Description of most recent observed incident-1st response
Note that there is a fine line between deliberately designing a bad experiment to try to discredit someone. I see this every month and falsification deliberately designing a bad experiment. Actually fits into the falsification category.
Colleague didn't include a significant contributor to a research project as a coauthor on the publication.
Colleague omitted data points that nullified hypothesis.
Colleague download files from junior faculty grant into his to edit and modify
I had a post doc who tried to make the data fit the hypothesis - fabricated evidence, falsified data.
Research nurse lost consent of patient, then made a new one and signed it.
Colleague appropriately unpublished data from another lab without permission.
A graduate student was found to have plagiarized when writing an assignment for an ethics course.
Re-labeling data to correct suspected mistake in switching samples.
Use the same hypothesis and same procedures to get the same results.
Colleague reported more progress in progress report than had been accomplished.
A graduate student plagiarized part of an original proposition. This was not part of the graduate student's research. It was to meet an academic requirement. Strictly speaking, this was therefore not research misconduct, it was academic dishonesty.
Post doc in colleague's lab detected duplication in figures from two prior papers from the same lab. First author returned and it was determined that there was enough ambiguity that the PI contacted the journal to retract one of the two papers. This in
Student copied paragraphs from published work to write his/her thesis.
Fabrication of clinical pain response data.
Plagiarism of a long passage from a published article in a newly published article.
Data was incorrectly labeled and the same data was published more than once with different labels.
Colleague used another investigator's data in a grant application without permission or inclusion of that investigator on the grant.
My student fabricated data in a lab notebook. She also altered some information in the lab notebook.
Pedigrees in an (name) grant application were falsified. I read about this incident on the (name) website - (name), (name).
A post doc changed the numbers in essays in order to "improve" the data.
Colleague falsely accused student of destroying research results and properly to collect insurance.
Colleague misrepresented data in publications in order to support his/her hypothesis - also ignored conflicting results and reported only results that agreed with hypothesis.
Plagiarism on manuscript that was corrected before submission.
First year graduate student plagiarized answer to an exam question. *Note: that this was not in the context of research.
Student directly used previously published text (one paragraph) in discussion section of his own paper. This incident was caught and corrected in review state and not presented in final published form.
PhD candidate - plagiarism of phases from a published review in their dissertation.
Colleague apparently changed data inappropriately, a thorough and properly conducted investigation concluded that there was carelessness but no misconduct.
Interviewer fabricated data for assessments that she had not done.
Colleague dropped subjects from a study in order to obtain significant group differences; these data were published.
Colleague's technician was fabricating PCR bands used for genotyping patients.
Individual used another individual's data as his own.
Investigator/faculty member admitted to falsifying data submitted on grant application; fabricated results of clinical study.
Presenting same results at multiple conferences.
Colleague cheery - picked data to reach a significant difference in results.
Investigator falsified by performing only one experiment with an "n" of one and altered data to reflect desired result. Investigator was terminated.
Researcher reviewed research creativity wrongly according to guidelines for tenure and promotion because they did not want to promote another researcher's career over their own or over their collaborator's.
Student took scanned blot results from another lab, flipped them 180 degrees and used them as his/her own.
Was asked by my institution to chair a committee evaluating a researcher who was accused of misconduct. Did not observe it.
PhD student submitted two thesis chapters that I am 90% and certain were directly "outsourced."
Results reported in a manuscript provided by an investigation who was not credited with the data.
Two faculty members supported their master's student when he plagiarized significant portions of his thesis.
Plagiarism - clear case where senior internationally recognized scientist repeatedly wrote and spoke (at meetings) "novel" concepts which he did not cite the original authors giving him the concept. No action was taken by the university because he was h
Colleague admitted to doctoring figure. Colleague was investigated and sanctioned by institution and NIH.
Graduate student stole images from technician in another lab and manipulated to falsify number data in his thesis. He was found guilty of research misconduct at the institutional level but his degree was awarded anyway.
Post doc made up data, paper was retracted.
A faculty member lied about the severity of a patient's (my wife) condition to get them to join a clinical trial.
Lab technician was stealing subject fees and then fabricated data so the number of subjects would match the subject payments.
Research nurse falsified data on study report forms for a clinical trial.
Colleagues inappropriately tracked research participants and were not truthful with the institutional review board when activities were reported to the board.
