Research Misconduct Investigation Procedures: A 2025 Guide for Biomedical Professionals

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive guide to the procedures, challenges, and best practices in research misconduct investigations, tailored for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals. It covers the foundational definitions of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, details the step-by-step institutional process from inquiry to investigation, and addresses complex challenges like protecting whistleblowers and managing confidential cases. Updated for 2025, it also explores the impact of new ORI rules, comparative institutional policies, and future directions for fostering research integrity in the biomedical field.

What Constitutes Research Misconduct? Understanding FFP and Evolving Definitions

Core Definitions and Regulatory Framework

Fabrication, Falsification, and Plagiarism (FFP) are universally recognized as the most serious forms of research misconduct, often termed the "cardinal sins" of research [1]. They fundamentally undermine the integrity of the research enterprise by eroding trust and corrupting the scientific record.

Official Definitions

According to the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI), research misconduct is formally defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. It explicitly excludes honest error or differences of opinion [2].

The following table summarizes the core definitions of FFP:

Term	Official Definition	Common Examples
Fabrication	Making up data or results and recording or reporting them [2].	Inventing data for experiment runs that were never performed; creating a dataset from assumption rather than collection [3] [1].
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 [2].	Manipulating research instrumentation or images to distort the outcome; omitting conflicting data points to strengthen a correlation [2] [1].
Plagiarism	The appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit [2].	Using another's ideas or text without citation; representing reviewed, unpublished work as one's own [2] [1].

The Evolving Oversight Landscape

In the United States, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Federal Policy established the foundational FFP definition in 2000 [4]. Oversight is continuously updated, with the ORI implementing a new Final Rule effective January 1, 2025, which clarifies key terms and procedures for handling allegations [3]. This framework retains FFP as the core of research misconduct, distinguishing it from other detrimental research practices.

Troubleshooting Guide: Identifying and Addressing FFP

FAQ: Common Scenarios and Solutions

Q1: A team member suggests "filling in" missing data points for a few experiment runs using estimated values to complete the dataset. Is this acceptable?

• A1: No, this is fabrication. Research claims must be based on a complete set of authentically collected data. Constructing or adding data that never occurred during the actual experiment is a serious breach of conduct [1]. All data, including outliers and null results, must be reported accurately.

Q2: During image analysis for a manuscript, a researcher adjusts the contrast of a blot to make a faint band more visible. Could this be considered misconduct?

• A2: It could be falsification if the manipulation misrepresents the original data. Any manipulation of images—including contrast, brightness, or cropping—that distorts the factual representation of the raw data or omits relevant information constitutes falsification [1]. All image processing must be explicitly disclosed and must not deceive the reader.

Q3: A researcher paraphrases several sentences from an unpublished grant proposal they reviewed, without citation, in their own grant application. Is this plagiarism?

• A3: Yes, this is plagiarism. Reviewing privileged information (e.g., grant proposals, journal manuscripts) carries an ethical obligation. The work of others cannot be used until it is publicly available and can be properly cited. Using this information constitutes plagiarism [1].

Q4: A researcher reuses lengthy passages from their own previously published paper in a new manuscript without quotation marks or citation. Is this considered plagiarism?

• A4: This is considered "self-plagiarism" or textual recycling. While the 2025 ORI Final Rule explicitly excludes self-plagiarism from the federal definition of research misconduct, it is still widely considered an unethical publication practice and may violate publisher policies or institutional standards [3]. It can also constitute duplicate publication, which misleads readers and publishers about the novelty of the work.

Investigation Protocol: The Institutional Response Workflow

When an allegation of research misconduct is made, institutions follow a formal process defined by federal regulations. The diagram below outlines the key stages of this workflow.

Key Stages in Research Misconduct Investigation:

• Assessment & Inquiry: The institution conducts a preliminary review to determine if the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct and if there is sufficient evidence to warrant a formal investigation [5].
• Investigation: If the inquiry recommends it, a formal investigation is launched to thoroughly examine the facts, collect evidence, and determine whether misconduct has occurred. The 2025 ORI Final Rule now allows institutions to add new respondents or allegations to an ongoing investigation without restarting the process, improving efficiency [3].
• ORI Notification & Reporting: Institutions are required to notify ORI when an investigation is warranted. If an investigation concludes with a finding of misconduct, a full report must be submitted to ORI [5].
• Adjudication & Actions: Based on the investigation report, the institution and ORI may impose administrative actions, which can include correction of the literature, supervision plans, and for the PHS, potential debarment from federal funding for a set period [5].

Preventing research misconduct requires a proactive approach centered on education, clear policies, and robust infrastructure [3]. The following table details key resources for maintaining a culture of integrity.

Tool / Resource	Primary Function	Role in Preventing FFP
Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Training	Provides education on ethical norms and regulatory requirements [5].	Builds foundational knowledge of FFP, data management, and authorship, especially critical for trainees from diverse backgrounds [5].
Electronic Lab Notebooks (ELNs)	Creates a secure, time-stamped, and immutable record of experimental data.	Provides a definitive record to combat allegations of fabrication and falsification; ensures data ownership and retention as required by funders [5].
Plagiarism Detection Software	Scans textual content for similarity with published literature.	Helps researchers identify and correct improper citation before publication, preventing unintentional plagiarism.
Image Forensics Tools	Analyzes image files for signs of duplication or manipulation.	Aids in pre-publication verification and is used by journals and sleuths to detect image falsification [3].
Data Management Plan (DMP)	A formal plan for collecting, storing, and sharing research data.	Promotes transparency and accountability, making data fabrication and falsification more difficult to conceal.

In the rigorous world of scientific research, the integrity of the process is paramount. Allegations of research misconduct—defined by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP)—are serious and can have devastating career consequences [6]. However, not every error or scientific dispute constitutes misconduct. This guide provides essential technical support for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals in distinguishing between true misconduct and the honest errors and differences of scientific opinion that are inherent to the research process [7]. Understanding this distinction is crucial for maintaining a healthy scientific environment where innovation and collegial debate can thrive without the chilling effect of unwarranted misconduct allegations [7].

Foundational Concepts and Definitions

What Constitutes Research Misconduct?

According to the PHS policies, a finding of research misconduct requires that three conditions are met, all proven by a preponderance of the evidence [6]:

• There is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.
• The misconduct is committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.
• The act falls within the definition of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.

The following table details the core elements of research misconduct.

Table 1: Core Elements of Research Misconduct

Element	Official Definition	Common Examples
Fabrication	Making up data or results and recording or reporting them [8].	Inventing data points for an experiment that was never performed; creating a dataset from imagination.
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 [8].	Manipulating images (e.g., deleting/adding bands on a blot); systematically omitting outlier data without justification; changing results to fit a hypothesis.
Plagiarism	The appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit [8].	Copying text from another publication without quotation marks or citation; republishing another scientist's work as one's own.

What isNotMisconduct: Key Exclusions

The same regulatory frameworks that define misconduct also explicitly state what is excluded. Research misconduct does not include [6]:

• Honest Error(s): Inadvertent or unintentional mistakes made in the design, execution, analysis, or interpretation of research data.
• Difference(s) of Opinion: Disagreements or disputes over research methods, data analysis, interpretation of findings, or scientific judgment.

The critical element that separates misconduct from these exclusions is intent. Misconduct is marked by a deliberate intent to deceive, whereas honest error is unintentional [7]. A difference of opinion, meanwhile, is a legitimate scientific debate, often about the norms or their application, rather than a deliberate violation of them.

Troubleshooting Guide: Is It Misconduct or Not?

This guide addresses common scenarios to help you identify the source of a problem and determine the appropriate course of action.

Question: My colleague used an inappropriate statistical method that inadvertently strengthened their conclusions. Is this misconduct?

• Potential Issue: Honest Error vs. Falsification
• Troubleshooting Steps:
  • Identify the Norm: Determine the standard statistical practices in your specific field for this type of data and hypothesis.
  • Assess Competence: Evaluate the researcher's statistical knowledge and training. Was the method choice a result of a knowledge gap?
  • Check for Responsiveness: If the error was pointed out (e.g., by a reviewer or colleague), did the researcher correct it willingly and acknowledge the mistake?
• Likely Conclusion: If the most plausible explanation is a lack of knowledge or an unintentional oversight, and the researcher is corrective, this is honest error [7]. If the researcher has deep statistical knowledge and refuses to correct a known error that misrepresents the data, it may cross into deliberate falsification.

Question: A co-author accuses our lead investigator of misconduct for excluding data points she considered outliers. What should we do?

• Potential Issue: Difference of Opinion vs. Falsification
• Troubleshooting Steps:
  • Reference Community Standards: Consult disciplinary norms for handling outliers. Are there established, objective criteria for exclusion?
  • Document the Justification: Review the research records. Was the exclusion decision documented with a clear, scientific rationale?
  • Pinpoint the Disagreement: Determine if the dispute is about the existence of a norm (is exclusion ever allowed?) or its application (was the norm correctly followed in this case?).
• Likely Conclusion: If the exclusion falls within a gray area of accepted practices and the disagreement is over scientific judgment, it is a difference of opinion [7]. If the data exclusion systematically and without justification alters the conclusions and violates clear norms, it could be falsification.

Question: I believe a senior researcher has plagiarized my grant application, which they reviewed. How can I be sure?

• Potential Issue: Plagiarism vs. Misuse of Privileged Information
• Troubleshooting Steps:
  • Compare the Texts: Perform a line-by-line comparison of your grant application and the researcher's subsequent work.
  • Check for Attribution: Is your work copied without any citation or acknowledgment?
  • Establish Privilege: Confirm that the researcher had access to your work through a confidential channel like grant review.
• Likely Conclusion: The unattributed copying of ideas, text, or data from a confidential document like a grant application is a serious form of plagiarism, often termed "theft of intellectual property" [9]. This is distinct from a authorship dispute and is a potential misconduct allegation.

Decision-Making Protocol for Allegations

When faced with a potential issue, follow a structured decision-making process. The flowchart below outlines the key questions to ask to distinguish between misconduct, honest error, and difference of opinion.

Regulatory Framework and Recent Updates

The U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has issued a revised Final Rule for the Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct (42 C.F.R. Part 93), with key dates that all researchers should know [10] [11].

Table 2: Key Dates for PHS Misconduct Policy Updates (2024 Final Rule)

Deadline	Description	Implication for Researchers
January 1, 2025	Effective Date of the Final Rule [10].	Use of the new rule is permitted but not yet mandatory.
January 1, 2026	Applicable Date of the Final Rule [10] [11].	All PHS-funded institutions must use the updated regulations for allegations received on or after this date.
April 30, 2026	Annual Report Submission Due [10].	Institutions must report all prior year research misconduct activity to ORI and assure their policies are compliant.

A significant procedural update under the revised rules is that institutions now have greater flexibility to dismiss allegations on the basis of honest error or difference of opinion at an earlier assessment stage, rather than being required to proceed to a full investigation [11]. This change aims to reduce the burden on both institutions and respondents when an allegation is clearly not misconduct.

Tool or Resource	Primary Function	Role in Preventing/Mitigating Issues
Electronic Lab Notebook (ELN)	Digitally records research procedures and data with timestamps.	Provides an immutable record of work, helping to demonstrate actual practices and distinguish honest errors from fabrication/falsification.
Data Management Plan (DMP)	Outlines how data will be handled, stored, and shared throughout and after a project.	Ensures data integrity, traceability, and accessibility for review, mitigating disputes over data ownership and analysis.
Plagiarism Detection Software	Compares text against a vast database of published literature and the internet.	Helps researchers self-check manuscripts and proposals for unintentional plagiarism before submission.
Statistical Consultation Services	Provides expert guidance on experimental design and data analysis.	Helps prevent honest errors in methodology and analysis, strengthening study validity.
Institutional Research Integrity Officer (RIO)	The designated official responsible for overseeing the misconduct allegation process [9].	A confidential resource for discussing concerns and understanding policies before making any formal allegation.

FAQ on Distinguishing Misconduct

Q1: Can I be accused of misconduct for using a novel or controversial research method? No, the use of novel or unorthodox methods is not, in itself, misconduct. The National Academy of Sciences emphasizes that misconduct definitions should not discourage innovation [7]. An accusation in this context likely represents a difference of scientific opinion regarding the best methodological approach. The key is whether the method is applied and reported with transparency and without intent to deceive.

Q2: What is the difference between an honest error and reckless misconduct? An honest error is an inadvertent mistake, like a miscalculation due to a software flaw you were unaware of. Recklessness, as defined in the updated PHS regulations, involves acting with a heedless disregard for established norms, such as failing to perform basic data validation checks that are standard in your field, which could lead to a significant departure from accepted practices [6].

Q3: What should I do if I am unsure whether to report a potential misconduct? Always consult your institution's Research Integrity Officer (RIO). They are a confidential resource who can advise you on institutional policies, the nature of your concern, and potential steps forward without initiating a formal process [9]. This can help clarify if the issue is more appropriately resolved through collegial discussion.

Q4: How are disputes over authorship credit handled? Disputes over authorship or credit are explicitly excluded from the PHS definition of research misconduct (which covers plagiarism of ideas/text, not credit allocation) [6] [9]. These should be resolved using institutional policies, journal guidelines, and through dialogue among the collaborators.

The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has issued its first major regulatory update since 2005, the Final Rule governing Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct (42 C.F.R. Part 93) [12]. This modernization addresses technological advancements and policy developments that have transformed research over the past two decades. For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, understanding these changes is crucial for maintaining compliance and upholding the highest standards of research integrity. The Final Rule, effective January 1, 2025, becomes applicable to all institutions on January 1, 2026, providing a critical preparation window [13] [12]. This technical support center outlines the key updates, with particular focus on the clarified definitions of self-plagiarism and recklessness, to equip you with the knowledge needed to navigate these revised procedures confidently.

Key Definitions: Understanding the Core Concepts

What Constitutes Research Misconduct?

Under the Final Rule, research misconduct remains defined by the core elements of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results [3]. To establish misconduct, it must be proven that:

• There was a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.
• The act was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.
• The allegation is proven by a preponderance of the evidence [13] [14].

The Crucial Mental States: Intent, Knowledge, and Recklessness

The Final Rule introduces clarified definitions for the mental states required for a finding of research misconduct, which are vital for understanding the boundaries of acceptable conduct [14].

Table: Defined Mental States for Research Misconduct Findings

Term	Definition in the Final Rule	Practical Implication for Researchers
Intentionally	To act with the aim of carrying out the act [14].	Requires demonstration of purposeful action to commit fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.
Knowingly	To act with awareness of the act [14].	Involves conscious awareness that one's actions constitute FFP, even without a specific aim to commit misconduct.
Recklessly	To act with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism [14] [15].	Focuses on a conscious disregard for substantial and unjustifiable risks of FFP in the research process.

The definition of recklessness is particularly nuanced, especially for senior researchers supervising projects. A finding of misconduct can be based on the theory that their supervision was reckless if it allowed falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized information to enter a publication, even if they did not perform the acts directly [15].

Self-Plagiarism: Excluded from the Federal Definition of Misconduct

One of the most significant clarifications in the Final Rule is the explicit exclusion of self-plagiarism from the federal definition of research misconduct [14] [16] [3]. The revised definition of plagiarism now expressly excludes:

• "The limited use of identical or nearly-identical phrases that describe a commonly-used methodology."
• Self-plagiarism.
• Authorship or credit disputes [16].

This regulatory change aligns with ORI's longstanding guidance. It is crucial to understand that while self-plagiarism is not considered federal research misconduct, it is still widely regarded as unethical publication behavior and may violate institutional policies or publisher standards [17] [3] [18]. The essence of the ethical violation is deception – passing off one's own previously disseminated work as new and original without informing the reader or publisher [19] [17].

Investigator's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions for Misconduct Proceeding Management

Effectively navigating research misconduct proceedings requires specific "reagent" solutions. The table below details essential components for managing this process under the new regulations.

Table: Essential Reagents for Managing Research Misconduct Proceedings

Research Reagent Solution	Function & Purpose	Key Considerations for Use
Interview Transcription Service	Creates verbatim records of all interviews conducted during the investigation stage [16].	- Mandatory for investigation-stage interviews.- Transcripts must be provided to the respondent [16].- Not required for assessment or inquiry stages.
Sequestration System	Secures all research records and evidence needed for the proceeding [16].	- Must occur before the respondent is notified or the inquiry begins.- Can use copies that are "substantially equivalent in evidentiary value" if originals are unavailable [16].
Record Indexing Platform	Generates a detailed inventory of all sequestered evidence and the institutional record [14] [16].	- Must list all records the institution relied upon.- Requires a general description of records not relied upon.- Critical for the final investigation report.
Confidentiality Management Protocol	Protects identities of respondents, complainants, and witnesses during the proceeding [13] [16].	- Applies only until a final determination is made.- Permits disclosure to external entities (e.g., journals, collaborating institutions) with a "legitimate need to know" [13] [16].
Multi-Institution Coordination Agreement	Establishes a lead institution and procedures for collaboration in cases involving multiple organizations [14] [16].	- The lead institution is responsible for obtaining research records from others.- ORI plans to issue further guidance on this complex area.
Afoxolaner	Afoxolaner, CAS:1093861-60-9, MF:C26H17ClF9N3O3, MW:625.9 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Ambazone	Ambazone, CAS:539-21-9, MF:C8H11N7S, MW:237.29 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Experimental Protocols: Methodologies for Key Investigation Stages

The following workflows and methodologies are prescribed by the Final Rule for conducting research misconduct proceedings.

Protocol 1: The Assessment and Inquiry Workflow

The initial stages of a misconduct proceeding involve screening allegations and determining if a formal investigation is warranted. The Final Rule provides specific timeframes for these phases.

