Federal research misconduct means fabrication, falsification or plagiarism with intent or recklessness. Here is how ORI and NSF cases move from allegation to outcome.
Under federal rules, research misconduct means three things only: fabrication, falsification and plagiarism, committed in proposing, doing, reviewing or reporting research. Honest error and genuine scientific disagreement do not count. A finding also requires a significant departure from accepted practice, a state of mind that was intentional, knowing or reckless, and proof by a preponderance of the evidence. This article covers US federal rules for Public Health Service (PHS) and National Science Foundation (NSF) funding, checked on October 10, 2026.
The process that follows an allegation is slower and more procedural than the headlines suggest. It has defined stages, deadlines and appeals, and most of the work happens at the researcher’s own institution before any federal office rules on anything.
The definition, piece by piece
The Health and Human Services rules in 42 CFR Part 93 define the three terms in plain language. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. Falsification is manipulating materials, equipment or processes, or changing or leaving out data, so that the research record does not accurately reflect the work. Plagiarism is taking another person’s ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit.
The NSF uses essentially the same definition in 45 CFR Part 689. The practical effect is a shared federal vocabulary, even though different agencies run separate processes.
What the definition leaves out matters just as much. The PHS rule says that self-plagiarism and authorship disputes are not research misconduct under the regulation, though an institution may handle them under its own policies. Sloppy statistics, a disputed interpretation or a failed replication are not misconduct either, unless someone deliberately or recklessly misrepresented the record.
Reviewing counts too. Both definitions reach conduct in reviewing research, and the NSF version names the review of NSF proposals specifically. A reviewer who copies ideas from a confidential proposal into their own work is within the definition of plagiarism, not just breaking a journal’s etiquette. The phrase “proposing, performing, reviewing or reporting” tells you the rules cover the full life of a project, from the grant application to the published figure.
Three elements needed for a finding
The regulation, in section 93.103, does not stop at the three labels. A finding needs all of the following.
- A significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.
- Conduct that was committed intentionally, knowingly or recklessly. Recklessly means indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification or plagiarism.
- An allegation proven by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning more likely true than not. The institution or HHS carries that burden.
The standard is lower than in a criminal trial. It is also why careful documentation of lab notebooks, raw files and instrument logs often decides these cases.
Which agency is involved
| PHS (including NIH) | NSF | |
|---|---|---|
| Rule | 42 CFR Part 93 | 45 CFR Part 689 |
| Federal office | HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI) | NSF Office of Inspector General investigates; a Deputy Director decides |
| First responder | The institution, which reports to ORI after deciding an investigation is warranted | The awardee institution has primary responsibility in the first instance |
| Appeal | Respondent may contest ORI findings within 30 days of the charge letter | Written appeal to the NSF Director within 30 days |
For NSF-funded work, the Inspector General’s office decides whether to defer to an institution’s process or run its own inquiry, and it can refer matters with possible civil or criminal violations to the Department of Justice. ORI, by contrast, oversees PHS cases and may respond to an allegation at any time, but institutions do most of the fact-finding.
The stages after an allegation
Under the PHS rule, the sequence runs like this:
- Assessment. The institution promptly checks whether the allegation falls within the definition and could be supported.
- Inquiry. A preliminary review of whether an investigation is warranted, to be completed within 90 days unless the institution documents a reason for taking longer.
- Investigation. If warranted, the institution begins within 30 days, reports to ORI within 30 days of that decision, and completes the work within 180 days, with extensions available from ORI.
- Draft report. The person accused gets a chance to comment on the draft, within 30 days.
- ORI review. ORI can close the case, make findings and propose actions, or seek a settlement. If it makes findings, it sends a charge letter with the record and the right to contest.
- Hearing. The respondent may contest the findings and proposed actions within 30 days, and Subpart E provides for an administrative law judge.
The NSF path is similar in spirit. After the Inspector General’s investigation report, the subject can comment, normally within 30 days, and the Deputy Director normally issues a written decision within 120 days. Appeal goes to the NSF Director, who normally decides within 60 days.
Two further rules shape the timeline. The PHS rule applies only to conduct within six years of when the allegation is received, with exceptions where the material is still being used or a substantial public health or safety effect is possible (section 93.104). And institutions must keep records for seven years after the proceeding ends.
What can happen to a researcher
The HHS list of administrative actions in section 93.407 is broad. It includes correcting or retracting the research record, a reprimand, special certification or assurance requirements, restrictions on the researcher’s federal funding or supervision of staff, suspension or termination of funding, special review of future funding requests, and a bar on serving as an adviser. HHS may also seek to recover PHS funds. Suspension and debarment from federal programs run under a separate set of government-wide rules, 2 CFR part 180, rather than Part 93 itself.
NSF sorts its actions into three groups of increasing severity. Group I includes reprimands and certification requirements. Group II covers suspending or restricting an award or requiring corrections to the research record. Group III includes terminating an award, barring service as an NSF reviewer or adviser, and debarment or suspension following further proceedings. NSF looks at seriousness, intent, whether the conduct was isolated or a pattern, and its impact.
The actions are administrative. They are not criminal penalties, though false statements to the government can create separate legal exposure, which is why NSF’s Inspector General may refer some matters to the Department of Justice. A finding can also follow a researcher: the correction of the published record, the loss of a funding stream and the questions at the next job interview are practical consequences that no regulation lists in a table.
What changed with the 2024 rule
HHS published a final rule updating Part 93 on September 17, 2024 (89 FR 76295). According to the eCFR text, institutions must follow the updated Part 93 for allegations received on or after January 1, 2026, and allegations received earlier are generally handled under the 2005 edition unless the institution and the respondent both elect in writing to use the new one. ORI’s home page now lists sample policies and guidance written for the 2024 version, including training scheduled for September 2026.
If you work at a university, the practical step is to read your institution’s current research misconduct policy. It is probably newer than the one you remember.
Myth versus fact
| Common belief | What the rule says |
|---|---|
| Any error in a paper is misconduct. | Honest error is expressly excluded from the definition. |
| Federal investigators take over from the start. | For PHS and NSF awards, the institution handles the case first; the federal office reviews its work. |
| A finding needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt. | The standard is a preponderance of the evidence. |
| Old problems can always be reopened. | The PHS rule has a six-year limit, with exceptions for continued use of the material and for serious public health or safety effects. |
The second row surprises people most. The institution’s own committee reads the data, interviews witnesses and writes the first report. ORI or NSF then decides whether that work holds up. That is one reason institutional integrity officers, not federal agents, are usually the first people a researcher hears from. It also means the quality of a university’s internal process often shapes the final outcome as much as the federal rule does.
If someone raises a concern about your work
- Preserve everything: raw data, notebooks, drafts, instrument files and email.
- Ask the institution’s research integrity officer for the written procedure and the timeline.
- Do not alter, delete or reorganize records while the matter is open.
- Consider obtaining your own advice, since the institution’s interests may differ from yours.
- Respond within the deadlines given for comments on the draft report.
Related questions
Is an honest mistake research misconduct?
No. Both the PHS and NSF definitions exclude honest error and differences of opinion. The conduct has to be intentional, knowing or reckless.
Does a retraction mean misconduct was found?
Not necessarily. Journals retract papers for honest errors and for misconduct. A formal misconduct finding comes from an institution or federal agency process, not from a journal’s notice.
Do these rules cover privately funded research?
The federal rules apply to research funded by the relevant agency. Many institutions apply the same procedures to all research, and other laws, such as fraud statutes, may also apply.
This is general information, not legal advice.
Sources