Suspected fraud was identified for a post doctoral trainee in my lab by a co-worker.
Colleague plagiarized text from a funded grant proposal of which he was a co-I and misappropriated data and falsified a citation.
Falsely took credit for originating a new treatment which they did not.
Colleague fabricated construction of a plasmid that was supposedly used as a positive control in an experiment. The results were not published.
Colleague discarded data that was inconsistent with his hypothesis and published the result.
Post doctoral student fabricated data in order to hide the fact that the student made a sequence of mistakes during data collection.
Post doc fabricated data on a paper submitted and accepted - I withdrew the accepted paper.
Peers could not reproduce faculty members' data.
Post doc in neighboring lab falsifying flow cytometry data.
Graduate student plagiarized portions of his examinations from the Internet.
A graduate student copied a research proposal and represented it as his own work.
Fabrication: individual reported the generation of specific mutants that were non-existent.
Colleague forgot to inform co-author about a death that occurred for a manuscript in which mentality rates were calculated.
Colleague attempted to use illegal recruiting methods to obtain patients for a clinical research study in order to fulfill enrollment deadlines.
We cannot find data from an experiment from one of my post docs. Also, blots and PCR results are mislabeled.
A colleague failed to publish a retraction after the results in a major paper turned out to be false (due to an error in the mathematical genetics). This conduct does not fit directly under the heading of falsification, but it resembles that.
Research assistants falsified recruitment procedures & a recruitment database.
Lab technician fabricated data and encouraged others to do the same.
A co investigator on a large, interdisciplinary grant application reported that a postdoctoral fellow in this laboratory falsified data submitted as preliminary data in the grant. As PI of the grant, I submitted supplementary data to correct the applica
Postdoctoral fellow manipulated data to make a figure for a publication and did not use the original data from the lab. It was caught by the PI and corrected before the manuscript was submitted.
Very minor. An inexperienced foreign post doc plagiarized a section of a review article when writing the introduction to a meeting abstract. The copying was caught in the first version of the abstract and eliminated.
Colleague selected desired (or not representational) tissue sections from study of an RNA expression of cellular/membrane proteins.
One of my collaborators claims falsely (in writing) that he did all the work/research in a jointly authored and published paper. This is an incidence of plagiarism of joint intellectual property. For example, authorship order on a jointly authored jour
Resident plagiarized excerpts in writing of thesis. Excerpts were from published papers.
Graduate student extensively altered data to fit better with preconceived hypothesis. None of the falsified data were published or used in grant applications.
Proposal included material originally written in another investigator's proposal without attributing the work.
Young faculty "used" sections of a colleagues grant proposal in his own application.
Colleague omitted important controls and the results were interpreted to be significant. I had the experiments repeated several times with appropriate controls. The results showed no significant differences between experimental and control treatments.
Post doctoral fellow presented same data twice in a manuscript draft, as two separate figures, one being an enlargement of exactly the same two gel lames of the other full ten lane gel view. When confronted first, he told me they were two separate exper
This happened not in my department, but in my collaborator's lab in the same institution. I became skeptical about the results from the beginning and eventually re-do one of the experiments myself. The postdoc was the questioned and admitted to fabrica
Post doctoral fellow falsifies data and used data from another individuals as his.
One of my post doc results cannot be repeated by at least two other personnel in my lab. Fabrication is expected, the post doc has left, the results were never published. However, other possibilities cannot be completely ruled out.
Colleague used my research materials, and my post docs time, yet did not include me on the resulting publication and did not credit me anywhere in the publication, and claimed the (cr) were his in the publication.
Colleague included preliminary data in a grant that she did not collect and did so without permission of individual who did collect that data (who was at another institution). This was discovered when the grant was reviewed by the person who owned the d
Colleagues used ideas from a paper without citing it.
Data falsification by a postdoctoral fellow.
Colleague selected assay data that were not consistent with the majority of assays, in order to keep project afloat and secure internal funding.
Investigator removed animals from a study without valid reason.
Switched lanes on a gel to give cleaner result.
Colleague presented confusing analysis of "data" favoring colleague's interpretation with no supporting evidence.
Post doc accused of misleading data interpretation and selective use of controls and data points.
I have served on a misconduct panel for a colleague in another department. This individual admitted to falsifying data for a figure (cr) in grant applications.
Including favorable data, withholding unfavorable data.
