What Is Research Misconduct? Definitions, Examples, and How to Recognize It

By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD · 2026-08-28

Quick Answer

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, plus other serious deviations from accepted practices.
Recognize it by checking raw data against reported results, verifying authorship contributions, and confirming that methods match the stated protocols.
Institutional policies and federal definitions vary, so consult your institution's research integrity office before making formal allegations.

What Is Research Misconduct

Research misconduct refers to serious ethical violations in the scientific process. The most widely accepted definition comes from the U.S. federal government, which identifies three core categories: fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. These three actions are often abbreviated as FFP. Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them as if they were real. Falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data such that the research is not accurately represented. Plagiarism means taking another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

The federal definition also includes a third element. Misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. This distinction matters because research involves trial and error, and not every mistake counts as misconduct. A researcher who records a measurement incorrectly and later corrects it has not committed misconduct. A researcher who deliberately changes measurements to support a hypothesis has committed falsification.

Beyond FFP, researchers and institutions also recognize a broader category called questionable research practices, or QRPs. These practices are not always defined as misconduct under federal regulations, but they violate the norms of scientific practice. Examples include selective reporting of favorable results, p-hacking, failing to share data, and claiming authorship without a substantial contribution. QRPs can be just as damaging to the scientific record as FFP, and many research integrity experts argue that they are more common.

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) provides core practices that journals and publishers follow to address misconduct. These practices cover authorship, peer review, data access, conflicts of interest, and handling of misconduct allegations. COPE's guidance is not a legal definition, but it represents the standards that many journals expect from researchers. You can review the COPE core practices at the Committee on Publication Ethics website.

At a Glance

The table below summarizes the main categories of research misconduct and the key features that distinguish them from honest error.

Category	Definition	Example	Distinguishing Feature
Fabrication	Making up data or results and recording or reporting them	Inventing a set of patient blood pressure readings that were never collected	The data have no underlying source
Falsification	Manipulating, changing, or omitting data to misrepresent the research	Deleting outlier measurements to make a drug appear more effective	The data exist but are altered
Plagiarism	Using another person's work without credit	Copying a methods section from a published paper without citation	The work is not original to the author
Questionable research practices	Actions that violate ethical norms but do not meet the legal definition of FFP	Reporting only the subset of experiments that worked	The practice is ethically questionable but not always legally defined

Why Research Misconduct Matters

Research misconduct damages the scientific record, wastes public funds, and erodes public trust in science. When fabricated data enter the literature, other researchers may build experiments on false foundations. This can lead to wasted time, wasted money, and in some fields, direct harm to people or animals.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds a large portion of biomedical research in the United States. The NIH expects that researchers who receive federal funding will conduct their work with integrity. The NIH grants and funding pages describe the expectations for grant applicants and award recipients, including the requirement to follow institutional policies on research integrity. You can review the NIH grant policy context at the NIH Grants and Funding website.

Research misconduct also affects the careers of the people involved. A finding of misconduct can lead to retraction of published papers, loss of funding, termination of employment, and in some cases, debarment from receiving federal funds. The consequences are serious, which is why institutions have formal processes for investigating allegations.

The Federal Definition of Research Misconduct

The U.S. federal government defines research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. This definition applies to research funded by federal agencies such as the NIH and the National Science Foundation.

The federal definition has three components. First, the action must be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community. Second, the action must have been committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. Third, the allegation must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that the evidence shows that it is more likely than not that the misconduct occurred.

The federal definition explicitly excludes honest error and differences of opinion. This is a critical distinction. A researcher who makes a genuine mistake in data entry is not guilty of misconduct. A researcher who intentionally enters false data is guilty of misconduct. The difference is the intent and the departure from accepted practice.

Institutions that receive federal funding must have policies and procedures for responding to allegations of research misconduct. These policies typically include steps for inquiry, investigation, and adjudication. The inquiry phase determines whether the allegation has enough substance to warrant a formal investigation. The investigation phase gathers evidence and makes a finding. The adjudication phase determines the consequences.

Fabrication

Fabrication is the making up of data or results and recording or reporting them. This is the most straightforward form of research misconduct. A researcher who fabricates data invents numbers, images, or observations that never existed.

Fabrication can occur at any stage of the research process. A researcher might fabricate an entire dataset for a paper. A researcher might fabricate a single image in a figure. A researcher might fabricate the results of a statistical analysis that was never run.

Fabrication is often detected when other researchers try to reproduce the results and cannot. It is also detected when reviewers or editors notice inconsistencies in the data. For example, a fabricated dataset might have a standard deviation that is too small, or a fabricated image might have repeated patterns that indicate copying.

The NIH data management and sharing policy requires researchers to plan for the management and sharing of data generated by NIH-funded research. This policy is designed to make data available for verification and reuse. When data are shared, it becomes easier to detect fabrication because other researchers can examine the raw data. You can review the NIH data management and sharing expectations at the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy website.

Falsification

Falsification is the manipulation of research materials, equipment, or processes, or the changing or omission of data. Falsification is different from fabrication because the data exist, but they have been altered or misrepresented.

