schneider et al. 2013 , 115). We will look at both in our consideration of organizational justice theory, but as policies and procedures are more observable than values and beliefs, we will focus more heavily on the former when reviewing the empirical materials available.

It can be hard, in the case of academic research, to pinpoint the boundary at which the culture ends and the outside begins, which can be seen as a caveat of applying organizational justice theory to research misconduct. Sometimes we speak of the research culture in, say, psychology, referring to the scientific field at large. Related, internal means of promotion or tenure are influenced by review committees of papers and grants, which would traditionally be placed outside of the organizational culture (see also Martinson et al. 2010 ). Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to suppose that an individual researcher is most profoundly influenced by their local climate—by the policies that directly apply to them and by the practices they see their colleagues engage in and be rewarded for.

De Graaf’s ( 2007 ) fourth type of theory is the theory of clashing moral values. The idea builds on Sellin ( 1983 ) and is that particular values that are held in high regard in the private atmosphere may lead to behaviors that are undesirable in the public or work atmosphere. Davis ( 2003 ) applied this to research misconduct cases: Take a researcher that comes from a culture where scientific productivity is the holy grail. After working for some time in a culture where adherence to ethical practice is regarded pivotal, some of the researcher’s behaviors may be regarded fraudulent. Davis’ argues that this can be fixed by subjecting the researcher to ethical training or developing codes of conduct that are endorsed widely. If this theory is to stand ground, Stapel should have been (successfully) socialized in a culture that held values which clash with ethical practice in extremely high regard. We think the analogy to research misconduct does not work here. Which value in the private atmosphere is supposed to do the explanatory work? If we look at the example from Davis, it is far from obvious that adherence to ethical practice clashes with productivity. We regard clashing moral values a nonstarter in the case of research misconduct.

See for example Rajah-Kanagasabai and Roberts ( 2015 ) that use the theory of planned behavior to explain research misconduct in students. Because our review focused on misconduct among academic researchers, and it had not been coined outside the realm of students, we chose to not review the theory of planned behavior in-depth here. Alternatively, Hackett ( 1994 ) reviewed anomie as a possible explanation for researchers engaging in research misconduct, but he disregarded anomie so persuasively that we chose not review it here.

Abma, R. (2013). De publicatiefabriek. Over de betekenis van de affaire-Stapel (p. 183). Nijmegen: Van Tilt Uitgeverij.

Google Scholar  

Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 47–87.

Article   Google Scholar  

ALLEA (All European Academies). (2017). The European code of conduct for research integrity. Berlin: All European Academies.

Anscombe, G. E. M. (2005). The causation of action. In: M. Geach & L. Gormally (Eds.), Human life, action and ethics (St. Andrews Studies in Philosophy and Public Affairs). Exeter: Imprint Academic.

Bouter, L. M., Tijdink, J., Axelsen, N., Martinson, B. C., & ter Riet, G. (2016). Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: Results from a survey among participants of four world conferences on research integrity. Research Integrity Peer Review, 1 (17), 1–8.

Cassam, Q. (1992). Vices of the mind . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Crain, L. A., Martinson, B. C., & Thrush, C. R. (2013). Relationships between the survey of organizational research climate (SORC) and self-reported research practices. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19 (3), 835–850.

Dancy, J. (2000). Practical reality . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Davis, M. S. (2003). The role of culture in research misconduct. Accountability in Research, 10 (3), 189–201.

De Graaf, G. (2007). Causes of corruption: Towards a contextual theory of corruption. Public Administration Quarterly, 31, 39–86.

De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., & Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1 (1), 43–50.

Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4 (5), e5738.

Faria, R. (2018). Research misconduct as white-collar crime: A criminological approach . Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Book   Google Scholar  

Fiedler, K., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Questionable research practices revisited. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7 (1), 45–52.

Gilovich, T. (1991). How we know what isn’t so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life . New York: Free Press.

Gunsalus, C. K. (2019). Make reports of research misconduct public. Nature, 570, 7.

Hackett, E. J. (1994). A social control perspective on scientific misconduct author. Journal of Higher Education, 65 (3), 242–260.

Halffman, W., & Radder, H. (2015). The academic manifesto: From an occupied to a Public University. Minerva, 53 (2), 165–187.

Haven, T. L., Tijdink, J. K., Pasman, H. R., Widdershoven, G., Riet, G., & Bouter, L. M. (2019). Researchers’ perceptions of research misbehaviours: A mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4 (25), 1–12.

Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M. D., Pratt, T. C., Mays, R. D. (2019) The perceived causes of research misconduct among faculty members in the natural, social, and applied sciences. Studies in Higher Education 1–13.

Hren, D., Vujaklija, A., Ivanišević, R., Knežević, J., Marušić, M., & Marušić, A. (2006). Students’ moral reasoning, Machiavellianism and socially desirable responding: Implications for teaching ethics and research integrity. Medical Education, 40 (3), 269–277.

Institute of Medicine. (2002). Integrity in scientific research: Creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct . Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.

Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review, 93 (5), 1449–1475.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . London: Penguin Books.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47 (2), 263–291.

Lacetera, N., & Zirulia, L. (2011). The economics of scientific misconduct. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 27 (3), 568–603.

Lafollette, M. C. (2000). The evolution of the “scientific misconduct” issue: An historical overview. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 224 (4), 211–215.

Levelt Committee, Noort Committee, Drenth Committee. (2012). Flawed science: The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel .

Lipton, P. (2008). Inference to the best explanation (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.

Lipton, P. (2009). Understanding without explanation. In H. W. de Regt, S. Leonelli, & K. Eigner (Eds.), Scientific understanding: Philosophical perspectives . Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Maggio, L., Dong, T., Driessen, E., & Artino, A. (2019). Factors associated with scientific misconduct and questionable research practices in health professions education. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8 (2), 74–82.

Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435 (7043), 737–738.

Martinson, B. C., Crain, L. A., De Vries, R., & Anderson, M. S. (2010). The importance of organizational justice in ensuring research integrity. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5 (3), 67–83.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). F ostering integrity in research . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21896 .

Netherlands code of conduct for research integrity. (2018).

Overman, S., Akkerman, A., & Torenvlied, R. (2016). Targets for honesty: How performance indicators shape integrity in Dutch higher education. Public Administration, 94 (4), 1140–1154.

Owens, D. (1989). Levels of explanation. Mind, 98, 57–79.

Rajah-Kanagasabai, C. J., & Roberts, L. D. (2015). Predicting self-reported research misconduct and questionable research practices in university students using an augmented theory of planned behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 535.

Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64 (1), 361–388.

Sellin, T. (1983). Culture and conflict . New York: Social Science Research Council.

Sovacool, B. K. (2008). Exploring scientific misconduct: Isolated individuals, impure institutions, or an inevitable idiom of modern science? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 5 (4), 271–282.

Stapel, D. (2014). Faking science: A true story of academic fraud . (N. J. L. Brown, Transl.). https://bit.ly/3tLfkCr .

Steneck, N. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12 (1), 53–74.

Teelken, C. (2015). Hybridity, coping mechanisms, and academic performance management: Comparing three countries. Public Administration   93 (2), 307–323.

Thomas K. J., & Loughran T. A. (2014).  Rational choice and prospect theory. In: G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice. New York: Springer.

Tijdink, J. K., Bouter, L. M., Veldkamp, C. L. S., Van De Ven, P. M., Wicherts, J. M., & Smulders, Y. M. (2016). Personality traits are associated with research misbehavior in Dutch scientists: A cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE, 11 (9), 1–12.

Vogel, G. (2011). Psychologist accused of fraud on astonishing scale. Science, 334 (6056), 579.

Wible, J. R. (1992). Fraud in science: An economic approach. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 22 (1), 5–27.

Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zwart, H. (2017). Tales of research misconduct: A Lancanian diagnostics of integrity challenges in science novels (pp. 1–254). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Download references

Acknowledgements

TH and RvW would like to thank the reviewers and the members of the Theoretical Philosophy reading group for their critical yet constructive comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Philosophy, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Tamarinde Haven & René van Woudenberg

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to René van Woudenberg .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Haven, T., van Woudenberg, R. Explanations of Research Misconduct, and How They Hang Together. J Gen Philos Sci 52 , 543–561 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-021-09555-5

Download citation

Accepted : 12 January 2021

Published : 19 May 2021

Issue Date : December 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-021-09555-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Research misconduct
• Explanations
• Research integrity
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Policy & Compliance

Research Misconduct

The scientific research enterprise is built on a deep foundation of trust and shared values. As the National Academies wrote in their 2019 On Being a Scientist report, "this trust will endure only if the scientific community devotes itself to exemplifying and transmitting the values associated with ethical scientific conduct" Falsifying, fabricating, or plagiarizing data—all forms of research misconduct—are contrary to these values and ethical conduct.

What Is Research Misconduct

Reporting a Concern

Process for Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct

NIH Expectations, Policies, and Requirements

NIH Actions and Oversight after a Finding of Research Misconduct

Notices, Statements and Reports

Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)

Resources for NIH Staff

This page last updated on: July 31, 2024

• Bookmark & Share
• E-mail Updates
• Privacy Notice
• Accessibility
• National Institutes of Health (NIH), 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892
• NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health

• View all courses
• Taught postgraduate study
• Postgraduate taught degree courses
• Postgraduate taught tuition fees
• Pre-masters for international students
• Funding your postgraduate taught studies
• How to apply for a postgraduate taught degree
• Postgraduate offer holders - prepare for your studies
• Pre-sessional English courses
• PhDs and research degrees
• Create your own research project
• Find a PhD project
• Funding your research degree
• How to apply for a PhD or research degree
• How to make a PhD enquiry
• Support while studying your PhD or research degree
• Exchanges and studying abroad
• Undergraduate study
• Undergraduate degree courses
• Foundation year programmes
• Undergraduate tuition fees
• Customise your degree
• Funding undergraduate studies
• How to apply
• Tuition fees and funding
• Short courses
• Lunchtime evening and weekend courses
• Summer schools
• Get a prospectus
• Student life
• Accommodation
• Choose your halls of residence
• Apply for accommodation
• Guaranteed accommodation
• Your accommodation options
• Accommodation for those with additional requirements
• International and pre-sessional students
• Postgraduate accommodation
• Couples and students with children
• Renting privately
• Our accommodation areas
• Privacy notice
• Terms and conditions
• Fees and contracts
• Southampton
• Sports and gyms
• Sports facilities
• Sports clubs
• Watersports centres
• Our campuses
• Avenue Campus
• Boldrewood Innovation Campus
• City Centre Campus
• Highfield Campus
• University Hospital Southampton
• Waterfront Campus
• Winchester Campus
• Join our student community
• What's on
• Clubs and societies
• Sports teams
• SUSU places
• Representing you
• SUSU support and advice
• Support and money
• Living costs
• Academic and mental health support
• Support for disabled students
• Part-time work
• Health services
• Research projects
• Research areas
• Research facilities
• Collaborate with us
• Institutes, centres and groups
• Support for researchers
• Faculties, schools and departments
• Research jobs
• Find people and expertise
• Why work with us?
• Collaboration
• Consultancy
• Commercialisation
• Use our facilities
• Connect with our students
• How we operate
• Make a business enquiry
• International students
• International Office
• Partnerships and initiatives
• Visiting delegations
• Visiting fellowships
• University of Southampton Delhi

Procedures for investigating cases of alleged misconduct in research 2024-25

Part 1: introduction.

1.1 The University of Southampton (‘the University’) is strongly committed to responsible conduct and probity of academic research, and expects all its staff and students to maintain the highest standards of research integrity and ethics in every aspect of their work in line with the University’s  Code of Conduct for Research . The University has a responsibility to investigate any allegations of research misconduct, but at the same time has a duty to protect researchers from malicious, vexatious, or frivolous allegations.

1.2 This Procedure for Investigating Cases of Alleged Misconduct in Research (‘the Procedure’) was developed by the University to ensure that any concerns raised (both by internal or external sources) about the conduct of research undertaken by University staff, are fully investigated in a fair, thorough, objective and timely manner. This Procedure should be followed prior to the use of the University’s formal disciplinary process or any non-disciplinary steps that might be required. 

1.3 Situations that may appear as research misconduct, but are a result of either a misunderstanding or a professional dispute between individuals, may be resolved by an informal route such as alternative dispute resolution without a need for following this Procedure. Where such mechanisms are considered inappropriate due to the nature of the allegation, the investigation under this Procedure should be initiated. 

1.4 This Procedure consists of Part I, Part II and Part III, all of which should be read and used in conjunction to ensure that any allegations of research misconduct are investigated appropriately, effectively and fairly.  

1.5 In this Procedure:

• 1.5.1  Complainant – is a person making an allegation of research misconduct against one or more Respondents. This may be internal or external to the University. 
• 1.5.2  Respondent – is a person against whom an allegation of research misconduct was made. She/he must be a present or past member of the University. 
• 1.5.3 Where a reference is made to a Complainant or a Respondent, the singular should be viewed to include the plural as appropriate. 

