Definition  |  Reporting  |  Review of Allegations of Research Misconduct  |  Research Misconduct FAQs  |  Brown Related Policies and Guidelines  |  Federal Research Misconduct Policies  |  Other Research Integrity Resources  |  Research Integrity Articles  |  Research Misconduct by the Numbers

Allegations of Research Misconduct are handled by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI)

Definition

Research Misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.

  • fabrication is making up results and recording or reporting them;

  • falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment or processes or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record; and

  • plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

Research Misconduct does not include honest error or differences in opinion.

Importantly, a finding of Research Misconduct requires that

(a) there be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and

               (b) the misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and

               (c) the allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

Reporting

All employees or individuals associated with Brown University should report observed, suspected, or apparent Research Misconduct by emailing [email protected] or anonymously using Brown’s Anonymous Reporting Hotline. Given that the ORI often needs more information to initiate a proceeding, we recommend reporting through [email protected]. If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of Research Misconduct, they may contact [email protected] to discuss the suspected misconduct informally.

Authorship disputes do not fall under the definition of Research Misconduct unless there is suspected plagiarism. For more information about Brown’s authorship guidelines, click here.

Review of Allegations of Research Misconduct

Allegations of Research Misconduct are reviewed in accordance with the process and timelines outlined in Brown’s Policy on Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct.

Research Misconduct FAQs

What is Brown’s policy regarding Research Misconduct?
What if I suspect that misconduct is occurring or has occurred in my lab/research group, but the misconduct does not seem to fall within the definition of Research Misconduct
I suspect that Research Misconduct is occurring or has occurred in my lab, but I’m not sure if I should report it. Where can I go for advice?
What information should I provide when making a report?
Can I report an Allegation anonymously?
As a researcher, what are best practices in leading and managing a lab to prevent Research Misconduct?
What should I do if I have a concern about some research data and I want to review the data before I make a report, but the researcher whose data I want to review is not providing it.  And to make matters worse, the data in question is stored within their  personal file directory or on a personal device?
What is the process for reviewing a Research Misconduct complaint?
Who is involved in the review of allegations of Research Misconduct?
Are the names of the Research Misconduct review participants kept confidential?
Will there be any repercussions to me if I report Research Misconduct?
I made an error and accidentally labeled a data table incorrectly in my last publication. Is this considered Research Misconduct?
A former collaborator has taken some of my ideas and has represented them as their own. Can I take action and is this considered Research Misconduct?
What should I do if I am accused of Research Misconduct?

- - -   - - -   - - -  

What is Brown’s policy regarding Research Misconduct?

Universities, including Brown, have policies that comply with federal regulations regarding the handling of allegations of Research Misconduct. Please review our policy here.

back to top

What if I suspect that misconduct is occurring or has occurred in my lab/research group, but the misconduct does not seem to fall within the definition of Research Misconduct?

Allegations or suspicions of misconduct outside the scope of this policy may need to be referred to other offices for review. You can discuss the observed misconduct confidentially with the Office of Research Integrity who can provide further guidance.

Additionally, instances of alleged Research Misconduct by students in practicum-type courses, and in coursework and classroom activities, may in many cases be better addressed through Code of Student Conduct, rather than through the procedures of this policy. 

If you are unsure of the appropriate office that would handle the allegation, please contact the Office of Research Integrity at [email protected] 

back to top

I suspect that Research Misconduct is occurring or has occurred in my lab, but I’m not sure if I should report it. Where can I go for advice?

In general, all employees or individuals associated with Brown University should report observed, suspected, or apparent Research Misconduct to the University.

If you are unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of Research Misconduct, you can certainly discuss it with someone. Brown’s primary Research Misconduct contact, including questions about whether an activity constitutes Research Misconduct, is the Office of Research integrity at [email protected] or 401-863-3295. You do not need to reveal anything; you can always talk in hypotheticals.

For confidential guidance on the topic, you may consult Brown’s Office of the Ombuds at 401-863-6145 or email [email protected] 

If you prefer to report to an independent agency outside of ORI, visit the Brown University Anonymous Reporting Hotline EthicsPoint website or call them at 877-318-9184.

back to top

What information should I provide when making a report?

