$FL2@(#) SPSS DATA FILE MS Windows Release 12.0 spssio32.dll Y@17 Jun 0818:00:18 RESPONDE Respondent identification numberQN_1 2Are you employed in a degree granting institution. QN_2 0In your institution do most departments offer...QN_3 Do you work in a medical school?QN_4 &Is this institution public or private? QN_5 .How many full-time faculty in your department? REC_QN5 :Recoded number of full-time faculty (20 person categories) QN_15A [How long have you worked at your department (or equivalent unit) at your institution?-YEARS QN_15B ]How long have you workede at your department (or equivalent unit) at your institution?-MONTHS REC_QN155Recoded years in current department (10 yr intervals) QN_16 eWhich of the following best describes your rank or title at this institution as of September 1, 2005? REC_QN16#Recoded rank or title of respondent QN_16A_CrWhich of the following best describes your rank or title at this institution as of September 1, 2005?-1st response QN_16A_ArWhich of the following best describes your rank or title at this institution as of September 1, 2005?-2nd response QN_16A_BrWhich of the following best describes your rank or title at this institution as of September 1, 2005?-3rd response QN_17 9What proportion of your time do you spend doing research? QN_18 &What types of research do you conduct? QN_18A_C9What types of research do you conduct?-OTHER-1st response QN_18A_A9What types of research do you conduct?-OTHER-2nd response QN_18A_B9What types of research do you conduct?-OTHER-3rd response QN_19A ,What is the highest degree you hold-DoctoralQN_19B +What is the highest degree you hold-Medical QN_19C )What is the highest degree you hold-Other REC_QN19)Recoded highest degree held by respondent "@QN_19D_C6What is the highest degree you hold-OTHER-1st response QN_19D_A6What is the highest degree you hold-OTHER-2nd response QN_19D_B6What is the highest degree you hold-OTHER-3rd response QN_20 What is your age? QN_6 WIn past 3 years, how many times observed or had direct evidence of research misconduct? QN_7A 9Description of most recent observed incident-1st response                                QN_7B 9Description of most recent observed incident-2nd response                                QN_7C 9Description of most recent observed incident-3rd response                                QN_8AAA $Type of misconduct-Falsification-1stQN_8AAB "Type of misconduct-Fabrication-1st QN_8AAC !Type of misconduct-Plagiarism-1st QN_8ABA $Type of misconduct-Falsification-2ndQN_8ABB "Type of misconduct-Fabrication-2nd QN_8ABC !Type of misconduct-Plagiarism-2nd QN_8ACA $Type of misconduct-Falsification-3rdQN_8ACB "Type of misconduct-Fabrication-3rd QN_8ACC !Type of misconduct-Plagiarism-3rd QN_8BAA =Rank or title committing misconduct-SR research scientist-1st QN_8BAB @Rank or title committing misconduct-Assoc research scientist-1stQN_8BAC ?Rank or title committing misconduct-Asst research scientist-1st QN_8BAD 1Rank or title committing misconduct-Professor-1st QN_8BAE 7Rank or title committing misconduct-Assoc Professor-1st QN_8BAF 6Rank or title committing misconduct-Asst Professor-1st QN_8BAG 2Rank or title committing misconduct-Instructor-1st QN_8BAH 0Rank or title committing misconduct-Lecturer-1stQN_8BAI ;Rank or title committing misconduct-Postdoctoral Fellow-1st