Skip to main content

Definitions

A.                            Definitions

i.                Scholarly Activities

Scholarly activities include a broad range of academic activities undertaken by faculty members (including temporary faculty members), students and trainees, fellows, professional and technical staff members, guest researchers, honorific appointees, and research collaborators. Scholarlyactivities may be unfunded, funded by the UMassD, or funded by an external agency or entity. Scholarly activities include but are not limited to:

  • Basic, applied, and demonstration research, including: laboratory research, fieldwork, observational studies, survey research, case studies, humanities scholarship, or artistic expression.
  • Presentations, performances, publication, or dissemination of results from research, scholarship, or creative work.
  • The process of applying for funds to support research, scholarship, and creative activities. Preparation of funding proposals, grant applications, and related materials
  • The review of the scholarly or research efforts of others, including students. Peer review and editorial activities for journals, conferences, or student work.
  • Development of software, tools, protocols, or digital scholarship platforms.
  • Mentorship, supervision, and oversight of student or trainee scholarly projects
  • Programmatic or fiscal reporting on the use of sponsored program funds supporting research, scholarship, or creative activity.
  • Other academic or professional activities that generate, communicate, curate, or evaluate knowledge or creative work.
  1. Research Misconduct

In accordance with 42 CFR 93.103 and 93.234, research misconduct is limited to:

  • Fabrication– Making up data or results and recording or reporting them (in proposing, conducting, performing, reviewing, or reporting research).
  • Falsification– Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented;
  • Plagiarism– Appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. for proposing, conducting, performing, reviewing or reporting

Research Misconduct does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data. Research misconduct requires that the following three conditions must be all met:

  • There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
  • The misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
  • The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e. it is more likely than not to have occurred).

 

  1. Scholarly Misconduct

Scholarly misconduct involves all forms of research misconduct, as well as misrepresentation of the procedures and outcomes of research to gain some advantage. Misconduct may often be difficult to separate from error or poor judgment, from which it is distinguished by the intentions of the person(s) involved. Scholarly misconduct refers to unethical practices in the conduct, reporting, review, or funding of scholarly activities, including but not limited to federally defined research misconduct. It encompasses violations of university policies or academic standards, even when those actions fall outside the federal definition of research misconduct.

The following are examples of scholarly misconduct. Although there is no definitive and exhaustive list of examples, those outlined below may serve as guidelines in identifying scholarly misconduct.

  • Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented. Example:Selectively excluding data points that contradict a desired outcome.
  • Fabrication: Making up data or results and recording or reporting them as if they were real.
    Example:Inventing survey responses that were never collected.
  • Plagiarism: Appropriation of another person’s ideas, methods, data, or words without proper attribution. Self‑plagiarism and authorship disputes, while serious, do not meet the federal definition of research misconduct unless they involve intentional deception. Example:Copying paragraphs from a colleague’s manuscript into your own without quotation or citation.
  • Abuse of Confidentiality: Unauthorized use or disclosure of information obtained under an expectation of privacy or information given under the understanding of confidentiality, including taking ideas from documents to which access was given under rules of confidentiality, such as when reviewing grant proposals, invention disclosures, applications for scholarly prizes, or manuscripts submitted for publication. Example:Using unpublished grant proposal ideas for your own research before the PI’s work is public.
  • Regulatory Violations: Failing to adhere to federal, state, local, or University rules governing research. Example:Conducting human‐subject interviews without IRB approval or deviating from the approved protocol.
  • Misrepresentation in Publication: Publishing or distributing material intended to mislead readers about the origin, authenticity, or validity of data. Omitting or failing to acknowledge individuals who made significant contributions to research or manuscript preparation. Publishing or public circulation of material intended to mislead the reader, including misrepresenting data (particularly its origins) deleting the names of other authors without the latter’s consent. Example:Adding a co‑author who made no substantive contribution, or removing/omitting an author from publication.
  • Violation of Research‑Related Property: Theft, misuse, or destruction of another’s research property. Example:Destroying a collaborator’s lab notebooks to conceal errors.
  • Retaliation: Any adverse action against an individual who, in good faith, reports or participates in an investigation of misconduct. Any actof retaliation directed against any person who, in good faith, suspects reports, or is involved in the investigation of a misconduct allegationshall be treated as an additional allegation of misconduct and subject to the procedures in this document. Example:Denying promotion to a staff member because they filed a complaint.
  • Conflict of Interest: Failing to disclose a financial or personal interest that could bias—or appear to bias—the research. Example:Not reporting stock ownership in a company whose product you’re evaluating.
  • Duplicate or Redundant Publications: Republishing substantially the same data or results in multiple venues without appropriate cross‑reference. Example:Submitting identical clinical trial findings to two journals as separate studies.
  • Manipulation of Peer‑Review: Attempting to influence peer review improperly, such as suggesting fake reviewers or coercing favorable citations. Example:Providing reviewers’ contact information that routes back to the author so they can submit positive reviews.
  • Improper Data Management: Violations of research-related property rights, including the deliberate taking or destruction of the research-related property of others, such as data, research papers, notebooks, equipment, tangible research materials, or supplies. Failing to preserve, secure, or accurately document raw data in accordance with institutional or sponsor requirements. Example:Deleting original data files after publication rather than retaining them for the required retention period.
  • Financial or Grant Misconduct: Misusing sponsored project funds or fabricating budget justifications. Example:Charging personal travel expenses to a federal grant.
  • Unethical Mentoring or Supervision: Exploiting trainees or junior collaborators by withholding credit, data access, or authorship. Example:A supervisor claims sole authorship on work primarily conducted by a graduate student without acknowledgment.