Research/Scholarly Misconduct

RESEARCH 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 and Procedures Concerning Scholarly Misconduct, which governs the review of allegations of research misconduct at the institution.

• Fabrication is the intentional generation of research data or results that are fictitious in some regard, and the recording or reporting of these data or results as being genuine.
• Falsification is the manipulation of research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting research data or results in a way that deviates from common practice in the field, such that the research purposely is not accurately represented in the research record.
• Plagiarism is the representation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, words, images, or other creative works as one’s own without giving appropriate credit.

However, other forms of inappropriate activity related to research or scholarly endeavors may constitute scholarly misconduct under the University of Maryland Policy and Procedures Concerning Scholarly Misconduct, 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.

SCHOLARLY MISCONDUCT

The University of Maryland Policy and Procedures Concerning Scholarly Misconduct defines "scholarly misconduct" as research misconduct (i.e., fabrication, falsification, plagiarism) or any other practice that seriously deviates from practices commonly accepted in the discipline or in the academic and research communities.

Scholarly misconduct can take many forms, including, but not limited to: 

• Improprieties of authorship: the improper assignment of credit that is not in accordance with accepted standards in the relevant discipline, such as 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;
• Abuse of confidentiality/misappropriation of ideas: the improper use or appropriation of information obtained from scholarly exchanges and other types of confidential access, such as 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;
• Deliberate misrepresentation of qualifications: misrepresentation of experience or research accomplishments to advance a research program or to obtain external funding;
• Deliberate material failure to comply with federal, state, or University requirements affecting research: violations involving the use of funds or resources; data management; 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; and
• Violation of generally accepted research practices.

All members of the academic community are expected to report suspected research/scholarly misconduct. The review of allegations of such misconduct is handled by the Research Integrity Officer (RIO).  

It is best to report concerns regarding potential research/scholarly misconduct to the RIO in writing, ideally via e-mail to rio@umd.edu. Individuals can also call 301-314-1814 or submit a report via EthicsPoint, the University’s online compliance reporting system.

The institution will make diligent efforts to protect individuals who report allegations in good faith and to honor requests for confidentiality to the extent possible.  Anonymous allegations can be made and hypothetical scenarios can be discussed.

TIPS FOR REPORTING RESEARCH/SCHOLARLY MISCONDUCT

Do:

• Be specific. Provide as much information as you can about the issue, why you think it represents potential research/scholarly misconduct, what it impacted or where it appeared (e.g., a publication, presentation, 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/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:

• 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 sequester valuable evidence. In addition, as allegations of research/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 about which you’re concerned 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 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. 

We all play a role in identifying research/scholarly misconduct, as well as recognizing and addressing the risks factors.  

These materials from the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) help us to understand our roles, the motivations for people to commit research misconduct in particular, the potential red flags that it 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)

Federal regulations and institutional policy require the university to take certain steps to address allegations of research/scholarly misconduct. The University of Maryland Policy and Procedures Concerning Scholarly Misconduct set forth the process that we follow. This step-wise approach, from the preliminary assessment of an allegation through an investigation (if warranted), has specific requirements for proceeding beyond each stage and affords the parties involved various due process rights, protections, and confidentiality. For questions regarding how allegations of research/scholarly misconduct are reviewed at UMD, e-mail rio@umd.edu.

RELATED REGULATIONS, DIRECTIVES, AND POLICIES

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 (DoD)
• 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)

We can work to prevent research/scholarly misconduct and other types of detrimental research practices through training in the responsible conduct of research (“RCR”), understanding what leads people to commit misconduct, knowing the red flags, and modeling good behaviors.