2.1 This Procedure is applicable to all research carried out for the University of Southampton, irrespective of how research activities are funded or sponsored. This includes research funded by the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) as per Appendix A below. 

2.2 This Procedure will be used in the case of any allegations of research misconduct in relation to University’s staff (including technical and professional services staff), as well as anybody authorised to undertake research under the auspices of the University of Southampton, using the University’s facilities, working on the University’s premises anywhere in the world, or elsewhere on behalf of the University. This may include visiting or emeritus researchers, associates, honorary contract holders, casual workers, consultants and contractors. 

2.3 This Procedure does not apply to the University’s students (both undergraduate and postgraduate). Any concern about research misconduct in relation to a University student should be reported to the relevant Faculty’s Curriculum and Quality Assurance (CQA) Team. It will be treated as a potential breach of academic responsibility and conduct and investigated in line with the University’s  Regulations Governing Academic Responsibility and Conduct . 

2.4  Cross-institutional research misconduct allegations

2.4.1 Where allegations of research misconduct involve more than one institution, the University of Southampton, where appropriate, will liaise and fully cooperate on the matter with all relevant parties affected. This may include situations where a project or staff members are based at multiple institutions, or when researchers move to another institution. 

2.4.2 As a member of the Russell Group Universities, the University is a party to the Russell Group  Statement of Cooperation in respect of cross-institutional research misconduct allegations . 

2.4.3 The University may decide not to take action, where it will be agreed that the employing institution, for instance where the Respondent has an honorary contract with the University, will invoke its own investigation. 

2.5 Once initiated, this Procedure should be followed to conclusion even if:

• 2.5.1 The Complainant withdraws the allegation at any stage.
• 2.5.2 The Respondent admits to the alleged misconduct in full or in part.
• 2.5.3 The Respondent or the Complainant resign and leave the University.

3. Research Misconduct Definition 

3.1 Research misconduct is defined as any breach of the University’s  Code of Conduct for Research , a breach of the  University’s research policies or regulations , or any breach of the research standards imposed by law, professional, regulatory or funding bodies. Misconduct in research can also amount to any other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the academic and research communities for proposing, conducting and reporting research, as well as curating research data.

3.2 Research misconduct includes, but is not limited to: 

3.2.1 Plagiarism      

This is deliberate use/copying of other people’s ideas, intellectual property, words, data or other work (written or otherwise), without acknowledgement or permission. 

3.2.2  Fabrication     

This involves creation of false/fictitious data or other aspects of research and recording them as if they were real. It may include fabricating research documentation, regulatory or internal approvals, participant consents, and false claims in relation to experiments, interviews or surveys. 

3.2.3 Falsification   

This comprises manipulation of research materials, equipment or processes, or changing or omitting data, imagery, or consents with intention to deceive. 

3.2.4 Misrepresentation

This may include:

• a) Misrepresentation of data, including suppression of relevant findings, or knowingly or negligently presenting flawed interpretation of data. 
• b) Undisclosed duplication of publication, including duplicate submission of manuscripts for publication.
• c) Misrepresentation of interests, including failure to declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest. 
• d) Misrepresentation of qualifications or experience, including claiming or implying skills, qualifications or experience which is not held.
• e) Misrepresentation of involvement, such as attribution of work where there has been no significant contribution, or the denial of authorship where the author has made a substantial contribution (i.e. not following the guidance issued by relevant bodies or journals). 

3.2.5 Mismanagement of Data or Primary Materials 

• a) Failing to keep clear and accurate records of the research procedures followed and the results obtained. 
• b) Failing to keep records securely in paper or electronic form.
• c) Failing to ensure that relevant primary data and research evidence are preserved and accessible to others for reasonable periods after the completion of research. 
• d) Failing to manage research data according to all relevant legislation or any data policy of research funders.
• e) Misuse of research findings. 

3.2.6  Breach of duty of care

This may involve deliberately, recklessly or through gross negligence:

• a) Not observing legal and ethics requirements, and health and safety protocols designed to prevent unreasonable risk or harm to humans, animals, the environment or research artefacts, as well as human organs or tissue used in research. This includes placing those involved in research in danger, including reputational danger, without their prior consent, or without appropriate safeguards where informed consent is given.
• b) Failing to obtain appropriate informed consent, unless there are valid reasons for not doing so, or not obtaining relevant permissions from the University or external bodies.
• c) Any breach of data protection legislation and failure to properly handle privileged, personal or private information collected during the research.            
• d) Not taking all reasonable care to ensure that the risks and dangers, the broad objectives, and the funders of research are known to participants or their legal representatives, to ensure appropriate informed consent is obtained properly, explicitly and transparently.
• e) Improper conduct in peer review of research proposals or publications, including failure to disclose conflicts of interest, inadequate disclosure of clearly limited competence, breach of confidentiality or abuse of material provided for peer review. 
• 3.2.7 Examples of other unacceptable practices also include:
• a) Failing to obtain appropriate ethics approval to conduct research.
• b) Intentional or reckless unauthorised use, disclosure or removal of, or damage to the research related property of other researchers.
• c) Inciting others to commit research misconduct, or facilitating it by collusion in, or concealment of such actions by others, as well as reprisals against whistle-blowers. 
• d) Submitting an accusation of research misconduct based on malicious, vexatious or frivolous motives.
• e) Financial fraud by misuse of research funds for unauthorised purchases or for personal gain .
• f) Providing wrong or careless advice/information to students by Supervisors e.g. advising that a research project can be commenced without necessary permissions in place. 

3.3 For the avoidance of doubt, research misconduct includes acts of omission as well as acts of commission.

3.4 Research misconduct normally does not include:

• 3.4.1 Professional disputes or differences in interpretation or judgement in evaluating research methods or results, or professional competence.
• 3.4.2 The application or exploration of controversial or unpopular methods or ideas.
• 3.4.3 Challenging received wisdom.
• 3.4.4 Any other misconduct unrelated to the research process. 

4. Making A Research Misconduct Allegation

4.1 All University staff and students have a responsibility to preserve and protect the integrity and probity of research, and are under a general obligation to report any concerns about research misconduct, whether witnessed or suspected. 

4.2 Those entitled to bring complaints about research are not restricted to members of staff, or students of the University (present or past).

4.3 All those raising concerns in good faith will be protected, supported and not penalised, in line with the University’s Whistleblowing Policy. However, where there is evidence that an allegation of research misconduct is founded on malicious, vexatious or frivolous intent, it may be subject to action under the University’s formal disciplinary process (where possible).   

4.4 Any allegations/complaints should be related to research undertaken under the auspices of the University of Southampton. Where the Respondent is currently employed by the University of Southampton, but research in question was conducted at a different University/Research Organisation, the University of Southampton may be unable to investigate such cases.                Please contact the Research Integrity and Governance (RIG) Team, Research and Innovation Services (RIS) by emailing  [email protected] for further information and advice. 

4.5 All allegations received will be treated with strict confidentiality and in line with the data protection legislation. The Complainant will be required to provide their name and contact details so that they can be contacted if further information or evidence will be required. 

4.6 Anonymous allegations will not normally be investigated under this Procedure and will only be considered at the discretion of the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise) after taking into account the seriousness and credibility of the concern raised, and the likelihood of obtaining confirmatory evidence.

4.7 The University of Southampton reserves the right to investigate any allegations, or suspicions of research misconduct, that were made available in the public domain, or otherwise made known to the University, but where there is no specific Complainant. Such cases will be considered at the discretion of the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise). 

4.8  Research Misconduct Allegations

4.8.1  Any allegations of research misconduct in relation to a current or past member of the University staff, should be initially reported, preferably in writing, to the relevant University Faculty by contacting the Faculty’s Research Integrity Champion (RIC) or the Associate Dean Research (ADR). 

4.8.2 Where contacting the Faculty would be considered as inappropriate, a concern/allegation of research misconduct can be submitted in writing to the RIG Team by contacting:  

Email:  [email protected]  

4.8.3 Information provided to the Faculty/RIG Team should ideally include: 

• a) Name of the Respondent and the Complainant, and their affiliation to the research in question. 
• b) Project title and/or grant number of the relevant research (if known).
• c) Description of the alleged research misconduct, and when and where it occurred.           
• d) Any supporting evidence/documentation.
• e) Any other relevant information. 

5. Procedure Implementation 

5.1 The Vice-President (Research and Enterprise) has an overall responsibility for overseeing the implementation of this Procedure. The day to day responsibility for the operation of this Procedure lies with the University’s Research Integrity and Governance (RIG) Team based within the Research and Innovation Services (RIS). 

5.2 The role of the RIG Team includes: 

• 5.2.1 Receiving allegations of research misconduct.
• 5.2.2 Initiating and administering this Procedure.
• 5.2.3 Undertaking suitable checks to establish sources of research funding.
• 5.2.4 Liaising with appropriate individuals including Research Integrity Champions (RICs), Associate Deans Research (ADRs), the Vice President (Research and Enterprise), the Lead Investigator and members of the Investigation Panel. 
• 5.2.5 Contacting and liaising with relevant funding bodies (in line with funders’ policies or procedures), and other third parties that should be notified about the research misconduct allegation/investigation, where appropriate and/or required by law or contractual obligations.
• 5.2.6 Where appropriate and/or necessary, liaising with the University’s Human Resources, the Legal Services Team and/or other teams/departments. 
• 5.2.7 Attending relevant meetings in order to take notes/produce interview transcripts. 
• 5.2.8 Maintaining a detailed and confidential record of information and decisions made on all aspects, and during all stages of the investigation, and appropriately sharing it with all relevant parties involved at the various stages of the Procedure. 
• 5.2.9 Reporting on the outcome of the investigation, by sharing relevant information with appropriate individuals/organisations (both internal and external) in a confidential manner and in compliance with the data protection legislation.
• 5.2.10 Ensuring the integrity of any proceedings conducted under this Procedure.
• 5.2.11 Where appropriate, seeking confidential advice and guidance from the  UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) or other individuals with relevant expertise or experience. 

Part 2 - Principles

6. general principles.

6.1      Investigations of misconduct in research should maintain the highest standards of integrity, accuracy and fairness. All proceedings must be conducted under the presumption of innocence, carried out with sensitivity and confidentiality, and in a timely manner.

6.2      All enquiries into allegations of research misconduct should be thorough and objective. All those appointed to implement this Procedure must ensure that their examination is sufficiently extensive to allow them to reach well-founded conclusions, and that they act impartially and professionally at all times. 

6.3      Those who give evidence/provide information under this Procedure, should do so with honesty and integrity.  

6.4      The standard of proof used for the purpose of this Procedure is on the balance of probabilities . 

7. General Investigation Rules 

7.1 The RIG Team will support the Lead Investigator, members of the Investigation Panel and the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise) throughout this Procedure. 

7.2 While the investigation is taking place, the Complainant, the Respondent, or any witnesses should not directly or indirectly contact the Lead Investigator, or members of the Investigation Panel. Any queries should be addressed through the RIG Team by contacting  [email protected] .

7.3 The RIG Team will seek the permission of those invited to attend any meetings, to record the interviews so that a transcript can be prepared. Where the permission to record the interview is not granted, the minutes of the meeting will be produced instead. A copy of the transcript or minutes will be shared with those attending the meeting so that it can be checked for factual accuracy. Where the record includes any errors of fact, this will be corrected by the RIG Team and a new version of the transcript/minutes will be distributed accordingly. 

7.4 All those involved in an investigation under this Procedure are able to seek confidential advice from individuals with relevant experience both within and from outside the University. Those seeking advice must, as far as possible, not disclose any information which could lead to the identification of the Complainant, the Respondent, or other individuals involved in the case. Individuals who might be consulted include but are not limited to:

• 7.4.1 Experts in particular disciplines of research, or aspects of the conduct of research.
• 7.4.2 Representatives of the University departments such as Human Resources, the Legal Services Team, Finance, Health and Safety, Research and Innovation Services and/or other teams/departments.
• 7.4.3 Legal advisers.  

7.5 The RIG Team should be informed and provided with any supporting evidence, if at any stage of this Procedure, further information is brought to light suggesting:

• 7.5.1   Further, distinct instances of research misconduct by the Respondent; or
• 7.5.2   Misconduct in research by another person or research team.

All the information received will be considered under the initial steps of the Procedure.

8. Confidentiality And Data Protection 

8.1 All allegations of research misconduct will be investigated in a confidential manner. 

8.1.1 The provision of confidentiality shall however not preclude the University from disclosing information where necessary, including the outcome of the investigation, for the discharge of duties, or as required by law or any contractual obligations owed to third parties. This may include informing the funding bodies (in line with their individual policies and procedures), collaborating organisations, or any other professional or regulatory authorities. 

8.2 All those involved in an investigation under this Procedure, including the Complainant, the Respondent, and any witnesses, have a duty of strict confidentiality and must not discuss, disclose or make any statements about the allegation to any third parties, during and after the investigation, unless formally sanctioned by the University or otherwise required by law. All relevant parties will be required to sign a Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest Declaration.