QN_8BAJ ERank or title committing misconduct-Research Nurse or Coordinator-1st QN_8BAK 6Rank or title committing misconduct-Lab technician-1st QN_8BAL 8Rank or title committing misconduct-Graduate Student-1stQN_8BAM -Rank or title committing misconduct-Other-1st QN_8BAN ?Rank or title committing misconduct-Rank or Title not known-1st QN_8BBA =Rank or title committing misconduct-SR research scientist-2nd QN_8BBB @Rank or title committing misconduct-Assoc research scientist-2ndQN_8BBC ?Rank or title committing misconduct-Asst research scientist-2nd QN_8BBD 1Rank or title committing misconduct-Professor-2nd QN_8BBE 7Rank or title committing misconduct-Assoc Professor-2nd QN_8BBF 6Rank or title committing misconduct-Asst Professor-2nd QN_8BBG 2Rank or title committing misconduct-Instructor-2nd QN_8BBH 0Rank or title committing misconduct-Lecturer-2ndQN_8BBI ;Rank or title committing misconduct-Postdoctoral Fellow-2nd QN_8BBJ ERank or title committing misconduct-Research Nurse or Coordinator-2nd QN_8BBK 6Rank or title committing misconduct-Lab technician-2nd QN_8BBL 8Rank or title committing misconduct-Graduate Student-2ndQN_8BBM -Rank or title committing misconduct-Other-2nd QN_8BBN ?Rank or title committing misconduct-Rank or Title not known-2nd QN_8BCA =Rank or title committing misconduct-SR research scientist-3rd QN_8BCB @Rank or title committing misconduct-Assoc research scientist-3rdQN_8BCC ?Rank or title committing misconduct-Asst research scientist-3rd QN_8BCD 1Rank or title committing misconduct-Professor-3rd QN_8BCE 7Rank or title committing misconduct-Assoc Professor-3rd QN_8BCF 6Rank or title committing misconduct-Asst Professor-3rd QN_8BCG 2Rank or title committing misconduct-Instructor-3rd QN_8BCH 0Rank or title committing misconduct-Lecturer-3rdQN_8BCI ;Rank or title committing misconduct-Postdoctoral Fellow-3rd QN_8BCJ ERank or title committing misconduct-Research Nurse or Coordinator-3rd QN_8BCK 6Rank or title committing misconduct-Lab technician-3rd QN_8BCL 8Rank or title committing misconduct-Graduate Student-3rdQN_8BCM -Rank or title committing misconduct-Other-3rd QN_8BM_C6Rank or title committing misconduct-OTHER-1st response QN_8BM_A6Rank or title committing misconduct-OTHER-2nd response QN_8BM_B6Rank or title committing misconduct-OTHER-3rd response QN_8BCN ?Rank or title committing misconduct-Rank or Title not known-3rd QN_8CA BHow did you become aware of the suspected research misconduct-1st QN_8CB BHow did you become aware of the suspected research misconduct-2nd QN_8CC BHow did you become aware of the suspected research misconduct-3rd QN_8DA IWas the suspected misconduct reported to officials at the institution-1st QN_8DB IWas the suspected misconduct reported to officials at the institution-2nd QN_8DC IWas the suspected misconduct reported to officials at the institution-3rd QN_8EA 4Was it you who reported the suspected misconduct-1stQN_8EB 4Was it you who reported the suspected misconduct-2ndQN_8EC 4Was it you who reported the suspected misconduct-3rdQN_8CE_CHHow did you become aware of the suspected research misconduct-Other-1stQN_8CE_AHHow did you become aware of the suspected research misconduct-Other-2ndQN_8CE_BHHow did you become aware of the suspected research misconduct-Other-3rdQN_9 [Have you read your institution's policy on responding