Research, Creative Activities, and Scholarly Misconduct

The term "research misconduct" refers to fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing Research, or in reporting research results.  This definition is derived from federal regulation and reflected in the University of Maryland Policy on Integrity and Responsible Conduct in Scholarly Work, which governs the review of allegations of research misconduct at the institution.

• Fabrication in relation to research means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

• Falsification in relation to research means manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

• Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another’s work that (materially*) misleads the reader regarding the contributions of the author. It does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology. Plagiarism does not include self-plagiarism or authorship or credit disputes, including disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a research project. Self-plagiarism and authorship disputes do not meet the definition of research misconduct.

Other forms of inappropriate activity related to research may constitute scholarly misconduct under the University of Maryland Policy on Integrity and Responsible Conduct in Scholarly Work, depending on the specific facts of the situation.  In addition, issues involving lapses of integrity in student academic work may be addressed under the University of Maryland Code of Academic Integrity.

Generally speaking, authorship disputes do not constitute research misconduct.  Honest error of differences of opinion similarly do not constitute research misconduct.

* For allegations of plagiarism that fall under the Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct (i.e., 42 C.F.R. Part 93) materiality is considered when determining if plagiarism occurred. 

The term "creative activities misconduct" refers to fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, reviewing, reporting, or publicly releasing creative activities. This definition is included in the University of Maryland Policy on Integrity and Responsible Conduct in Scholarly Work, which governs the review of allegations of creative activities misconduct at the institution.

• Fabrication in relation to creative activities means making up materials, information, items, data, or works and recording, reporting, or publicly releasing them.

• Falsification in relation to creative activities means manipulating materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting materials, information, items, data, or results such that the creative activities are not accurately represented in the creative activities record.

• Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another’s work that misleads the reader regarding the contributions of the author. It does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology. Plagiarism does not include self-plagiarism or authorship or credit disputes, including disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a creative activities project. Self-plagiarism and authorship disputes do not meet the definition of creative activities misconduct.

Other forms of inappropriate activity related to creative activities may constitute scholarly misconduct under the University of Maryland Policy on Integrity and Responsible Conduct in Scholarly Work, depending on the specific facts of the situation. In addition, issues involving lapses of integrity in student academic work may be addressed under the University of Maryland Code of Academic Integrity.

Generally speaking, authorship disputes do not constitute creative activities misconduct. Honest error of differences of opinion similarly do not constitute creative activities misconduct.

The term "scholarly misconduct" means violations of the University of Maryland Policy on Integrity and Responsible Conduct in Scholarly Work, other than research misconduct and/or creative activities misconduct, that can erode the integrity of scholarly work. This definition is included in the above-referenced policy, which governs the review of allegations of scholarly misconduct at the institution. 

Examples of such violations include, but are not limited to:

• improper assignment of credit that is not in accordance with accepted standards in the relevant discipline (e.g., inclusion of individuals as authors who have not made a substantial contribution to the published work, exclusion of individuals as authors who have made a substantial contribution to the published work, or submission of multi-authored publications without the concurrence of all authors);
• improper use or appropriation of information obtained from scholarly exchanges and other types of confidential access (e.g., from review of grant applications or manuscripts; service on peer review panels, editorial boards, or University committees; and information obtained from publishers, foundations, and organizations that run conferences or engage in other scholarly activities);
• misrepresentation of experience or accomplishments related to scholarly work to advance a research and/or creative activities program or to obtain external funding; and
• material failure to comply with federal, state, or UMD requirements affecting research (e.g., violations involving: the use of funds or resources; data management; transparency; care of animals; human subjects; investigational drugs; recombinant products; new devices; radioactive, biologic or chemical materials; or the health and safety of individuals or the environment).

Generally speaking, authorship disputes do not constitute scholarly misconduct. 

Issues involving lapses of integrity in student academic work may be addressed under the University of Maryland Code of Academic Integrity.

We all play a role in identifying research misconduct, creative activities misconduct, and scholarly misconduct, as well as recognizing, avoiding, and addressing the risk factors. 

