What term in research misconduct means appropriation of another persons ideas processes results or words without giving appropriate credit?

• Go to Homepage
• Students
• Policies
• Academic Integrity
• Violations of Academic Integrity
• Research Misconduct

The integrity of the scientific enterprise requires adherence to the highest ethical standards in the conduct of research and research training. Therefore, students and other trainees conducting research are bound by the same ethical guidelines that apply to faculty investigators, based on the Public Health Service regulations dated May 17, 2005. 

Research misconduct is defined in the USPHS Policy as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.”3

These terms are defined as follows:

(a) fabrication - making up data or results and recording or reporting them;

(b) falsification - 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 - the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. Research misconduct does not include honest error or honest differences of opinion.

MISLEADING OR FRAUDULENT BEHAVIOR

Misleading or fraudulent behavior, put simply, is lying, and includes acts contributing to or associated with lying. It takes on any form of fabrication, falsification or misrepresentation.

Examples include, but are not limited to: 

• Reporting false information to gain an advantage;
• Omitting information or data resulting in misrepresenting or distorting findings or conclusions;
• Providing false information to explain lateness or to be excused from an assignment, class or clerkship function;
• Falsely accusing another of misbehavior, or otherwise misrepresenting information about another;
• Providing false information about oneself, such as on an application or as part of some competition;
• Taking credit for accomplishments achieved by another;
• Omitting relevant information about oneself.

TAMPERING

Tampering is the unauthorized removal or alteration of College documents (e.g., library books, reference materials, official institutional forms, correspondence), software, equipment, or other academic-related materials, including other students’ work. It should be noted that tampering as a form of cheating may also be classified as criminal activity and may be subject to criminal prosecution.

Examples include, but are not limited to:

• Tearing out the pages of an article from a library journal;
• Intentionally sabotaging another student’s work;
• Altering a student’s academic transcript, letter of recommendation, or some other official college document;
• Electronically changing another student’s or colleague’s files, data, assignments, or reports.

COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS

Academic integrity prohibits the making of unauthorized copies of copyrighted material, including software and any other non-print media. Individuals, under the legal doctrine of “fair use,” may make a copy of an article or copy small sections of a book for personal use, or may use an image to help teach a concept. Examples of copyright violations include:

• Making or distributing copies of a copyrighted article for a group (on paper or electronically)
• Disseminating an image or video of an artist’s work without permission (such as a Netter® or Adam® anatomical drawing)
• Copying large sections of a book

The "fair use doctrine" regarding use of copyrighted materials can be found at the following link: //www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

1. Home
2. Research
3. Integrity
4. Misconduct

Policy Statement 69 is LSU's governing policy on research misconduct. This policy adheres to all federal standards with regard to the definition of research and research misconduct, as well as with how allegations of research misconduct are to be processed and adjudicated. 

Allegations of research misconduct can be reported directly or anonymously to the Research Integrity Official or through the LSU Ethics Hotline. In all cases, allegations are handled confidentially for the protection of both the complainant and the respondent.

Definitions

The Code of Federal Regulations provides clear and detailed guidelines with respect to all federal programs, including grants and the oversight of such grants. This includes definitions of research, research misconduct, and the component activities that may constitute misconduct.

• Research is defined as "a systematic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” 45 CFR 46.102(l)
• Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. 42 CFR 93.103
  1. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
  2. 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.
  3. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
  4. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.
• A finding of research misconduct requires that all aspects of the following criteria must be met (42 CFR 93.104)
  1. There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
  2. The misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
  3. The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Complainant is the person who discloses the allegation of misconduct.
• Respondent is the person(s) accused of misconduct.
• Research Integrity Officer (RIO) is the person on campus responsible for overseeing the process and review of all reported cases of research misconduct. By definition, this is the Vice President of Research & Economic Development, or their designee.
• Deciding Official is the person on campus who makes the final determination on all research misconduct cases. By definition, this person is the President of the university.

Review Process

The review of research misconduct allegations is handled through a three-step process. The Research Integrity Officer or their designee (RIO) is responsible for managing this process.

Initial Review

When an allegation of research misconduct is received, the RIO reviews the claim against the following criteria:

• Assuming the claim is true, would it constitute research misconduct?
• Is there sufficient evidence to allow a followup?

If the answer to both questions is yes, the RIO requests from the Deciding Official that a charge letter be drafted and an inquiry committee be appointed to continue the review.

Inquiry Committee

A three-person committee, consisting of senior tenured faculty (or other qualified individuals), is appointed by the Deciding Official to review the allegations and initial evidence. The committee reviews available evidence, interviews the complainant, respondent, and relevant key witnesses, and deliberates on the following criteria:

• Are the allegations credible?
• Is there sufficient evidence that research misconduct occured?

If the answer is yes to both questions, the inquiry committee can report to the RIO a recommendation for a full investigation.

Investigation Committee

A six-person committee, consisting of senior tenured faculty of whom at least three have expertise in the relevant field of research, is formed to investigate all aspects of the allegation(s), Their goal is to determine "whether research misconduct occured, by whom, and to what extent." (PS-69 VII.A.) Further, they are asked to determine if additional instances of research misconduct occured in any other research, publications or grant applications by the complainant or other persons.

The Investigation Committee provides a written report, which is reviewed by the RIO, who then makes recommendations to the Deciding Official as to the conclusions of the committee and any sanctions that are appropriate for the scale and scope of misconduct (if found). The Deciding Official reviews all of the reports and makes a final determination.

Findings & Administrative Actions

Findings of research misconduct can result in various sanctions or administrative actions, including but not limited to supervision, retraction of publications, or disbarment from funding, depending on the scope and severity of the misconduct. Such sanctions may come from the university, or from the relevant federal agency if the research was supported by external funds. Additional actions may also be taken by the university and would follow any relevant administrative processes.

Findings of research misconduct in projects funded by the Public Health Service (PHS), including the National Institutes of Health, are also referred to the Office of Research Integrity for their review.

Confidentiality

Complainants and respondents are both to be protected through confidentiality throughout the initial review, inquiry and investigation process to the extent possible. Should either fail to protect the process, sanctions limiting access to information or other sanctions may be imposed. 

Determinations by the RIO, inquiry committee or investigation committee that the allegations were made in bad faith can be referred for administrative actions.

What is called as misconduct in research?

What are the 3 types of research misconduct?

What type of research misconduct is making up data or result?

What do you call the form of scientific misconduct defined as attempting to publish someone else's work without properly citing the original author and publication?