Methodology Details:

• Assessment: The institution must assess the allegation to determine if it is "sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified" [16]. The Final Rule removes the previously proposed requirement for a formal assessment report, requiring only that the outcome be documented [14] [16].
• Inquiry: If the assessment warrants it, the process moves to inquiry. The Final Rule clarifies that a committee is not required for the inquiry; it can be conducted by the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) or another designated official to streamline the process [16]. The inquiry must be completed within 90 days of initiation, with documentation required if this timeframe is exceeded [14].

Protocol 2: The Investigation and Adjudication Workflow

If the inquiry indicates the allegation "may have substance," the proceeding moves to the formal investigation stage, which involves a comprehensive evidence review.

Methodology Details:

• Investigation: A full review of all evidence is conducted, typically by a committee. The investigation must be completed within 180 days of initiation, with extensions requiring a written request to ORI [14].
• Interviews: A critical procedural requirement is that all interviews during the investigation must be transcribed, and these transcripts must be provided to the respondent [16].
• Report: The investigation report must include an inventory of sequestered evidence and a description of how sequestration was conducted [16].
• Appeal: The Final Rule removes the proposed 120-day time limit for institutional appeals, acknowledging this process is within the institution's purview. However, institutions must promptly notify ORI if an appeal is filed after the institutional record has been transmitted [14].

Troubleshooting Common Scenarios: An FAQ Guide

Q1: Our investigation has uncovered evidence implicating a co-author not named in the original allegation. Can we add this person as a respondent? A: Yes. The Final Rule explicitly codifies the ability of institutions to add new respondents and allegations to an ongoing investigation. This allows for a more efficient and comprehensive review when patterns of misconduct surface, without needing to restart the entire process with a new inquiry for the additional respondent [16] [3].

Q2: We need to alert a journal about potential data integrity concerns in a published paper while our investigation is still ongoing. Does the confidentiality rule prohibit this? A: No. The Final Rule clarifies that confidentiality obligations regarding respondent identities apply only until a final determination is made. It explicitly permits disclosures to third parties with a "legitimate need to know," which includes "journal editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions" [13] [16]. Furthermore, the rule states that institutions are not prohibited from managing published data or publicly acknowledging that data may be unreliable during an ongoing proceeding [13] [16].

Q3: A respondent has failed to provide their original lab notebooks, claiming they were lost. Can we draw an adverse inference from this? A: The Final Rule specifies that a respondent’s failure to retain records over time is not, on its own, evidence of misconduct [13]. However, an adverse inference can be drawn if the institution proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the respondent intentionally or knowingly destroyed the records after being informed of the allegations. If the respondent claims to possess the records but refuses to provide them, this failure can also be evidence of misconduct [13].

Q4: Is it ever acceptable to reuse my own previously published text in a new manuscript? A: This is a nuanced area. While self-plagiarism is not federal research misconduct, it is often considered an ethical violation in publishing. The key factor is transparency and deception. Reusing text describing standard methodologies may be acceptable, but reusing substantial portions of one's own prior work without citation misleads the reader and publisher by presenting old work as new [19] [17] [18]. You should always:

• Check the target journal's policy on text recycling.
• Cite your previous work comprehensively.
• When in doubt, seek permission from the publisher of the original work and the editor of the new journal.

Q5: How does the "subsequent use exception" work under the new rule? A: The six-year statute of limitations for research misconduct allegations can be extended if the respondent uses, republishes, or cites the portion of the research record alleged to be fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized within six years of the allegation being received [13] [14]. The Final Rule clarifies that this exception applies to use in "processed data, journal articles, funding proposals, data repositories, manuscripts, PHS grant applications, progress reports, posters, presentations, and other research records" [14]. Institutions must document their analysis if they determine the exception does not apply, but they no longer need to inform ORI before making this conclusion [13] [14].

Diagram: The Research Misconduct Proceeding Ecosystem

The following diagram maps the complete ecosystem of a research misconduct proceeding under the Final Rule, highlighting key actors, processes, and external interfaces.

FAQ: Which institutions are required to have a research misconduct policy?

Institutions that receive Public Health Service (PHS) funding for research activities must establish and maintain policies and procedures for addressing research misconduct allegations that comply with 42 C.F.R. Part 93 [14]. This includes:

• Universities and colleges
• Academic medical centers and medical schools
• Hospitals and healthcare systems
• Non-profit research institutions [14]

These institutions must file an assurance of compliance with the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), confirming they have written policies and procedures in place [10] [20].

FAQ: Who is considered a "respondent" or covered individual under these policies?

A "respondent" is the person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed. Policies cover any person who, at the time of the alleged misconduct, was:

• Employed by the institution
• An agent of the institution
• Affiliated with the institution [13]

This definition broadly includes principal investigators, co-investigators, trainees, students, and staff involved in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or reporting research results supported by PHS funds.

FAQ: What about collaborators or sub-awardees at other institutions?

For collaborations involving multiple institutions, the institutions must agree in writing on which one will take responsibility for conducting the research misconduct proceeding [21]. Sub-recipients of PHS funds (sub-awardees) are also directly responsible for complying with the regulations and must maintain their own active research integrity assurance with ORI [10] [13] [20].

FAQ: Does the policy only apply to currently funded research?

No. The policies apply to allegations of research misconduct involving:

• Research supported by PHS funds
• Applications for PHS support
• Research records related to PHS-supported research or applications [13]

This includes research that has concluded, as long as it was PHS-supported.

FAQ: Are there any time limits on when an allegation can be considered?

Yes, there is a general six-year statute of limitations from the date the institution receives the allegation [11]. However, a "subsequent use exception" may extend this period if the respondent uses, republishes, or cites the specific portion of the research record alleged to be fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized within the six-year window [13] [22] [21].

Key Requirements for Institutional Policies Table

The following table summarizes the core elements that institutional policies must address to comply with the 2024 Final Rule, effective January 1, 2026 [10] [11].

Policy Requirement	Key Description	Regulatory Citation (42 C.F.R. Part 93)
Assurance of Compliance	Institution must have written policies and file an assurance with ORI [10].	§ 93.300-304
Definitions	Must define misconduct as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly [22] [21].	§ 93.203, 213, 225-227
Jurisdictional Scope	Applies to PHS-supported research, applications, and related records [13].	§ 93.102
Procedural Stages	Must outline process for assessment, inquiry, and investigation [20] [21].	§ 93.307-310
Confidentiality	Must protect identities of respondents, complainants, and witnesses, with disclosures permitted for those with a "need to know" [13] [22].	§ 93.106
Recordkeeping	Must create, maintain, and provide ORI with a complete institutional record upon final determination [22] [21].	§ 93.317

Policy Coverage and Relationships Diagram

The diagram below illustrates the entities covered by institutional research misconduct policies and their relationships under PHS regulations.

Essential Compliance Components

The following table details key elements for maintaining an effective research misconduct compliance framework.

Component	Function in Compliance Framework
Written Policies & Procedures	Foundation for handling allegations; required for ORI assurance [10] [11].
Research Integrity Officer (RIO)	Primary institutional official responsible for overseeing misconduct proceedings [11] [21].
Sequestered Research Records	Preserves evidence; policies must detail procedures for sequestration [21].
Interview Transcripts	Creates verbatim record of interviews during investigation stage; must be provided to respondent [11] [22].
Institutional Record	Comprehensive documentation of entire proceeding, provided to ORI after final determination [22] [21].

The Critical Role of the Research Integrity Officer (RIO)

FAQs: Understanding the RIO's Role and Procedures

What is a Research Integrity Officer (RIO)?

The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) is the institutional official responsible for overseeing the assessment, inquiry, investigation, and resolution of allegations of research misconduct [23]. They act as the central point of contact for all parties involved and ensure procedures comply with institutional policy and funding agency requirements, such as those from the Public Health Service (PHS) [24] [23].

When should I contact the RIO?

You should contact the RIO to report observed, suspected, or apparent misconduct in research, which includes fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results [23]. You may also contact the RIO for confidential consultations about concerns of possible research misconduct before making a formal report [23].

What are the stages of a research misconduct proceeding?

The process generally involves several key stages, as outlined in the table below [24] [23]:

Proceeding Stage	Key Activities & Objectives
Allegation & Preliminary Assessment	RIO assesses the allegation to determine if it falls under the definition of research misconduct and if there is sufficient evidence to warrant an inquiry [23].
Inquiry	A preliminary evaluation of evidence to determine if an investigation is warranted. Its purpose is not to reach a final conclusion about whether misconduct occurred [23].
Investigation	A formal development and thorough examination of all relevant facts to determine if misconduct has occurred, and if so, who is responsible [24] [23].
Institutional Decision & Reporting	The Provost or designated official reviews reports, makes a determination, and may impose sanctions. The RIO reports findings to sponsors as required [23] [25].

What are my rights and protections as a Complainant?

As a complainant, you have the right to:

• Be interviewed and present evidence during the inquiry [23].
• Testify before the investigation committee [23].
• Be informed of the results of the inquiry and investigation [23].
• Be protected from retaliation [23] [25].

You are responsible for making allegations in good faith, maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating with the inquiry or investigation [23].

What are my rights and protections as a Respondent?

As a respondent, you have the right to:

• Be informed of the allegations when an inquiry is opened [23].
• Be interviewed and present evidence during the inquiry and investigation [23].
• Review draft inquiry and investigation reports and submit comments [23].
• Be accompanied by legal counsel or a personal adviser at interviews or meetings [23].

You are responsible for participating in the process truthfully and in good faith, maintaining confidentiality, and not retaliating against any individual [23].

How does the RIO ensure confidentiality?

The RIO maintains the confidentiality of the proceedings to the extent possible without compromising public health and safety or the thoroughness of the investigation [23]. Disclosure of identities is limited to those who need to know [25]. However, anonymity for a complainant cannot be guaranteed if a case proceeds to a formal investigation and their testimony is required [23].

What is the RIO's role in managing evidence?

The RIO is responsible for the sequestration of research records. After initiating an inquiry, the RIO will promptly secure all relevant research records and materials, inventory the evidence, and store it securely [23] [25]. In modern cases, this can involve managing large volumes of digital data, which presents significant logistical and financial challenges [26].

Research Reagent Solutions: Key Materials for Research Integrity Processes

The following table details essential components for conducting a thorough and fair research misconduct proceeding.

Item / Component	Function / Purpose
Research Integrity Policy	Provides the formal framework and procedural rules for conducting inquiries and investigations into research misconduct allegations [23] [25].
Secure Data Storage System	Preserves relevant research records and evidence (e.g., lab notebooks, digital data, emails) in a confidential and secure manner to ensure evidence integrity [23] [25].
Conflict of Interest Checklist	A tool to ensure that individuals involved in the inquiry or investigation committee are unbiased and without unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts [25].
Code of Practice for Research	A guiding document that supports researchers and organizations in upholding the highest standards of integrity, providing practical guidance for daily work [27].
Interview Protocols	Standardized procedures for conducting interviews with complainants, respondents, and witnesses to ensure a consistent, objective, and thorough fact-finding process [23].

Research Misconduct Investigation Workflow

The diagram below outlines the general workflow for handling an allegation of research misconduct, from initial assessment to final institutional action.

Troubleshooting Guide: Common Challenges in Research Misconduct Proceedings

Challenge: A collaborative project across multiple institutions is facing an allegation. How is this handled?

• Diagnosis: Multi-institutional collaborations create questions of jurisdiction and parallel investigations [26] [25].
• Solution: Institutions should designate a single lead institution to conduct a joint research misconduct proceeding [25]. By mutual agreement, the investigation committee can include members from the collaborating institutions, and a joint determination can be made [25]. The RIO's role is to ensure collaboration without compromising the process, sharing information appropriately without creating exceptions that weaken standards [26].

Challenge: A complainant fears retaliation for reporting a concern.

• Diagnosis: Fear of retaliation is a significant barrier to reporting misconduct and creating a healthy research culture [27] [23].
• Solution: The RIO has a responsibility to protect complainants from retaliation [23]. Institutions must have a clear, enforceable non-retaliation policy [23] [25]. The RIO should be available to receive complaints regarding alleged retaliation and take appropriate action [23]. Building a culture of trust through transparency and consistent processes is a key preventive measure [26].

Challenge: The research data involved in the allegation is exceptionally large (e.g., terabytes).

• Diagnosis: Modern digital data storage makes the sequestration of research records a significant logistical and financial challenge [26].
• Solution: The RIO must partner with IT support to establish secure infrastructure for data storage and ongoing oversight [26]. This is a critical component of institutional support needed for the RIO to function effectively [26]. The RIO must take "all reasonable and practical steps" to obtain and sequester evidence, which may involve securing copies of data from shared instruments [25].

The Step-by-Step Investigation Process: From Allegation to Adjudication

Defining Research Misconduct and the Assessment Purpose

What is the official definition of research misconduct?

Research misconduct is formally defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results [28] [29]. It does not include honest error or differences of opinion [28].

• Fabrication: Making up data or results and recording or reporting them [30] [29]
• 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 [30] [29]
• Plagiarism: Appropriating another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit [28] [30]

A finding of research misconduct requires that:

• There is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community [28] [6]
• The misconduct is committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly [28] [6]
• The allegation is proven by a preponderance of the evidence [28] [6]

What is the purpose of a preliminary assessment?

A preliminary assessment is the initial review of an allegation to determine whether it meets the definition of research misconduct and contains sufficient information to proceed with a formal inquiry [31] [23]. This initial screening ensures that matters outside the definition (such as authorship disputes or honest error) are identified early and not pursued through the full misconduct process [28] [29].

When does research misconduct fall under PHS jurisdiction?

For allegations to fall under Public Health Service (PHS) jurisdiction, they must meet three criteria [31]:

• The research in which the alleged misconduct took place must be supported by PHS funds or involve an application for PHS funds
• The alleged misconduct must meet the definition of research misconduct in 42 C.F.R. Part 93
• The allegation contains sufficient information to proceed with an inquiry

The Reporting Process: From Observation to Assessment

What are my responsibilities for reporting misconduct?

All individuals in the research community have a responsibility to report observed, suspected, or apparent research misconduct [28] [23]. If you are unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition, you may contact your Research Integrity Officer (RIO) to discuss the situation informally, which may include discussing it anonymously or hypothetically [28].

How do I make a report in good faith?

A good faith allegation means you have a belief in the truth of your allegation that a reasonable person in your position could have, based on the information known to you at the time [28] [5]. An allegation is not in good faith if made with knowing or reckless disregard for information that would disprove it [5]. Importantly, an allegation may be made in good faith even if an investigation subsequently does not support a finding of misconduct [5].

What protections exist for complainants?

Institutions must protect complainants from retaliation and make efforts to protect their privacy [28] [23]. Stanford University explicitly states that "reporting such concerns in good faith is a service to the University and to the larger academic community, and will not jeopardize anyone's employment" [29]. If you request anonymity, institutions will try to honor this request during the assessment phase, though anonymity may not be possible if your testimony is required in a subsequent investigation [23].

What information should a misconduct allegation include?

While procedures vary by institution, a comprehensive complaint should include [30]:

• Name and contact information of the person(s) involved in the alleged research misconduct
• How you became aware of the alleged research misconduct
• Names of any witnesses or others with pertinent information
• Description of the alleged research misconduct with date, time, location, and relevant facts
• Any relevant documents or evidence
• Any facts indicating imminent threat to safety of persons or property

The Preliminary Assessment Procedure

What happens after I submit a report?

The assessment process generally follows these steps:

Assessment and Initial Sequestration Workflow

What criteria does the RIO use during assessment?

The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) assesses whether the allegation [23] [32] [29]:

• Falls within the definition of research misconduct (fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism)
• Is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence may be identified
• Involves PHS-supported research (if PHS jurisdiction is relevant)

What is sequestration and when does it occur?

Sequestration involves securing all original research records and materials relevant to the allegation [23] [32]. At Penn State, this occurs "prior to or at the time the Respondent is notified to preserve the data and protect the Respondent from concerns that they had the opportunity to tamper with evidence" [32]. The institution must take custody of research records and evidence, inventory them, and sequester them securely [30].

What are the possible outcomes of a preliminary assessment?

The assessment may conclude with one of these outcomes:

• Proceed to inquiry: The allegation meets criteria for research misconduct and has sufficient substance [29]
• No further action: The allegation does not meet the definition of research misconduct or lacks sufficient evidence [32]
• Referral to other offices: The matter may be better addressed through other institutional processes (e.g., authorship disputes, personnel issues) [28] [32]

Troubleshooting Common Assessment Scenarios

What if I'm unsure whether what I observed constitutes misconduct?

Solution: Contact your RIO for an informal consultation. You can discuss situations anonymously or hypothetically without making a formal allegation [28]. The RIO can help you determine whether the situation falls within the research misconduct definition before you decide whether to file a formal report.

What if the research isn't federally funded?

Solution: Institutions still typically address allegations involving non-federally funded research using similar procedures, though these cases "need not be reported to the federal government" [28]. The standard of proof and procedural fairness should be maintained regardless of funding source.

What if I need to report an imminent threat to public health or safety?

Solution: Immediately notify your RIO of any special circumstances, including when "health or safety of the public is at risk" or when "there is reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law" [30]. These situations may trigger exceptions to normal procedures and timelines.

What if I'm concerned about retaliation?

Solution: Document your concerns and report them to the RIO. Institutions explicitly prohibit retaliation against those who report concerns in good faith [23] [29]. The RIO is responsible for addressing allegations of retaliation and "protecting the positions and reputations of those persons who, in good faith, make allegations" [5].

What if the respondent leaves the institution during the assessment?

Solution: The process typically continues. Institutional policies often state they "may be applied to any individual no longer affiliated if the alleged misconduct occurred while the person was employed by, an agent of, or affiliated with the University" [28]. The RIO will coordinate with other institutions as needed.