8.2.1 Any unauthorised breaches of confidentiality may lead to disciplinary action. 

8.3 At the conclusion of the proceedings, all records related to the investigation will be retained by the University for the period of:

• 8.3.1 6 years where the allegation was not upheld.
• 8.3.2 10 years if the allegation was upheld (either in full or in part). 
• 8.3.3 The University reserves the right to retain records of research misconduct investigation for longer, where this is necessary due to the nature of the allegation.

9. Conflicts Of Interest

9.1 A ll relevant parties involved in the investigation under this Procedure, including the Lead Investigator and members of the Investigation Panel, should not have any actual or potential conflicts of interest. Any such conflicts, for instance links with the Respondent or the Complainant, must be declared; however, declaration of an interest will not automatically exclude an individual from participating in the investigation. The final decision will be made by the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise). Relevant individuals will be asked to sign a Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest Declaration.

9.2 Where an allegation of research misconduct is in any way linked to the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise), or raises the potential for a conflict of interest for the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise), the investigation under this Procedure should be overseen by another member of the University Executive Board (UEB) as appointed by the Vice-Chancellor.

10. The Right To Be Accompanied

10.1 At any meeting or hearing convened under this Procedure, the Complainant, the Respondent and any witnesses, save expert witnesses, may be accompanied by a fellow employee or a Trade Union representative, while clinical staff can be accompanied by a member of their defence organisation.

10.2 The accompanying colleague or representative plays an important role in supporting the relevant member of staff. They do not however have the right to answer questions on behalf of the individual concerned, or to address the hearing if the Complainant/Respondent does not wish them to do so. They are also not allowed to represent the member of staff concerned in any legal capacity, even if they are legally qualified.

11. Precautionary Measures

11.1 The RIG Team, after the consultation with the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise), and if appropriate other relevant individuals, teams or departments, may take such precautionary measures as necessary to ensure that all relevant information and evidence are secured for the purpose of the investigation. This may include, but is not limited to:

• a) Securing all relevant records, materials and locations associated with the research.
• Request the temporary suspension of the Respondent from duties on full pay (if a member of the University staff).
• Request the temporary barring of the Respondent from part or all of the University, and any of the sites of partner organisations.
• Request a temporary restriction be placed on the Respondent requiring him/her not to have contact with some or all of the staff and students of the University and those of any partner organisations. 

11.2 Such actions will be only taken by the University in situations where there is a clear risk to individuals, or that evidence might be destroyed. The reasons for taking any precautionary measures should be recorded in writing and communicated to all relevant parties. It should be emphasised that any such actions might be taken to ensure that allegations are properly investigated, they are therefore not disciplinary in nature, and do not indicate that the allegations are considered to be true by the University. 

11.3 Any suspension or barring of the Respondent will be reviewed throughout the investigation to ensure that it is not unnecessarily protracted. 

11.4 Precautionary measures may be instigated at any stage of this Procedure.

12. Prevention Of Detriment

12.1 The University must take all reasonable steps to:

• 12.1.1 Protect researchers from malicious, vexatious, or frivolous allegations.
• 12.1.2 Ensure that the position and reputation of those accused of research misconduct, the relevant research project(s), or any other party, does not suffer because of unconfirmed or unproven allegations. 
• 12.1.3 Protect the position and reputation of those who made allegations of research misconduct in good faith i.e. in the reasonable belief and/or on the basis of supporting evidence that research misconduct may have occurred. 

12.2 Involvement of the Respondent in an investigation under this Procedure should not prevent him/her from being considered for promotion, the completion of probation, or any other steps related to his/her professional development. The University may however decide to suspend the implementation of any such matter for the period when an allegation is investigated under this Procedure.

13. Academic Freedom

13. This Procedure recognises and is not intended to detract from the guiding principles of academic freedom, which are at the centre of all activities of the University, as set out in  Section III of the Statutes of the University, Part 1, Clauses 2(1) and 2(2) . 

13.2 The University Statutes state that all University staff ‘ have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, with due regard for the need to respect others and promote the best interests of the University and academic learning, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges ’.

13.3 The principles of academic freedom adopted by the University reflect those set out in Sections VI and VII of the  Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) in Paris on 11 November 1997.

Part 3 – The Procedure

14. procedure stages .

14.1    This Procedure consists of three stages:

• 14.1.1 Initial assessment of the allegation.
• 14.1.2 Preliminary Investigation.
• 14.1.3 Panel Investigation. 

15. Initial Assessment Of The Allegation 

15.1    Allegation received at the Faculty Level 

15.1.1 Upon receipt of the concern/allegation of research misconduct, the Research Integrity Champion (RIC) or the Associate Dean Research (ADR) should acknowledge its receipt in writing, and discuss it among themselves. At this stage an initial assessment of the allegation should be carried out to establish whether the allegation:

• a) Falls within the definition of research misconduct under this Procedure (as per section 3).
• b) Concerns situations that require immediate action(s) to prevent further risk of harm to staff, participants or other individuals, suffering to animals or negative environmental consequences (where this might contravene the law or fall below good practice). 
• c) Is malicious, vexatious or frivolous.
• d) Is a result of either a misunderstanding or a professional dispute between the individuals.
• e) Should be dealt with under a different University Procedure.

15.1.2 The RIC/ADR must inform the RIG Team about the allegation received and the details of their initial assessment. The decision will be then jointly taken whether the matter amounts to a professional dispute and therefore could be resolved at the Faculty level through internal or external mediation, or whether it should be referred to the RIG Team for a full investigation under this Procedure. In any event, normally within 10 working days from the date the complaint was made, the Complainant should be informed by the Faculty about the proposed actions and whether they will be pursued by the Faculty or the RIG Team.

15.1.3 Where it has been decided that the allegation is malicious, vexatious or frivolous, the allegation will be dismissed. This will be communicated in writing to the Complainant. Appropriate action, where possible, might be taken against those who made the allegation. If the Complainant is a member of the University, the Dean of the relevant Faculty or Director of the Professional Service may be notified in order to decide whether disciplinary action should be taken. If the Complainant is a member of another University or research organisation, the Dean or Director of the Professional Service, should (with advice from Legal Services) make a recommendation whether the relevant University/research organisation should be contacted and informed about any allegations that were found to be malicious, vexatious or frivolous. 

15.1.4 Where the allegation was dismissed, the RIG Team might contact the Respondent to inform them about the allegation and its nature. This will be decided on case by case basis and in consultation with the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise). Any information provided will be anonymised. 

15.1.5 Where it has been decided that the allegation should proceed to the next stage of this Procedure, the RIG Team will follow the steps 15.2.5 and 15.2.6 as listed below.   

15.2  Allegation received by the RIG Team 

15.2.1 Upon receipt of the allegation of research misconduct, the RIG Team will formally acknowledge its receipt in writing, and will conduct an initial assessment of the allegation in order to determine whether the allegation:

• a) Falls within the definition of research misconduct under this Procedure (as per section 3).
• b) Concerns situations that require immediate action(s) to prevent further risk of harm to staff, participants or other individuals, suffering to animals or negative environmental consequences (where this might contravene the law or fall below good practice). 
• c) Is malicious, vexatious or frivolous.
• d) Is a result of either a misunderstanding or a professional dispute between the individuals.
• e) Should be dealt with under a different University Procedure. 

15.2.2 The RIG Team will assess whether the RIC/ADR of the relevant Faculty should be informed about the allegation. 

15.2.3 Following the Initial Assessment of the allegation, the RIG Team in consultation with the RIC/ADR (if appropriate) should decide what actions need to be taken and by whom. This will be communicated by the RIG Team to the Complainant normally within 10 working days from the date the complaint was made.     

15.2.4 Where it has been decided that the allegation is malicious, vexatious or frivolous, the allegation will be dismissed. This will be communicated in writing to the Complainant. Appropriate action, where possible, might be taken against those who made the allegation as per point 15.1.3 above. 

15.2.5 The RIG Team will inform the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise) about the allegation that should proceed to the Preliminary Investigation stage of the Procedure so that a Lead Investigator can be appointed (as per section 16).

15.2.6 In order to proceed to the Preliminary Investigation stage, the RIG Team will inform the Respondent about the allegation made against him/her and its nature. If the allegation is against more than one Respondent, each individual will be notified separately, and where appropriate the identity of any other Respondents should not be divulged. In order to ensure a fair and transparent investigation, the identity of the Complainant will be disclosed to the Respondent. 

15.3 The Respondent will be given an opportunity to respond to the allegation and provide any relevant documents/evidence in support of their case. Copies of any evidence, records or materials received/gathered for the purpose of the investigation should be provided to the Respondent where possible. If the records are in a form which cannot be readily copied, the Respondent should be given reasonable access to the material while it is impounded. 

15.4 Where an allegation is of a serious nature, for instance concerning an activity that is potentially or actually illegal, the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise) may decide that the appropriate authority or regulatory body should be notified by the University. 

15.4.1 As a consequence of such notification, the University may be required to comply with an investigation led by a legal or regulatory body, which may take precedence over this Procedure. 

16. Preliminary Investigation 

16.1   The Preliminary Investigation aims to determine whether there is prima facie case of misconduct in research. It does not have to establish whether the misconduct has occurred, but to assess available evidence so that an initial determination can be made on how to proceed.

16.2 The Preliminary Investigation is conducted by the Lead Investigator appointed by the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise). The Lead Investigator should be appointed, where possible, within 10 working days from the decision to proceed to the Preliminary Investigation. She/he should be a  senior member of the University staff with relevant experience, knowledge and skills.

16.2.1 If the allegation is complex, the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise), at their discretion, may appoint a Screening Panel to support the work of the Lead Investigator. The Screening Panel should consist of a minimum of three members with the Lead investigator acting as a Chair. 

16.3 The Lead investigator, and if relevant all the members of the Screening Panel, will be required to sign a Declaration confirming that they will abide by the conditions and provisions of this Procedure, that they do not have any conflicts of interest, and that they will maintain the confidentiality of the proceedings during and after the University investigation. 

16.4 Both the Complainant and the Respondent will be informed by the RIG Team about who has been appointed as the Lead Investigator/members of the Screening Panel. Any concerns they may have about the appointment(s) will be appropriately considered by the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise); however, neither the Complainant nor the Respondent have a right of veto over the nomination of the Lead Investigator/members of the Screening Panel.

16.5 The RIG Team will seek/confirm with the Respondent details of all sources of research funding, and any internal or external research collaborators. Where appropriate, in line with the funding bodies’ policies and procedures, the RIG Team may need to contact the relevant funding body and other third parties, to inform them about the research misconduct allegation/investigation.

16.6 In line with relevant policies and procedures of funding bodies, or other relevant external organisations, an observer status on Preliminary Investigations will be granted by the University, if requested by a funding body/external organisation. This means that observers may be given access to relevant documentation, attend hearings and/or be present for key discussions during the investigation process. Any observers will be required to  sign a Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest Declaration, and will not have the right to interfere or exert any direct or indirect influence on the work of the Lead Investigator/members of the Screening Panel. 

16.7 Duties of the Lead Investigator 

16.7.1 The Lead Investigator should normally complete the Preliminary Investigation within 4 to 6 weeks, or sooner where possible. If additional time is needed to make a determination, this should be agreed with the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise) and appropriately communicated to all parties involved.

16.7.2 The Lead Investigator should:

• a) Review the allegation and all supporting evidence/documents provided by the Complainant.
• b) Review any background information relevant to the allegation.
• c) Request and assess any further documents (e.g. files, notebooks, copies of emails or other records) and/or information from the Complainant, the Respondent or other relevant individuals. 
• All individuals invited by the Lead Investigator to attend meetings should be given sufficient written notice informing them of the date, time and place set for the interview. Where appropriate, copies of any evidence received/gathered should be provided in advance to the relevant parties.

16.7.3 Where the Screening Panel is appointed, it should support the above activities. 

16.7.4 On conclusion of the Preliminary investigation, the Lead Investigator should produce a draft confidential written Report which should make a recommendation to the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise) that:

• a) The allegation is unfounded and therefore there is no case to answer.
• b) The allegation appears to be malicious, vexatious or frivolous.
• c) The essence of the allegation is a dispute between two or more parties which can reasonably be resolved through reconciliation and agreement. 
• d) The allegation has some substance but due to a lack of intent or deception, or due to its relatively minor nature, it should be addressed through education, training and/or supervision, or other non-disciplinary approach. 
• e) The allegation should proceed to the next stage of the Procedure so that it can be assessed by the Investigation Panel.

16.7.5 If there is no case to answer, the Lead Investigator should recommend in their written Report, where appropriate, any steps that should be taken to support the research project(s), the reputation of the Respondent against whom the allegation was dismissed, or the Complainant who made the allegation in good faith. 

16.7.6  Where the Lead Investigator concludes that the allegation is malicious, vexatious or frivolous, she/he should make a recommendation whether disciplinary action should be considered against the Complainant (if a member of the University). If the Complainant is a member of another University or research organisation, the Lead Investigator should (with advice from Legal Services) make a recommendation whether the relevant University/research organisation should be contacted and informed about any allegations that were found to be malicious, vexatious or frivolous.