Falsification can take many forms. A researcher might delete data points that do not fit the hypothesis. A researcher might change the units of a measurement to make a result appear larger. A researcher might adjust the time stamps on a recording to make an experiment appear to have been conducted differently. A researcher might omit a control group from the analysis to make the treatment effect appear stronger.

Falsification is often more difficult to detect than fabrication because the data are real. The researcher has not invented data, but the researcher has misrepresented the data. Detection often requires a careful comparison of the raw data with the reported results.

The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines for health research. These guidelines are designed to improve the transparency and completeness of research reporting. When researchers follow reporting guidelines, they are more likely to report all of their data and methods, which makes it harder to falsify results. You can find reporting guidelines at the EQUATOR Network website.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the use of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism can occur in the text of a paper, in the methods section, in the introduction, or in the discussion. Plagiarism can also occur in the use of data or images.

Plagiarism is a form of research misconduct because it misrepresents the origin of the work. A researcher who plagiarizes takes credit for work that is not their own. This is a violation of the trust that is the foundation of scientific communication.

Plagiarism is often detected by text-matching software, which compares a manuscript against a database of published work. It is also detected by reviewers who recognize the source material.

The COPE core practices address plagiarism as a form of misconduct. Journals that follow COPE practices will investigate allegations of plagiarism and may retract a paper if plagiarism is found. The COPE practices also address authorship, which is related to plagiarism because authorship misattribution can be a form of misrepresentation. You can review the COPE core practices at the Committee on Publication Ethics website.

Questionable Research Practices

Questionable research practices, or QRPs, are behaviors that violate the norms of scientific conduct but do not meet the legal definition of research misconduct. QRPs are sometimes called "sloppy science" or "research on the margins."

Common QRPs include:

Failing to report all the experiments that were conducted
Selecting only the data that support the hypothesis
Adding or removing authors without justification
Failing to disclose a conflict of interest
Using a statistical analysis that is not appropriate for the data
Failing to share data or materials with other researchers

QRPs are problematic because they can produce the same effect as misconduct. A researcher who selectively reports only favorable results is misrepresenting the evidence, even if they are not fabricating or falsifying data. This can lead to a biased literature and wasted research effort.

QRPs are also more common than FFP. Some surveys suggest that a large proportion of researchers have engaged in at least one QRP. This is a concern because QRPs can be a gateway to more serious misconduct. A researcher who starts by selectively reporting results may eventually cross the line into falsification.

The NIH data management and sharing policy is designed to reduce QRPs by making data more transparent. When data are shared, other researchers can check the analysis and identify selective reporting. The NIH policy requires researchers to include a data management and sharing plan in their grant applications. You can review the NIH policy at the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy website.

Authorship and Publication Ethics

Authorship is a common area of research misconduct. Authorship disputes can involve adding authors who did not contribute, excluding authors who did contribute, or listing authors in an order that does not reflect their contribution.

The COPE core practices address authorship. COPE expects that all authors will have made a significant contribution to the work and that all authors will be listed. COPE also expects that the corresponding author will take responsibility for the manuscript and will ensure that all authors have approved the final version.

Authorship disputes are often a sign of a deeper problem. A researcher who adds a senior author to a paper without their knowledge is misrepresenting the work. A researcher who excludes a junior researcher who did the work is also misrepresenting the work. Both are forms of misconduct.

The ORCID system provides a way for researchers to maintain a record of their work. ORCID is a unique identifier that is linked to a researcher's publications and other research outputs. ORCID can help to prevent authorship disputes by providing a clear record of who did what. You can learn more about ORCID for researchers at the ORCID website.

How to Recognize Research Misconduct

Recognizing research misconduct requires a combination of vigilance and knowledge. The following steps can help you identify potential misconduct in your own work or in the work of others.

Step 1: Check the Data

The first step is to check the data. Look for inconsistencies between the raw data and the reported results. If the raw data does not support the reported results, there may be a problem.

Compare the number of subjects or samples in the raw data with the number reported in the paper.
Check the units of measurement in the raw data against the units in the paper.
Look for data points that are missing or that have been changed.

Step 2: Check the Methods

The second step is to check the methods. The methods section should describe what was done in enough detail that another researcher could reproduce the work. If the methods are vague or incomplete, there may be a problem.

Check that the methods describe all the experiments that were conducted.
Check that the methods describe the statistical analysis that was used.
Check that the methods describe the controls that were used.

Step 3: Check the Authorship

The third step is to check the authorship. All authors should have made a substantial contribution to the research. If an author did not contribute, there may be a problem.

Check that all authors have approved the manuscript.
Check that the order of authors reflects their contribution.
Check that no authors have been added or removed without justification.

Step 4: Check the Reporting

The fourth step is to check the reporting. The research should be reported in a transparent and complete manner. If the reporting is incomplete or misleading, there may be a problem.

Check that the results are reported for all the experiments that were conducted.
Check that the results are reported in a way that is not misleading.
Check that the limitations of the study are acknowledged.