Essential Research Integrity Tools

Table: Key Contacts and Resources for Research Misconduct Reporting

Resource	Primary Function	Contact Timing
Research Integrity Officer (RIO)	Oversees misconduct proceedings; provides procedural guidance	First point of contact for any misconduct concerns
Institutional Legal Counsel	Provides legal advice on procedures and confidentiality	When complex legal issues arise
Department Chair/Dean	May receive initial reports; facilitates institutional process	Alternative reporting channel if RIO unavailable
Office of Research Integrity (ORI)	Provides federal oversight for PHS-funded research	When institutional process is incomplete or problematic

Table: Documentation Requirements for Research Records

Record Type	Retention Best Practice	Relevance to Misconduct Proceedings
Laboratory notebooks	Maintain with dated entries; witness significant findings	Primary evidence for fabrication/falsification claims
Original data files	Store securely with metadata intact	Evidence of data manipulation or selective reporting
Email correspondence	Retain relevant research communications	Documentation of collaboration terms and data sharing
Manuscript drafts	Keep all versions with contributor comments	Evidence for plagiarism or authorship disputes
Protocol approvals	Maintain approved protocols and amendments	Baseline for assessing protocol deviations

Regulatory Framework and Institutional Variations

Are there time limitations for reporting misconduct?

Yes, the PHS regulations apply only to research misconduct occurring within six years of the date an institution or HHS receives an allegation, with several exceptions [28] [6]:

• Subsequent use exception: The respondent continues or renews the alleged misconduct through citation or republication
• Health or safety exception: The alleged misconduct would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on public health or safety

How do institutional policies relate to PHS standards?

Institutions must meet PHS regulatory requirements for federally-funded research, but they may have additional or broader standards for other matters [5]. As noted by ORI, "an institution may find conduct to be actionable under its own standards, even though the action does not meet the PHS definition of research misconduct" [5].

What are the confidentiality requirements during assessment?

Confidentiality is maintained by limiting disclosure of identities "to those who need to know in order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective, and fair research misconduct proceeding" [28] [6]. However, institutions must disclose identities to ORI when required, and confidentiality limitations no longer apply once an institution makes a final determination of research misconduct [6].

In research misconduct investigation procedures, the prompt and proper sequestration of physical evidence is a foundational step for ensuring evidence integrity [33]. If evidence is not sequestered systematically and promptly with an identifiable chain of custody, its integrity can be questioned, creating avoidable complications in misconduct cases [33]. This guide provides detailed protocols and troubleshooting advice for researchers and administrators involved in this critical process.

Step-by-Step Sequestration Protocol

Preparation and Notification

• Understand Authorities: Know the policies granting authority to sequester data. Under PHS grant policy, for example, data generated under a grant belong to the grantee institution, not the principal investigator [33].
• Formal Notification: Prepare and deliver formal notification to the respondent (the person against whom the allegation is directed). This notification should identify the authorities, nature of the allegations, process to be followed, and the respondent's rights [33] [28].

Executing the Sequestration

• Timing: Data sequestration should occur concurrent with notifying the respondent [33] [34].
• Assemble a Team: The sequestration team may include an authorized institutional official (often a Research Integrity Officer), the respondent’s supervisor, an expert who understands the research, an IT specialist, legal counsel, and security personnel as needed [33] [34].
• Secure Evidence: Confidentially arrange access to data and related evidence. The focus is on circumstances that protect evidence integrity while allowing discreet, confidential, timely, and efficient sequestration [33] [34]. Prior to identifying physical evidence, take measures to retain unaltered electronic files (e.g., Google Vault hold) [34].

Identifying and Inventorying Evidence

Evidence is anything that tends to prove or disprove an alleged fact and includes [34]:

• Lab records and notebooks (physical and electronic)
• Research data (e.g., micrographs)
• Collateral information (e.g., centrifuge logs, order forms, telephone notes)
• Computer files (hard drives, email, instrument-connected computers)
• Grants, progress reports, manuscripts (drafts and published), abstracts, theses, presentations
• Correspondence with editors and others

Inventory Process: Compile an inventory of all sequestered research records and evidence [34]. For notebooks and folders, count the number of pages and ensure each has a unique identifier [33]. The authorizing official should sign each receipt, and the respondent should be requested to countersign. The respondent should receive copies of the receipt forms [33].

Maintaining Chain of Custody and Storage

• Chain of Custody: Maintain an identifiable chain of custody by inventorying physical evidence, providing receipts, logging supervised access, and documenting when evidence is released and to whom [33] [34].
• Secure Storage: All evidence must be stored as part of the institutional record in a secure location in accordance with institutional and federal policies (e.g., for seven years after an investigation) [34].
• Access to Records: The respondent must be assured supervised access to the original research records or copies of records necessary to continue research during sequestration [33] [34].

Troubleshooting Common Sequestration Issues

Q1: What if the respondent is uncooperative and refuses to identify all potential evidence?

• Solution: Emphasize that evidence offered later in the process may be given less weight [33]. The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) has the authority to remove data and evidence related to the inquiry to fulfill obligations under federal regulations and university policy [34]. Institutional officials, including respondents, have an obligation to provide evidence relevant to research misconduct allegations [28].

Q2: How should we handle electronic data on shared instruments or complex digital formats?

• Solution: For scientific instruments shared by multiple users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence, provided those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments [30]. Involve an IT expert early to retain copies of unaltered electronic files and ensure proper handling of complex digital data [34].

Q3: What steps ensure the integrity of sequestered evidence is not questioned later?

• Solution: The core of evidence integrity lies in a systematic process and a clear chain of custody [33]. Key steps include:
  • Prompt Sequestration: Secure evidence immediately upon notification [33].
  • Detailed Inventory: Meticulously log all items, including page counts and unique identifiers [33] [34].
  • Documented Chain of Custody: Use custody forms, labels, and receipts signed by both the official and the respondent [33] [34].
  • Secure, Access-Logged Storage: Store originals securely and log all supervised access [34].

Q4: The allegation involves PHS-funded research. Are there special requirements?

• Solution: Yes. If the inquiry determines an investigation is warranted, the institution must provide ORI with the written finding and a copy of the inquiry report within 30 days [30]. The institution must also notify ORI of special circumstances, such as threats to public health or reasonable indication of criminal violations [30]. The institution must transfer custody or provide copies of the institutional record and any sequestered evidence to HHS upon request [34].

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: What constitutes research misconduct? A: Research misconduct is typically defined as fabrication (making up data or results), falsification (manipulating research materials, processes, or data), or plagiarism (appropriating another's ideas or words without credit) in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. It does not include honest error or differences of opinion [30] [28].

Q: What is the difference between an inquiry and an investigation? A: An inquiry is a preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding step to determine if an allegation warrants a formal investigation [30] [28]. An investigation is the formal development of a factual record and examination of that record to determine if research misconduct occurred [28].

Q: How long does an inquiry take? A: Institutions often aim to complete an inquiry within 60 calendar days of initiation, though circumstances may warrant a longer period. If the inquiry takes longer, the reasons should be documented [30].

Q: What are the rights of a respondent in a misconduct proceeding? A: Key rights include being notified of the allegations, having the opportunity to comment on the inquiry report, being given a copy of the institution's research misconduct policy, and having supervised access to sequestered research records or copies to continue their work [33] [30] [34].

Q: What happens if research records are destroyed or absent? A: The destruction or absence of research records can itself be evidence of misconduct if the institution establishes that the respondent intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly had the records and destroyed them, or failed to maintain or produce them, and that this conduct is a significant departure from accepted research practices [28].

Essential Documentation and Tools

Key Research Reagent Solutions for Evidence Management

Item or Document	Primary Function in Sequestration
Custody Forms & Receipts	Establishes a documented chain of custody; signed by official and respondent [33].
Evidence Labels & Markers	Clearly identifies and tracks all sequestered items [33] [34].
Secure Storage Containers	Protects physical evidence from tampering or damage [33].
Digital Evidence Preservation Tools (e.g., Google Vault)	Retains unaltered electronic files and emails [34].
Inventory Log	A comprehensive list of all sequestered materials, describing the sequestration process [34].

Procedural Aspect	Requirement or Standard	Governing Policy / Standard
Inquiry Completion	Within 60 days (unless circumstances warrant longer) [30].	AACP Procedures [30]
Investigation Notification	Begin within 30 days after determining an investigation is warranted [30].	AACP Procedures [30]
Record Retention	At least 7 years after the termination of the inquiry or investigation [30] [34].	AACP, University of Minnesota [30] [34]
Standard of Proof	Preponderance of the evidence [30] [28].	AACP, Harvard FAS [30] [28]

Experimental Workflow: Research Evidence Sequestration

Definition and Purpose of an Inquiry

An inquiry is the critical first step in the research misconduct process, serving as a preliminary evaluation to determine if a full investigation is warranted. Its purpose is not to reach a final conclusion about whether misconduct definitively occurred or to assign responsibility [35] [23]. Instead, the inquiry functions as an initial screening to separate allegations that deserve further investigation from those that are unjustified or mistaken [36]. It involves a preliminary evaluation of the available evidence and testimony from the respondent, the complainant (whistleblower), and key witnesses [35].

The Inquiry Process: A Step-by-Step Guide

The inquiry phase follows a structured sequence to ensure a fair and thorough preliminary review. The flowchart below illustrates the key stages an allegation passes through during this process.

The specific procedures at each stage are detailed below:

• Initiation and Notification: The process begins after an initial assessment determines the allegation is sufficiently credible, specific, and falls within the definition of research misconduct [36] [23]. The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) must then notify the respondent (the person against whom the allegation is made) in writing of the allegations [36]. This notification should clearly identify the original allegation and any related issues [23].
• Sequestration of Research Records: Upon or before initiating the inquiry, the institution must take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all research records and evidence needed to conduct the proceeding [30]. This sequestration involves securing data both physically (e.g., copying a hard drive) and remotely (e.g., data from cloud backups) to preserve evidence and protect the respondent from concerns of evidence tampering [32]. An inventory of sequestered materials is required [37].
• Preliminary Scientific Review: The core of the inquiry is a preliminary review of the evidence. This is typically performed by a subject matter expert or an inquiry committee [32] [36]. The review involves interviewing the complainant, respondent, and key witnesses, as well as examining relevant research records [23]. The committee members must be impartial and have no unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest [36].
• Inquiry Report and Comment Period: A written inquiry report is prepared, documenting the findings [35] [36]. The RIO provides the respondent and complainant with a draft of this report for comment, typically allowing a 10-day period for feedback [36]. Any comments submitted are attached to the final report [36].
• Decision by Deciding Official (DO): The final inquiry report is sent to a Deciding Official (DO), such as a Provost or Designated Research Official [32] [36]. The DO consults with the RIO and makes a written determination on whether an investigation is warranted [36]. All parties, including the complainant, respondent, and relevant institutional leadership, are notified of this outcome [32].

Quantitative Data: Timelines and Committee Composition

Adhering to established timelines and committee composition is essential for a rigorous and fair inquiry process. The tables below summarize these key quantitative metrics.

Table 1: Inquiry Phase Timelines and Deadlines

Action	Standard Timeline	Governing Policy / Example
Initial Assessment	Preferably within 1 week [36]	University of Wisconsin-Madison
Complete Inquiry	60 days from initiation [36] [30]	PHS Regulation 42 CFR § 93 [37]
Respondent Comment on Draft Report	10 calendar days [36]	University of Wisconsin-Madison & Penn State
DO Decision after Final Report	Within 20 days of receipt [36]	University of Wisconsin-Madison
Begin Investigation (if warranted)	Within 30 days of inquiry decision [36]	University of Wisconsin-Madison

Table 2: Inquiry Committee Composition and Standards of Proof

Element	Requirement	Details
Committee Size	At least 3 members [36]
Committee Expertise	Scientific competence appropriate for the case, without conflicts of interest [36]	Members can be from inside or outside the institution [36]
Standard for Investigation	Allegation may have substance [30]	"Reasonable basis" that allegation falls within definition of research misconduct [30]
Burden of Proof for Final Misconduct Finding	Preponderance of the evidence [30]	PHS Policies (Also required for proving intentional destruction of records) [13]

Determining if an Investigation is Warranted

The Deciding Official's determination to proceed to an investigation hinges on two key criteria [30]:

• There is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct (fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism) [30].
• The preliminary information-gathering from the inquiry indicates that the allegation may have substance [30].

An investigation is not warranted if the inquiry determines that the allegation does not meet the definition of research misconduct or lacks substantive evidence [36]. In such cases, the DO may still direct the RIO to pursue corrective actions, such as re-training in laboratory practices, even without a formal investigation [36].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The following tools and resources are critical for effectively managing and participating in a research misconduct inquiry.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for the Inquiry Process

Item	Function
Institutional Policy & Procedures (e.g., RP02, Faculty Policy II-314)	Provides the definitive rulebook for the entire misconduct process, outlining specific institutional steps, rights, and responsibilities [32] [36].
PHS Policies on Research Misconduct (42 CFR Part 93)	The federal regulation governing inquiries and investigations for Public Health Service-funded research, effective in updated form on Jan 1, 2026 [37] [12].
Secure Data Storage & Chain-of-Custody Log	A system (digital and/or physical) for sequestering and inventorying all relevant research records and evidence, crucial for preserving integrity [32] [37].
Confidentiality Agreement Templates	Legal documents to protect the privacy of respondents, complainants, and witnesses by limiting disclosure of information to those who need to know [32] [36].
ORI Sample Policies and Procedures	A non-binding but authoritative template from the Office of Research Integrity to help institutions build compliant frameworks for handling allegations [38] [37].
AZD7254	`AZD7254 Research Compound|RUO`
Fatostatin	Fatostatin, CAS:125256-00-0, MF:C18H18N2S, MW:294.4 g/mol

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the difference between an inquiry and an investigation? An inquiry is a preliminary fact-finding step to determine if an allegation has enough substance to justify a formal investigation. An investigation is a formal, comprehensive development of the factual record to determine whether misconduct occurred, by whom, and to what extent [35] [36].

What are my rights as a respondent in an inquiry? You have the right to be notified of the allegations in writing, to be interviewed and present evidence during the inquiry, to review and comment on the draft inquiry report, and to be protected from retaliation. You may also consult with legal counsel or a personal adviser at your own expense [23].

What constitutes "sufficient evidence" to move to an investigation? The threshold is not "proof" of misconduct. Instead, an investigation is warranted if there is a reasonable basis to believe the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct (FFP) and the preliminary information suggests the allegation has merit [30].

How is confidentiality maintained during an inquiry? The identities of respondents and complainants are disclosed only to those with a legitimate need to know to carry out the proceeding [32] [13]. The institution must also protect the identity of research subjects [30]. However, confidentiality is not absolute, and identities may be disclosed to journals, collaborating institutions, or ORI as necessary [13] [30].

Investigation Workflow and Timelines

What is the standard workflow and timeline for a formal investigation?

A formal research misconduct investigation is a multi-stage process defined by strict procedural and documentation requirements. The following diagram illustrates the key phases from allegation to final report.

Key Investigation Phase Timelines

Phase	Purpose	Maximum Timeline	Key Changes in 2024 Final Rule
Assessment	Evaluate allegation credibility, jurisdiction, and whether it meets research misconduct definition [21] [37]	Not specified	Formalized as mandatory first phase [21]
Inquiry	Determine if allegation merits formal investigation [37]	90 days [37]	Inquiry committee now optional; RIO or designated official may conduct [21]
Investigation	Formal examination to develop factual record, make misconduct determination [37]	180 days [21] [37]	Extended from 120 days; more realistic for complex cases [21] [11]

Evidence Handling and Sequestration

How should evidence be secured and documented during an investigation?

Proper evidence sequestration is critical for preserving integrity. The process must begin immediately upon receiving a credible allegation [37].

Evidence Sequestration Protocol

Step	Action	Documentation Required
1. Immediate Seizure	Secure all original research records, data, and materials relevant to allegation [37]	Inventory with dates, descriptions, and sequestering official [21] [37]
2. Chain of Custody	Maintain strict control and documentation of all access to sequestered materials [37]	Log of all individuals accessing evidence with dates and purposes [37]
3. Substantially Equivalent Copies	Use certified copies if original records cannot be obtained [21]	Documentation explaining why originals unavailable and equivalence verification [21]
4. Interim Sequestration	Secure new records as they become known during investigation [21]	Supplemental inventory documenting additional materials [21]

Troubleshooting Guide: Common Evidence Issues

• Issue: Respondent claims records are unavailable or lost.

  • Solution: Document the claim. Note that failure to retain records alone is not evidence of misconduct, but intentional destruction after allegation notification can be [13].

• Issue: Evidence exists in multiple locations or institutions.

  • Solution: Coordinate sequestration with all involved institutions. The Final Rule provides guidelines for multi-institutional proceedings [21].

• Issue: Digital evidence requires specialized handling.

  • Solution: Engage IT/forensic specialists early to preserve metadata and maintain evidentiary value.

Interview Procedures and Transcripts

What are the requirements for conducting and documenting interviews?

Interview protocols have been significantly enhanced under the new regulations, with specific transcription requirements.

Investigation Interview Requirements

Requirement	Application	Documentation Standard
Mandatory Transcription	All interviews conducted during investigation phase [21] [11]	Word-for-word transcripts; audio recording alone insufficient [21] [11]
Respondent Access	Respondent must receive copies of all interview transcripts [21] [11]	Transcripts may be redacted to maintain witness confidentiality [11]
Exhibit Numbering	Materials shown to interviewees must be numbered as exhibits [21]	Exhibits referenced by number during interview and included in institutional record [21]
Investigation vs. Inquiry	Inquiry phase interviews should be transcribed but not required [21]	Inquiry interviews may be documented with summaries or recordings [21]

FAQ: Interview Process

• Q: Can witnesses remain anonymous?