Incompletely analyzed results reported as conclusions in an abstract to a major scientific meeting.
Student plagiarized in writing a take home exam.
Called to serve on committee investigating faculty member accused of using Photoshop to place control lanes on gel. Controls were not run. Apparently, these allegations were substantiated.
Grad student copied extensive portions of PI's RO1 into their pre doctoral fellowship application.
Plagiarism of parts of a grant application.
Colleague fabricated and published data.
Colleague removed my name as PI after I wrote almost entire grant that was funded. She changed herself to PI and NIH allowed this without contacting the original PI.
One person presented results which appeared too good to be true.
Used written material from a review and grant (directly word for word) without indicating the source(s) (student research paper). Student possibly was not aware that this was incorrect/illegal.
Colleague used other's data without informing.
Asked to discuss confidential document - I refused.
Research assistant entered values for a test without conducting the test.
A student (ms) came to me and reported that a paper in which he was first author on contained fabricated doctor but his advisor would not be stopped from publishing it.
Local author published same data in two different journals and submitted and accepted duplicate findings.
Colleague submitted results of another investigator in grant proposal.
Colleague changed data in notebook to fit hypothesis.
Colleague copied two paragraphs from an article for a grant NIH application. He did not cite or quote the copied work. I carefully reviewed the copied work to identify plagiarized sections.
Colleague generated misleading preliminary data for a grant application. The grant was funded.
One of the technicians in the division was fabricating the results of genotyping experiments.
A "top" graduate student falsified synthetic results and "made" NMR showing successful synthesis.
Graduate student altered electrophysiological recording records to suggest that there was a positive result, when in fact there was not.
A post doc fabricated data to indicate that a specific clone was behaving as "expected." The fraud was quickly revealed and the post doc was fired.
I was on a review committee for (name), now a nationally publicized misconduct case. Data were reversed on Excel spreadsheets.
Colleague attempted to publish another's work without giving proper citation. It was caught by the editor who contacted the original researcher.
Colleague omitted some low values in one group to make preliminary statistically significant for a grant application.
Plagiarism of a book chapter from a grant proposal.
Plagiarism - use of text from an article published previously.
Colleague completely fabricated the results and published the results and hypothesis in two well reported journals.
Post Doc altered data in notebook, this changed the interpretation of the experiments.
An assistant professor "lifted" a section of a grant application and inserted it into his own. The colleague from which the section was lifted had been a previous collaborator, but was also on the review committee. The application was removed from the
Fellow used someone else's words without crediting them. This error was pointed out to her by her mentor, and correction was made before final manuscript submitted.
A researcher well known to the academic world, (1) Modified report of results after given negative feedback. He manipulated amateurs and omitted data results.
Faculty member used graduate student's data (after she switched labs) in publication without giving appropriate credit (co-authorship).
Colleague claimed authorship on manuscript, ideas and words without giving appropriate credit.
Research assistant failed to conduct a test but recorded fabricated values.
Research fellow plagiarized for a review paper.
Post doc may have fabricated DNA sequencing results.
Colleague duplicated results between three different papers but differently labeled data in each paper.
Supposed total synthesis of complex drug from small molecules suspected to be based on a natural product precursor much closer to target molecule.
Student plagiarized extensively in a senior research paper.
A colleague in my department took my lecture notes for 10 lectures I used to give and handed these out as his own without notifying me. He was not lecturing on this subject matter that previously taught. He never asked permission to use these notes and
Colleague used "photo shop" to eliminate background bands on western blot to make the data look more specific than what they were.
Using same data in two publications. Was forced to retract one article.
Colleague ignored data relevant to publication.
Failure to report all data in a clinical study.
Colleague falsified missing research data.
Colleague published data that wasn't right.
A senior "colleague" falsely accused of appropriation of another person's ideas. Reported to university committee and exonerated at that time. Plaintiff is a troubled individual with no research achievements to speak of.
Colleague used data from another researcher and published it.
Using someone else's data and methods expertise in a grant submission.
Post doc falsified replicates in a published paper - i.e., used duplicates of one experiment and reported it as a separate experiment.
Faculty member presented data generated by graduate student of another faculty member as his/her own hypothesis at a conference and in discussion with companies for patent.
Plagiarism - graduate student prelim exam.