Allegations of potential Research Misconduct are assessed by the Office of Research Integrity. This process can be expedited if the report contains the following:

  • Identification of potentially fabricated or falsified data, or plagiarized text, data, or ideas specifically with supporting evidence of where it occurred (e.g. manuscripts, presentations, posters, grant applications, etc.)

  • Listing of any relevant publication information

  • Inclusion of the original source if plagiarism is suspected

  • Identification of the individual reporting the allegation

  • Listing of any other research team members or key witnesses that may be able to speak to the allegation

Availability of as much information as possible facilitates review of the evidence and allows the Research Integrity Officer to go back to the complainant for additional clarification. However, allegations of potential Research Misconduct will be accepted in any format or medium, and all allegations will be reviewed under Brown University's Policy on Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct.

back to top

Can I report an Allegation anonymously?

Yes. You can report allegations of Research Misconduct anonymously. ORI will accept all anonymous reports of allegations of Research Misconduct and review them under Brown University's Policy on Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct. Anonymous allegations of potential Research Misconduct can, however, be more difficult to investigate due to the absence of continuing assistance from the person reporting the misconduct. 

back to top

As a researcher, what are best practices in leading and managing a lab to prevent Research Misconduct?

It is crucial that University researchers maintain safe and professional working environments in their laboratories. The NIH-funded P.I. Program has created this checklist to assist with Lab Leadership and Management. 

The following are additional strategies that researchers can use to avoid being involved in allegations of Research Misconduct.

  • Have or develop written standards for research recordkeeping and data management

  • Foster more research quality “habits” (e.g. PI review of raw data) / unannounced spot checks

  • Foster a culture where data sharing is expected and data challenging is encouraged 

  • Foster transparency regarding methods and access to underlying data

    • Use of Electronic Lab Notebooks (ELNs)

    • Prioritize regular sharing of “unpolished” data during lab meetings

    • Design file-organizing systems that involves giving research images a sensible name. When it comes to checking your paper before you publish it, you need to trace back all the images to the raw data and check them against the metadata. For example, if you have a photo labeled as ‘Day three’, does that correspond to the date the photo was taken or that the experiment happened on?

  • Seek independent replication before rush to publication with novel results

  • Don’t discourage negative results

  • Follow your instincts; data that is “too good to be true”; the data makes no sense; repeat offenders of non-compliance may be a red flag of substandard practices

  • Assess laboratory sizes / mentor-mentee ratios; actively prioritize mental health

  • Be thoughtful about who trains incoming members of your lab

  • Before someone leaves the lab:

    • Take possession of all of the data generated in your lab; ensure that the data are organized in such a way that you can readily identify them

    • If data are in an ELN, ensure that ownership of the ELN is transferred to you as the PI

    • Establish an agreement in writing regarding authorship expectations for ongoing and future projects

back to top

What should I do if I have a concern about some research data and I want to review the data before I make a report, but the researcher whose data I want to review is not providing it.  And to make matters worse, the data in question is stored within their  personal file directory or on a personal device?

In general, researchers who work together on a project and who may be publishing together, should be sharing their data with one another. Data that is generated as part of a research project conducted at the University is owned by the University and should be stored in a shared research folder/file that is accessible by all researchers involved in the project. The PI on the project is generally regarded as the steward of such data. If a researcher who worked on a research project at Brown is unwilling to share the data that was generated at Brown with the PI of the project, the matter falls within the University’s Code of Conduct and its Research Data and Research Materials Management, Sharing, and Retention Policy.

If a Principal Investigator or other member of the research team has concerns about research data that is not shared and cannot be accessed, they should contact Brown’s Office of Research Integrity (ORI) via [email protected].

back to top

What is the process for reviewing a Research Misconduct complaint?

The first stage in reviewing a complaint of Research Misconduct is a so-called preliminary assessment of the allegation to determine whether the complaint falls within the definition of Research Misconduct, whether it falls under the purview of Brown University, and whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant an inquiry.

If the case proceeds to an inquiry, an Inquiry Committee will be appointed to review the evidence and interview key witnesses. The Inquiry Committee may be scientists, subject matter experts, administrators, or other qualified persons, and they may be from inside or outside the institution.