  • A: Confidentiality is required during proceedings, but identities may be disclosed to third parties with legitimate need (journals, collaborating institutions) as determined by the institution [13]. Restrictions lift after final determination [13].

• Q: What if a witness refuses to be interviewed?

  • A: Document the refusal. Proceed with available evidence and note the absence of testimony in the final report.

• Q: How should we handle reluctant internal witnesses fearing retaliation?

  • A: Emphasize institutional non-retaliation policies [37]. Consider appropriate redactions to transcripts while preserving substantive content [11].

Documentation and Reporting Standards

What documentation must be included in the final investigation report?

The institutional record must provide a complete account of the investigation for ORI review [21] [37].

Investigation Report Requirements

Component	Description	Regulatory Reference
Committee Composition	Names and qualifications of investigation committee members [21]	§93.310(c) - Appropriate scientific expertise [11]
Evidence Inventory	Complete inventory of sequestered research records and description of sequestration process [21]	§93.310(f) - Required component [21]
Interview Transcripts	Transcripts of all interviews conducted during investigation [21] [11]	§93.310(g) - Mandatory inclusion [21]
Identification of Publications	List all publications, manuscripts, and grant applications containing allegedly falsified data [21]	§93.310(i) - Specific identification required [21]
Scientific Analyses	Description of any scientific or forensic analyses conducted [21]	§93.310(j) - Analytical methods documentation [21]
Procedural History	Timeline of investigation and key procedural milestones [21]	§93.310(h) - Required component [21]

Complete Institutional Record for ORI Submission

After final determination, institutions must transmit the full institutional record to ORI, including [21]:

• All records compiled or generated and relied upon in proceedings
• Documentation of assessment stage
• Inquiry report (if inquiry conducted)
• Transcripts of all transcribed interviews
• Record of any institutional appeal
• Index of all research records and evidence compiled
• General description of records sequestered but not relied upon

Research Reagent Solutions for Investigation Support

Essential Research Integrity Tools

Tool Category	Specific Solutions	Function in Investigations
Image Analysis	Image duplication detectors, forensic analysis tools [3]	Identify potential image manipulation in publications
Text Similarity	Plagiarism detection software, text-matching algorithms [3]	Detect potential plagiarism across research literature
Data Management	Electronic Research Administration (eRA) systems [3]	Track compliance, manage protocols, document training
Record Keeping	Secure digital repositories with chain-of-custody features [37]	Maintain sequestration integrity and access logs
Reference Validation	Citation analysis tools, bibliography auditors	Verify reference accuracy and identify citation manipulation

Procedural Complexities and Solutions

How should investigators handle challenging procedural situations?

Addressing Common Investigation Challenges

Challenge	Regulatory Context	Recommended Approach
Multiple Respondents	Adding new respondents to ongoing proceeding [21]	No requirement for new inquiry; may add respondents to existing investigation with proper documentation [21]
"Subsequent Use" Exception	Narrowed exception applying only to specific portions of research record [13] [21]	Carefully document which "portion(s)" were used, republished, or cited within 6 years of allegation [13] [11]
Respondent Admissions	Written admission allows case closure without full investigation [20] [37]	Must obtain written, signed admission detailing what, how misconduct occurred; requires ORI notification and approval [20] [37]
Honest Error Determination	May be made at assessment, inquiry, or investigation stage [11]	Document rationale thoroughly; no longer restricted to investigation phase only [11]
International Collaborations	Cross-border investigations with varying standards [3]	Designate lead institution; establish mutual recognition of procedures; address data transfer restrictions early [3]

Troubleshooting Guide: Due Process Issues

• Issue: Respondent refuses to participate in investigation.

  • Solution: Proceed with available evidence. Document all invitations and refusals. Note that failure to provide relevant research records upon request can be evidence of misconduct if respondent claims to possess them [13].

• Issue: Conflict of interest concerns about committee members.

  • Solution: Screen for actual conflicts; address perceived conflicts through transparency. Regulations require absence of "unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts" [11].

• Issue: Investigation exceeds 180-day timeframe.

  • Solution: Request extension from ORI before deadline. Document reasons for delay and progress to date [21].

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What specific rights do I have if I am named as a respondent in a research misconduct proceeding? As a respondent, you have several key rights designed to ensure a fair process. These include the right to be notified of the allegations, the opportunity to be heard and to provide testimony, the right to be accompanied by an advisor during interviews, and the right to review and comment on evidence and draft reports [39] [32]. The entire process is to be conducted with confidentiality to the maximum extent possible to protect all parties [32].

Q2: What is the difference between an "Inquiry" and an "Investigation"? The inquiry is a preliminary step to determine if an allegation has sufficient substance to warrant a formal investigation. It assesses whether the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct and if there is enough evidence to proceed [39] [32]. If the inquiry finds probable cause, a full investigation is launched. The investigation is a formal, in-depth review to examine the facts in detail, determine whether misconduct occurred, and if so, its extent and significance [5] [32]. The investigation involves collecting and examining all relevant evidence and concludes with a finding based on a preponderance of the evidence [39].

Q3: Can the institution share information about my case with people outside the investigation committee? Yes, but with limitations. Institutions must protect confidentiality but are permitted to disclose identities to persons outside the institution when there is a "legitimate need" [13]. The regulations recognize that third parties such as journal editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions may have a legitimate need to know [13]. Furthermore, once a final determination of research misconduct is made, the institution is no longer bound by the same confidentiality restrictions and can manage corrections to the scientific record [13].

Q4: What happens if I accidentally destroy research records after learning of an allegation? The new ORI Final Rule clarifies that the destruction of research records is only considered evidence of misconduct if the institution can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that you intentionally or knowingly destroyed them after being informed of the allegations [13]. Simply failing to retain records, while potentially a violation of data retention policies, is not on its own sufficient for an adverse inference of misconduct [13].

Q5: What are the potential outcomes if a finding of research misconduct is made? A finding of research misconduct can lead to significant administrative actions imposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). These actions are designed to protect public funds and the integrity of science, and their severity depends on the circumstances [40]. The table below outlines potential outcomes:

Outcome Type	Description
Corrective Actions	Correction or retraction of the research record in publications [40].
Supervision & Restrictions	Special oversight on future grants, restrictions on activities, or required certifications for PHS applications [40].
Personnel Actions	Letters of reprimand or adverse personnel actions for federal employees [40].
Funding Actions	Suspension or termination of active PHS grants or contracts [40].
Debarment	Prohibition from participating in federal advisory roles or receiving federal grants and contracts for a set period, typically three years [5] [40].

---

Research Misconduct Investigation Workflow

The following diagram maps the key stages of a research misconduct proceeding, highlighting critical due process checkpoints for the respondent.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

This table details key materials and resources that are fundamental for maintaining research integrity and are often central to misconduct proceedings.

Item	Function & Importance in Integrity
Primary Research Data	The original, unprocessed recordings and observations from an experiment. It is the foundational evidence for any research finding and must be retained and made available for review [5].
Laboratory Notebooks	Detailed, chronological records of experimental procedures, data, and analysis. They provide a verifiable audit trail and are critical for demonstrating the validity of the research [5].
Protocol Documentation	Approved plans for research involving human subjects, animals, or biohazards (e.g., IRB, IACUC). Deviating without approval can constitute misconduct and endanger safety [39].
Authorship Agreements	Written documentation clarifying contributor roles and authorship order before manuscript submission. Helps prevent disputes and accusations of plagiarism or unjustified authorship [3] [39].
Data Management Plan	A formal plan outlining how data will be collected, formatted, stored, shared, and preserved. Ensures data integrity, accessibility, and compliance with institutional and funder policies [5].
LASV inhibitor 3.3	LASV Inhibitor 3.3|Lassa Virus Research|RUO
PKZ18	PKZ18

---

Respondent's Rights and Institutional Responsibilities

The following table summarizes the core elements of due process and fairness that institutions must uphold during misconduct proceedings, as outlined in federal regulations and institutional policies.

Procedural Element	Key Features & Protections
Confidentiality	Identities of respondents and complainants are disclosed only to those with a "legitimate need to know" [13] [32].
Burden of Proof	The institution bears the burden of proving a case of research misconduct by a "preponderance of the evidence" [39].
Adverse Inferences	Intentional destruction of records after an allegation can be evidence of misconduct, but mere failure to retain is not [13].
Good Faith Allegations	Complainants who make allegations in good faith are protected from retaliation, even if misconduct is not found [5].
Record Retention	Institutions have the right and obligation to require researchers to produce accurate supporting data for funded programs [5].

Final Determination, Reporting, and Potential Institutional Sanctions

Investigation Process Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the key stages of a research misconduct proceeding, from the initial assessment to the final agency action, highlighting the pathway to a final determination.

Administrative Sanctions Table

If the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) makes a finding of research misconduct, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) may impose a range of administrative actions to protect public funds and health [40]. The table below summarizes potential sanctions.

Sanction Type	Description	Purpose / Impact
Correction of Research Record	Requirement to correct the flawed scientific literature [40].	Ensures the integrity of the published scientific record.
Certification/Assurance Requirements	Future PHS grant submissions must be reviewed and certified by the institution as free of FFP [40].	Prevents recurrence by adding institutional oversight.
Special Review of Applications	All PHS funding requests undergo special, heightened review [40].	Adds scrutiny to all future grant applications.
Supervision on Active Awards	Mandated supervision of the respondent's activities on active PHS grants [40].	Protects ongoing research projects and public funds.
Suspension/Termination of Funds	Suspension or termination of active PHS grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements [40].	Stops the flow of public funds to non-compliant research.
Exclusion from Advisory Roles	Prohibition from serving in advisory capacities to the PHS [40].	Removes influence from federal research policy.
Debarment	Prohibition from participating in federal grants and contracts for a specified period [40].	Protects the integrity of all federal programs.
Recovery of Funds	HHS may act to recover PHS funds that supported activities involving misconduct [40].	Provides financial restitution for misused public money.

Key Regulations and Timelines Table

Adherence to specific regulatory requirements and deadlines is critical for a fair and compliant process. The following table outlines key procedural elements based on the updated PHS Policies on Research Misconduct (42 C.F.R. Part 93) [13] [12].

Regulatory Aspect	Requirement / Timeline	Notes / Context
Final Rule Effective Date	January 1, 2025 [13] [12]	The regulation itself is effective.
Institutional Compliance Deadline	January 1, 2026 [13] [20]	Institutions must follow the Final Rule for allegations received on or after this date.
Policy Submission Deadline	April 30, 2026 [13] [20]	Revised institutional policies must be submitted with the 2025 Annual Report.
Statute of Limitations	6 years from the alleged misconduct [13]	The "subsequent use exception" may extend this period [13].
Burden of Proof	Preponderance of the evidence [13]	The institution must prove misconduct is "more likely than not."
Adverse Inference	Permitted in specific situations [13]	Intentional destruction of records after an allegation can be evidence of misconduct [13].

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the difference between an institutional finding and an ORI finding?

The institution and ORI make independent findings. An institution completes its own investigation and makes a final determination. ORI then reviews the institution's report and process to make its own independent finding. An ORI finding is required for HHS to impose administrative actions, but the institution's own determination and sanctions stand independently [40].

What happens if a respondent admits to research misconduct?

If a respondent admits to misconduct, the institution must still carry the proceedings to completion. ORI requires a detailed admission statement from the respondent, and the institution must provide a statement confirming the admission is voluntary and the supporting evidence. The process ensures the factual basis and scope of the misconduct are fully documented to correct the research record [20].

Can an institution be sanctioned for how it handles a case?

Yes. HHS can take compliance actions against an institution that shows a disregard for, or inability to follow, regulatory requirements. Potential actions include a letter of reprimand, placing the institution on special review status, requiring corrective actions, or, for substantial failures, revoking the institution's assurance, which suspends its eligibility for PHS awards [40].

What confidentiality rules apply during a proceeding?

While proceedings are ongoing, institutions must protect the confidentiality of respondents, complainants, and witnesses. However, the Final Rule allows disclosure to outside parties with a "legitimate need to know," such as journal editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions [13]. Once a final determination of misconduct is made, the institution is no longer bound by the confidentiality provision for the proceedings [13].

Research Reagent Solutions: Integrity Process Tools

The following table details essential procedural "tools" and resources for managing research misconduct proceedings effectively.

Tool / Resource	Function	Relevance to Investigation Phase
ORI Guidance Documents [20]	Clarify key regulatory issues (e.g., honest error, admissions, pursuing leads).	All phases; essential for developing compliant policies and procedures.
Institutional Assurance [12]	A filed commitment to HHS/ORI that the institution has and will follow a compliant process.	Prerequisite for receiving PHS funding; foundational to all proceedings.
Data Sequestration Protocol [32]	A process to securely preserve all relevant research records.	Assessment phase; critical to protect evidence and prevent tampering.
Case Management System	Tracks allegations, proceedings, deadlines, and communications.	All phases; ensures thorough documentation and regulatory compliance.
Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Training [41]	Educates researchers on ethical practices and definitions of misconduct.	Prevention; also used as a corrective action following a finding.

Navigating Complex Challenges: Whistleblower Protection, Confidentiality, and Procedural Hurdles

Troubleshooting Guide: Addressing Whistleblower Retaliation

This guide helps researchers and institutions diagnose and resolve common failures in whistleblower protection systems.

Problem Symptom	Possible Cause	Recommended Solution	Relevant Statute/Agency
Whistleblower is fired, demoted, or faces harassment after reporting.	Direct retaliation for making a protected disclosure.	File a complaint with OSHA, the OSC, or the relevant agency. Strict filing deadlines apply (e.g., 180 days for SOX, 30 days for environmental statutes) [42] [43].	Whistleblower Protection Act; Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX); Various environmental acts [44] [45] [43].
Whistleblower reports internally but faces a hostile work environment or is excluded from projects.	Subtle or constructive retaliation.	Document all adverse actions and their timing relative to the report. Report retaliation to the agency's Inspector General or a whistleblower protection coordinator [46].	Court interpretations broadly define "adverse action" [43].
An institution is slow to investigate or fails to acknowledge a misconduct report.	Institutional reputation protection, lack of resources, or complex internal politics.	Escalate the report to the relevant federal agency (e.g., ORI for research misconduct) or an external authority. Use anonymous reporting channels if available [3] [47].	Office of Research Integrity (ORI) Policies [3].
The whistleblower is accused of misconduct themselves.	Pretextual retaliation to discredit the whistleblower.	Seek immediate legal counsel. Gather all documentation proving the protected activity and the timing of the subsequent accusation [43].	False Claims Act; Sarbanes-Oxley Act [45] [43].
The report involves classified information or a security clearance.	Uncertainty about proper reporting channels for classified data.	Report only through authorized, secure channels, such as an Inspector General's classified hotline. Unauthorized disclosure may void protections [46].	Presidential Policy Directive 19 (PPD-19); 50 U.S.C. § 3341 [46].

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What qualifies as a "protected disclosure" for a research scientist?

A protected disclosure is a report of wrongdoing based on a reasonable belief that one of the following has occurred [46]:

• Violation of law, rule, or regulation
• Gross mismanagement or gross waste of funds
• Abuse of authority
• Substantial and specific danger to public health or safety
• Research misconduct (fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism) [3]

Q2: To whom must I report to be protected as a whistleblower?

You are protected for reporting to a wide range of entities, including [43] [46]:

• Your supervisor or chain of command
• An internal hotline or compliance office
• A federal agency (e.g., OSHA, SEC, ORI, NIH)
• Congress
• An Inspector General
• Law enforcement

Q3: What actions are considered illegal retaliation?

Retaliation is any adverse action taken because of your protected disclosure. It is not limited to firing and includes [44] [43]:

• Termination, layoff, or demotion
• Blacklisting or harassment
• Denial of benefits, promotion, or overtime
• Reduction in pay or hours
• Intimidation or threats
• Constructive discharge (making working conditions intolerable)

Q4: What legal remedies are available if I face retaliation?

Successful whistleblowers may be entitled to [45] [43]:

• Reinstatement to their former position
• Back pay with interest
• Front pay if reinstatement is not feasible
• Compensatory damages (e.g., for emotional distress)
• Attorney's fees and litigation costs
• Specific damages as outlined by statute (e.g., double back pay under the False Claims Act)

Q5: How can research institutions prevent whistleblower retaliation?

Institutions should build a proactive culture of integrity through [3] [47]:

• Clear, well-communicated policies defining misconduct and retaliation.
• Robust, anonymous reporting mechanisms and training for those handling reports.
• Mandatory training on the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) and whistleblower rights.
• Prompt and impartial investigations of all allegations.
• Visible leadership commitment to ethical behavior and accountability.

Experimental Protocol: The Whistleblower Protection Investigation Workflow

This protocol outlines the standard procedure for investigating an allegation of whistleblower retaliation, ensuring a fair and thorough process.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Legal and Institutional Safeguards

This table details essential "reagents" in the whistleblower protection framework—the legal provisions and institutional mechanisms that safeguard researchers.