Undergrad student falsified data and signed participants names to receipts for money. This was uncovered, the data destroyed and appropriate reporting to officials took place.
A colleagues graduate student falsified data in immunoblotting experiments and attempted to conceal the falsification by destroying her research notebooks.
I wrote a proposal, submitted it and then the chair of my department was able to take this from me when it was funded with permission. He sought from one of the university vice presidents who wrote a letter for him. At the time I was new faculty so I d
Extensive plagiarism by a foreign post-doc when submitting a draft of a manuscript to me.
Graduate student plagiarism (multiple students provided the same answer "word for word" on a test.)
Faculty member listed himself as first rather than an abstract that was entirely the work of a trainee.
PI experimented with new equipment on subordinate in his lab doing two invasive procedures without consent and then forged his lab assistant's signature on consent form four weeks later.
Plagiarism in a grant application. Entire sections of a recent review article were used in a background and significance section. The grant was not submitted.
Colleague used specimens without IRB approval.
Failed to retract paper with data proven to be artifact.
1) Colleague falsely reported work as conducted in progress report to foundation (that wasn't actually done). 2) Same colleague instructed RA to use inaccurate rate ID's to appear that they had received training.
Colleague got consent signed after the procedure.
Investigator proposed in NIH grant application work that he never intended to do. "Once we get the money, a substantial portion can be used to support pilot work for a later grant application."
Colleague spent a great deal of effort gathering data, which he later realized should have been done differently to be meaningful. Submitted data for publication without discussion their questionable value.
Statements were included in a proposal that had not been done.
A professor started to do research in a given area only after seeing the ideas of a junior investigator.
Person took a proposal authored by another person and submitted it as his/her own.
Colleague duplicated a figure within a paper and also in a separate paper.
Graduate student plagiarized his mentor's NIH proposal for the student's candidacy proposal.
A post-doctoral fellow plagiarized sections of other researcher's work and used them in his own grant application.
Colleague apparently destroyed records on computer hard drive. His results could never be repeated.
Colleague manipulated instrument to get data as desired.
Colleague knew knockout mice were on a mixed background and used the results that fit the hypothesis.
Plagiarism in writing a manuscript, using paragraphs from another published paper.
Colleagues published results of analyses using a methodology proposed by me, without my knowledge and without crediting me or providing coauthorship.
Graduate students plagiarized on coursework.
Researcher omitted data contrary to hypothesis and published.
Ignoring refs that challenged results and conclusions.
Conflict of interest between investigator's business and research enterprise.
Student changed voting values on flow analyses to fit the hypothesis. Also fabricated # of times done.
Recycling of funded grants through multiple agencies.
I analyzed a data set and (CR) the resulting manuscripts. A prior meeting had established who would do each paper and have first authorship. After the paper was finished and sent to co-authors for review, one demanded to be listed as first author.
I am a member of the faculty conduct committee. During the past three years we have seen numerous cases of plagiarism and little else. Incident #1 verbatim copying of published work without attribution (extensive text copying).
Lie on grant application - include investigators without their permission - PI #1.
Researcher used powerpoint software to insert bands into a gel blot test for publication.

Description of most recent observed incident-2nd response
Threats, verbal and written, were made to a junior researcher, by a senior researcher, concerning their research ability and how they would be evaluated for tenure if they did not respond to his requests.
The lab head wanted to manufacture (cut & paste) get data to put in a grant.
Plagiarism: senior investigator removed from authorship a key contributor of data for a manuscript that was published.
Incompletely analyzed results presented & accepted in a peer reviewed publication.
Implanted surgical materials and inflammatory responses misrepresented in reporting animal study outcomes.
Student plagiarized in a research paper that was part of a course requirement.
Another professor in a different department used several of my lecture slides from a course I give to use for his grand rounds presentation - he made no prior contact with me to ask permission nor did he acknowledge they were mine.
Colleague breached confidentiality of peer review process and gave to (cr) a privileged communication to a competitor of the author.
Same person falsifying data to match hypothesis.
Grad student mixed up strain and did not rectify.
Colleague reported data not present - specifically - stated control data had been accumulated but that was not the case.
Reporting only post (cr) analysis when original hypotheses was not confirmed in prospective study.
Colleague reported research results without patient knowledge of being in a research study.
Colleagues worked with different substance than reported.