If the Inquiry Committee concludes that there is potential evidence of Research Misconduct, a full investigation will be initiated.  For more information about the procedures at each stage of reviewing a complaint, please see Brown University's Policy on Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct.

back to top

Who is involved in the review of allegations of Research Misconduct?

There are five primary parties involved in Research Misconduct reviews. There may be additional parties involved, but the essential parties are:

Complainant – the person who makes an allegation of Research Misconduct

Respondent – the subject of the Research Misconduct allegation

RIO - Research Integrity Officer – the person(s) who execute(s) a fair, impartial and competent review of allegations of Research Misconduct. At Brown, the Senior Director of the Officer of Research Integrity, or his or her designee, serves as the RIO.

DO - Deciding Official - the institutional official who makes final determinations on the Allegation(s) of Research Misconduct after the review of the report of the Investigation Committee and any recommended institutional administrative actions. At Brown, the Vice President for Research (VPR) serves as the DO.

Witness(es) – Any person(s) pertinent to the Research Misconduct inquiry or investigation

back to top

Are the names of the Research Misconduct review participants kept confidential?

Confidentiality is maintained to the extent possible throughout the investigation of the alleged Research Misconduct investigation.

back to top

Will there be any repercussions to me if I report Research Misconduct?

Brown prohibits Retaliation against employees who make Good Faith Reports of potential violations of laws, regulations, or a University policy.  The University recognizes that employees who report violations must be free from fear of Retaliation in support of the University’s mission. For more information, view Brown’s Non-Retaliation Policy.

back to top

I made an error and accidentally labeled a data table incorrectly in my last publication. Is this considered Research Misconduct?

Deviations that are unintended (or accidental) are considered to be “honest errors”, rather than Research Misconduct. However, unintended deviations should be corrected as soon as they are discovered because faulty data or images should not remain in the research record. Sometimes researchers claim to have made an “honest error” when, in fact, they deliberately changed or manipulated data or images. Therefore, the University may, in some cases, still conduct an investigation to ensure that something was indeed an honest error and not Research Misconduct.

If you have a question about whether a specific situation is considered Research Misconduct, please contact the Office of Research Integrity.

back to top

A former collaborator has taken some of my ideas and has represented them as their own. Can I take action and is this considered Research Misconduct?

These situations are usually somewhat tricky. This may be a situation where a former collaborator appropriated your ideas without acknowledgment or attribution, which falls within the definition of Research Misconduct (plagiarism). However, this situation could also be an authorship or acknowledgement issue rather than a plagiarism case.  Please review Brown’s Guidelines on Authorship in Scholarly or Scientific Publications for recommended procedures when such a dispute arises. Please also contact the Office of Research Integrity if you have specific questions or concerns.

back to top

What should I do if I am accused of Research Misconduct?

Universities have an obligation to investigate Research Misconduct allegations per federal regulations. Brown will investigate all allegations by following the procedures outlined in the Research Misconduct Policy. Individuals accused of Research Misconduct are given full details of the allegation(s) and allowed a fair process for responding to allegations and presenting evidence. It is always best to be as cooperative with the Research Integrity Office as possible. If you have maintained good records of your research data, please provide it to the Research Integrity Office. This includes, lab notebooks, raw data, and all related communications.

While a Research Misconduct investigation is not a legal proceeding, you can consult with your legal counsel, or a non-lawyer personal advisor (such as a trusted colleague/mentor who is not a principal or witness in the case) to seek advice. You may also  bring the counsel or personal advisor to interviews or meetings on the investigation with advance notice to the inquiry/investigation committee.

Lastly, if you know or suspect who may have brought the allegations forward, avoid doing anything that may be interpreted as retaliation. The University has a policy that strictly prohibits retaliation against whistleblowers.

back to top

Brown Related Policies and Guidelines

​back to top

Federal Research Misconduct Policies

back to top

Other Research Integrity Resources 

​back to top

Research Integrity Articles

back to top
 

Research Misconduct by the Numbers

Research Misconduct Allegations have been increasing over time. 

Fiscal Year 2020 is October 1, 2019 - September 30, 2020

Fiscal Year 2021 is October 1, 2020 - September 30, 2021

Fiscal Year 2022 is October 1, 2021-September 30, 2022

Fiscal Year 2023 October 1, 2022- September 30, 2023

back to top