Research Reagent Solution	Function & Application	Key Characteristics
Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA)	Protects federal employees from retaliation for reporting wrongdoing [45] [46].	The foundational law for government scientists; prohibits personnel actions based on protected disclosures.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX)	Shields employees of publicly traded companies who report fraud, including in corporate-funded research [45] [43].	Administered by OSHA; 180-day filing deadline; covers a broad range of fraud.
False Claims Act (FCA)	Allows private individuals to sue entities defrauding the government and protects them from retaliation [45] [48].	Includes qui tam provisions; offers potential monetary reward; protects against retaliation.
Office of Research Integrity (ORI) Policies	Defines and governs the response to research misconduct (FFP) within Public Health Service-funded research [3].	Provides the procedural framework for misconduct investigations; 2025 Final Rule enhances flexibility [3].
Anonymous Reporting Hotline	An institutional mechanism for receiving concerns confidentially, protecting the reporter's identity [47].	A critical internal control; must be operated to ensure trust and non-retribution.
Office of Special Counsel (OSC)	An independent federal agency that investigates retaliation complaints from government employees [49] [46].	Can seek corrective actions and stays on personnel actions on behalf of federal workers.
Rose Bengal Sodium	Xantryl|Rose Bengal Sodium Salt|CAS 632-69-9
FC131	FC131, MF:C36H47N11O6, MW:729.8 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Safeguarding the Respondent's Rights and Reputation During the Process

For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, being named as a respondent in a research misconduct proceeding is a professionally daunting experience. The process carries significant stakes, including potential damage to one's reputation, career trajectory, and ability to secure future funding. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a final rule in September 2024 revising the Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct (42 C.F.R. Part 93), marking the first comprehensive update since 2005 [13] [12]. These regulations, which take full effect on January 1, 2026, introduce substantial changes that affect how institutions must safeguard respondents' rights and reputations throughout misconduct proceedings [13] [11]. This technical support guide examines key procedural safeguards under the updated framework, providing practical guidance for navigating misconduct allegations while protecting fundamental rights.

Key Concepts and Definitions

Understanding the precise terminology used in research misconduct proceedings is essential for respondents to effectively exercise their rights. The regulatory definitions establish the legal framework and standards that govern the entire process.

Table 1: Key Definitions in Research Misconduct Proceedings

Term	Definition	Relevance to Respondent Protection
Research Misconduct	Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results [50] [28].	Forms the legal basis for any allegation; must be distinguished from honest error or differences of opinion.
Preponderance of the Evidence	The standard of proof requiring that a fact is more likely true than not [28].	Institutions bear this burden to prove misconduct; respondents do not need to prove their innocence.
Intentionally, Knowingly, Recklessly	Defined levels of intent that must be established for a finding of misconduct [13] [51].	The updated regulations provide clearer definitions, requiring investigation committees to specify which level of intent was found [51].
Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community	Professional standards or codes that apply to researchers in their specific field [13].	Provides context for evaluating whether a significant departure occurred, though definitions remain broad [13].
Respondent	The person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding [50] [28].	Entitles the individual to specific procedural protections throughout the process.
Research Record	The record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry [28].	Respondents have rights regarding access, review, and opportunity to respond to evidence derived from research records.

The foundational elements of research misconduct require that the institution prove: (1) a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; (2) the respondent committed the research misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and (3) the allegation is proven by a preponderance of the evidence [28]. The updated regulations provide clearer definitions for levels of intent ("intentionally," "knowingly," and "recklessly"), requiring investigation committees to specify which level of intent was found rather than using the collective phrase "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly" [51].

Respondent Rights FAQ

What are my most critical rights at the beginning of a misconduct proceeding? Upon becoming the subject of an allegation, you have the right to be informed of the allegations when an inquiry is opened [50]. You also have the right to consult with legal counsel or another advisor throughout the process [50]. The institution must provide safeguards to ensure the proceeding is thorough, competent, objective, and fair, and the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) overseeing the process must be free of real or perceived conflicts of interest [11].

How confidential is the misconduct process, and who might learn about the allegations against me? The 2024 regulations significantly alter confidentiality provisions. While previous rules limited disclosure of respondents' identities to those with a "need to know," the updated regulations grant institutions greater latitude in determining who needs to know [13] [51]. This may include disclosure to "institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions" [13] [51]. Importantly, confidentiality protections "no longer apply once an institution has made a final determination of research misconduct findings" [51]. Institutions should exercise appropriate restraint in disclosures, as premature revelations can cause irreparable reputational harm even if allegations are ultimately unfounded [51].

What happens if I accidentally destroyed research records before learning about the allegation? The updated regulations clarify that the "failure to retain records over time, while potentially violating applicable federal or institutional data retention requirements, is not per se evidence of misconduct and will not be an adverse inference on its own" [13]. However, if the institution proves by a preponderance of the evidence that you "intentionally or knowingly destroyed these records after being informed of the research misconduct allegations," this may be considered evidence of research misconduct [13].

Can I appeal a finding of research misconduct? Yes, the updated regulations preserve your right to appeal at both institutional and federal levels. Institutions must "promptly notify ORI" if you appeal and refrain from transmitting the institutional record to ORI until the appeal has concluded [51]. This ensures ORI conducts a holistic review based on the complete record [51]. At the federal level, you may appeal ORI's findings to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), though the process has changed significantly. ALJs may now only consider the administrative record and related briefs, rather than conducting a full hearing with discovery, witness examination, and new evidence [51].

What are the potential consequences if misconduct is found? The regulations emphasize that the purpose of research misconduct proceedings is "remedial," not punitive, with the goal of protecting public health and safety while allowing for rehabilitation [51]. The updated regulations explicitly exclude previous sanctions of suspension or debarment from the potential administrative actions imposed directly as a result of research misconduct findings [51]. Instead, ORI may refer the matter to the HHS suspension and debarment official for separate consideration [51]. ORI also retains discretion regarding whether to publish findings in the Federal Register, using permissive "may" language rather than mandatory "shall" [51].

Troubleshooting Common Procedural Challenges

Issue: Overly Broad Confidentiality Disclosures

Problem: The updated regulations grant institutions significant discretion to disclose your identity to external parties like journals, publishers, and collaborating institutions during ongoing proceedings [13] [51]. Such disclosures can cause premature and irreparable damage to your reputation.

Resolution Strategies:

• Request that your institution only make disclosures to external parties when there is a compelling, documented need related to ensuring the integrity of the scientific record or protecting public health [51].
• Ask the Research Integrity Officer to obtain written confidentiality agreements from any third parties who receive information about the allegations, prohibiting them from further dissemination [51].
• Document any objections to unnecessary disclosures, as institutions must still ensure disclosures are "consistent with a thorough, competent, objective, and fair research misconduct proceeding" [51].

Issue: Inadequate Opportunity to Respond to Evidence

Problem: Investigation reports may not provide sufficient detail about the evidence or analysis supporting the committee's recommendations, limiting your ability to mount an effective defense.

Resolution Strategies:

• The updated regulations require investigation committees to provide significantly more detailed reports, including "a summary of the facts and analysis underlying the conclusion, including consideration of the merits of any explanation by the respondent" [51].
• If reports lack required specificity, formally object and request compliance with §93.318 requirements, which mandate that committees address each allegation in detail and support findings with specific evidence [51].
• Ensure the complete institutional record includes all evidence reviewed, interview transcripts with exhibits identified, and an inventory of sequestered records [51].

Issue: Ambiguous or Collective Intent Findings

Problem: Investigation committees may issue findings that you committed misconduct "intentionally, knowingly, and/or recklessly" without specifying which level of intent applies to each allegation.

Resolution Strategies:

• Cite the updated regulatory requirement that investigation committees must specify the level of intent (intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly) for each finding of research misconduct [51].
• Request that the committee provide a distinct analysis for each level of intent, as the definitions now carry different meanings that must be applied precisely [13] [51].
• The regulations require committees to "indicate the person responsible for the research misconduct, the type of research misconduct and the level of intent" with specificity [51].

Issue: Potential Conflicts of Interest in Committee Composition

Problem: Committee members may have real or perceived conflicts of interest that compromise the impartiality of the proceeding.

Resolution Strategies:

• The updated regulations require that committee members and other officials participating in the proceeding "do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest relevant to the investigation" [11].
• Raise concerns about conflicts early in the process, as institutions are increasingly attentive to these requirements under the updated framework [11].
• Note that while sample policies suggest members should be free of "perceived conflicts," the regulatory standard focuses on "unresolved" conflicts "relevant to the investigation" [11].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions: Procedural Safeguards

Table 2: Key Procedural Safeguards for Research Misconduct Respondents

Procedural Safeguard	Function	Regulatory Basis
Written Admission Requirements	Establishes clear standards for settling cases, requiring a detailed, signed admission describing what misconduct occurred and how it deviated from accepted practices [11].	42 C.F.R. Part 93 (2024)
Interview Transcripts with Redactions	Provides respondents with transcripts of all witness interviews from the investigation stage, with appropriate redactions to maintain confidentiality of other parties [11].	42 C.F.R. Part 93 (2024)
Detailed Investigation Report	Ensures respondents receive a comprehensive report specifying evidence, allegations, factual findings, and analysis, including consideration of respondent's explanations [51].	§93.318
Sequestered Evidence Inventory	Provides transparency about what evidence was preserved and considered, including materials sequestered but not relied upon [37] [51].	§93.318
Appeals Process Notification	Requires institutions to notify ORI of appeals and delay transmittal of records until appeals conclude, ensuring ORI review is based on complete record [51].	42 C.F.R. Part 93 (2024)
Time Limitations	Generally limits proceedings to research misconduct occurring within six years of allegation receipt, with narrow exceptions for subsequent use [13] [11].	§93.104

Experimental Protocols: Implementing Respondent Safeguards

The following workflow diagrams illustrate key procedural safeguards throughout the research misconduct process, from allegation through appeal. These protocols reflect requirements under the updated 2024 regulations.

Figure 1. Research misconduct proceeding workflow with dismissal options. The updated regulations provide institutions with flexibility to dismiss allegations at earlier stages based on honest error or differences of opinion [11].

Figure 2. Confidentiality provisions during and after misconduct proceedings. The 2024 regulations grant institutions more discretion to disclose identities to external parties but remove confidentiality protections after a final determination of misconduct [13] [51].

The updated research misconduct regulations present both challenges and opportunities for safeguarding respondents' rights and reputations. While increased institutional flexibility in confidentiality determinations creates potential reputational risks, clearer definitions, more detailed reporting requirements, and structured appeal processes provide respondents with stronger procedural protections. Successful navigation of misconduct proceedings requires understanding these rights, actively participating in the process, and ensuring institutions adhere to both the letter and spirit of the regulations—conducting proceedings that are not only thorough and competent but also objective and fair. As the January 1, 2026 compliance date approaches, researchers and institutions should familiarize themselves with these updated procedures to ensure the integrity of the scientific enterprise while protecting the rights of those under investigation.

Key ORI Requirements for Admissions of Guilt

Q: What are the ORI's specific documentation requirements when a researcher admits to research misconduct?

According to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), institutions must fully document any confession or admission of research misconduct. Specifically, the record must use the precise terms of the research misconduct definition—falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism—and include an acknowledgment that the action constitutes research misconduct [5]. This requirement exists because respondents sometimes later withdraw or attempt to explain away their confessions after the institutional report is sent to ORI [5].

Additionally, per 42 C.F.R. § 93.316, institutions must notify ORI in advance if they plan to close a case based solely on a respondent's admission of guilt [5]. Even with a confession, ORI may still require the institution to complete its full investigation if the admission does not provide a sufficient basis for case closure [5].

Q: Are there any prohibited terms in negotiated settlements?

Yes. Institutions and respondents may not enter into settlements in Public Health Service (PHS) research misconduct cases that:

• Require the parties to keep the matter confidential (i.e., not notify ORI)
• "Settle" the inquiry or investigation without an appropriate finding [5]

ORI explicitly states that "gag" provisions are contrary to responsibilities and laws, as they prevent proper notification and oversight [5].

Investigation Procedures and Timing

Q: What is the proper procedure when misconduct is admitted during the inquiry phase?

Even if a respondent admits to misconduct during the inquiry stage and the institution believes no further investigation is necessary, the institution must still report its misconduct finding to ORI and explain why further investigation is unnecessary [5]. The inquiry committee's primary responsibility is to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to warrant an investigation, not to resolve the issue conclusively [5].

Q: What are the standard timeframes for misconduct proceedings?

While timeframes can vary, institutions typically aim to complete certain stages within specific periods:

Table: Typical Timeframes for Research Misconduct Proceedings

Proceeding Stage	Standard Timeframe	Regulatory Reference
Inquiry Completion	60 calendar days (unless circumstances warrant longer)	[30]
Investigation Initiation	Within 30 days after determining investigation is warranted	[30]
ORI Notification (PHS-funded)	Within 30 days of finding investigation warranted	[30]

ORI Sanctions and Outcomes

Q: What sanctions typically follow research misconduct findings?

For federally funded research, ORI imposes various administrative sanctions. The most common requirements are certification of research authenticity and supervision by another researcher [52].

Table: Common ORI Sanctions for Research Misconduct (2010-2015)

Sanction Type	Frequency (2010-2015)	Description	Purpose
Certification	41 of 62 total sanctions	Individual and/or institution certifies research is authentic	Ensure research integrity [52]
Supervision	Part of the 41 certifications/supervisions	Researcher must be supervised by another researcher	Provide oversight [52]
Debarment	8 times since 2010	Exclusion from federal funding	Protect public funds [52]

Q: When does ORI impose the most severe sanction of debarment?

Debarment—the harshest ORI sanction—prohibits individuals from receiving any federal funds, including research dollars, student loans, and federally-backed mortgages [52]. Since 2010, ORI has imposed debarment only eight times, primarily when respondents fail to participate in investigations [52]. An exception was the case of Paul Kornak, who received lifetime debarment due to his "longstanding pattern of criminal behavior" and "total disregard for the safety and well-being of human subjects" [52].

Data Ownership and Institutional Responsibilities

Q: Who owns research data generated under PHS funding?

Research data generated under PHS funding is owned by the grantee institution, not the principal investigator or researcher producing the data [5]. The institution assumes legal and financial accountability for awarded funds and has both the right and obligation to require researchers to produce accurate supporting data [5].

Q: How do institutional standards differ from PHS misconduct standards?

An institution may find conduct actionable under its own standards even when it doesn't meet the PHS definition of research misconduct [5]. ORI recognizes that institutional standards may be "greater, lesser, or different from" PHS standards, and a PHS finding that an action doesn't meet the federal definition shouldn't affect the institution's internal finding or administrative actions [5].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Compliance

Table: Key Documentation and Compliance Materials

Item/Reagent	Function in Investigation	Critical Specifications
Research Records	Primary evidence for misconduct determination	Must include all data, protocols, notebooks; institution must sequester [30]
Admission Documentation	Formal record of respondent confession	Must use FFP terms; acknowledge misconduct [5]
Institutional Policies	Framework for misconduct proceedings	Must cover all personnel; comply with 42 C.F.R. Part 93 [5]
ORI Assurance	Institutional commitment to research integrity	Required for PHS funding recipients [12]
Conflict of Interest Mitigation	Ensures impartial proceedings	May require outside counsel; prevents institutional conflicts [5]

Managing Cross-Institutional and International Investigations

Jurisdictional Framework and the Jurisdictional Interests Test

A jurisdictional interests test is a proposed framework for determining which entity should assume responsibility for research misconduct proceedings in multi-institutional research. This test examines the nexus between the research at issue and the various individuals and entities involved [53].

Factors in the Jurisdictional Interests Test

Factor	Description	Primary Consideration
Primary Research Location	The organization where the research was primarily conducted.	Typically favors this organization for jurisdiction [53].
Institutional Capacity	The organization's ability and capacity to carry out a formal adjudication process.	Considers resources, experience, and procedural robustness [53].
Collaboration & Information Sharing	Willingness to share necessary information and collaborate with other involved organizations.	Essential for shared jurisdiction or when primary location lacks capacity [53].
Equal Contribution	The research was conducted in more or less equal parts across multiple organizations.	May suggest that shared jurisdiction is the most appropriate approach [53].

Troubleshooting Common Procedural Challenges

This section provides guided solutions for common procedural issues encountered during cross-institutional and international investigations.

Determining the Lead Investigating Institution

Problem Statement: An allegation of data fabrication arises in a multi-institutional study. It is unclear which institution should lead the investigation. Symptoms: Confusion among collaborating institutions, delayed response to the allegation, potential for duplicated efforts or conflicting procedures. Applicable Regulations: PHS Policies on Research Misconduct (42 CFR Part 93) [38] [37].

Step-by-Step Resolution Process:

• Immediate Sequestration: All involved institutions must immediately sequester relevant research records to preserve evidence [37].
• Conflict of Interest Check: Designated officials from each institution must disclose any real or perceived conflicts of interest.
• Apply Jurisdictional Interests Test: Evaluate the factors listed in Table 1 to determine the most appropriate lead institution [53].
• Formal Agreement: The lead institution should be formally confirmed in writing by all parties, acknowledging their roles and responsibilities.
• Notify ORI: The lead institution must notify the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) of the allegation and the proposed jurisdictional plan, if required by PHS funding [37].

Escalation Path: If institutions cannot agree on a lead, the matter should be escalated to the relevant federal funding agency (e.g., ORI for PHS-funded research) for a final determination [53].

Harmonizing International Policy Differences

Problem Statement: An investigation involves a U.S. institution subject to 42 CFR § 93 and an international partner with conflicting local policies. Symptoms: Incompatible definitions of research misconduct, differing standards of evidence, or conflicting procedural timelines that hinder a unified investigation. Core Definitions: U.S. PHS definition: Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism (FFP) [3].

Step-by-Step Resolution Process:

• Policy Audit: Create a side-by-side comparison of both policies, focusing on definitions, procedures, and respondent rights.
• Identify Conflicts: Pinpoint specific areas of conflict that could compromise the investigation's integrity or fairness.
• Develop a Common Protocol: Draft a single, harmonized investigation protocol that satisfies the most stringent requirements from each policy. This often means adhering to the stricter standard.
• Formalize Agreement: All parties must formally agree to the common protocol in writing before proceeding.
• Document Strategy: Maintain meticulous records of all policy conflicts and the rationale for the chosen resolution strategy.