A colleague who mistakenly (I think and believe) "pasted" in a control gapdh western blot for two separate sds gel figures. Mistake/error picked up on review of journal. Corrected.
Colleague used ideas from another researcher and used them in a grant proposal.
Using some data/figures in a meeting poster without listing the appropriate sources as authors.
Post doc may have fabricated data published in a paper.
Thesis committee member from another institution used unpublished data from a graduate student at my institution to obtain federal funding for a similar study design.
Plagiarism - graduate student prelim exam.
Staff member fabricated data. When discovered, data was destroyed and appropriate reporting occurred.
My own student extensively plagiarized the text of another student's dissertation when preparing a manuscript for publication.
A study participant died while involved in another faculty member's study. I was asked to review the entire study. I found several AE/SAE/s that (cr), in my new clearly related to the study (which utilized large doses of methane) but more reported by B
Same as #1, same post-doc. (#1 - Extensive plagiarism by a foreign post-doc when submitting a draft of a manuscript to me.)
Junior faculty member fabricated data in manuscript submitted to journal. Reviewer knew that the university did not have apparatus, but data was generated for figure in manuscript.
A post hoc protocol revision that significantly changed the results.
PI made "overly optimistic" interpretation of data and on final paper, only presented subset analyses that showed difference but made it look like overall study (cr).
Mislabeling of experimental samples. The same identical images were used to represent two different conditions. This was caught before publication.
Colleague used specimens without knowledge of PI.
Same colleague had nurse "fix" the records so that consents looked appropriate.
A senior investigator has well known consultant actually draft section on sample size determination for NOH grant application, but the application that went in proposed a smaller feasible sample size in spite of implied reliance on the power analysis des
After submitting a research proposal and receiving approval for funding, a colleague's own research results undermined the legitimacy of the proposal, but the results were not reported to the granting agency for fear of losing funding.
A senior scientist applied for a grant with another investigator. The funding was awarded, the other investigators component was praised in the review, but the senior scientist never gave funds to the investigator.
PI submitted (and received) supplement on multi-investigator grant without contacting collaborates and then spent all money on his/her project - never told co-investigators that he/she received funds.
Colleague substituted a response curve obtained from a control experiment to the real experiment to prove the effect of a ligand.
Postdoctoral fellow plagiarized from literature while writing a manuscript.
An associate Professor excerpted sections from other researchers' grants and research protocols and used them in her own grant application.
Colleague published two identical blots as separate experimental data.
Colleague manipulated data to make them consistent.
Colleague visited another institution, participated in a lab meeting where unpublished data was shared and then reproduced the findings and published it ahead of time. We believe that no animal protocol was in place at the time.
Colleague received my assistance writing a grant proposal. Grant was awarded, research conducted, but I have not been named as coauthor or publications resulting from said research.
Same as above. (Above: Graduate students plagiarized on coursework.)
Researcher omitted data contrary to hypothesis and published.
Ignoring refs that challenged results and conclusions.
Doctoral student plagiarizing a peer's work.
Post doc mixed samples and failed to report mixing. Ignored other negative data.
Lie on grant application - proposed to do certain tasks, included supporting investigators but made no attempt to seek or include their participation. PI #2 (different PI from #1).
Researcher manipulated western blot data - shrank a portion (several bands) to artificially line up with desired results.

Description of most recent observed incident-3rd response
Patent and inventorship disputes brining in aspects of plagiarism. But not strictly within definition of misconduct, as above.
Taking ideas and text from someone else's grant proposal.
Same colleague was involved in release of confidential information to parties when the study patient had not consented.
Often observed: Large NIH research project fails to produce statistically significant treatment effect using the primary analysis proposed in the protocol. Solution: Try another analysis, or interpret non-significant result as demonstrating equivalence
Ignoring refs that challenged results and conclusions.
Doctoral student plagiarizing the literature.
Missed controls put, did them later, wrote up as done at same time.
I withdrew as co-pi on a grant because of a job change. The data was subsequently published but with falsified results. I checked the analysis on my copy of the data file, contacted the PI (and first author) who had (cr) from the data set one-third of
Incident #3 - Fabrication of data. Intentional misinterpretation of data.
Lie on grant application; plagiarize other grant applications. PI #3 (different PI from #1 and #2). #4 - Graduate student changed the results in blots/graphs.
Post doctoral researcher knowingly submitted incorrect data that had been shown to be in error.