What happens after a research misconduct allegation

Four stages, and where each one can stop

An allegation of research misconduct involving federally supported research runs through a sequence the rule sets out in order: assessment, inquiry, investigation, and then oversight review by the federal office. Each stage has a different question in front of it, and each can end the matter.

The assessment asks whether an allegation warrants an inquiry at all. The inquiry asks whether an allegation warrants an investigation. The investigation asks whether misconduct occurred. The federal review that follows asks whether the institution's handling of all three was adequate, and whether the federal office will make findings of its own.

The work is done by the institution, not by the federal office, at every stage before the last. The rule says both parties share responsibility for the integrity of the research process: the department has ultimate oversight authority and the right to assess allegations and perform inquiries or investigations at any time, while institutions and their members have an affirmative duty to protect federal funds from misuse and primary responsibility for responding to and reporting allegations.

To participate at all, an institution must have written policies and procedures for addressing allegations. Those policies must be consistent with every institutional requirement in the rule, must include and be consistent with the rule's definitions, and must provide for all reasonable and practical efforts, if requested and as appropriate, to protect or restore the reputation of people alleged to have engaged in misconduct but against whom no finding is made.

The first move is taking custody of the records

Before an interview, before a committee, the rule requires sequestration. An institution must promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain all research records and other evidence needed for the proceeding, inventory them, and sequester them in a secure manner.

The timing is deliberate. Whenever possible the institution must obtain the records before or at the time it notifies the respondent of the allegation, and again whenever additional items become known or relevant. Where the evidence sits on scientific instruments shared by multiple users, the institution may take copies instead of the instruments, so long as the copies are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value.

The respondent is not cut off from the material. Where appropriate, the institution must give the respondent copies of, or reasonable supervised access to, the sequestered records.

Certain circumstances have to be escalated immediately rather than handled internally. The institution must notify the federal office at once if it has reason to believe that public health or safety is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects; that federal resources or interests are threatened; that research activities should be suspended; that there is reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law; that federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved; or that steps may be needed to safeguard evidence and protect rights.

The inquiry: ninety days, and it cannot find misconduct

An inquiry is warranted if three criteria are met: the allegation falls within the rule's definition of research misconduct, it is within the rule's applicability criteria, and it is sufficiently credible and specific that potential evidence may be identified. Those are the same three questions the assessment asked, which is why an assessment that answers yes moves straight into an inquiry.

An inquiry's purpose is an initial review of the evidence to decide whether an investigation is warranted. The rule states that it does not require a full review of the evidence. It may be run by a committee of experts, or by the institution's research integrity officer or another designated official, who may use subject matter experts for assistance.

One limit on the inquiry is stated in the rule's own text, and it is the most important thing to know about this stage: findings of research misconduct, including the determination of whether the alleged misconduct was intentional, knowing or reckless, cannot be made at the inquiry stage.

The inquiry must be completed within 90 days of its initiation unless circumstances warrant longer, and if it takes longer the report must document why. If there is potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion, the inquiry report must say so. The respondent must be given an opportunity to review and comment on the report, and any comments received are attached to it.

If the inquiry concludes an investigation is warranted, the institution has 30 days to send the federal office the inquiry report, which must carry a defined list of contents: the names and positions of respondent and complainant, a description of the allegations, the federal support involved, the composition of any inquiry committee, an inventory of the sequestered records and a description of how sequestration was conducted, transcripts of any transcribed interviews, a timeline and procedural history, any scientific or forensic analyses, the basis for recommending an investigation, the basis on which any allegations do not merit one, the comments of respondent or complainant, and any institutional actions already taken, including communications with journals or funding agencies.

The investigation: one hundred and eighty days, recorded interviews, a defined report

An investigation must begin within 30 days of the decision that one is warranted, and the institution must notify the respondent in writing of the allegations before it begins.

The conduct requirements are specific. The institution must use diligent efforts to ensure the investigation is thorough and sufficiently documented, including examination of all research records and other evidence relevant to the merits. It must take reasonable steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased investigation, including participation of people with appropriate scientific expertise who do not have unresolved personal, professional or financial conflicts of interest. It must pursue diligently all significant issues and leads discovered, including evidence of additional possible misconduct.

Interviews are not informal. The institution must interview each respondent, each complainant, and any other person reasonably identified as having relevant information, including witnesses the respondent identifies. Interviews must be recorded and transcribed. Exhibits shown during an interview must be numbered and referred to by number. The transcript must be made available to the interviewee for correction, and the corrected transcript with numbered exhibits goes into the institutional record. The respondent is not present during witness interviews but must be provided a transcript.