Validation: Confirm that the final investigation report would be acceptable to all institutional signatories and the relevant funding agencies.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What is the official U.S. federal definition of research misconduct? A1: The U.S. PHS defines research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. This excludes honest error or differences of opinion. Importantly, self-plagiarism and authorship disputes are explicitly excluded from the federal definition, though institutions may have their own policies covering these issues [3] [37].

Q2: What are the updated timelines for inquiries and investigations under the revised PHS rules? A2: The revised PHS Policies provide clearer timelines to manage complex cases [37].

Procedural Stage	Standard Timeline (Days)	Key Requirement
Inquiry	90	To determine if an allegation warrants a full investigation [37].
Investigation	180	To develop a complete factual record and reach a conclusion [37].

Q3: How should data sequestration be handled in a multi-institutional case? A3: Sequestration should occur as soon as possible after a credible allegation is received. The lead institution must maintain a rigorous, documented chain-of-custody for all sequestered evidence, including an inventory of what was taken and when. All collaborating institutions must cooperate fully with this process [37].

Q4: What happens if a respondent admits to misconduct? A4: Under the revised guidelines, a respondent's admission must be written, signed, and detail what misconduct occurred, how it was committed (e.g., knowingly, intentionally), and how it deviated from accepted practices. The institution must notify ORI and receive approval before closing the case based on this admission [37].

Experimental Protocol: Applying the Jurisdictional Interests Test

Objective

To systematically determine the lead institution for a research misconduct investigation in a multi-institutional collaboration.

Methodology

• Constitute a Neutral Panel: Form a panel comprising Research Integrity Officers (RIOs) or designees from each collaborating institution and, if possible, an external, neutral party.
• Gather Preliminary Data: Collect all relevant information, including the research collaboration agreement, funding sources, locations where the research was performed, and institutional policies of all involved parties.
• Score Jurisdictional Factors: The panel will independently score each factor from the Jurisdictional Interests Test (see Table 1) on a weighted scale (e.g., 1-5) for each candidate institution.
• Deliberate and Recommend: The panel will meet to discuss scores, reach a consensus, and issue a formal, written recommendation for the lead institution.
• Formalize and Notify: The recommendation is formalized in a written agreement signed by all institutional officials. The relevant funding agency(s) is notified as required.

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow for applying the Jurisdictional Interests Test.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Materials for Investigation Management

The following reagents and materials are critical for managing the procedural "experiment" of a misconduct investigation.

Item / Solution	Function in the Investigation Process
Written Collaboration Agreement	Serves as the primary protocol; should pre-define roles, data ownership, and procedures for handling misconduct allegations [53].
Chain-of-Custody Log Forms	Essential for documenting the sequestration, access, and transfer of all physical and digital evidence to maintain integrity [37].
Secure Digital Evidence Platform	A centralized, access-controlled repository for storing sequestered data, interview transcripts, and deliberation notes [37].
Federal Policy Documents (e.g., 42 CFR § 93)	The definitive source for required definitions, procedures, and timelines; ensures regulatory compliance [38] [37].
Confidentiality & Non-Disclosure Agreements	Protects the privacy of the complainant, respondent, and witnesses during the investigation process [37].

Troubleshooting Guide: Common Research Integrity Issues

Problem Area	Common Symptoms	Immediate Actions	Root Cause Analysis	Preventive Measures
Data Management	• Inability to locate raw data for published results.• Inconsistent data across files or team members.• Missing metadata, making data incomprehensible.	1. Immediately sequester and inventory all original data related to the allegation [37] [54].2. Document the chain of custody for all research records [37].3. Review the project's Data Management Plan for protocols [54].	• Lack of a unified data model and consistent file structure [55].• Insufficient training on data organization and record-keeping [56].• No real-time synchronization of data across platforms.	• Implement a centralized data management framework with a "golden record" for each data entity [55].• Use descriptive, consistent file naming conventions [56].• Perform quality assurance on data files prior to sharing or publishing [56].
Authorship & Collaboration	• Disputes over author order or contribution.• "Honorary authorship" (including non-contributors).• Accusations of plagiarism or self-plagiarism.	1. Refer to the journal's specific authorship guidelines.2. Collect written documentation of contributions from all co-authors.3. Consult institutional policy; note that federal policy excludes authorship disputes from the formal definition of research misconduct [3] [37].	• Unclear authorship policies within the research group [56].• Lack of early and transparent conversations about authorship expectations.	• Limit authorship to those making a significant conceptual, design, execution, or interpretation contribution [56].• All authors must take responsibility for the paper's content in their area of expertise and ideally as a whole [56].
Mentorship Breakdown	• A mentee feels unprepared for their responsibilities.• Lack of regular, meaningful feedback.• Uncertainty about career development paths.	1. Schedule a meeting to discuss concerns openly and re-establish expectations.2. Involve a third party (e.g., department head) to mediate if necessary.3. Document the discussion and agreed-upon action items.	• Absence of a designated primary research mentor [56].• Mentor fails to provide realistic performance appraisals or career advice [56].• Infrequent meetings to discuss progress and data interpretation [56].	• Establish a multidisciplinary mentoring team to cover all training needs, not just a single research mentor [57].• Principal Investigators should hold regular meetings with all research members to discuss progress and data [56].

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What exactly is defined as research misconduct according to the latest federal policy? According to the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI), research misconduct is strictly defined as Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism (FFP) in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research [3]. The updated 2025 Final Rule provides crucial clarifications:

• Fabrication: Making up data or results and recording or reporting them as if they were real.
• Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing/omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
• Plagiarism: The appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit [3].
• Key Exclusions: The federal definition now explicitly excludes self-plagiarism and authorship disputes from being considered research misconduct, though they may still violate institutional or publisher policies [3] [37].

Q2: What are the critical steps in a research misconduct investigation I should be aware of? The ORI's revised procedures outline a structured process. The following diagram illustrates the key stages and their logical relationships, reflecting updates from the 2025 Final Rule.

Q3: How can a robust Data Management Plan (DMP) specifically protect me from allegations of falsification or fabrication? A DMP serves as a proactive shield for researchers. In the event of an allegation, a well-documented DMP can provide verifiable evidence of your research process [54]. It demonstrates:

• Provenance: Where and how data was originally stored and collected.
• Access Control: Who had access to the data and when.
• Verifiable Workflow: A documented trail that can be used to confirm the authenticity and sequence of your results, making it easier to refute baseless claims or identify honest errors.

Q4: What does "good mentorship" entail in the context of fostering research integrity? Effective mentorship is a cornerstone of integrity and goes beyond scientific supervision. Key responsibilities include:

• Setting Standards: Conveying appropriate standards of scientific conduct through both instruction and personal example [56].
• Clarifying Policies: Explicitly discussing authorship policies and data management standards with all trainees [56].
• Providing Feedback: Offering regular, realistic appraisals of a mentee's performance and career guidance [56].
• Data Review: Establishing a practice of regularly reviewing and discussing primary (raw) data with all research team members, not just processed results for publication [56].
• Building a Team: Recognizing that one person cannot provide all necessary guidance and encouraging mentees to assemble a multidisciplinary mentoring team [57].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Integrity

The following table details key administrative and procedural "reagents" essential for maintaining a healthy research ecosystem and preventing misconduct.

Item/Resource	Primary Function	Application Notes
Electronic Research Administration (eRA) System	A unified platform to manage proposals, compliance training, and protocols [3].	Automates compliance checks and maintains training records, reducing administrative burden and error. Modern, cloud-based systems are recommended [3].
Data Management Plan (DMP)	A formal document outlining the lifecycle of research data for a project [54].	Protects the researcher by creating a verifiable record of data handling. Should detail storage, access, backup, and retention policies.
Immutable Audit Log	A system-generated, unchangeable record of every data modification [55].	Critical for compliance and legal discovery. Each entry should include a timestamp, user ID, and the change made, creating a provenance chain.
Confidential Reporting Helpline	A secure channel for reporting concerns about misconduct [54].	Essential for fostering an environment where individuals can speak up without fear of retaliation. Must be well-publicized and trusted.
Mentor Matching Tool	An institutional service to connect mentees with qualified research mentors [57].	Helps junior researchers build a strategic mentoring team, which is crucial for career development grants like NIH K awards [57].
Research Integrity Officer (RIO)	The designated institutional official responsible for overseeing the misconduct process [37].	The first point of contact for questions about integrity or misconduct allegations. Ensures procedures comply with federal and institutional policy.

Ensuring Rigor and Looking Forward: ORI Oversight, Emerging Tools, and Global Standards

Technical Support: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What is the most critical upcoming regulatory deadline for PHS-funded institutions? The applicable date of the Final Rule is January 1, 2026. From this date, all PHS-funded institutions must use the updated 2024 regulation for research misconduct proceedings [10]. The effective date of the rule was January 1, 2025, but its use was not mandatory until the applicable date [10] [13].

Q2: What are the core definitions of research misconduct under PHS policy? Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research [37]. A finding of misconduct requires that:

• There is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.
• The misconduct is committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.
• The allegation is proven by a preponderance of the evidence [58].

Q3: What are an institution's primary responsibilities when receiving an allegation? Upon receiving an allegation, institutions must promptly:

• Initiate an assessment to determine if the allegation falls within the definition of misconduct and is sufficiently credible [58].
• Sequester evidence: Take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all research records and evidence needed for the proceeding [37] [58].
• Notify the respondent: Advise the individual(s) accused (the respondent) of the allegations in writing at the time of or before beginning an inquiry [58].

Q4: How does the 2024 Final Rule handle confidentiality? The rule balances confidentiality with the need to manage the scientific record. While proceedings are ongoing, institutions may disclose identities of respondents, complainants, and witnesses to third parties with a "legitimate need to know," such as journal editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions [13]. Once a final determination of research misconduct is made, the institution is no longer bound by this confidentiality provision [13].

Q5: What is the subsequent use exception for the six-year time limitation on allegations? The Final Rule states that the six-year time limit for allegations does not apply if the respondent subsequently uses, republishes, or cites the portion of the research record alleged to be fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized within six years of when the allegations were received by HHS or an institution [13].

Troubleshooting Common Procedural Issues

Issue: Uncertainty in distinguishing an inquiry from an investigation.

• Recommended Protocol: Follow the clarified definitions in the updated guidance. The assessment (formerly often called the "preliminary inquiry") is the first phase to determine if an allegation warrants an inquiry [10]. The inquiry follows the assessment to determine if a formal investigation is warranted [58]. The investigation is a formal examination of the facts to determine if misconduct has occurred [24].
• Documentation Step: Institutions must document decisions not to investigate with sufficient detail to permit a later assessment [58].

Issue: Respondent admits to misconduct during the proceedings.

• Recommended Protocol: The institution must obtain a written, signed admission from the respondent detailing what misconduct occurred, how it was committed (e.g., knowingly, intentionally), and how it diverged from accepted practice [10] [37]. The institution must then notify ORI and receive approval before closing the case [37].

Issue: A respondent fails to provide or destroys relevant research records.

• Recommended Protocol: Under the Final Rule, this can be used as evidence of misconduct. If the institution proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent intentionally or knowingly destroyed records after being informed of the allegations, this can be taken as evidence of research misconduct [13]. The failure to retain records over time, while a potential data retention violation, is not on its own evidence of misconduct [13].

Issue: Managing a case with multiple respondents or involving multiple institutions.

• Recommended Protocol: The updated sample policies provide structured guidance for these complex cases [37]. Ensure your institutional policies explicitly define procedures for multi-respondent cases and for coordination with collaborating institutions, including defining roles and responsibilities for the inquiry and investigation.

Key Regulatory Timelines and Requirements

Procedural Element	Regulatory Requirement	Key Changes in 2024 Final Rule
Annual Report to ORI	Due on or before April 30 each year, covering the prior year's activity [10].	Must include an annual assurance of institutional research misconduct policies and procedures [10].
Inquiry Phase	Must be completed within 60 days of initiation [58].	The updated sample guidance aligns with a 90-day timeline to reflect modern case complexity [37].
Investigation Phase	Must be completed within 180 days [37].	The updated sample guidance maintains the 180-day timeline [37].
Record Retention	Detailed records must be maintained for 7 years after the conclusion of the case [58].	Emphasizes creating a comprehensive "institutional record" with indexes of all evidence [37].
Sequestration of Records	Must occur "as soon as possible" upon credible allegations [37].	Requires an inventory of sequestered materials and clear chain-of-custody documentation [37].

Investigation Workflow and Signaling Pathway

Research Misconduct Investigation Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Key Reagents for Research Integrity and Misconduct Proceedings

Item	Function in Investigation	Critical Protocol Step
Institutional Policy & Procedures	Provides the foundational framework for compliant misconduct proceedings [37].	Must be updated to align with the 2024 Final Rule by January 1, 2026 [10] [13].
Sequestration Protocol	A systematic process for securing all relevant research records and evidence to prevent tampering [37].	Must be initiated as soon as possible upon a credible allegation; requires a chain-of-custody log [37].
Written Admission Statement	A formal document signed by a respondent admitting to research misconduct [10].	Must detail what, how, and the deviation from accepted practices; required for case closure after admission [10] [37].
Adverse Inference Guidance	A regulatory tool for handling a respondent's failure to provide or destruction of evidence [13].	Apply if the institution proves the respondent intentionally destroyed records after being notified of the allegation [13].
ORI Guidance Documents	Non-binding resources (e.g., on honest error, admissions, pursuing leads) to aid institutional decision-making [10].	Consult for technical assistance on specific procedural questions; available on the ORI website [10].
Document Management System	A secure system for maintaining the complete institutional record of the proceeding [37].	Must preserve all evidence, transcripts, reports, and ORI notifications for at least 7 years [37] [58].

For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, navigating the landscape of research integrity requirements presents significant challenges. The U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct (42 CFR Part 93) establish the federal baseline for addressing fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) in PHS-funded research [3]. However, individual research institutions often maintain their own standards that may extend beyond these federal minimums. This creates a complex two-tiered compliance structure where understanding the relationship and potential divergence between these standards becomes critical for maintaining research integrity and avoiding procedural missteps.

The recently updated 2024 Final Rule, which becomes fully applicable on January 1, 2026, marks the first major overhaul of the PHS research misconduct regulations since 2005 [37] [12]. These revisions aim to provide greater clarity, consistency, and due process, but they also necessitate careful review by institutions to ensure their internal policies align with the updated federal requirements while addressing their specific research environments and ethical commitments.

Key Differences Between PHS and Institutional Standards

While PHS regulations provide a crucial federal floor for research misconduct definitions and procedures, institutional standards often incorporate additional requirements that reflect their unique mission, values, and operational realities. The table below summarizes the core distinctions.

Table 1: Comparison of PHS and Institutional Research Misconduct Standards

Feature	PHS Standards (42 CFR Part 93)	Typical Institutional Standards
Scope of Misconduct	Strictly limited to Fabrication, Falsification, Plagiarism (FFP) [3].	Often broader; may include self-plagiarism, authorship disputes, or other ethical breaches not covered by PHS [3].
Primary Goal	Federal compliance and funder assurance.	Institutional reputation, culture, and comprehensive research integrity.
Applicability	Mandatory for PHS-funded research.	Applies to all research conducted at the institution, regardless of funding source.
Procedural Flexibility	Prescribes specific timelines (e.g., 90-day inquiry, 180-day investigation) and process steps [37].	May adapt timelines or procedures for internal needs, provided PHS minimums are met.
Enforcement	ORI can impose federal sanctions.	Institution can impose internal sanctions (e.g., termination, revocation of tenure) [3].
Recent Updates	2024 Final Rule, applicable January 1, 2026 [12].	Varies by institution; must be updated to align with the new PHS Final Rule.

FAQs: Navigating Divergent Standards

Q1: What happens if my institution's definition of plagiarism is broader than the PHS definition?

This is a common divergence. The PHS definition explicitly excludes self-plagiarism and authorship disputes from its formal definition of research misconduct [3]. However, your institution may still consider these practices to be a violation of its own academic integrity or professional conduct policies.

• Your Action Plan: You could be found non-compliant with institutional policy even if PHS does not consider it misconduct. Always adhere to the stricter standard. Consult your institution's research integrity officer (RIO) and policy documents for specific guidance. For publishing, also follow journal-specific guidelines, which often prohibit duplicate publication.

Q2: Our institutional investigation procedures are different from those detailed in the new PHS rule. Which do we follow?

For any research allegation related to PHS-funded work, you must follow procedures that meet or exceed the PHS requirements. The 2024 Final Rule introduces specific mandates, such as:

• Sequestration of records "as soon as possible" after an allegation with a documented inventory [37].
• Maintaining a comprehensive institutional record of all proceedings [37].
• If your institutional procedures are less rigorous in any area, they must be updated to comply with the new rule by the January 1, 2026, applicable date [10] [12].

Q3: A respondent has admitted to misconduct. How do institutional and PHS procedures interact?

The new ORI guidance requires a coordinated response. The institution must secure a written, signed admission from the respondent detailing what happened and how it constituted misconduct [37] [20]. Crucially, the institution must notify ORI and receive approval before closing the case based on this admission [37]. This ensures that the federal agency overseeing the funds agrees that the admission is sufficient and that the matter can be appropriately resolved.

Q4: Can an institution find me responsible for research misconduct even if ORI does not?

Yes. The PHS Final Rule clarifies that the "lack of an ORI finding of research misconduct does not overturn an institution's determination of research misconduct" [12]. This means your institution could impose its own sanctions based on its standards and evidence, even if ORI decides not to pursue a federal finding. This underscores the importance of understanding and complying with both sets of standards.