The resources from the Office of Research Integrity in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services included below help us to understand our roles, the motivations for people to commit research misconduct in particular, the potential red flags that misconduct may have occurred, and what to do about concerns. You are encouraged to print, post, or otherwise share and distribute these one-page materials.

• "What drives people to commit research misconduct?" (PDF)

• "Possible red flags of research misconduct" (PDF)

• "It's a slippery slope to research misconduct" (PDF)

• "Can you spot research misconduct?" (PDF)

• "Research trainees: what you should know about research misconduct" (PDF)

• "Five ways supervisors can promote research integrity" (PDF)

• "Everyone plays a role in research integrity" (PDF)

• "The research community safeguards scientific integrity" (PDF)

• "You suspect research misconduct. Now what?" (PDF)

We can work to prevent or avoid research misconduct, creative activities misconduct, and scholarly misconduct (as well as practices detrimental to scholarly work) by fostering an environment that promotes integrity and responsible conduct in research (“IRC-R”) and creative activities, working to recognize and avoid risk factors, and modeling good behaviors.

Allegations and concerns can be reported via UMD's compliance reporting system, EthicsPoint.

Allegations, concerns, and questions can be sent to the Research Integrity Officer ("RIO") at rio@umd.edu. A member of the OIRC staff will respond to your communication as soon as possible, typically within 24 hours.

Individuals can also report allegations by phone: 301-314-1814.

• Be specific. 

  Provide as much information as you can about the issue, why you think it represents potential research misconduct, creative activities misconduct, and/or scholarly misconduct, what it impacted or where it appeared (e.g., a publication, presentation, website, graphic work, or grant application), and who was involved. 

  Only sufficiently specific allegations can be addressed.

• Know that you can report anonymously or ask not to have your identity disclosed. 

  The institution will act on anonymous allegations and will honor requests for confidentiality to the extent possible. However, keep in mind that others may discern the source of a complaint regardless. Also note that the inability to seek additional information from an anonymous complainant can impede the progress of the process to review the allegations – for instance, if additional specificity is required to make the complaint actionable.

• Know that you're protected.

  The institution will make diligent efforts to protect individuals who report allegations in good faith. Conversely, there can be consequences for making an allegation in bad faith.

• Ask questions. 

  If you're not sure whether an issue might constitute research misconduct, creative activities misconduct, and/or scholarly misconduct or if you want more information about how an allegation would be handled if you raise it, you can speak with the RIO. Hypothetical situations can be discussed.

• Don't conduct your own investigation! 

  Looking into the matter on your own could unintentionally impact the evidentiary value of potential sources of information. Pass on what you already know and let trained, authorized officials handle the rest. That is how we'll have the best chance of figuring out whether misconduct occurred and addressing it accordingly.

• Don't wait. 

  Timely reporting is crucial to ensuring that misconduct is addressed quickly and before critical evidence may become unavailable. Sitting on your concern could allow ongoing misconduct to continue or could hinder the institution's ability to thoroughly investigate.

• Don't talk about it with other people. 

  It's critical to maintain confidentiality, especially early in the process. A potential respondent becoming aware of an allegation before the RIO can act could impact the institution's ability to collect and protect valuable evidence. In addition, as allegations of research misconduct, creative activities misconduct, and scholarly misconduct can have serious implications for an individual's career, it's important that they’re handled appropriately and only by authorized, trained individuals. Finally, the process operates with a presumption of innocence that must be respected.

  Remember, the issue you’re concerned about may be the result of a simple mistake or might not actually constitute misconduct. The term "research misconduct" in particular has a specific and consequential legal meaning. To tell others that an individual committed misconduct could not only be incorrect, but could also violate the spirit of our process, which is designed to incorporate confidentiality and fairness.

  Other parties who could be impacted, such as co-authors and journals, will be notified as necessary and appropriate.

• Don't be discouraged by silence. 

  When allegations are received, a number of important and substantive steps -- potentially involving many parties -- need to take place. A variety of factors can impact how quickly the matter proceeds, as well as what you might hear back and when. 

