Research misconduct is defined as intentional, knowing, or reckless fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
Research misconduct does not include honest errors, differences of opinion, or disputes over authorship or credit.
- Falsification and Fabrication of Research Results
-
Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the experimental outcomes are not accurately represented in the research record.
For example, it is falsification of data to intentionally use image-processing software (e.g., Adobe Photoshop) while preparing a blot for viewing, to add or delete a band, to differentially adjust the intensity or contrast of one or more bands, to splice lanes without using a line indicating the deletion or otherwise revealing the splice, or to juxtapose pieces from different gels onto a single image. It is falsification to label an image from one experiment as representing a different experiment.
Instances of falsification and fabrication leading to findings of research misconduct have been discovered in publications, proposals, annual reports to agencies, research presentations and reports at meetings or at the University. The same standards of accuracy and integrity pertain to grant applications and proposals as those that apply to manuscripts submitted for publication. Reporting of results of experiments not yet performed as evidence in support of proposed research funding, for example, is considered to be fabrication and is subject to a finding of research misconduct, even if the proposal is subsequently rejected for funding or is withdrawn before full consideration for funding is completed.
Research integrity requires that reported conclusions are based on accurately recorded data or observations truthfully reported, and that all relevant observations are reported. It is falsification to intentionally delete data or fail to report relevant data in any way that conceals the authentic outcome of an experiment.
- Plagiarism
-
Authors who present the words, data, or ideas of others with the implication that they are their own, without attribution in a form appropriate for the medium of presentation, are committing theft of intellectual property and may be guilty of plagiarism and, thus of research misconduct. This statement applies to reviews and to methodological and background/historical sections of research papers as well as to original research results or interpretations. If there is word-for-word copying beyond a short phrase of six or seven words of someone else’s text, that section should be enclosed in quotation marks or indented and referenced to the original source, at the location in the manuscript of the copied material. The same rules apply to grant applications and proposals, to clinical research protocols, and to student papers submitted for academic credit. Not only does plagiarism violate the long-standing code of conduct governing all scholars and researchers, but in many cases, it also constitutes an infraction of the law by infringing on a copyright held by the original author or publisher. An author should cite the work of others even if they had been a coauthor or editor of the work to be cited or had been an adviser or student of the author of such work. The definition of plagiarism applies to grant applications or proposals, including background and research plan sections, as well as to publications.
The work of others should be cited or credited, whether published or unpublished, and whether it had been written work, an oral presentation, or material on a Web site. Each journal or publisher may specify the particular form of appropriate citation. One need not provide citations, however, for well-established concepts that are commonly found in textbooks or for phrases describing commonly used methodology. Special rules have been developed for citing electronic information. A citation guidance can be found on the University of Pittsburgh library website.
Members of a research group who contribute to work that is later incorporated into a proposal or protocol are entitled to be consulted and informed as to what their role may be if the proposal is funded, or the protocol approved. A charge of plagiarism in the proposal or protocol on grounds that such members are not later included as part of the team that conducts the approved or funded research cannot usually be sustained. Researchers who are excluded from subsequent research are entitled, however, to be considered for co-authorship in publications if their contributions merit it.
- Misuse of Privileged Information
-
Plagiarism includes the unattributed copying of "privileged information." Examples of privileged information include ideas, text, or original figures in grant applications or manuscripts received from a funding agency or journal editor for confidential peer review. In such a case, the plagiarism is a serious matter of theft of intellectual property, because it not only deprives the original author of appropriate credit by citation but could also preempt priority of first publication or use of the original idea to which the source author is entitled. Also, one who breaches confidentiality by showing a privileged unpublished document to an unauthorized person can be held to a shared responsibility for any subsequent plagiarism of the document committed by that unauthorized person.
- Reporting Suspected Misconduct
-
Reporting suspected research misconduct is a shared and important responsibility of all members of the academic community. Any person who suspects research misconduct has an obligation to report the allegation to the dean of the unit in which the suspected misconduct occurred or to the Research Integrity Officer (research.integrity@pitt.edu). Allegations are handled under procedures described in the University Policy RI 07 "Research Integrity." All reports are treated confidentially to the extent possible, and no adverse action will be taken, either directly or indirectly, against a person who makes such an allegation in good faith. Protection of whistleblowers against retaliation is guaranteed under policies of both the University and the federal and state governments.
The Research Integrity Officer may be required by law to report findings of misconduct in externally funded research to the funding agency or source, and in some cases an allegation must be reported even before the investigation is completed. Expenditure of government grant funds for fabricated or falsified research is not only a violation of research ethics but also a federal crime, and those responsible may be subject to prosecution for fraud with the possibility of a demand for restitution of funds to the government, a fine, and/or imprisonment.