Troubleshooting Common Scenarios

Scenario 1: Allegation Falls Outside PHS Definition of Misconduct

• Problem: An allegation is made regarding an authorship dispute, which is not "plagiarism" under the PHS definition [3].
• Investigation Protocol:
  • Initial Assessment: The RIO assesses the allegation against both PHS and institutional definitions.
  • Path Determination:
    • If it only violates institutional standards, the matter is handled through internal institutional channels (e.g., decanal review, faculty ethics committee).
    • The formal PHS misconduct process is not initiated, but a separate administrative review is conducted.
  • Documentation: Meticulously document all steps to demonstrate a fair and thorough process, even though it is not a formal PHS proceeding.

Scenario 2: Managing an Investigation with Multiple Institutions

• Problem: A collaborative research project involving several institutions faces a misconduct allegation.
• Investigation Protocol:
  • Lead Identification: Determine which institution has the primary responsibility for the respondent(s) and the research records [37].
  • Agreement Finalization: Ensure all collaborating institutions have signed agreements that outline procedures for handling misconduct allegations, as required by the updated guidance [37].
  • Coordination: The lead institution coordinates the investigation, but all involved parties must communicate and share information as needed to complete a comprehensive review.
  • Reporting: The lead institution is responsible for reporting findings to ORI, but other institutions may also need to report to their respective funders.

The following diagram illustrates the decision-making workflow for handling a new allegation, highlighting the interaction between institutional and PHS standards.

To proactively manage compliance, researchers and administrators should be familiar with the following key resources.

Table 2: Essential Research Integrity Reagents and Resources

Resource/Solution	Function & Purpose	Source/Access
ORI Sample Policies & Procedures	A customizable template for institutions to develop research misconduct policies compliant with the updated PHS rules [38] [37].	Office of Research Integrity (ORI) Website
ORI Guidance Documents	Topic-specific guides (e.g., on Honest Error, Admissions, Pursuing Leads) that clarify key elements of the 2024 Final Rule [10] [20].	ORI Guidance Portal
Institutional RIO	The primary point of contact for confidential consultation on allegations, policy questions, and responsible conduct of research training.	Your Home Institution
42 CFR Part 93 - The Final Rule	The official federal regulation governing PHS research misconduct policies. Essential for understanding legal obligations [12].	Federal Register
Electronic Research Administration (eRA) Systems	Cloud-based platforms that help track compliance training, manage protocols, and maintain documentation, reducing administrative risk [3].	Commercial/Institutional Systems
Retraction Watch Database	A public database tracking retracted scientific publications, useful for understanding common pitfalls and misconduct patterns.	RetractionWatch.com

The dynamic between institutional and PHS standards is not a weakness but a feature of a robust research integrity ecosystem. The PHS regulations set a crucial baseline, while institutional standards allow for tailored, culturally-specific enforcement and the pursuit of higher ethical aspirations. For the individual researcher, the principle is straightforward: when policies diverge, adhere to the stricter standard. For institutions, the path forward involves harmonizing their policies with the updated 2024 Final Rule, ensuring that their procedures are not only compliant but also effective in fostering an environment where research integrity can thrive. By understanding these layers of oversight, the research community can better navigate allegations and uphold the trust placed in it by the public.

Technical Support Center: Troubleshooting Guides and FAQs

This technical support center provides practical guidance for researchers investigating research misconduct. The following FAQs address common challenges encountered when using emerging detection technologies.

FAQ: AI-Generated Content Detection

Q: The AI detection tool flagged a student's work, but I am not sure the result is accurate. What should I do? A: Exercise caution. Current AI detection software has high error rates and can produce false positives. For instance, some detectors have incorrectly flagged the US Constitution as AI-generated [59]. Avoid relying solely on automated detectors. Instead, discuss the work with the student and ask for a "process statement" detailing how they completed the assignment, including any AI tools used [59].

Q: What are the telltale signs of AI-generated text in a scholarly paper? A: Be on the lookout for:

• Tortured phrases: Awkward, incorrect phrasing resulting from paraphrasing to avoid plagiarism detection (e.g., "counterfeit consciousness" instead of "artificial intelligence") [60].
• Unusual in-text citations: A very low number of in-text citations or completely unreliable references can be a strong indicator, as AI often struggles to produce credible citations [61].
• Generic writing style: A lack of original insight or specific methodological detail, often characterized by a uniform, bland tone.

Q: A publisher made silent corrections to a paper, removing obvious AI phrases. Is this a concern? A: Yes. These are known as "stealth corrections"—post-publication edits made without a visible errata or notation, which threaten the integrity of the scholarly record. Always save a dated copy of the originally published version for your records [60].

FAQ: Image Forensics and Manipulation

Q: What are the first steps in verifying the authenticity of an image in a manuscript? A: Start with these three common techniques [62]:

• Metadata Analysis: Check the image's embedded data (EXIF data) for information like creation date, time, and camera serial number. Be aware that some platforms remove this data upon upload.
• Error Level Analysis (ELA): Use ELA to identify parts of an image that have been manipulated or compressed differently, revealing potential alterations.
• Reverse Image Search: Perform a reverse image search to trace the picture's origins and check for duplicates or earlier versions online.

Q: What software features are essential for efficient digital image forensics in an investigation? A: Your software should include [63]:

• Facial Analytics: Capabilities for face detection, age prediction, and emotion recognition to accelerate the review of large image sets.
• Image Recognition and Classification: AI-powered categorization to filter images by content (e.g., objects, people), reducing manual review time.
• Robust Search and Filtering: Tools to search based on EXIF parameters and filter results effectively.

FAQ: Statistical Sleuthing and Data Integrity

Q: Where can I find community resources to learn about research integrity investigation methods? A: The Collection of Open Science Integrity Guides (COSIG) is an open-source, community-led set of over 30 guides. It provides resources on topics like image forensics, plagiarism detection, and how to comment on platforms like PubPeer [60].

Q: A journal seems to be flooded with problematic papers from "paper mills." What can be done? A: Collective action by sleuths can be effective. Document the patterns and report them to the journal and publisher. Public pressure, such as posting findings on PubPeer or publishing preprints that analyze the scale of the problem, has successfully led some publishers to pause submissions and conduct audits [60].

Quantitative Data on Detection Technologies and Markets

The following tables summarize key quantitative data relevant to the field of forensic analysis and research integrity.

Metric	Value / Segment	Details / Notes
2024 Market Size	USD 2.51 billion	Global valuation [64].
2032 Forecast Size	USD 5.26 billion	Projected global value [64].
Projected CAGR (2025-2032)	9.7%	Compound Annual Growth Rate [64].
Dominant Technology Segment	3D Imaging	Leads the market due to detailed spatial data for crime scene and accident reconstruction [64].
Leading Regional Market	North America	Advanced technological base and significant funding for law enforcement [64].

Table 2: Prevalence of Image Manipulation in Scientific Literature

Metric	Finding	Source / Context
Overall Problematic Image Rate	~4% of papers	From a study of over 20,000 papers [65].
Estimated Intentional Manipulation	~2% of papers	Half of the problematic papers were deemed likely intentionally manipulated [65].
Retractions from Sleuthing	1000+	Number of retractions, corrections, and expressions of concern resulting from work flagged by one sleuth [65].

Experimental Protocols for Misconduct Investigation

Protocol 1: Detecting AI-Generated Academic Paper Mills

Objective: To identify journals potentially publishing AI-generated articles and quantify the scale of the problem.

Methodology:

• Automated Data Collection: Use tools to gather all articles published in a target journal over a defined period [61].
• Heuristic Filtering: Apply a heuristic model based on the number of in-text citations. A very low number (e.g., zero or one) can be a primary indicator for suspected AI generation [61].
• Manual Review: A subset of flagged articles should be manually reviewed for other signs of AI authorship, such as tortured phrases, generic content, and factual inaccuracies [61].
• Author Verification: Check the affiliations and contact details of listed authors. Look for false attributions to researchers at prestigious institutions or even deceased individuals [61].
• Tool Corroboration: Use AI detection tools like Turnitin to support the analysis, acknowledging their limitations [61].

Protocol 2: Basic Digital Image Forensics Analysis

Objective: To assess the integrity and provenance of a digital image.

Methodology:

• Preserve Original: Always work on a copy of the original image file.
• Metadata Extraction: Use software to extract and analyze all available EXIF metadata (e.g., camera model, GPS location, date/time) [62].
• Error Level Analysis (ELA): Process the image through an ELA tool. This highlights areas of different compression levels; uniform areas will look similar, while manipulated sections will stand out [62].
• Reverse Image Search: Upload the image to a reverse image search engine (e.g., Google Images, TinEye) to find other instances online and trace its publication history [62].
• Visual Inspection: Use magnification and overlay techniques to check for duplications, inconsistencies in lighting/shadow, and cloned regions [65].

Workflow Visualizations

Diagram 1: Research Misconduct Investigation Workflow

Diagram 2: Digital Image Forensics Analysis Process

Diagram 3: Statistical Sleuthing Methodology

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details essential tools and platforms for conducting research integrity investigations.

Table: Essential Tools for Research Misconduct Investigation

Tool / Resource Name	Type	Primary Function
PubPeer	Platform	A online forum for posting post-publication peer review and comments on scientific articles, often used to raise integrity concerns [65].
COSIG (Collection of Open Science Integrity Guides)	Guide	An open-source, community-led set of over 30 guides for conducting post-publication peer review and forensic analysis [60].
Turnitin AI Detector	Software	An automated tool that aims to flag AI-generated content, though it should be used with caution due to known false positive rates [61] [59].
CameraForensics Platform	Software	An online search interface that uses EXIF parameters and other techniques to analyze and track images, widely used in law enforcement and investigations [62].
Error Level Analysis (ELA) Tools	Software	Various open-source and commercial tools that analyze JPEG compression levels to identify potential image manipulations [62].
Problematic Paper Screener (Tortured Phrases)	Tool	A catalog and tool that flags unusual and awkward phrases which may indicate use of paraphrasing tools to avoid plagiarism detection [60].

Troubleshooting Guide: Navigating Research Policies

Q1: I am unsure if my project involving patient medical records meets the definition of human subjects research and requires IRB approval. What should I do?

• A: If your activity is a systematic investigation designed to contribute to generalizable knowledge, it is considered research and requires IRB review if it involves human subjects [66]. At UTHealth, a series of three or more case reports qualifies as a research project and requires prior IRB approval [66]. When in doubt, you must submit a project summary to your institution's IRB office (e.g., via email or a designated system like iRIS) for a formal written determination [66].

Q2: What are my fiscal responsibilities as a Principal Investigator (PI) on a sponsored project?

• A: As a PI, you are entrusted with the responsible management of sponsored funds. Your core responsibilities include preparing and submitting research proposal budgets, managing project expenditures in accordance with institutional policy, and providing timely notification to sponsors regarding the project's status [67]. At MIT, this includes certifying quarterly salary distribution reports to ensure charges to sponsored programs are accurate [68].

Q3: My research involves a collaboration with an international company. What compliance issues should I be aware of?

• A: You must be vigilant about export control laws. MIT policy, for example, requires full compliance with U.S. export control laws and regulations, which govern the transfer of specific items, information, and software code to foreign countries and persons [68]. Furthermore, any shared identifiable health information must comply with HIPAA regulations, often requiring a data use agreement if the recipient is considered a "business associate" [69].

Q4: Can I use a marketed drug for a new indication in my research without an IND application?

• A: Using a marketed product for an indication not in the approved labeling is considered the "practice of medicine" and does not require an IND or IRB review. However, this changes if the intent is investigational; such use does require submission of an IND and review by an IRB [66].

Policy Comparison Tables

Principal Investigator Eligibility and Roles

Policy Element	Stanford University	MIT	UTHealth
Default PI Status	Policy outlines eligibility for externally funded research and criteria for exceptions [67].	Granted to faculty, Principal Research Scientists, Engineers, and Associates by virtue of appointment [68].	Information not specified in search results.
Delegation of Authority	Faculty may sign non-binding Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) using a university template [70].	Other individuals may be granted PI status on a per-project basis by the senior officer upon recommendation [68].	Information not specified in search results.
Fiscal Responsibilities	PIs are responsible for preparing proposal budgets, managing expenditures, and reporting to sponsors [67].	PIs are responsible for certifying payroll charges on sponsored programs [68].	Information not specified in search results.

Human Subjects Research (HSR) and IRB Oversight

Policy Element	Stanford University	MIT	UTHealth
IRB Review Requirement	All research involving human participants must be reviewed [67].	All human subjects research protocols where MIT is engaged must be reviewed by COUHES [68].	All research involving human participants must be reviewed and approved by CPHS [66].
Clinical Trials	Information not specified in search results.	Allowed if they do not involve greater than minimal risk and MIT has appropriate resources [68].	Defined as a study where human subjects are prospectively assigned to interventions to evaluate effects on health outcomes [66].
Medical Records Research	Information not specified in search results.	Information not specified in search results.	All retrospective medical record reviews for research purposes must be submitted for IRB approval [66].
Case Reports	Information not specified in search results.	Information not specified in search results.	Not considered HSR; a series of 3 or more subjects is considered a research project [66].

Intellectual Property (IP) and Conflicts of Interest

Policy Element	Stanford University	MIT	UTHealth
IP Policy Goal	To make technology available for public benefit while providing recognition to inventors [67].	To make technology available to industry for public benefit, provide recognition, and encourage open dissemination [68].	Information not specified in search results.
IP Ownership outlines policy for disclosure and assignment of ownership for inventions and copyrighted material created during university responsibilities [67].	Individuals must sign an Invention and Proprietary Information Agreement (IPIA); MIT manages protection and licensing through the TLO [68].	Information not specified in search results.
Conflict of Interest	Policy includes definitions, disclosure procedures, and specific requirements for federally-funded projects [67].	Policy requires disclosure of Outside Professional Activities reasonably related to Institutional Responsibilities to avoid conflicts [68].	Information not specified in search results.

Experimental Protocols for Policy Review

Protocol 1: Determining Human Subjects Research (HSR) Status

Objective: To systematically determine if a planned activity meets the regulatory definition of human subjects research requiring IRB approval.

Materials:

• Institutional IRB submission system (e.g., iRIS at UTHealth) [66].
• Protocol document outlining the systematic investigation.

Methodology:

• Define the Activity: Clearly articulate the aim of the activity. Is it designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge? [66]
• Identify Subjects: Does the activity involve living individuals? [66]
• Determine Interaction: Will you obtain data through intervention or interaction with the individuals? OR will you obtain, use, or analyze identifiable private information? [66]
• Consult Checklists: Use institutional decision tools or checklists provided by the IRB office.
• Seek Formal Determination: If uncertainty remains, submit a non-human subjects research determination request to the IRB via the official channel [66].

Protocol 2: Navigating a Conflict of Interest (COI) Disclosure

Objective: To ensure compliance with institutional policies when an outside professional activity may overlap with institutional responsibilities.

Materials:

• Institutional COI disclosure system (e.g., MyCOI-OPA+ at MIT) [68].
• Policy documents on Conflicts of Commitment and Interest [67] [68].

Methodology:

• Identify the Activity: Detail the nature of the outside professional activity (e.g., consulting, paid speaking, founding a company).
• Assess Overlap: Evaluate if the outside activity is "Reasonably Related" to your institutional responsibilities at the university [68].
• Disclose Proactively: Submit a full disclosure of the activity through the institution's online system before engagement.
• Committee Review: The disclosed activity will be reviewed by a compliance committee. Engage with the process to provide additional information if requested.
• Manage the Conflict: If a conflict is identified, work with the committee to implement a management plan, which may include monitoring, divestiture, or other measures to mitigate the conflict [67].

Diagram: IRB Determination Workflow

Tool / Resource	Function	Example in Policy Context
Institutional Review Board (IRB)	Protects the rights and welfare of human research subjects by reviewing and monitoring all research involving humans [66] [68].	MIT's COUHES and UTHealth's CPHS review protocols to ensure ethical principles like those in the Belmont Report are followed [66] [68].
Institutional Animal Care & Use Committee (IACUC)	Oversees and evaluates the humane care and use of live vertebrate animals in research and instruction [67] [68].	MIT's Committee on Animal Care reviews all projects involving live vertebrate animals [68].
Technology Licensing Office (TLO)	Manages the protection, patenting, and licensing of the university's intellectual property to industry and others for public benefit [68].	MIT's TLO manages the IP for inventions developed by its researchers, in accordance with its IP policy [68].
Export Control Office	Ensures institutional compliance with U.S. laws governing the transfer of sensitive technology, data, and services to foreign nationals and countries [68].	MIT requires full compliance with export control laws, which can impact international collaborations and travel [68].
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)	A non-binding agreement outlining the framework for a research collaboration.	Stanford's revised policy allows faculty to sign MOUs if they use the university's legally non-binding template [70].
Financial Certification System	A tool (like MIT's Quarterly Salary Distribution Report) that allows PIs to certify that payroll charges to sponsored projects are accurate [68].	This is a key part of a PI's fiscal responsibility for managing sponsored projects [67] [68].

The Evolving Landscape of Detrimental Research Practices (DRPs) Beyond FFP

Technical Support & Troubleshooting Guides

FAQ: Addressing Common Research Integrity Challenges

Q: Our investigation has uncovered potential image manipulation, but the respondent claims it was an "honest error." How do we proceed?

A: The 2025 ORI Final Rule clarifies that "honest error" is explicitly excluded from the definition of research misconduct. Your investigation should focus on intent. Document the exact nature of the manipulation, using forensic image analysis tools to quantify duplication rates or alterations. Interview the respondent about their specific image processing procedures and compare these against documented lab protocols. The key is determining whether the manipulation constitutes a deliberate attempt to mislead (falsification) versus an inadvertent processing mistake [3] [13].

Q: A whistleblower has reported a case of self-plagiarism and duplicate publication. How should we handle this, given it's not part of the federal FFP definition?

