What Is Research Misconduct? New Definitions, Cases, and How to Prevent It in 2025

What Is Research Misconduct?

According to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), research misconduct is strictly defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research. Honest mistakes or differences in opinion do not qualify as misconduct.

• Fabrication: inventing data or results and reporting them as real.
• Falsification: manipulating equipment, data, or processes to misrepresent findings.
• Plagiarism: presenting another person’s ideas, words, results, or processes without proper credit.
  

Why We Must Take It Seriously

The scientific method remains our most reliable way to understand the world. When researchers commit misconduct, it erodes trust, wastes valuable resources, and undermines public confidence in science. The effects ripple through funding, policy, and even everyday decisions.

Notable Recent Cases

• In May 2025, Harvard University revoked tenure and terminated Francesca Gino, a decorated business school professor, after a long investigation concluded she falsified data in multiple ethics studies, including a 2012 piece that had influenced behavior‑change policies. This was Harvard’s first such dismissal of tenured faculty in nearly 80 years. 
• Meanwhile, Norwegian researcher Filippo Berto faced institutional findings in May 2025 for reusing his own work without citation, duplicative publication, and unethical authorship practices—an example of self‑plagiarism and authorship misconduct from outside the traditional FFP framework. 
• In China, the National Natural Science Foundation (NSFC) sanctioned 25 researchers in a recent wave for involvement in paper mills and plagiarism, highlighting that institutional responses to misconduct remain global and growing.
  
  

An Evolving Framework: The ORI Final Rule

On January 1, 2025, the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) implemented its long-awaited Final Rule revising the Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct—marking the first major overhaul since 2005. The updated rule aims to address ambiguities, close procedural gaps, and increase institutional flexibility when handling cases of research misconduct.

Key Enhancements Include:

• Clearer Definitions for Key Terms:
  The Final Rule clarifies the legal and operational definitions of terms like recklessness, honest error, and self-plagiarism. While fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) remain the core elements of misconduct, self-plagiarism and authorship disputes are now explicitly excluded from the federal definition of misconduct—though they may still be subject to institutional policies or publishing standards 
• Flexibility in Expanding Investigations:
  Institutions can now add new respondents or allegations to an ongoing investigation without restarting the process—resolving a major procedural pain point from the older rule. This change improves the efficiency of investigations, especially when patterns of misconduct surface during initial inquiries.
  
• Support for Modern Research Structures:
  The rule introduces streamlined procedures for handling data confidentiality, record sequestration, and international collaborations, including scenarios where a single institution leads a cross-border investigation. This is especially relevant in large grant-funded or multi-institutional studies, where overlapping policies previously created friction.
  
• Implementation Timeline:

Institutions are required to fully comply with the new rule by January 1, 2026. However, they may adopt components of the rule earlier, provided respondents formally agree in writing. This gradual rollout ensures systems can adapt without jeopardizing procedural fairness.

Broader Challenges in Handling Misconduct

Despite clearer rules, institutions continue to face complex challenges in applying them. A recent Nature survey (2025) of institutional research integrity officers and independent watchdogs (commonly called "sleuths") reveals a persistent disconnect in how each group views misconduct oversight.

• Watchdog Concerns:
  Independent investigators often find institutions slow to respond, protective of reputations, and overly legalistic. Some sleuths also report difficulty getting universities or journals to acknowledge credible concerns, even when backed by data analysis or image forensics.
  
• Institutional Defense:
  On the flip side, research integrity officers say they are constrained by policy timelines, resource limits, and legal risks. Many emphasize that not all reports rise to the level of misconduct and warn against turning misconduct inquiries into “crowdsourced trials.”
  
• Emerging Detection Tools:
  The rapid growth of retraction databases (like Retraction Watch) and AI-driven tools (e.g., image duplication detectors, plagiarism analysis platforms) is reshaping how early signs of misconduct are flagged. Yet, these tools remain controversial, as false positives or lack of contextual understanding can damage reputations if misused. 

The challenge lies in creating systems that are both rigorous and fair, balancing transparency and due process without undermining the careers of honest researchers caught in procedural tangles.

‍

How to Prevent Research Misconduct

Preventing misconduct is not just about catching bad actors—it’s about building a culture of integrity that eliminates the temptation or perceived necessity to cheat in the first place. The ORI Final Rule encourages institutions to build prevention mechanisms alongside responsive ones.

Here’s what that looks like in practice:

• Robust Training and Leadership
  Institutions should ensure that every stakeholder—from graduate students to PIs—receives training in responsible conduct of research (RCR). This includes understanding data management, ethical authorship, peer review responsibilities, and conflicts of interest. Leadership must also model ethical behavior and establish accountability.
  
• Transparent, Enforced Policies
  Clearly written and accessible policies on authorship, data ownership, plagiarism, and reporting misconduct reduce ambiguity and create institutional trust. Regular reviews and visible enforcement help reinforce expectations.
  
• Modern Oversight Infrastructure
  Institutions need systems that allow for confidential, timely, and impartial reporting and review of suspected misconduct. Leveraging electronic research administration (eRA) tools can automate compliance checks, track training records, and ensure proper protocol documentation.
  

Ultimately, a proactive strategy—rooted in clarity, education, and infrastructure—is far more effective (and less costly) than reactive damage control.

‍

How Kuali Research Supports Integrity

Kuali Research offers a modern, cloud-based suite that helps institutions manage proposals, track compliance training, disclose conflicts of interest, and manage protocol and export control workflows—all in a unified platform. With modules like Conflict Management, Protocols, and integrated compliance dashboards, Kuali Research enables institutions to uphold best practices and reduce the risks that lead to misconduct. Learn more about how Kuali Research strengthens research integrity and operational compliance.