16.8 On receiving the Lead Investigator’s draft Report, the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise) should decide, normally within 5 working days, whether or not to accept the recommendation(s) made. 

16.9 The Vice-President (Research and Enterprise) should communicate his decision and provide a copy of the Lead Investigator’s draft Report to the Complainant and the Respondent for them to comment on the factual accuracy of the Report. The Report is strictly confidential and its content, or the Report itself, must not be shared with anybody without the permission of the University. Only when the Report includes any errors of fact, should it be modified by the Lead Investigator where appropriate. 

16.10 The copy of the final Report should be provided to the Respondent and the Complainant, and other relevant parties where required. 

16.11 Any corrective actions that need to be implemented and completed, should be overseen by the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise) with the support of the RIG Team and/or other relevant individuals as designated by the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise).

17. Panel Investigation   

17.1 Where it is determined that the Panel Investigation is warranted, it will be conducted by  the Investigation Panel (‘the Panel’) appointed by the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise). The RIG Team will communicate this decision to all relevant parties, including the funding and regulatory bodies where appropriate. Any allegations that proceed to the Panel Investigation are yet unproven and must be treated as confidential by all those involved in the proceedings.

17.2  The role of the Panel is to review all relevant evidence, and to establish whether, on the balance of probabilities , research misconduct was committed (either intentionally or unintentionally), and the possible nature and extent of the misconduct. The Panel should make recommendations regarding any further necessary actions that should be undertaken to address any misconduct it may have found.    

17.3 The Panel should be normally appointed within 15 working days, or sooner where possible, from the decision to proceed with the Panel Investigation. The composition of the Panel should follow the rules in section 17.7 below. 

17.4 Both the Complainant and the Respondent will be informed by the RIG Team about the Panel’s composition, and may raise concerns they might have about those selected to serve on the Panel. Any concerns will be appropriately considered by the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise); however, neither the Complainant nor the Respondent have a right of veto over those appointed as members of the Panel.  

17.5 All members of the Panel  will be required to sign a Declaration confirming that they will abide by the conditions and provisions of this Procedure, that they do not have any conflicts of interest, and that they will maintain the confidentiality of the proceedings during and after the University investigation. 

17.6 All individuals invited by the Panel to attend hearings should be given sufficient written notice informing them of the date, time and place set for the interview. Where appropriate, copies of any evidence received/gathered should be provided in advance to the relevant parties. 

17.7 Composition of the Investigation Panel  

17.7.1   The Investigation Panel is formally appointed by the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise) and should consist of a minimum of three senior members with relevant experience, knowledge and skills. The Lead Investigator may assist the Vice-President with selection of the Panel, but must not be a member of the Panel. 

17.7.2 In the interest of transparency, the Investigation Panel must have at least one external member who is not affiliated to the University of Southampton. External membership will be sought through the networks available to the University, or through the consultation with the UKRIO, where a suitable individual can be nominated from the UKRIO Register of Advisers. 

17.7.3  At least one member of the Panel should have expert knowledge and experience in the area of research in which the alleged misconduct has taken place, but where possible, should not be a member of the same Academic Unit as the Respondent. The Panel member specialising in the particular discipline can be also from outside the University.  

17.7.4 Where an allegation involves a member of staff with a joint/honorary contract, or involves research conducted in conjunction with a partner organisation, at least one member of the Panel should be an appropriate member of staff from the other employing/collaborating organisation (where possible).

17.7.5 The Panel should have a Chair, who can be appointed by the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise) or elected by the members of the Panel themselves.

17.7.6 No member of the Panel shall have had any previous involvement with the case.

17.7.7 Once convened, the membership of the Panel should not be changed. In the event that the Chair stands down or the membership falls below three, the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise) should take steps to appoint additional Panel members.

17.7.8 Where the case involves complex legal issues, the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise) may appoint an internal or external lawyer, or other suitably qualified person, to act as adviser to the Panel. 

17.7.9 In line with relevant policies and procedures of funding bodies, or other relevant external organisation, an observer status on Panel Investigations will be granted by the University, if requested by a funding body/external organisation. This means that observers may be given access to relevant documentation, attend hearings and/or be present for key discussions during the investigation process. Any observers will be required to  sign a Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest Declaration, and will not have the right to interfere or exert any direct or indirect influence on the work of the Investigation Panel.

17.8  Duties of the Investigation Panel  

17.8.1 The work of the Investigation Panel should be normally completed within 8 to 12 weeks, or sooner where possible. Where additional time is needed to ensure a full and fair investigation, the estimated timescale should be appropriately communicated to all the parties involved.

17.8.2 To perform its task the Panel should:

• a) Review the allegation and all supporting evidence/documents provided by the Complainant and the Respondent.
• b) Assess any background information relevant to the allegation.
• c) Review the transcripts/minutes of the interviews conducted by the Lead Investigator, and any other documents/evidence gathered during the Preliminary Investigation.
• d) Request and assess any further documents (e.g. files, notebooks, copies of emails or other records) and/or information from the Complainant, the Respondent or other relevant individuals. 
• e) Interview both the Complainant and the Respondent, and any other witnesses/individuals (including the Lead Investigator) who might provide relevant information.   
• f) Determine and take any other actions as appropriate.   

17.8.3   At the conclusion of the Panel Investigation, the Panel should produce a draft confidential written Formal Report which should state:

17.8.3.1  How the investigation was conducted. 

17.8.3.2 Whether the allegation of research misconduct is:

• a) Upheld in full.
• b) Upheld in part. 
• c) Not upheld.
• d) Not upheld for reasons of being malicious, vexatious or frivolous.  

17.8.3.3 The reasons for the Panel’s decision.

17.8.3.4 Any recommended actions that should be taken.

17.8.4 The Panel’s recommendations should include, but are not limited to:

a) Where the allegation of research misconduct is upheld (either in full or in part), the Panel should make recommendations regarding any further action(s) deemed necessary to address the misconduct, correct the research record, and/or preserve the academic reputation of the University. This may include but is not limited to: 

i) Retraction/correction of article(s) in journal(s).

ii) Appropriate education, training or supervision.

iii) Initiation of the University’s disciplinary process.

iv) Referral to another University Procedure, e.g. investigation of alleged financial fraud or other irregularities.

v) Notifying research participants and/or doctors in case of medical research.

vi) Review of internal management, training or supervisory procedures for research.

vii) Informing appropriate individuals within the University or external organisations. This  might include but is not limited to:

• The Director of Legal Services.
• The Executive Director of Human Resources.
• The Faculty’s Dean and Associate Dean Research (ADR).
• The Head of the relevant School.
• The Director of the relevant Professional Service.
• The Executive Director of Finance.
• Any other relevant members of the University staff.
• The relevant funding body, partner organisation or a regulatory/professional body.
• (Having taken advice from Legal Services) the Respondent’s current employer (if known), if the Respondent is no longer an employee of the University of Southampton. 

b) Where the allegation is not upheld, and depending on the seriousness of the allegation, appropriate restorative actions should be recommended by the Panel to support the reputation of the Respondent and any relevant research project(s).

c) Where the Panel concludes that the allegation is malicious, vexatious or frivolous, it should make a recommendation whether disciplinary action should be considered against those who made the allegation (if members of the University). Where the Complainant is a member of another University or research organisation, the Panel should (with advice from Legal Services) make a recommendation whether the relevant university/research organisation should be contacted and informed about the allegations that were found to be malicious, vexatious or frivolous. 

17.9 The Investigation Panel’s draft Report will be shared with the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise) who must decide, normally within 10 working days,  whether or not to accept the recommendations made.

17.10 The Vice-President (Research and Enterprise) should communicate his decision and provide a copy of the Panel’s draft Report to  the Complainant and the Respondent for them to comment on the factual accuracy of the Report. The Panel’s Report is strictly confidential and its content, or the Report itself, must not be shared with anybody without the permission of the University. Only when the Report includes any errors of fact, should the Investigation Panel modify the Report where appropriate.

17.11 The copy of the final Report should be provided to the Respondent and the Complainant, and other relevant parties where required. 

17.12 Any corrective actions that need to be implemented and completed, should be overseen by the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise) with the support of the RIG Team and/or other relevant individuals as designated by the Vice-President (Research and Enterprise). 

17.13 If the case has received publicity, the University should, where appropriate, issue an official statement/press release to make the outcome of the investigation public.  

18. Sanctions

18.1 Appropriate action, which may include disciplinary action, may be taken against:

18.1.1 The Respondent where the allegation of research misconduct was upheld in accordance with this Procedure.

18.1.2 Anyone whose allegation of research misconduct was found to be malicious, vexatious or frivolous. 

18.2  Disciplinary action  

18.2.1 Any disciplinary action must be taken under  the University’s disciplinary policy. 

18.2.2 Where formal disciplinary action is taken under the University’s disciplinary policy, evidence gathered in the course of the research misconduct investigation, including formal Reports, will be used at the investigation stage of the disciplinary procedure. 

19. Appeals

19.1 The Respondent and the Complainant cannot appeal against the decision made by the Vice President (Research and Enterprise) following a recommendation by the Lead Investigator/the Investigation Panel. The right to appeal only exists under the University’s disciplinary procedure in cases where this was recommended and instigated.

20. Procedure Review 

20.1 This Procedure will be reviewed regularly in the light of any new available guidance or forthcoming legislation and at least once every three years. 

21. Appendix A 

Statement on dealing with Allegations of Research Misconduct under United States Public Health Service (USPHS) Research-related Activities for Foreign Institutions.

The University of Southampton has incorporated into its policies and procedures the following approach for dealing with and reporting possible research misconduct when USPHS funds are involved.

• The University of Southampton will designate an official to receive allegations and develop procedures for use by research employees or others who wish to make an allegation of research misconduct involving USPHS funds. The designated official will notify the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) when an allegation of research misconduct involving USPHS funds is received. Phone: (240) 453-8800. Fax: (301) 594-0043. Email:  [email protected]
• The University of Southampton will then work with ORI or other appropriate offices of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (NHS) to develop and implement a process for responding to the research misconduct allegation that is consistent with U.S. Federal Regulation, 42 CFR Parts 50 and 93. 
• The University of Southampton will submit appropriate reports (in English) to ORI that describe the process followed in conducting the investigation, the evidence on which the conclusions of the investigation are based, and if a finding of research misconduct is made, the administrative actions that are taken against the respondent.
• The University of Southampton will inform research employees about the official who is designated to receive allegations and the procedures for the employee or other individuals to make an allegation of research misconduct involving USPHS supported research. This information will also be posted on the organisation’s web site.
• The University of Southampton certifies that this statement will be a permanent amendment to the institution’s procedures for responding to allegations of research misconduct.
• The University of Southampton will submit the ‘Annual Report on Possible Research Misconduct’ to ORI by April 30 th of each year. The report is submitted electronically through the ORI web site at  http://ori.hhs.gov

Name of Organisation:  University of Southampton

Address:  Highfield Campus, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom

Phone:  (+44) 2380 595000

Responsible Official’s Title:  Head of Contracts, Policy and Governance, Research and Innovation Services.

22. Acknowledgements

The University of Southampton gratefully acknowledges that the following documents were referred to when preparing this Procedure: 

ALLEA, 2017. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (Revised Edition) . 

RCUK, 2017. Policy and Guidelines on Governance of Good Research Conduct . 

UK Research Integrity Office, 2008. Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research . 

University of Leeds, 2004. Protocol for investigating and resolving allegations of misconduct in academic research .

University of Portsmouth, 2013. Procedure for the Investigation of Allegations of Misconduct in Research .