A: While self-plagiarism is now explicitly excluded from the federal definition of research misconduct, institutions and journals maintain their own policies against it [3]. Your investigation should:

• Use text-matching software to quantify the overlap between the publications.
• Review the author guidelines and copyright agreements for the journals involved.
• Assess whether the duplicate publication constitutes a violation of institutional ethics policies or publisher requirements. The case of Filippo Berto (2025) demonstrates that institutions are still taking action on such matters, even outside the traditional FFP framework [3].

Q: We need to add a new respondent to an ongoing investigation as new evidence emerges. Does this require restarting the entire process?

A: No. A key procedural update in the 2025 ORI Final Rule is that institutions can now add new respondents or allegations to an ongoing investigation without restarting the process. This improves efficiency, especially when patterns of misconduct surface during initial inquiries. Ensure you document the new evidence thoroughly and provide the new respondent with the same rights and notification as the original respondent[sic] [3] [13].

Q: What constitutes a "legitimate need" to disclose identities outside the institution during an ongoing misconduct proceeding?

A: The Final Rule provides greater latitude, allowing disclosure to third parties with a "legitimate need" as determined by the institution itself. This explicitly includes journal editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions. The goal is to balance confidentiality with the need to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record [13].

Quantitative Data on Research Misconduct

Table 1: Key Provisions of the 2025 ORI Final Rule on Research Misconduct

Regulatory Provision	2005 Regulation	2025 Final Rule (Effective Jan 1, 2026)	Significance
Core Definition of Misconduct	Fabrication, Falsification, Plagiarism (FFP)	FFP remains the core; Self-plagiarism and authorship disputes are now explicitly excluded from the federal definition [3]	Clarifies scope, though institutions may still address these under their own policies.
Adding Respondents	Procedural ambiguity often required restarting processes.	Permits adding new respondents/allegations to an ongoing investigation without restarting [3]	Increases investigative efficiency and flexibility.
Subsequent Use Exception	Applied to subsequent use of the research record.	Narrowed to using, republishing, or citing the specific portion of the record alleged to be misconduct, within 6 years [13]	Makes the time limitation for allegations more precise and fact-dependent.
Adverse Inferences	Not explicitly detailed.	Destruction of records after being informed of allegations, or refusal to provide claimed records, can be evidence of misconduct [13]	Provides clearer guidance on drawing adverse inferences in specific scenarios.
Confidentiality	More restrictive disclosures.	Allows disclosure to third parties (e.g., journals, collaborators) with a "legitimate need" during proceedings [13]	Balances confidentiality with the need to protect the scientific record.

Table 2: Analysis of Recent Research Misconduct Cases (2025)

Case / Institution	Type of Misconduct	Key Findings	Outcome / Sanctions
Harvard University [3]	Falsification of data in multiple ethics studies.	Long-term investigation concluded data was falsified in influential research.	Tenure revoked and professor terminated. Harvard's first such dismissal of tenured faculty in nearly 80 years.
Filippo Berto (Norway) [3]	Self-plagiarism, duplicative publication, unethical authorship.	Reused own work without citation, violating publishing ethics.	Institutional findings of misconduct, demonstrating action beyond the FFP framework.
National Natural Science Foundation (China) [3]	Paper mills, plagiarism.	Widespread, organized effort to produce fraudulent publications.	25 researchers sanctioned. Highlights the global and systematic nature of some misconduct.

Experimental Protocols for Misconduct Investigations

Protocol 1: Inquiry and Investigation Workflow for Allegations

This protocol outlines the formal institutional process for handling research misconduct allegations, reflecting updates from the 2025 ORI Final Rule [71].

1. Preliminary Assessment

• Action: The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) assesses the allegation upon receipt.
• Objective: Determine if the allegation is sufficiently credible and specific, and falls within the definition of research misconduct.
• Outcome: Decision on whether to initiate a formal inquiry.

2. Initiation of Inquiry & Sequestration of Records

• Action: The RIO initiates an inquiry and, before notifying the respondent, takes custody of all relevant research records and evidence.
• Objective: Make a preliminary evaluation to determine if an investigation is warranted. Secure evidence to prevent tampering.
• Outcome: An inquiry report with findings on whether an investigation is recommended.

3. Investigation

• Action: A formal committee conducts a thorough examination, interviews respondents, complainants, and witnesses, and reviews all evidence.
• Objective: Determine if misconduct occurred, its severity, and the responsible person.
• Outcome: A draft investigation report is shared with the respondent for comment, followed by a final report sent to the RIO.

4. Institutional Decision & Reporting

• Action: The RIO and appropriate institutional officials review the final report.
• Objective: Make a final determination on misconduct and decide on administrative actions.
• Outcome: The institution notifies ORI of the final findings for PHS-funded research and implements any sanctions [71].

Protocol 2: Digital Evidence Analysis for Image Manipulation

1. Evidence Acquisition

• Secure original image files (e.g., .tif, .lsm) directly from the microscope or instrument computer. Avoid using processed images from manuscripts or presentations for the initial analysis.

2. Forensic Image Analysis

• Error Level Analysis (ELA): Identify areas of a JPEG image that have been saved at different compression levels, indicating potential alteration.
• Clone Detection: Use software (e.g., ImageTwin, Forensically) to algorithmically detect duplicated or overlapping regions within an image or across images.
• Metadata Inspection: Examine the file's metadata for inconsistencies in timestamps, instrument settings, and software history.

3. Quantification and Documentation

• Quantify the percentage of image area affected by duplication or manipulation.
• Document all findings with side-by-side comparisons of original and manipulated areas.
• Maintain a clear chain of custody for all digital evidence.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Reagent Solutions

Item / Resource	Function / Purpose	Example / Source
ORI Final Rule (2025) Documentation	Defines procedures, rights, and responsibilities for handling research misconduct allegations for PHS-funded research [13] [12].	U.S. Federal Register, Institutional RIO.
Retraction Watch Database	Tracks retracted scientific publications, providing data on the causes and frequency of research misconduct[sic] [3].	Public Database.
AI-Driven Image Forensics Tools	Detects image duplication, manipulation, and other forms of data falsification using pattern recognition [3].	Commercial and open-source software.
Electronic Research Administration (eRA)	A unified platform to manage compliance, protocol tracking, and conflict-of-interest disclosures to prevent misconduct[sic] [3].	Kuali Research, other institutional systems.
TR-FRET Assays	A technology used in drug discovery for studying molecular interactions (e.g., kinase assays); requires strict protocol adherence to avoid data falsification [72].	Thermo Fisher Scientific.
Digital Health Technologies (DHTs)	Remote data acquisition tools for clinical trials; their use requires rigorous validation to prevent fabrication/falsification of patient data [73].	FDA Framework for DHTs.
Z'-Factor Analysis	A statistical metric used to assess the robustness and quality of high-throughput screening assays, helping to distinguish true results from noise [72].	Standard practice in assay validation.

Conclusion

Research misconduct investigation procedures form a critical backbone for maintaining scientific integrity, especially in high-stakes biomedical and clinical research. A thorough understanding of the formal process—from the initial allegation and inquiry to the formal investigation and final reporting—is essential for all professionals in the field. The newly implemented 2025 ORI Final Rule provides greater clarity and flexibility, yet challenges remain in balancing thorough oversight with fairness and confidentiality. The future of research integrity will hinge on a dual approach: robust, consistently applied investigative procedures and a stronger, proactive cultural commitment to prevention through ethical training, transparent data practices, and effective mentorship. As detection technologies advance and global collaboration increases, these procedures will continue to evolve, demanding ongoing vigilance and adaptation from the entire research community.

References

• 1. 2.1 Falsification, Fabrication, Plagiarism | BIOET 533 [https://courses.ems.psu.edu/bioet533/node/654]
• 2. Definition of Research Misconduct | ORI [https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-research-misconduct]
• 3. Research Misconduct in 2025: New Definitions, Cases & ... [https://www.kuali.co/post/what-is-research-misconduct-new-definitions-cases-and-how-to-prevent-it-in-2025]
• 4. Context and Definitions - Fostering Integrity in Research - NCBI [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK475954/]
• 5. Handling Misconduct - Inquiry & Investigation Issues | ORI [https://ori.hhs.gov/handling-misconduct-inquiry-investigation-issues]
• 6. 42 CFR Part 93 -- Public Health Service Policies on ... [https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-42/chapter-I/subchapter-H/part-93]
• 7. Misconduct versus Honest Error and Scientific Disagreement [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3443861/]
• 8. Research Misconduct [https://researchintegrity.northwestern.edu/research-misconduct/]
• 9. Misconduct in Research - Responsible Conduct of Research [https://www.responsibleresearch.pitt.edu/misconduct-research]
• 10. Guidance Documents | ORI - The Office of Research Integrity [https://ori.hhs.gov/guidance-documents]
• 11. With Implementation Deadline Looming, ORI Releases ... [https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2025/06/with-implementation-deadline-looming-ori-releases-sample-research-misconduct-policies-and-procedures]
• 12. Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct [https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/09/17/2024-20814/public-health-service-policies-on-research-misconduct]
• 13. The Final Rule on Research Misconduct Regulations [https://www.ebglaw.com/insights/publications/the-final-rule-on-research-misconduct-regulations-what-institutions-need-to-know-as-implementation-looms]
• 14. Research Misconduct: ORI Issues Final Rule with ... [https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2024/09/research-misconduct-ori-issues-final-rule-with-modernized-and-streamlined-regulations/]
• 15. Defining "recklessness" in research misconduct proceedings [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37694962/]
• 16. ORI Issues Final Changes to Research Misconduct ... [https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2024/09/ori-issues-final-changes-to-research-misconduct-regulations-key-reforms-and-lingering-complexities]
• 17. Self-Plagiarism - Office of Academic Integrity - Mizzou [https://oai.missouri.edu/students/self-plagiarism/]
• 18. Self-Plagiarism and Redundant Publications: A True ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12474262/]
• 19. Self Plagiarism | ORI [https://ori.hhs.gov/self-plagiarism]
• 20. ORI's Second Phase of Guidance Documents Released [https://ori.hhs.gov/blog/oris-second-phase-guidance-documents-released]
• 21. ORI Issues Final Changes to Research Misconduct Regulations [https://compliance.research.northeastern.edu/ori-issues-final-changes-to-research-misconduct-regulations/]
• 22. Research wrapped: Key developments for academic ... [https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/publications/research-wrapped-key-developments-for-academic-research-institutions-in-2024-and-looking-ahead-to-2025]
• 23. Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy [https://compliance.gwu.edu/allegations-research-misconduct]
• 24. Handling Misconduct | ORI [https://ori.hhs.gov/handling-misconduct]
• 25. Research Misconduct [https://policy.umn.edu/research/academicmisconduct]
• 26. The Role of RIOs in Research Security [https://about.citiprogram.org/blog/the-role-of-research-integrity-officers-rios-in-research-security/]
• 27. Code of Practice for Research [https://ukrio.org/ukrio-resources/publications/code-of-practice-for-research/]
• 28. Interim Policy and Procedures for Responding to Allegations ... [https://facultyresources.fas.harvard.edu/interim-policy-and-procedures-responding-allegations-research-misconduct]
• 29. Research Misconduct: Policy on Allegations, Investigations ... [https://doresearch.stanford.edu/policies/research-policy-handbook/conduct-research/research-misconduct-policy-allegations-investigations-and-reporting]
• 30. AACP Research Misconduct Investigation Procedures [https://www.aacp.org/research/aacp-research-misconduct-investigation-procedures]
• 31. Preliminary Assessment | ORI [https://ori.hhs.gov/preliminary-assessment]
• 32. Research Misconduct Process [https://researchsupport.psu.edu/orp/research-integrity/research-misconduct-process/]
• 33. Tips for Sequestration of Physical Evidence in Research ... [https://ori.hhs.gov/tips-sequestration-physical-evidence-research-misconduct-cases]
• 34. Protocol for Handling Physical Evidence in Research ... [https://policy.umn.edu/research/academicmisconduct-appa]
• 35. Inquiries | ORI [https://ori.hhs.gov/inquiries]
• 36. Procedure for Dealing with Misconduct in Scholarly Research [https://research.wisc.edu/kb-article/?id=85430]
• 37. The Revised PHS Research Misconduct Sample Policies [https://about.citiprogram.org/blog/what-institutions-need-to-know-about-the-revised-phs-research-misconduct-sample-policies-procedures/]
• 38. Sample Policy & Procedures for Responding to Research ... [https://ori.hhs.gov/sample-policy-procedures-responding-research-misconduct-allegations]
• 39. Research Misconduct FAQ [https://blink.ucsd.edu/research/policies-compliance-ethics/ethics/faq.html]
• 40. Frequently Asked Questions | ORI [https://ori.hhs.gov/frequently-asked-questions]
• 41. Research Integrity Training FAQs - OUHSC.edu [https://research.ouhsc.edu/research-support/research-integrity/research-integrity-training-faqs]
• 42. Whistleblower Statutes Summary Chart [https://www.whistleblowers.gov/whistleblower_acts-desk_reference]
• 43. Whistleblower Retaliation: Enforcement Trends, Legal ... [https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/whistleblower-retaliation-enforcement-2001529/]
• 44. Whistleblower Protections [https://www.dol.gov/general/topics/whistleblower]
• 45. Whistleblower Protection Laws: A Comprehensive Guide ... [https://kkc.com/frequently-asked-questions/us-whistleblower-protection-laws/]
• 46. Whistleblower Protection | Office of Inspector General [https://www.oig.dhs.gov/whistleblower-protection]
• 47. Academic Writing - Research Misconduct Prevention [https://lableaz.com/blog/research-misconduct-prevention]
• 48. 2025 Whistleblower of the Year [https://www.taf.org/2025-whistleblower-of-the-year/]
• 49. Top NIH Scientists File Whistleblower Complaints Alleging ... [https://katzbanks.com/news/nih-whistleblowers/]
• 50. Research Misconduct Process - Compliance & Training [https://compliance.research.virginia.edu/about/integrity-ethics/research-misconduct-process]
• 51. New HHS Research Misconduct Rules Bring Seismic ... [https://www.cohenseglias.com/news-article/new-hhs-research-misconduct-rules-bring-seismic-changes/]
• 52. Ethical Editor: Office of Research Integrity Sanctions for ... [https://www.csescienceeditor.org/article/ethical-editor-office-of-research-integrity-sanctions-for-research-misconduct/]
• 53. Managing Multi-Institutional Jurisdiction in Cases ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12174805/]
• 54. Preventing research misconduct & data management [http://library.virginia.edu/news/2025/love-data-week-preventing-research-misconduct-data-management]
• 55. Master Data Management and Data Integrity [https://hrlogics.com/blog/master-data-management-and-data-integrity-what-businesses-must-focus-on-in-2025]
• 56. Best Practices For Promoting Research Integrity [https://research.mit.edu/security-integrity-and-compliance/research-integrity/best-practices-promoting-research-integrity]
• 57. 2025 News [https://www.medschool.umaryland.edu/carti/about-carti/news/2025-news/new-research-mentor-matching-program-at-carti.html]
• 58. Principles and Procedures for Dealing with Allegations of ... [https://www.nyu.edu/about/policies-guidelines-compliance/policies-and-guidelines/researchmisconduct.html]
• 59. AI Detectors Don't Work. Here's What to Do Instead. [https://mitsloanedtech.mit.edu/ai/teach/ai-detectors-dont-work/]
• 60. Science Integrity Digest Summer 2025 [https://scienceintegritydigest.com/2025/07/25/science-integrity-digest-summer-2025/]
• 61. Scientific Study Exposes Publication Fraud Involving ... [https://www.tudelft.nl/en/2025/eemcs/scientific-study-exposes-publication-fraud-involving-widespread-use-of-ai]
• 62. Understanding image forensics techniques and their impact [https://www.cameraforensics.com/blog/2024/03/25/understanding-image-forensics-techniques-and-their-impact/]
• 63. Here Are 3 Tips To Improve Your Digital Image Forensics ... [https://www.adfsolutions.com/news/here-are-3-tips-to-improve-your-digital-image-forensics-skills?srsltid=AfmBOooEQnF65vlPZGcuChw-J21CMoRkvvVzP1vmjtVlXR9mprp9W9I0]
• 64. Forensic Imaging Market Forecast, 2025-2032 [https://emergingmarketinsight.com/report/forensic-imaging-819328]
• 65. The Rise of Scientific Sleuths: Ensuring Research Integrity [https://sciencewatchdog.id/2025/10/18/the-rise-of-scientific-sleuths-ensuring-research-integrity/]
• 66. Research Which Requires Review by IRB - Policies [https://www.uth.edu/cphs/policies/requires-review.htm]
• 67. Research Policy Handbook | DoResearch - Stanford University [https://doresearch.stanford.edu/policies/research-policy-handbook]
• 68. Research Policies and Procedures [https://research.mit.edu/research-policies-and-procedures]
• 69. Principles for Health Information Collection, Sharing, and Use [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10912036/]
• 70. Update on Federal research funding, MOU Policy changes ... [https://doresearch.stanford.edu/announcements/update-federal-research-funding-mou-policy-changes-new-rates-marlowe-etc]
• 71. Guidelines and Procedures for Allegations of Research ... [https://www.uth.edu/hoop/guidelines-and-procedures-for-allegations-of-research-misconduct.htm]
• 72. Drug Discovery Assays Support—Troubleshooting [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/technical-resources/technical-reference-library/drug-discovery-development-support-center/drug-discovery-assays-support/drug-discovery-assays-support-troubleshooting.html]
• 73. Digital Health Technologies (DHTs) for Drug Development [https://www.fda.gov/science-research/science-and-research-special-topics/digital-health-technologies-dhts-drug-development]