The whole investigation — conducting it, drafting the report for each respondent, giving each respondent the draft for comment, and transmitting the record and the deciding official's decision to the federal office — must be completed within 180 days of beginning. An extension has to be requested in writing from the federal office with the circumstances that warrant it, and the office may require periodic progress reports.

The report has a required contents list, and one part of it is worth reading closely. If the investigation committee recommends a finding, the report must identify who committed the misconduct, state whether it was falsification, fabrication or plagiarism, state whether it was committed intentionally, knowingly or recklessly, state whether the other requirements for a finding have been met, summarise the facts and analysis supporting the conclusion while considering the merits of any explanation by the respondent, identify the specific federal support, and identify whether any publications need correction or retraction. If the committee does not recommend a finding, the report must give a detailed rationale.

What the federal office can do, and what becomes public

After the institution's deciding official makes a final determination, the institutional record goes to the federal office. That office may close the case without a separate finding of its own, make findings and propose administrative actions, or seek to settle. The absence of a federal finding does not overturn an institution's own determination that the conduct warranted remediation under institutional policy.

Where the office makes a finding, it notifies the respondent in a charge letter setting out the findings and their basis, telling the respondent how to access the record, and explaining the opportunity to contest. Unless the respondent contests within 30 days, the findings and actions become final. A respondent who does contest files a notice of appeal with an administrative law judge, who rules on whether the findings and proposed actions are reasonable and not based on a material error of law or fact.

The administrative actions available are remedial rather than punitive by the rule's own statement, and are meant to be commensurate with the seriousness of the misconduct. The list includes clarification, correction or retraction of the research record; letters of reprimand; special certification or assurance requirements; suspension or termination of an award; restrictions on specific activities or expenditures; special review of the respondent's funding requests; supervision requirements; certification of attribution or authenticity in future requests and reports; and prohibition on serving in any advisory capacity. The department may also seek to recover funds spent supporting the affected activities.

Eight factors are weighed in choosing among them, and none is decisive on its own: whether the conduct was knowing, intentional or reckless; whether it was isolated or part of a pattern; its impact on the research record, subjects, other researchers, institutions or public health; acceptance of responsibility; failure to accept responsibility; retaliation against complainants, witnesses or committee members; continued risk to funding; and any other relevant factors.

Some of this reaches the public. Settlement agreements are publicly available regardless of whether a finding was made, and a settlement precludes the respondent from contesting the findings, the actions or the office's jurisdiction. Where a final action results in a settlement or a finding, the office may notify the respondent, the institution, the complainant and department officials; may send a notice to the relevant journal, publisher or data repository identifying publications or records that require correction or retraction; may publish notice of the findings; and may notify the respondent's current employer where that employer is itself covered by the rule. The institution, meanwhile, must keep the institutional record and all sequestered evidence securely for seven years after the proceeding ends.

Sources

Each document below is named as it names itself, with the date printed on that document rather than the day it was read.

1. 42 CFR 93.305 — General conduct of research misconduct proceedings, read in full for the sequestration duty, its timing relative to notifying the respondent, the shared-instrument copying allowance, respondent access to sequestered records, and the six special circumstances requiring immediate notice to the federal office — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, National Archives and Records Administration, September 2026
2. 42 CFR 93.306 and 93.307 — Institutional assessment and institutional inquiry, read in full for the three criteria warranting an inquiry, the statement that an inquiry does not require a full review of the evidence, the bar on making findings at the inquiry stage, the 90-day limit, and the duty to note potential honest error — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, National Archives and Records Administration, September 2026
3. 42 CFR 93.309 — Reporting to the federal office on the decision to initiate an investigation, read for the 30-day limit and the twelve required contents of the inquiry report — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, National Archives and Records Administration, September 2026
4. 42 CFR 93.310, 93.311, 93.312 and 93.313 — Institutional investigation, its 180-day limit and extension procedure, the 30-day comment period on the draft report, the recorded-and-transcribed interview requirements, and the required contents of the final investigation report including the seven items a recommended finding must state — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, National Archives and Records Administration, September 2026
5. 42 CFR 93.404 through 93.411 — federal findings and administrative actions, read in full for the charge letter, the 30-day window before findings become final, the list of available administrative actions, the eight mitigating and aggravating factors, the public availability of settlement agreements, and the notices that may follow a finding — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, National Archives and Records Administration, September 2026
6. 42 CFR 93.318 — Retention and custody of the institutional record and all sequestered evidence, read for the seven-year retention period and the provision for federal custody on request — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, National Archives and Records Administration, September 2026