to allegations of research misconduct QN_10 \Do you know to whom you should make an allegation of research misconduct at your institutionQN_11_C0CWhat are the best ways to detect research misconduct - 1st response QN_11__ACWhat are the best ways to detect research misconduct - 2nd response QN_11__BCWhat are the best ways to detect research misconduct - 3rd response QN_12_C0mWhat can be done to increase the probability that suspected research misconduct will be reported-1st response QN_12__AmWhat can be done to increase the probability that suspected research misconduct will be reported-2nd response QN_12__BmWhat can be done to increase the probability that suspected research misconduct will be reported-3rd response QN_13_C0gWhat steps can a researcher take to prevent or reduce research misconduct in his/her group-1st response QN_13__AgWhat steps can a researcher take to prevent or reduce research misconduct in his/her group-2nd response QN_13__BgWhat steps can a researcher take to prevent or reduce research misconduct in his/her group-3rd response QN_14_C0ZUnder what conditions are researchers likely to engage in research misconduct-1st response QN_14__AZUnder what conditions are researchers likely to engage in research misconduct-2nd response QN_14__BZUnder what conditions are researchers likely to engage in research misconduct-3rd response ADJIND_ACCase Adjustment Indicator (Record of Who was Changed) - Incident #1 ADJIND_BCCase Adjustment Indicator (Record of Who was Changed) - Incident #2 ADJIND_CCCase Adjustment Indicator (Record of Who was Changed) - Incident #3 NEW_ORIGWIn past 3 years, how many times observed or had direct evidence of research misconduct? NEW_ADJ `Recoded -In past 3 years, how many times observed or had direct evidence of research misconduct?NEW_TYPE#Recoded FF vs P only - 1st Incident NEW_TY_A#Recoded FF vs P only - 2nd Incident NEW_TY_B#Recoded FF vs P only - 3rd Incident NEW_AD_AAdjusted FF & P - Incident #1 NEW_AD_BAdjusted FF & P - Incident #2 NEW_AD_CAdjusted FF & P - Incident #3 NEW_ANY %Recoded Any Misconduct versus None #1 NEW_AN_A%Recoded Any Misconduct versus None #2 NEW_AN_B%Recoded Any Misconduct versus None #3 NEW_AN_C&Adjusted Any Misconduct versus None #1 NEW_AN_D&Adjusted Any Misconduct versus None #2 NEW_AN_E&Adjusted Any Misconduct versus None #3 NEW_AWARFNEW_How did you become aware of the suspected research misconduct-1st NEW_AW_AFNEW_How did you become aware of the suspected research misconduct-2nd NEW_AW_BFNEW_How did you become aware of the suspected research misconduct-3rd NEW_AD_DJNEW_ADJ_How did you become aware of the suspected research misconduct-1st NEW_AD_EJNEW_ADJ_How did you become aware of the suspected research misconduct-2nd NEW_AD_FJNEW_ADJ_How did you become aware of the suspected research misconduct-3rd NEW_REPO#NEW_Combined Reported Misconduct #1 NEW_RE_A#NEW_Combined Reported Misconduct #2 NEW_RE_B#NEW_Combined Reported Misconduct #3 NEW_AD_G'NEW_ADJ_Combined Reported Misconduct #1 NEW_AD_H'NEW_ADJ_Combined Reported Misconduct #2 NEW_AD_I'NEW_ADJ_Combined Reported Misconduct #3 NEW_SENI2Senior Professor-Scientist Committed Misconduct #1 NEW_SE_A2Senior Professor-Scientist Committed Misconduct #2 NEW_SE_B2Senior Professor-Scientist Committed Misconduct #3 NEW_AD_J6ADJ Senior Professor-Scientist Committed