23. Version Control 

• Course modules
• Acoustical engineering
• Biomedical and medical engineering
• Civil engineering
• Every day I’m completely immersed in an environment that’s creative in all aspects
• Everything I learn feels so relevant, even If it’s a subject rooted in the past
• Maritime engineering
• Photonics and optoelectronics
• Social statistics and demography
• A missing link between continental shelves and the deep sea: Have we underestimated the importance of land-detached canyons?
• A seismic study of the continent-ocean transition southwest of the UK
• A study of rolling contact fatigue in electric vehicles (EVs)
• Acoustic monitoring of forest exploitation to establish community perspectives of sustainable hunting
• Acoustic sensing and characterisation of soil organic matter
• Advancing intersectional geographies of diaspora-led development in times of multiple crises
• Aero engine fan wake turbulence – Simulation and wind tunnel experiments
• Against Climate Change (DACC): improving the estimates of forest fire smoke emissions
• All-in-one Mars in-situ resource utilisation (ISRU) system and life-supporting using non-thermal plasma
• An electromagnetic study of the continent-ocean transition southwest of the UK
• An investigation of the relationship between health, home and law in the context of poor and precarious housing, and complex and advanced illness
• Antibiotic resistance genes in chalk streams
• Being autistic in care: Understanding differences in care experiences including breakdowns in placements for autistic and non-autistic children
• Biogeochemical cycling in the critical coastal zone: Developing novel methods to make reliable measurements of geochemical fluxes in permeable sediments
• Bloom and bust: seasonal cycles of phytoplankton and carbon flux
• British Black Lives Matter: The emergence of a modern civil rights movement
• Building physics for low carbon comfort using artificial intelligence
• Building-resolved large-eddy simulations of wind and dispersion over a city scale urban area
• Business studies and management: accounting
• Business studies and management: banking and finance
• Business studies and management: decision analytics and risk
• Business studies and management: digital and data driven marketing
• Business studies and management: human resources (HR) management and organisational behaviour
• Business studies and management: strategy, innovation and entrepreneurship
• Carbon storage in reactive rock systems: determining the coupling of geo-chemo-mechanical processes in reactive transport
• Cascading hazards from the largest volcanic eruption in over a century: What happened when Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai erupted in January 2022?
• Characterisation of cast austenitic stainless steels using ultrasonic backscatter and artificial intelligence
• Climate Change effects on the developmental physiology of the small-spotted catshark
• Climate at the time of the Human settlement of the Eastern Pacific
• Collaborative privacy in data marketplaces
• Compatibility of climate and biodiversity targets under future land use change
• Cost of living in modern and fossil animals
• Creative clusters in rural, coastal and post-industrial towns
• Deep oceanic convection: the outsized role of small-scale processes
• Defect categories and their realisation in supersymmetric gauge theory
• Defining the Marine Fisheries-Energy-Environment Nexus: Learning from shocks to enhance natural resource resilience
• Design and fabrication of next generation optical fibres
• Developing a practical application of unmanned aerial vehicle technologies for conservation research and monitoring of endangered wildlife
• Development and evolution of animal biomineral skeletons
• Development of all-in-one in-situ resource utilisation system for crewed Mars exploration missions
• Ecological role of offshore artificial structures
• Effect of embankment and subgrade weathering on railway track performance
• Efficient ‘whole-life’ anchoring systems for offshore floating renewables
• Electrochemical sensing of the sea surface microlayer
• Engagement with nature among children from minority ethnic backgrounds
• Enhancing UAV manoeuvres and control using distributed sensor arrays
• Ensuring the Safety and Security of Autonomous Cyber-Physical Systems
• Environmental and genetic determinants of Brassica crop damage by the agricultural pest Diamondback moth
• Estimating marine mammal abundance and distribution from passive acoustic and biotelemetry data
• Evolution of symbiosis in a warmer world
• Examining evolutionary loss of calcification in coccolithophores
• Explainable AI (XAI) for health
• Explaining process, pattern and dynamics of marine predator hotspots in the Southern Ocean
• Exploring dynamics of natural capital in coastal barrier systems
• Exploring the mechanisms of microplastics incorporation and their influence on the functioning of coral holobionts
• Exploring the potential electrical activity of gut for healthcare and wellbeing
• Exploring the trans-local nature of cultural scene
• Facilitating forest restoration sustainability of tropical swidden agriculture
• Faulting, fluids and geohazards within subduction zone forearcs
• Faulting, magmatism and fluid flow during volcanic rifting in East Africa
• Fingerprinting environmental releases from nuclear facilities
• Flexible hybrid thermoelectric materials for wearable energy harvesting
• Floating hydrokinetic power converter
• Glacial sedimentology associated subglacial hydrology
• Green and sustainable Internet of Things
• How do antimicrobial peptides alter T cell cytokine production?
• How do calcifying marine organisms grow? Determining the role of non-classical precipitation processes in biogenic marine calcite formation
• How do neutrophils alter T cell metabolism?
• How well can we predict future changes in biodiversity using machine learning?
• Hydrant dynamics for acoustic leak detection in water pipes
• If ‘Black Lives Matter’, do ‘Asian Lives Matter’ too? Impact trajectories of organisation activism on wellbeing of ethnic minority communities
• Illuminating luciferin bioluminescence in dinoflagellates
• Imaging quantum materials with an XFEL
• Impact of neuromodulating drugs on gut microbiome homeostasis
• Impact of pharmaceuticals in the marine environment in a changing world
• Impacts of environmental change on coastal habitat restoration
• Improving subsea navigation using environment observations for long term autonomy
• Information theoretic methods for sensor management
• Installation effect on the noise of small high speed fans
• Integrated earth observation mapping change land sea
• Interconnections of past greenhouse climates
• Investigating IgG cell depletion mechanisms
• Is ocean mixing upside down? How mixing processes drive upwelling in a deep-ocean basin
• Landing gear aerodynamics and aeroacoustics
• Lightweight gas storage: real-world strategies for the hydrogen economy
• Long-term change in the benthos – creating robust data from varying camera systems
• Machine learning for multi-robot perception
• Marine ecosystem responses to past climate change and its oceanographic impacts
• Mechanical effects in the surf zone - in situ electrochemical sensing
• Microfluidic cell isolation systems for sepsis
• Migrant entrepreneurship, gender and generation: context and family dynamics in small town Britain
• Miniaturisation in fishes: evolutionary and ecological perspectives
• Modelling high-power fibre laser and amplifier stability
• Modelling soil dewatering and recharge for cost-effective and climate resilient infrastructure
• Modelling the evolution of adaptive responses to climate change across spatial landscapes
• Nanomaterials sensors for biomedicine and/or the environment
• New high-resolution observations of ocean surface current and winds from innovative airborne and satellite measurements
• New perspectives on ocean photosynthesis
• Novel methods of detecting carbon cycling pathways in lakes and their impact on ecosystem change
• Novel technologies for cyber-physical security
• Novel transparent conducting films with unusual optoelectronic properties
• Novel wavelength fibre lasers for industrial applications
• Ocean circulation and the Southern Ocean carbon sink
• Ocean influence on recent climate extremes
• Ocean methane sensing using novel surface plasmon resonance technology
• Ocean physics and ecology: can robots disentangle the mix?
• Ocean-based Carbon Dioxide Removal: Assessing the utility of coastal enhanced weathering
• Offshore renewable energy (ORE) foundations on rock seabeds: advancing design through analogue testing and modelling
• Optical fibre sensing for acoustic leak detection in buried pipelines
• Optimal energy transfer in nonlinear systems
• Optimizing machine learning for embedded systems
• Oxidation of fossil organic matter as a source of atmospheric CO2
• Partnership dissolution and re-formation in later life among individuals from minority ethnic communities in the UK
• Personalized multimodal human-robot interactions
• Preventing disease by enhancing the cleaning power of domestic water taps using sound
• Quantifying riparian vegetation dynamics and flow interactions for Nature Based Solutions using novel environmental sensing techniques
• Quantifying the response and sensitivity of tropical forest carbon sinks to various drivers
• Quantifying variability in phytoplankton electron requirements for carbon fixation
• Resilient and sustainable steel-framed building structures
• Resolving Antarctic meltwater events in Southern Ocean marine sediments and exploring their significance using climate models
• Robust acoustic leak detection in water pipes using contact sound guides
• Silicon synapses for artificial intelligence hardware
• Smart photon delivery via reconfigurable optical fibres
• The Gulf Stream control of the North Atlantic carbon sink
• The Mayflower Studentship: a prestigious fully funded PhD studentship in bioscience
• The calming effect of group living in social fishes
• The duration of ridge flank hydrothermal exchange and its role in global biogeochemical cycles
• The evolution of symmetry in echinoderms
• The impact of early life stress on neuronal enhancer function
• The oceanic fingerprints on changing monsoons over South and Southeast Asia
• The role of iron in nitrogen fixation and photosynthesis in changing polar oceans
• The role of singlet oxygen signaling in plant responses to heat and drought stress
• Time variability on turbulent mixing of heat around melting ice in the West Antarctic
• Triggers and Feedbacks of Climate Tipping Points
• Uncovering the drivers of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease progression using patient derived organoids
• Understanding recent land-use change in Snowdonia to plan a sustainable future for uplands: integrating palaeoecology and conservation practice
• Understanding the role of cell motility in resource acquisition by marine phytoplankton
• Understanding the structure and engagement of personal networks that support older people with complex care needs in marginalised communities and their ability to adapt to increasingly ‘digitalised’ health and social care
• Unpicking the Anthropocene in the Hawaiian Archipelago
• Unraveling oceanic multi-element cycles using single cell ionomics
• Unravelling southwest Indian Ocean biological productivity and physics: a machine learning approach
• Using acoustics to monitor how small cracks develop into bursts in pipelines
• Using machine learning to improve predictions of ocean carbon storage by marine life
• Vulnerability of low-lying coastal transportation networks to natural hazards
• Wideband fibre optical parametric amplifiers for Space Division Multiplexing technology
• Will it stick? Exploring the role of turbulence and biological glues on ocean carbon storage
• X-ray imaging and property characterisation of porous materials
• Postgraduate Taught Diversity Scholarship (Environmental and Life Sciences)
• Southampton Business School Postgraduate UK Scholarship
• Southampton Genomics Talent Scholarship
• Southampton History Patricia Mather and Helen Patterson Scholarship
• Southampton MA Holocaust scholarships
• Southampton Philosophy David Humphris-Norman Scholarship
• Southampton UK Alumni Music Scholarship
• The National Institute for Health and care Research South Central INSIGHT Programme
• Winchester School of Art Progression Scholarship
• Southampton Physics and Astronomy Achievement Scholarship
• GREAT Scholarships 2024 – Greece
• Engineering Excellence Scholarship
• Winchester School of Art Postgraduate Global Talent Scholarship
• Engineering Global Talent Scholarship
• Southampton University Corporate Civil Engineering Scholarship Scheme
• Merit scholarships for international postgraduates
• Merit scholarships for international undergraduates
• Scholarships, awards and funding opportunities
• Becas Chile Scholarship
• Chevening Scholarships
• China Scholarship Council Scholarships
• COLFUTURO Scholarships
• Commonwealth Distance Learning Scholarships
• Commonwealth Master's Scholarships
• Commonwealth PhD Scholarships
• Commonwealth PhD Scholarships for high income countries
• Commonwealth Shared Scholarships
• Commonwealth Split-Site Scholarships
• FIDERH Scholarships
• Fulbright Awards
• FUNED Scholarships
• Great Scholarships 2024 – India
• Great Scholarships 2024 – Bangladesh
• Great Scholarships 2024 – Mexico
• Great Scholarships 2024 – Nigeria
• Marshall Scholarship
• Saïd Foundation Scholarships
• British Council Scholarships for Women in STEM
• Xiamen University PhD Scholarships
• GREAT scholarships for justice and law 2024 – Indonesia
• Scholarship terms and conditions
• Southampton Education Civic Scholarship
• Southampton Ageing and Gerontology Talent Scholarship
• Southampton Canadian Prestige Scholarship for Law
• Southampton Presidential International Scholarship
• Continuing professional development
• Archers Road
• City Gateway
• Erasmus Park
• Highfield Hall
• Orion Point
• Wessex Lane
• Cancer Sciences Protein Facility
• Geotechnical Centrifuge
• Maritime Robotics and Instrumentation Laboratory (MRIL)
• Active Living
• Advanced Fibre Applications
• Advanced Laser Laboratory
• Advanced Project Management Research Centre
• Antibody and Vaccine Group
• Astronomy Group
• Autism Community Research Network @ Southampton (ACoRNS)
• Bioarchaeology and Osteoarchaeology at Southampton (BOS)
• Bladder and Bowel Management
• Cell and Developmental Biology
• Centre for Defence and Security Research
• Centre for Developmental Origins of Health and Disease
• Centre for Digital Finance
• Centre for Eastern European and Eurasian Studies (CEEES)
• Centre for Empirical Research in Finance and Banking (CERFIB)
• Centre for Geometry, Topology, and Applications
• Centre for Global Englishes
• Centre for Global Health and Policy (GHaP)
• Centre for Health Technologies
• Centre for Healthcare Analytics
• Centre for Human Development, Stem Cells and Regeneration
• Centre for Imperial and Postcolonial Studies
• Centre for Inclusive and Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Innovation (CISEI)
• Centre for International Film Research (CIFR)
• Centre for International Law and Globalisation
• Centre for Internet of Things and Pervasive Systems
• Centre for Justice Studies
• Centre for Linguistics, Language Education and Acquisition Research
• Centre for Machine Intelligence
• Centre for Maritime Archaeology
• Centre for Medieval and Renaissance Culture (CMRC)
• Centre for Modern and Contemporary Writing (CMCW)
• Centre for Music Education and Social Justice
• Centre for Political Ethnography (CPE)
• Centre for Research in Accounting, Accountability and Governance
• Centre for Research on Work and Organisations
• Centre for Resilient Socio-Technical Systems
• Centre for Transnational Studies
• Child and Adolescent Research Group
• Clinical Ethics, Law and Society (CELS)
• Computational Nonlinear Optics
• Cyber Security Academy
• Data Science Group
• Digital Oceans
• EPSRC and MOD Centre for Doctoral Training in Complex Integrated Systems for Defence and Security
• Economic Theory and Experimental Economics
• Economy, Society and Governance
• Electrical Power Engineering
• Environmental Hydraulics
• Gas Photonics in Hollow Core Fibres 
• Geochemistry
• Global Health (Demography)
• Global Health Community of Practice
• Gravity group
• Healthy Oceans
• High Power Fibre Lasers
• Hollow Core Fibre
• Human Genetics and Genomic Medicine
• Infrastructure Group
• Institute of Developmental Sciences
• Institute of Maritime Law (IML)
• Integrated Photonic Devices
• Integrative Molecular Phenotyping Centre
• Interdisciplinary Musculoskeletal Health
• International Centre for Ecohydraulics Research (ICER)
• Language Assessment and Testing Unit (LATU)
• Laser-Direct-Write (LDW) Technologies for Biomedical Applications
• Law and Technology Centre
• Long Term Conditions
• Magnetic Resonance
• Mathematical Modelling
• Medicines Management
• Molecular and Precision Biosciences
• Multiwavelength Accretion and Astronomical Transients
• National Biofilms Innovation Centre (NBIC)
• National Centre for Research Methods
• National Infrastructure Laboratory
• Nature-Based Ocean Solutions
• Nonlinear Semiconductor Photonics
• Ocean Perception Group
• Operational Research
• Optical Engineering and Quantum Photonics Group
• Paediatrics and Child Health - Clinical and Experimental Sciences
• People, Property, Community
• Photonic Systems, Circuits and Sensors Group
• Physical Optics
• Primary Care Research Centre
• Product Returns Research Group (PRRG)
• Quantum, Light and Matter Group
• Silica Fibre Fabrication
• Silicon Photonics
• Skin Sensing Research Group
• Southampton Centre for Nineteenth-Century Research
• Southampton Ethics Centre
• Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC)
• Southampton High Energy Physics group
• Southampton Imaging
• Southampton Theory Astrophysics and Gravity (STAG) Research Centre
• Stefan Cross Centre for Women, Equality and Law
• String theory and holography
• The India Centre for Inclusive Growth and Sustainable Development
• The Parkes Institute
• Tony Davies High Voltage Laboratory
• Ultrafast X-ray Group
• Vision Science
• WSA Exchange
• Work Futures Research Centre (WFRC)
• Departments