Common Failure Patterns

Researchers who commit misconduct often follow a pattern. Recognizing these patterns can help you identify misconduct early.

Pattern 1: The Data Is Too Clean

A common pattern is data that is too clean. Real data is messy. There are outliers, missing values, and unexpected results. If the data is perfectly consistent, there may be a problem.

Pattern 2: The Results Are Too Good

A second pattern is results that are too good. Real results often have a modest effect size. If the results show a very large effect with a very small sample, there may be a problem.

Pattern 3: The Methods Are Vague

A third pattern is methods that are vague. A researcher who is fabricating data may not want to describe the methods in detail because the methods would reveal the fabrication.

Pattern 4: The Authorship Is Unusual

A fourth pattern is unusual authorship. A researcher who is adding a guest author may not have a clear record of the author's contribution.

Pattern 5: The Researcher Is Under Pressure

A fifth pattern is a researcher who is under pressure. Researchers who are under pressure to produce results may be more likely to cut corners.

Records and Measurements

Keeping accurate records is the best way to prevent research misconduct. The following records should be maintained for every research project:

Raw data files
Analysis code
Laboratory notebooks
Consent forms
Ethics approval documents
Data management and sharing plans

The NIH data management and sharing policy requires researchers to include a data management and sharing plan in their grant applications. The plan should describe how the data will be managed and shared. The plan should also describe how the data will be preserved. You can review the NIH policy at the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy website.

Welfare and Safety Context

Research misconduct can have serious consequences for the welfare of research subjects. When a researcher fabricates or falsifies data, the results may be used to make decisions about patient care, animal welfare, or public policy. This can lead to harm.

For example, a researcher who fabricates data on the safety of a drug may lead to the drug being approved for use. If the drug is not actually safe, patients may be harmed. A researcher who falsifies data on the effectiveness of a treatment may lead to a treatment being used when it is not effective.

Research misconduct also has a safety impact on the research community. When misconduct is detected, it can lead to a loss of trust in the research. This can make it harder for researchers to collaborate and can slow the progress of science.

Professional Escalation Criteria

If you suspect research misconduct, you should report it to the appropriate authority. The following steps can help you escalate a concern.

Step 1: Document the Concern

First, document the concern. Write down what you have observed and why you believe it may be misconduct. Include specific examples and any evidence you have.

Step 2: Report to the Institution

Second, report the concern to the institution. Most institutions have a research integrity officer or a research compliance office. You can report the concern to this office.

Step 3: Report to the Funder

Third, report the concern to the funder. If the research is funded by the NIH, you can report the concern to the NIH Office of Research Integrity.

Step 4: Report to the Journal

Fourth, report the concern to the journal. If the research has been published, you can report the concern to the journal editor.

Step 5: Report to the Professional Body

Fifth, report the concern to the professional body. If the researcher is a member of a professional body, you can report the concern to that body.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between fabrication and falsification?

Fabrication is making up data that never existed. Falsification is changing or deleting data that did exist. Both are forms of research misconduct, but they involve different actions.

Is honest error considered research misconduct?

No. The federal definition of research misconduct excludes honest error. A researcher who makes a mistake is not guilty of misconduct. The mistake must be intentional, or reckless, to be considered misconduct.

What are questionable research practices?

Questionable research practices are behaviors that violate the norms of research ethics but do not meet the legal definition of research misconduct. Examples include selective reporting, p-hacking, and adding a guest author.

How can I report research misconduct?

You can report research misconduct to the institution where the research was conducted, to the funder, to the journal, or to a professional body. The institution is usually the first place to report.

What are the consequences of research misconduct?

The consequences of research misconduct can include retraction of published papers, loss of funding, termination of employment, and debarment from receiving federal grants.

How can I prevent research misconduct in my own work?

You can prevent research misconduct by keeping accurate records, following reporting guidelines, and being transparent about your methods and data. You can also use the NIH data management and sharing policy to plan for data sharing.

What is the role of the Committee on Publication Ethics?

The Committee on Publication Ethics provides core practices for journals and publishers. These practices address authorship, peer review, data integrity, conflicts of interest, and misconduct. Journals that follow COPE practices have a process for handling misconduct allegations.

What is the role of ORCID in research integrity?

ORCID provides a unique identifier for researchers. This identifier is linked to a researcher's publications and other research outputs. ORCID helps with attribution and can reduce authorship disputes.

Using the Evidence

Source	Best use in this topic	Important limitation
Research Methods Resources	official guidance	Check the linked page for current local requirements
EQUATOR Network	official guidance	Check the linked page for current local requirements
Core Practices	official guidance	Check the linked page for current local requirements

References and Further Reading

Research Methods Resources. National Library of Medicine.
EQUATOR Network. EQUATOR Network.
Core Practices. Committee on Publication Ethics.
NIH Grants and Funding. National Institutes of Health.
ORCID for Researchers. ORCID.
Data Management and Sharing Policy. National Institutes of Health.
NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
PubMed. National Library of Medicine.

This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.