  This includes a series of designated timeframes associated with each required step of the process to review allegations, which are necessary to ensure compliance with federal regulations and our related policy and procedures. Please also keep in mind that we must also adhere to certain confidentiality obligations in line with the expectations of the University of Maryland Policy on Integrity and Responsible Conduct in Scholarly Work, as well as federal funding and regulatory oversight agencies. 

  In other words, don't assume that silence means inaction! You've done your part by reporting your concerns, and you will be contacted as necessary and appropriate thereafter. 

The University of Maryland Policy on Integrity and Responsible Conduct in Scholarly Work ("Policy") applies "to all institutional members¹ engaged in and activities undertaken as part of UMD’s research² and creative activities³ enterprise, regardless of funding source."⁴ The Policy applies "to allegations of research misconduct, creative activities misconduct, and scholarly misconduct" involving an institutional member and the following:

• applications or proposals for support for research and/or creative activities; research and/or creative activities training; or activities related to the research, creative activities, research training, or creative activities training;
• research and creative activities;
• research and creative activities training programs;
• activities that are related to or undertaken as part of research, creative activities, research training, or creative activities training (e.g., the operation of data banks (databases) or the dissemination of research information or output from creative activities);
• research records and creative activities records produced during research, creative activities, research training, creative activities training, or activities related to the research, creative activities, research training, or creative activities training; and
• research and/or creative activities proposed, performed, reviewed, or reported, as well as any research record or creative activities record generated from that research and/or creative activity, regardless of whether an application or proposal for funds resulted in an awarded grant, contract, cooperative agreement, subaward, or other form of support."⁴

1. “Institutional member(s)” means an individual (or individuals) who is employed by, is an agent of, or is affiliated by contract or agreement with an institution. Institutional members may include, but are not limited to, officials, administrators, tenured and untenured faculty, teaching and support staff, researchers, research coordinators, technicians, postdoctoral and other fellows, students, volunteers, subject matter experts, consultants, or attorneys, or employees or agents of contractors, subcontractors, or sub-awardees.⁴
2. "Research" means a systematic experiment, study, evaluation, demonstration, or survey designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge (basic research) or specific knowledge (applied research) by establishing, discovering, developing, elucidating, or confirming information or underlying mechanisms related to the field of study. When research is supported by a funding agency (e.g., NSF, NIH, etc.) with a specific definition for “research,” UMD amends this definition with those specifics for the work conducted under the specific award.⁴
3. "Creative activities" means the preparation or creation of computer programs; websites; motion pictures; sound recordings; projects for competitions; or literary, pictorial, musical, dramatic, audiovisual, choreographic, sculptural, architectural, or graphic works of any kind by (1) a faculty member or other employee of UMD as part of their non-instructional scholarly activities, or (2) a student in fulfillment of any independent study requirement at UMD. The product or output of Creative Activities is intended to be an original creative work that is of sufficient quality for potential publication or public release (including, but not limited to, a master’s or doctoral thesis).⁴
4. University of Maryland, College Park. (2026). Policy Number: III-1.10(A): University of Maryland Policy on Integrity and Responsible Conduct in Scholarly Work. (https://policies.umd.edu/academic-affairs/university-of-maryland-policy-on-integrity-and-responsible-conduct-in-scholarly-work)

University of Maryland Policy on Integrity and Responsible Conduct in Scholarly Work

Associated Procedures That May Be Implemented Under the Policy: The processes set out in the procedures listed below (“associated procedures”) are how the requirements and expectations of the Policy and associated procedures will be implemented.

• University of Maryland Procedures for Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct (Subject to the Public Health Service Regulation)
• University of Maryland Procedures for Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct (Not Subject to the Public Health Service Regulation) and Creative Activities Misconduct

University System of Maryland ("USM") 

• USM Policy on Misconduct in Scholarly Work, III-1.10

A number of funding and regulatory agencies have articulated specific expectations regarding the conduct of the research that they support and have associated regulatory requirements or policies governing how allegations of Research Misconduct must be handled.

• Department of Defense/War (DoD/DOW)

• Department of Education

• Department of Energy (DoE)

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

• National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)

• National Science Foundation (NSF)

• Public Health Service (PHS) / National Institutes of Health (NIH)

• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)