HHS Finalizes New Policies on Misconduct in Funded Research

By Bloomberg Law Automation

The US Department of Health and Human Services finalized the 2024 Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct, updating the 2005 regulation and clarifying requirements for addressing research misconduct in PHS-funded research, the department announced Thursday .

According to HHS, the final rule attempts to streamline institutional responsibilities in the general conduct of misconduct proceedings, recognize institutional best practices and realistic timelines, provide a clear appeal process and administrative remedies for respondents, and add commonly used definitions to clearly highlight how these concepts are applied when conducting oversight of research misconduct proceedings.

The final rule takes effect Jan. 1, 2025, ...

Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:

Learn about bloomberg law.

AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.

Already a subscriber?

Log in to keep reading or access research tools.

Home | Contact us | Staff | Students | iExeter (Staff and Students) | Site map | 中文网

• Alumni and supporters
• Our departments
• Visiting us
• Academic Partnerships Handbook
• Approval and Revision of Taught Modules and Programmes Handbook
• Assessment, Progression and Awarding: Taught Programmes Handbook
• Credit and Qualifications Framework
• Exceptional Circumstances Handbook
• External Examining Handbook
• Learning and Teaching Support Handbook
• 1 - Provision of information by Faculties to students
• 2 - Admission of students to a Postgraduate Research degree programme under off-campus arrangements
• 3 - Arrangements for the supervision of Postgraduate Research students
• 4 - Supervision of Postgraduate Research students
• 5 - Periods of registration and changes to registration status for Postgraduate Research students
• 6 - PGR Liaison Forums
• 7 - Annual monitoring review
• 8 - Unsatisfactory Student Progress, Engagement and Attendance (USPEA)
• 9 - Upgrade from MPhil or MByRes to Doctoral Study
• 10 - Professional Doctorate Postgraduate Research Programmes: Code of Good Practice
• 11 - Presentation of theses/dissertations for Postgraduate Research degrees: statement of procedures
• 12 - Handbook for Examination of Postgraduate Research programmes

13 - Research Misconduct

• 15 - Student Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity and Adoption Policy
• 16 - Visiting Postgraduate Research Students
• 17 - Inclusive Practice within Learning and Teaching
• 18 - Postgraduate Student Absence Policy
• 19 - Employment of postgraduate students: code of good practice
• 20 - Faculty Management of Postgraduate Research: Code of Good Practice
• 21 – PGR Aegrotat and Posthumous Awards
• Quality Review & Enhancement Framework
• Student Cases Handbook
• Special Provisions for Online Programmes (including those offered in partnership with Keypath Education)
• Special Provisions for Healthcare Programmes
• Special Provisions for Degree Apprenticeships
• Special Provisions for Programmes with Accreditation Licenced by the Engineering Council

Chapter 13 - Research Misconduct: Procedure for Graduate Research Students suspected of Research Misconduct

1 Introduction and General Principles 2 Definitions of Research Misconduct 3 References to Offices and Delegation of Powers 4 Responsibilities 5 Procedure for Dealing with Suspected Research Misconduct: Faculty Stage 6 Procedure for Dealing with Suspected Research Misconduct: Discovered prior to an examination 7 Procedure for Dealing with Suspected Research Misconduct: University Stage 8 Procedure for Research Misconduct Panels 9 Appeals 10 Tables of Penalties

Appendix A - Statement on the use of Proof Reading  Annex

This Procedure is applicable for alleged Research Misconduct by students only. It does not cover alleged Research Misconduct by staff the Procedure for which is available here. For guidance or advice on the procedure please contact the Student Cases Office on 01392 725810 or [email protected] .

Students needing help with their own case should contact the Students’ Guild Advice Unit on [email protected]  in Exeter and [email protected]  in Cornwall. 

