Attorney.
Author of Disability Law Compliance Manual and Disability Law Report.
Author: An overview of the Research Misconduct Process and An Analysis of the Appropriate Burden of Proof.
Author of Disability Law Compliance Manual and Disability Law Report.
Author: An overview of the Research Misconduct Process and An Analysis of the Appropriate Burden of Proof.
less
Uploads
Papers by Gary S Marx
increased substantially over recent years. The proffered explanations for
this increase range from greater pressure on scientists to publish quickly to there simply being more emphasis in identifying research misconduct.
“Research misconduct” is broadly defined to mean fabrication,
falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. For purposes of that definition: (a) “fabrication” is making up data or results and recording or reporting them; (b) “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 (c) “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 of opinion.
This article discusses the administrative process in research misconduct cases pursuant to regulations adopted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and by the National Science Foundation (NSF). It also analyzes key legal terms and discusses the burden of proof applied in research misconduct cases with a focus on those instances where HHS or NSF seek to debar the researcher from future government contracts or grants.
increased substantially over recent years. The proffered explanations for
this increase range from greater pressure on scientists to publish quickly to there simply being more emphasis in identifying research misconduct.
“Research misconduct” is broadly defined to mean fabrication,
falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. For purposes of that definition: (a) “fabrication” is making up data or results and recording or reporting them; (b) “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 (c) “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 of opinion.
This article discusses the administrative process in research misconduct cases pursuant to regulations adopted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and by the National Science Foundation (NSF). It also analyzes key legal terms and discusses the burden of proof applied in research misconduct cases with a focus on those instances where HHS or NSF seek to debar the researcher from future government contracts or grants.