• Research Misconduct - Faculty Report Form
• Research Misconduct Appeal Form
• The University fully subscribes to the ideals set out in the ‘ Concordat to Support Research Integrity ’ and the UKRI's ‘ Policy and Guidelines on Governance of Good Research ’. The University takes academic integrity very seriously and expects all researchers to conduct themselves accordingly, and in line with the University’s ‘ Code of Good Practice in the Conduct of Research '. The University promotes a culture of research integrity, and encourages students to discuss this with their supervisory team. Research misconduct does not include honest error, or honest differences in interpretation or judgement in evaluating research methods or results. The University offers an online training course about Research Integrity online here on ELE.
• The Student Cases Office will have oversight of all cases of Research Misconduct by students in order that they can carry out the University’s reporting requirements. This will include responding to requests for information under the Freedom of Information and Data Protection Acts.
• All instances of research misconduct by students should be investigated consistently within and between Faculties and the Student Cases Office. All decisions taken under this Procedure should consider evidence on the basis of balance of probability and take full account of natural justice, fairness and equity.
• This procedure shall apply to all currently registered students and alumni of the University. For students who are also members of staff the following definition contained in the ' Guidance on Misconduct in Research ' annex to the University’s ‘ Code of Good Practice in the Conduct of Research ' shall apply: ‘in the case of a researcher who is both a member of staff and a student, the University will make a decision on which is the appropriate procedure to follow, taking account of the circumstances of the case and, in particular, whether research is a paramount part of the individual’s employment.’
• All students will be given the opportunity to submit a defence. This may be in writing and/or in person. However, a student cannot prevent a hearing from taking place by refusing to attend or by failing to submit evidence. A meeting may proceed as long as reasonable steps have been taken to allow the student to submit evidence.
• All allegations of research misconduct should be considered without unnecessary delay, and students should be kept informed of any delays to proceedings.  All cases considered under this procedure should be completed within 60 calendar days of the student being formally notified of the alleged offence. Where this is not possible, or where a case is deemed complex, students should be kept informed of the delay.
• Any penalty imposed should be proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct. Evidence of an intention to gain advantage, deliberate falsification, or an intention to deceive will be considered as aggravating factors in determining the severity of the offence and the penalty.
• If, after investigation, no case of Research Misconduct is found against a student, the student’s record as held by the Faculty and Student Records will not contain reference to the allegation. Where a case is proven, the outcome and the penalty will be placed on their record held by the Faculty and Student Records .
• Information on proven cases of Research Misconduct will be available to staff who are asked to provide references for students.
• The University provides guidance on appropriate penalties for cases of Research Misconduct (see section 10). However, each Faculty or Research Misconduct Panel will have discretion in the penalty they choose to apply, providing that a clear written record is kept of the reasons for doing so .
• The University does not consider mitigation in cases of research misconduct unless clinical evidence is provided showing that the student’s judgment was affected in such a way as to lead directly to the misconduct. Students presenting such evidence should be immediately referred to the Health, Wellbeing and Support for Study procedure, and all research misconduct proceedings suspended until any health and wellbeing issues have been addressed.
• The University may be legally obliged to inform the student’s sponsor, funder, Research Council, employer, partner institution, or professional regulatory body of action taken under this procedure. The University may be required to inform certain Research Councils as soon as any informal investigation is to take place, with the subsequent formal investigation stages and the outcome being communicated to the Research Council once any investigation is completed.
• The University may also determine that it is appropriate to inform the student’s sponsor, funder, Research Council, employer, partner institution, or professional regulatory body or other party of action taken under this procedure. Furthermore, where a complaint of research misconduct has been made against a student by another person, then the University reserves the right to inform that individual of the outcome of the investigation.
• Where the person under investigation has published the offending material in the name of a particular institution or may have undertaken whole or part of the work at a particular institution, then the University reserves the right to inform that institution.
• Any allegations raised under this Procedure may also result in the student being subject to the ‘ Fitness to Practise Procedures 2023-24 ’.
• Graduate Research Students should be aware that any work submitted to a member of their supervisory team either in full, in part, or as a draft will fall under the provisions of this Procedure, as will any work handed to a member of staff. For the purposes of this Procedure work may be defined as, but not limited to, material submitted to a supervisor, or in a thesis, publication, public presentation, poster, website, grant proposal etc related to their programme of study, or submitted as a student of the University. For the purposes of some of the offences under this Procedure, any data created for the purposes of the student’s studies will also fall under the remit of this Procedure.
• Should a student submit work to an external body which was undertaken whilst a student at the University and Research Misconduct is detected, or should Research Misconduct be detected in any work the student is intending to submit for an award of the University, then the University will take action under this Procedure, as if the work had been submitted to the student’s supervisory team.
• Fabrication : with the intention of deceiving, the creation of false data or other aspects of research or assessed work, including but not limited to documentation and participant consent.
• Falsification : with the intention of deceiving, the inappropriate manipulation and/or selection of data, imagery, and/or consents.
• Direct copying of text or illustrations from a webpage, book, article, thesis, handout, fellow student's work, web-page, AI-generated content or other source without proper acknowledgement. This includes extracting sections of text from another source, and merely linking these together with a few of one's own sentences or words. This does not mean that direct quotes from other texts cannot be used, but that these should be placed in quotation marks and referenced so that the reader understands that they are not the student’s own words.
• Claiming individual ideas derived from a book, article etc. as one's own, and incorporating them into one's work without acknowledging the source of those ideas. This includes paraphrasing a source, or altering the material taken from the source, so it appears to be one’s own work.
• The re-submission or re-use of the student’s own work in another assignment whether this was submitted and approved for an award or for which the student received credit (i.e. for a module but which did not lead to an award) at the University of Exeter or any other academic institution worldwide except where the incorporation of previous work into a larger argument is permitted under Section 2, ‘ Content of the Thesis/Dissertation’ in the ‘Presentation of Theses/Dissertations for Degrees in the Faculty of Graduate Research: Statement of Procedures ’.
• Collusion : working with another on a piece of work (when not specifically directed to do so), where neither recognises the other’s contribution, in an attempt to deceive others into thinking the work is one person’s alone. Collusion can also be taken to mean the act of not informing the relevant authorities that another is undertaking research misconduct, or actively covering up the misconduct of another. This includes using a ghost writer. Note that students may have their work proof-read or copy edited in order to correct the English, though not to have it corrected for ideas or academic content.
• Misrepresentation of data in work including withholding or suppression of relevant findings and/or data, (e.g. ‘cherry picking’) or presenting a flawed interpretation of data without acknowledging its weaknesses.
• Undisclosed duplication of publication, including undisclosed duplicate submission of manuscripts for publication.
• Misrepresentation of interests, including failure to declare material interests either of the researcher or of the funders of the research and this includes appropriate acknowledgement of sources of funding where appropriate.
• Misrepresentation of qualifications and/or experience, including claiming or implying qualifications or experience which are not held.
• Misrepresentation of involvement, such as inappropriate claims to authorship and/or attribution of work (including reports, publication, seminar and conference presentations, posters, web pages etc.) where there has been no significant contribution, or the denial of authorship where an author has made a significant contribution. This includes misrepresenting  the work of someone else, or from an AI-generated source, as your own, in whole or in part. For example: disguising the authorship of the work through the use of electronic devices to conceal the extent to which the work is not the student’s own; using source material originally in another language and translating this into English without attributing the work to the original author, or using synonyms throughout copied material; copying another’s bibliography and referencing, implying the research completed is the student’s own. This may also include the presence of hidden characters (white text) within the work which may have been included to manipulate the word count, to avoid source matches or to otherwise mislead the marker.  Note, evidence of an attempt to disguise any of the forms of plagiarism listed above (which might involve the use of paraphrasing systems or translation systems, or a translator or third party who acts as more than a proof-reader under the University’s regulations) will normally be treated more severely than plagiarism alone.
• disclosing improperly the identity of individuals or groups involved in research without their consent, or other breach of confidentiality;
• placing any of those involved in research in danger, whether as subjects, participants or associated individuals, without their prior consent, and without appropriate safeguards even with consent; this includes reputational danger where that can be anticipated;
• not taking all reasonable care to ensure that the risks and dangers, the broad objectives and the sponsors of the research are known to participants or their legal representatives, to ensure appropriate informed consent is obtained properly, explicitly and transparently;
• not observing legal and reasonable ethical requirements or obligations of care for animal subjects, human organs or tissue used in research, or for the protection of the environment;
• improper conduct in peer review of research proposals or results (including manuscripts submitted for publication); this includes failure to disclose conflicts of interest; f) inadequate disclosure of clearly limited competence; misappropriation of the content of material; and breach of confidentiality or abuse of material provided in confidence for peer review purposes;
• failure to manage data according to the research funder’s data policy and all relevant legislation;
• failure to keep clear and accurate records appropriate to the research being conducted.
• failure to adhere to data storage requirements, including taking data off campus where this is not permitted. This also includes adherence with any requirements stipulated as part of ethics approval.
• Where the procedures refer to University officers and members of staff, it is standard practice that such procedures may, where appropriate, be handled through an appropriate person nominated by the stated officer/staff member to act on their behalf.
• In the cases below where the Student Cases Office is referenced, they are acting on the delegated authority of the Director of Compliance, Governance and Risk.
• Where reference is made to the Assistant Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research (APVC-R), the APVC-R can appoint the Faculty Director of Postgraduate Research (DPGR) to act as their nominee. Where neither the APVC-R nor the DPGR is appropriate, for example because they are the student’s supervisor or PGR pastoral tutor, then another senior member of the Faculty should be appointed to fulfil the APVC-R’s role .
• Where reference is made to the Dean of Postgraduate Research, the Dean of Postgraduate Research’s role can be fulfilled by the Dean for Taught Students, where appropriate. Where neither Dean is appropriate, for example they are the student’s supervisor or PGR pastoral tutor, they must delegate their role to an APVC-R .
• Throughout this document, references to students also refer to alumni of the University in respect of work undertaken whilst a student of the University or submitted for an award of the University.
• Throughout this Chapter at formal meetings reference is made to the Student's supporter. The Student's Supporter will normally be a member of the University, or Guild of Students and the role is defined as follows; the Supporter is there to provide moral support to the Student and to support the Student with asking and answering questions during the meeting. They may also take notes of the meeting for the Student. The Student is expected to speak for themselves, and there is no automatic right for the Supporter to address the Committee. Should a Supporter act beyond this definition, then the chair may  suspend the meeting and ask the Supporter to leave, in the event that the Student is unable to continue the meeting in the absence of the Supporter, then the meeting will continue in the absence of the Student, based on the verbal evidence heard to date and the written documentation. Should the Supporter be asked to leave this meeting, this will not affect the attendance of others at the meeting such as the marker, any witness of the Faculty Representative.
• The University will ensure that all procedures and policies that relate to Research Misconduct are fit for purpose and widely available to both staff and students.
• The University will ensure that all staff involved in handling Research Misconduct cases have access to appropriate support.
• The University will support Faculties in developing methods to reduce incidences of Research Misconduct.
• The University will ensure that students have access to appropriate levels of information, advice and guidance to ensure adherence with the ‘ Code of Good Practice in the Conduct of Research ' and to support students if Research Misconduct is proven against them.
• The University will keep records of all proven cases of Research Misconduct, providing annual reports to the Board of Postgraduate Research and Senate.
• All Faculties will ensure that they have appropriate arrangements in place in order to comply with the requirements set out in this Procedure. All Faculties will follow these procedures when handling cases of suspected Research Misconduct.
• All Faculties will provide students with training and guidance on Research Conduct.
• All Faculties will ensure that the information provided in their Handbooks includes information on Research Conduct.
• All Faculties will ensure that supervisors are appropriately supported should they suspect Research Misconduct within a student’s work
• Responsibility for this Procedure’s implementation by Faculties rests with the APVC-R.
• Each student shall operate in accordance with the University’s ‘ Code of Good Practice in the Conduct of Research ' at all times.
• Each student shall familiarise themselves with the ‘ Code of Good Practice in the Conduct of Research ', and the University's Attribution Policy, the definitions contained with these procedures, their Faculty/Department specific guidance, and any further guidelines specific to their area of research, taking advantage of training and seeking further guidance from their supervisory team as necessary.
• All Students will complete the required training on ELE on Research Integrity.
• Should a supervisor suspect that a student has committed Research Misconduct, they should in the first instance raise this with the other members of the supervisory team, and if they still have concerns after doing so, they should report this to the APVC-R or DPGR for the student’s Faculty .
• Should a Department upgrade committee suspect there is any form of research misconduct, as defined in Section 2, within a student’s work, which has been submitted for upgrade, the Department upgrade committee should immediately refer the student’s work to the APVC-R or DPGR, with a report of their concerns. The APVC-R or DPGR shall then investigate the allegations as outlined below .
• If Research Misconduct is suspected in a student’s work for a module (other than the main thesis/dissertation) this should be brought to the attention of the module convenor first who will inform the APVC-R or DPGR as per 5.1 above .
• In all other instances where a person has reason to suspect that a student may be guilty of research misconduct as defined above they should report this directly to the APVC-R or DPGR of the student’s Faculty immediately. Students are also encouraged to report any witnessed or suspected incident of research misconduct by staff, students or other researchers. In accordance with the University’s policy and procedure on  Public Interest Disclosure (‘whistleblowing’) , individuals who raise concerns in good faith will not be penalised or disadvantaged for doing so.
• In all instances allegations should be reported in writing, setting out exactly what the concerns are, and how this amounts to research misconduct.
• The APVC-R or DPGR on receipt of an allegation of research misconduct has the discretion to consider whether an investigation is required or not. The APVC-R or DPGR can review the allegations and determine whether a full investigation is required in which case they continue under 5.7 or if the concern is such that the APVC-R/DPGR is satisfied that this can be resolved immediately with a meeting with the student and no investigation is required then they may move immediately to section 5.9 by proceeding to meet with the student. The APVC-R or DPGR, may undertake initial investigatory steps to establish the credibility of such an allegation, such steps should be limited to purely establishing whether the allegation is credible or not. Should an allegation be determined to not be credible then the APVC-R or DPGR can determine that there are no further steps to take under this procedure . 
• The APVC-R or DPGR should write to the student as soon as possible, informing them that an allegation of research misconduct has been made, and that the matter is being investigated. If the APVC-R or DPGR has determined that an investigation is required they may decide to inform the student of the allegation once preparations have been made to conduct interviews. This is to prevent unnecessary impact on the student's wellbeing. They should inform the student in writing that they may wish to contact their PGR pastoral tutor and/or the Students’ Guild Advice Unit for advice and support .
• The APVC-R or DPGR should then investigate the concerns raised. This may involve the appointment of a member (or members) of staff, who have knowledge of the issues or activities under investigation and who are independent and objective, to support that investigation. This will include examination of all relevant documentation, data and materials. It may also include interviews with the student, and other individuals who might have information regarding key aspects of the allegations. Notes of each interview will be kept; a statement prepared by the individual interviewed may also be produced .
• All individuals interviewed during the investigation will be asked to respect the confidential nature of the investigation. A request for anyone attending for interview to be accompanied by another student, staff member, a member of staff of the Students’ Guild /Student’s Union shall not be unreasonably refused. At the investigation stage it is the discretion of the APVC-R/DPGR to determine what information needs to be disclosed to determine the validity of the allegation. The APVC-R/DPGR should give individuals asked to attend interviews a minimum of 48 hours' notice, however this may be waived in circumstances whereby individuals' safety or Wellbeing is put at risk of not conducting the interviews sooner . 
• The purpose of the investigation is to gather evidence and to enable a decision to be taken on whether the matter should proceed to a formal hearing under the appropriate procedure. The University aims to complete the Faculty stage of the process within one calendar month, and if unable to do so, will update the subject of the investigation with an approximate timetable for completion of the investigation .
• Following completion of the investigation the APVC-R/DPGR or Panel reviewing the evidence gathered during the course of the investigation may determine that there is no case for further consideration, that it is not sufficiently serious to merit referral to a University Research Misconduct Panel, or that it should be referred to a University Research Misconduct Panel. The list of outcomes under section 10 (below) should be referred to when considering whether or not a case merits referral to a University Research Misconduct Panel. The APVC-R/DPGR or Panel may seek advice from the Student Cases Office in determining the appropriate outcome .
• Where there is sufficient evidence to indicate misconduct requiring consideration by a University Research Misconduct Panel, the APVC-R/DPGR or Panel may refer the matter to the Student Cases Office immediately upon conclusion of the initial informal investigation or upon conclusion of the formal Faculty investigation, with the recommendation that a University Research Misconduct Panel be held .
• Where the conclusion is to immediately refer the case to a University Research Misconduct Panel, the APVC-R or DPGR is not required to meet with the student to explain their conclusions but can instead inform them of this conclusion by letter .  
• Where the case is not referred for a University Research Misconduct Panel, the APVC-R or DPGR should meet with the student to explain their conclusions. Where additional members of staff had been appointed to investigate the matter, it may also be appropriate for them to attend this meeting, particularly where they bring specific expertise .
• The student cannot prevent a meeting from happening by refusing to attend providing they have been given at least five working days’ notice of the meeting. Should the student fail to attend the meeting it should continue in their absence. The meeting may be postponed should the student be able to demonstrate that they would be unable to attend for a good reason (which may include previously approved absences from the University, where this remained appropriate, for example fieldwork or a conference.)
• The student should be sent a summary of the allegations against them, any submission or data relevant to the allegation and any information that is relevant to the allegation which was discovered during the investigation to date, including any notes of interviews. This must be sent five working days in advance of the meeting. The student is entitled to submit a written statement and accompanying evidence ahead of the meeting provided that this is received no later than one working day ahead of the meeting.
• The student has the right to attend the meeting and be accompanied by a supporter, as defined in 3.6, who should be a member of the University, such as a staff member, a member of staff of the Students’ Guild/Student's Union or another student. Any variation on this principle should be approved by the APVC-R or DPGR. The purpose of this person is to support the student during the course of the meeting, and they may take a written record on the student’s behalf. They should not, however, speak for the student. The use of electronic recording devices will not normally be permitted. Proxies for the student are not permitted; neither can the student be represented in their absence.
• At the meeting the APVC-R or DPGR should outline the allegations against the student and explain how this could amount to Research Misconduct. The student should be given a chance to respond. A record of the meeting must be kept by an administrator.
• The student should be notified of the outcome of the investigation in writing within five working days of its conclusion. The formal report, which should be copied to the student’s supervisors, PGR pastoral tutor and the Student Cases Office, will be then sent in due course. Where a penalty has been applied, the student may appeal the outcome, once the formal report is received, as outlined in section 9 (below).
• If the allegation of suspected Research Misconduct was referred to the APVC-R or DPGR by a Department upgrade committee, the formal report must make clear to the student the impact of the outcome on their ability to apply for upgrade. Where the student is required to resubmit work, the works must be deemed satisfactory before any further opportunity for upgrade is given, which will also be dependent on the student’s deadline for upgrade.
• Where a case of Research Misconduct is referred to the Student Cases Office, this must take the form of a report outlining the allegations against the student and the steps taken to investigate the allegations, attaching any material gathered in the course of the investigation, including the notes of all meetings that have taken place. Faculties may wish to use the report form in Annex 1 as a guide. This should be sent to [email protected] .
• If an Examiner is concerned that they may have identified evidence of Research Misconduct as defined in Section 2 (above) they should report this to the other members of the Board of Examiners without delay. The Internal Examiner will inform the APVC-R or DPGR as a matter of urgency and submit a report identifying the areas of concern.
• Upon receipt of the report, the APVC-R or DPGR will write to the student, as soon as reasonably possible, informing them of the allegations and cancelling the viva, if one was due to take place, and informing the student that this matter will be referred to the Student Cases Office, as any suspected Research Misconduct in the final thesis/dissertation is sufficiently serious to warrant referral to the Student Cases Office. The APVC-R or DPGR should copy this notification to the student’s PGR pastoral tutor and supervisors as appropriate.
• Where the Board of Examiners identifies suspected research misconduct during the viva they should continue with the viva. Following the viva, the Internal Examiner should immediately contact the APVC-R or DPGR to report that concerns had arisen during the viva about suspected research misconduct. They should then prepare a detailed report outlining their concerns and submit this report to the APVC-R or DPGR as agreed with the APVC-R or DPGR.
• The APVC-R or DPGR will then refer the case to the Student Cases Office including a copy of the Board of Examiner’s report.
• The Student Cases Office, upon receipt of a report from the APVC-R or DPGR, will appoint an investigating officer who will consider the case with the Dean of Postgraduate Research.
• The Dean of Postgraduate Research and the investigating officer shall review the report and accompanying documentation, and may request additional paperwork or comment from the Faculty concerned. They will direct a University Research Misconduct Panel to be held. In exceptional cases, where the evidence does not warrant holding a University Research Misconduct Panel, the Dean of Postgraduate Research may refer the case back to the Faculty.
• A Research Misconduct Panel shall comprise the Dean of Postgraduate Research, who shall chair the panel, and two of either APVC-Rs/DPGRs or Department Director of PGR who have not previously been involved with the case, and who are not from the same department as the student . Note, UKRI may seek to have observer status at the University Research Misconduct Panel for those cases involving students in receipt of funding or involved in a projected funded by UKRI. Moreover should a student who is in receipt of funding or involved in the projected funded by RCUK be called to a University Research Misconduct Panel, then one of the APVC-Rs or DPGRs must be replaced by an independent member external to the University . 
• The Investigating Officer shall attend the Research Misconduct Panel throughout and minute the meeting. The Panel shall be empowered to call witnesses or experts as required, who may be external to the University.
• The student will be notified in writing no later than five working days prior to the Research Misconduct Panel being convened. The student shall be entitled to a copy of all the papers to be considered by the Panel, including a list of witnesses or experts that the Panel intends to call. The papers should include the records of the Faculty investigation, and any reports written in the process of the investigation, other paperwork which is material to the allegations may also be included. The papers must be sent five working days in advance of the meeting.
• The student may prepare a statement in advance of the Panel and submit this to the Student Cases Office, which must be received no later than one full working day prior to the meeting of the Research Misconduct Panel. The student will also be permitted to call witnesses but must ensure that details of their witnesses are submitted to the Student Cases Office two full working days prior to the meeting.
• The student is entitled to attend the Research Misconduct Panel for the duration of the hearing (except as in 8.8 below). The student may be accompanied by a Supporter whose role is defined in section 3.6. The use of electronic audio recording equipment will not normally be permitted.  The student may not be represented in their absence.
• The APVC-R or DPGR, or nominee, shall attend on behalf of the Faculty, and shall be entitled to attend for the duration of the meeting (except as outlined in 8.7 and 8.8 below). At the Chair’s discretion, the Faculty Representative may directly question the student and any witnesses or experts that the student calls. The Faculty Representative is entitled to call such witnesses and experts as they believe necessary but must ensure that details of their witnesses are submitted to the Student Cases Office one full working day prior to the meeting .
• The student may, at the Chair’s discretion, be given the opportunity to address the panel in the absence of the Faculty Representative. Following this, the Panel may recall the Faculty Representative should the need arise .
• The Panel shall then meet in private to consider the case. The Research Misconduct Panel shall have the power to impose any penalty listed in Table 2 in section 10 (below) and may exercise its discretion when imposing a penalty.
• The Student Cases Office shall inform the student and the Faculty in writing of its decision within five working days, and the penalty to be imposed. The full report and formal outcome including a copy of the minutes of the Panel will follow in due course.
• If the student is found guilty a record of the Panel’s decision will be kept by the Student Cases Office, Student Records and by the relevant Faculty. It may also be necessary to inform the student’s sponsor, funder, Research Council, employer, partner institution, or professional regulatory body.
• If no case of Research Misconduct is found against the student, whilst the University will keep a record of the case, the student’s record held by the Faculty and Student Records will not contain reference to the allegation, nor will the University inform external bodies of the outcome unless there was a requirement to inform the student’s sponsor, funder, Research Council, employer, partner institution, or professional regulatory body that an allegation was being investigated in the first place.
• A student shall have the right of appeal against any penalty imposed either by the Faculty or by the Research Misconduct Panel. The student must complete the Research Misconduct Appeal Form  and submit it to the Student Cases Office, with reference to the appropriate evidence. The Appeal must be received by the Student Cases Office within 10 working days of the date on the letter informing the student of the decision.
• There is evidence of a procedural irregularity.
• There is evidence of bias.
• The decision reached is one no reasonable body (properly directing itself, and taking into account all of the relevant factors) could have arrived at.
• The student submits further material circumstances which could not reasonably be expected to have been submitted for consideration when the original decision was made.
• The Student Cases Office, in consultation with the Dean of Taught Students or Dean of Postgraduate Research (whoever was not involved in the original Panel) will establish whether there is a prima facie case for considering the case before a Senate Appeal Committee .
• If no prima facie grounds for the appeal are found, the appeal will be dismissed and the student informed, in writing, of the reasons. There is no further right of appeal against such decisions (see paragraph 9.13).
• If it is decided that there is a prima facie case for an appeal, a Senate Appeal Committee shall be convened. The Senate Appeal Committee has the power to confirm, to set aside or to vary the penalty imposed by the Faculty-level hearing or the University Research Misconduct Panel. There shall be no further internal right of appeal against the decision of the Senate Appeal Committee.
• A Senate Appeal Committee shall comprise three members (including a student representative) of Senate. The Student Cases Office will appoint the Chair from that number. No person shall be entitled to be a member of the Senate Appeal Committee who is also associated with the student’s department(s) or who was previously involved in the case.
• The student shall be informed of the date of the meeting of the Senate Appeal Committee no less than 5 working days in advance, but the student may choose to appear before the Senate Appeal Committee but the Committee may also hear a case in the absence of the student. The student shall be entitled to attend the Committee meeting for the duration of the hearing but will be required to withdraw whilst the Committee reaches its decision. Proxies for the student shall not be allowed. The student may be accompanied by a person who should normally be a member of the University (with any variation to this principle at the discretion of the Chair), such as a staff member, a member of the Guild of Students, or another student. The purpose of this person is to support the student during the course of the meeting, and they may take a written record on the student’s behalf. However, the use of electronic audio recording equipment will not normally be allowed. With the permission of the Chair, s/he may take a role in the cross-examination of any witnesses on behalf of the student and may make summative remarks following the student’s concluding statement. The student should indicate at the start of the hearing whether the accompanying person was expected to take an active role in the proceedings. The student may direct questions to the Faculty representative (and any witnesses called) in an appropriate manner.
• The Senate Appeal Committee shall call the Faculty representative and shall be empowered to call other members of the University or partner institution as witnesses as required.
• The Senate Appeal Committee, having considered the evidence, may uphold or reject the appeal, such a decision being final.
• The Senate Appeal Committee shall minute its deliberations and decisions and submit a report to Senate. If the Committee’s report includes a recommendation requiring action before the next meeting of the Senate, it shall be for the Vice-Chancellor to authorise action and then report to the Senate retrospectively.
• The Secretary of the Committee shall notify the student in writing of the Appeal Committee’s decision, giving the reasons for it and including a copy of the minutes.
• If an appeal is upheld by the Senate Appeal Committee, the student has the right to make representations to the Student Cases Office for the reimbursement of reasonable and proportionate incidental expenses incurred by the appeal.
• There are no other University appeal procedures beyond those stages detailed above. If, in the opinion of a student, an appeal remains unresolved after the exhaustion of the appropriate processes, application may be made to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) for Higher Education. For further details see http://www.oiahe.org.uk .

Appendix A - Statement on the use of Proof Reading Services 

This statement is intended to clarify to students the scope of any proof reading support they may choose to engage. This statement is applicable to all undergraduate, postgraduate taught and postgraduate research students. The University does not expect students to use any form of proof reading service. However, the University does understand that for theses and dissertations students may wish to have their work proofread as these form substantive bodies of work. Nothing in this statement of policy should prevent students from sharing ideas and working together in the Exeter learning environment where appropriate. Should students have any questions about proof reading they should contact their personal tutor, module lead or supervisor in the first instance.

1.  Definition of Proof Reading

1.1 The University defines proof reading as reviewing student work prior to submission to help with structure, fluency, presentation and to highlight errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar. 

1.2 Proof readers can be a friend or colleague, or someone paid by the student to provide a proof reading service.

1.3 Proof reading should not include any assistance in relation to the content of the essay, nor should it involve any tutoring on the part of the proof reader. The proof reader should confine themselves to the structure, fluency, presentation and to highlight errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar. If a proof reading service is offering to check the academic content of a written assignment, then this is not a legitimate proof reading service. If a Student persists in using such a service this may open the Student to an allegation of academic misconduct. (For the University’s procedures on academic misconduct or research misconduct please see the following links: (Taught Students  http://as.exeter.ac.uk/academic-policy-standards/tqa-manual/aph/managingacademicmisconduct/ ) (Research Students  http://as.exeter.ac.uk/academic-policy-standards/tqa-manual/pgr/researchmisconduct/ )

1.4 Prior to engaging a Proof Reader, a Student should ensure that their work conforms to the guidance given by their Department, in terms of style and presentation, in the appropriate module or Department handbook, or in the case of Post Graduate Research Students, the information contained within  Chapter 11 – Presentation of Theses/Dissertations for Degrees in the Faculty of Graduate Research: Statement of Procedures.

1.5 This statement does not preclude members of Academic Staff from providing appropriate supervision, through the reading of drafts of material produced by students, as part of supervising a theses or dissertation. 

2. Checking whether proof reading is appropriate 

2.1 Students should always check with either the Module Leader, or their Supervisor as to whether it is appropriate to have a piece of work professionally proof read. Certain professional programmes assess students on clarity of communication as a key competency, and therefore in these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to have work professionally proof read.  

3. Scope of Proof Reading 

3.1 A third party may be used to assist the student in the following :  

• That appropriate English spelling and punctuation is being used.
• That the work is appropriately formatted and that the footnotes and endnotes are consistent.
• That the work follows the conventions of grammar and syntax of written English.
• Shortening long sentences and paragraphs.
• Ensuring that the page numbers and any header or footer is consistent across the piece of work.
• Improving the positioning of tables and illustrations and the clarity of grammar spelling and punctuation of any text in or under tables and illustrations.

3.2 A third party cannot be used to assist the student with the following: 

• To change any part of the text of the work so as to clarify ideas and/or to develop the ideas and arguments.
• To reduce the length of the work so that it falls within the stated word limit.
• To provide any assistance with referencing.
• To correct information within the work.
• To change the ideas and argument put forward by the Student
• To translate the work into English
• To provide comments to the Student on how well the work answers the question.

4. Owning the Corrections 

4.1 The Proof Reader should make all corrections either on a hard copy of the student’s work, or in track changes on an electronic document. The Proof Reader should make sure that all changes are visible to the Student.

4.2 The expectation is that the Proof Reader will highlight to the Student where corrections are necessary and the Student will then review the suggested changes and make changes to the master copy of their work, should they choose to. Students should take care to check all of the suggested corrections, as Proof Readers may suggest corrections to the style or layout which do not confirm with the University’s guidance. In the case of electronic track changes, Students should not just click accept all, they should check all the suggested corrections. The Student should retain the copy of the work they receive from the Proof Reader in case they are asked to supply this at a later date. 

4.3 It is the Student’s responsibility to choose whether or not to implement suggested changes, and it is the Student that is held accountable for standard of their work. 

5. Drafts

5.1 The expectation is that the Proof Reader will only see the final version of the Student’s work, i.e. the work is in its final form ready for submission to the best of the Student’s ability. The Proof Reader will then see this version and conduct their work only on this version. The Student will then receive this version from the proof reader and review the suggested corrections as above in section 4.2. 

6. Agreeing the Scope of Work 

6.1 Students should agree the scope of the work with a Proof Reader well in advance of the deadline. Students should use the template agreement (download here  Proof Reading Template agreement ) to ensure that the individual they have engaged to undertake proof reading is aware of this policy and is not offering a service which in anyway breaches this policy and retain a copy of this for their records. 

7. Disclaimer 

7.1 This document is intended to provide all students, members of staff and third party proof readers’ guidance for good ethical practice in relation to student work being proof read and then assessed. Both the Proof Reader and the Student have a duty to ensure that the proof reading process follows the guidance within this document. However it is imperative that students bear in mind that any adjustment to student work which is then submitted for assessment is ultimately the responsibility of the Student. 

Annex – Faculty Report Form

Download:  Research Misconduct - Faculty Report Form

Download:  Research Misconduct Appeal Form

L‌ast updated March 2024

1 Gross negligence occurs when methods of data analysis, presentation and/or interpretation that should have been known (via supervisors or training modules) are not used or are used wholly inappropriately leading to flawed interpretation of the data.

Back to top

Using our site  |  Freedom of Information  |  Data Protection  |  Copyright & disclaimer  |  Privacy & Cookies  |