Misconduct #1 NEW_AD_K6ADJ Senior Professor-Scientist Committed Misconduct #2 NEW_AD_L6ADJ Senior Professor-Scientist Committed Misconduct #3 NEW_ASSO5Associate Professor-Scientist Committed Misconduct #1 NEW_AS_A5Associate Professor-Scientist Committed Misconduct #2 NEW_AS_B5Associate Professor-Scientist Committed Misconduct #3 NEW_AD_M9ADJ Associate Professor-Scientist Committed Misconduct #1 NEW_AD_N9ADJ Associate Professor-Scientist Committed Misconduct #2 NEW_AD_O9ADJ Associate Professor-Scientist Committed Misconduct #3 NEW_ASST5Assistant Professor-Scientist Committed Misconduct #1 NEW_AS_C5Assistant Professor-Scientist Committed Misconduct #2 NEW_AS_D5Assistant Professor-Scientist Committed Misconduct #3 NEW_AD_P9ADJ Assistant Professor-Scientist Committed Misconduct #1 NEW_AD_Q9ADJ Assistant Professor-Scientist Committed Misconduct #2 NEW_AD_R6ADJ Senior Professor-Scientist Committed Misconduct #3 NEW_POST+Postdoctoral Fellow Committed Misconduct #1 NEW_PO_A+Postdoctoral Fellow Committed Misconduct #2 NEW_PO_B+Postdoctoral Fellow Committed Misconduct #3 NEW_AD_S/ADJ Postdoctoral Fellow Committed Misconduct #1 NEW_AD_T/ADJ Postdoctoral Fellow Committed Misconduct #2 NEW_AD_U/ADJ Postdoctoral Fellow Committed Misconduct #3 NEW_GRAD(Graduate Student Committed Misconduct #1NEW_GR_A(Graduate Student Committed Misconduct #2NEW_GR_B(Graduate Student Committed Misconduct #3NEW_AD_V,ADJ Graduate Student Committed Misconduct #1NEW_AD_W,ADJ Graduate Student Committed Misconduct #2NEW_AD_X,ADJ Graduate Student Committed Misconduct #3NEW_OTHE$Other Person Committed Misconduct #1NEW_OT_A$Other Person Committed Misconduct #2NEW_OT_B$Other Person Committed Misconduct #3NEW_AD_Y(ADJ Other Person Committed Misconduct #1NEW_AD_Z(ADJ Other Person Committed Misconduct #2NEW_A_AA(ADJ Other Person Committed Misconduct #3?Yes @No ? Doctorate or professional degree @'Masters degree, but not doctoral degree@Undergraduate only @Not degree-granting ?Public @Private ?0-10 @11-20 @21-30 @31-40 @41-50 @51-60 @61-70 @71-80 "@81-90 $@91-100 &@ More than 100 ?1-20 @21-40 @41-60 @61-80 @81-100 @ More than 100 ? 0 - 10 yrs @ 11 - 20 yrs @ 21 - 30 yrs @31 + yrs  ?-Senior Research Scientist or equivalent title @0Associate Research Scientist or equivalent title @/Asistant Research Scientist or equivalent title@ Professor @Associate Professor @Assistant Professor @Postdoctoral Fellow @Other  Junior or Other Researchers ?@jjdeheheeegfeffznknqdddddddddddeeeffei@@dejdheeefeefk{nukvikdddddddddddeD@eeehfpdfeefgeeeglheeesnrklnrkizdddddddddddeefF@fgfvfheheeegeffvv{fdddddddddddeeeeoH@jykgeeegefgeeejoujkkidddddddddddeeeeeefJ@jehegeeegeeenn~dddddddddddeL@eefgfvfhehgeegeeevwhjrnrkldddddddddddfhfN@eedmeeehgeeheeedddddddddddeeeoP@j}ghegfeefmhefedddddddddddeefefekR@deheghleegefe}njikpdddddddddddeT@eeegftfhegeeegeeezhjnxqudddddddddddV@ijeheheeegeeeovpxkurldddddddddddeeeffX@eneiefeeefefezzmdddddddddddeeefojkZ@eeheheeegeefkjntsjnzvkddddddddddde\@efegffhheheeeheeedddddddddddeee^@efeneieffeegeee}kpdddddddddddfhffe`@esfieheeeggefflmpqdddddddddddeeefojb@lghehgefheeeeqrdddddddddddef@ffffetfhehfeegeffjltudddddddddddfhfh@ffeiehefgefheeeoyumk|ldddddddddddeeefgj@fqjfhehgefgeeeomozdddddddddddeeefojjl@jeiehfeefeeeddddddddddden@efefegeeeeeeheefdddddddddddeeep@ffe|igiegfeegeffjk{u|pt|kpldddddddddddeeefhr@fthffehgeegeeejojl|qdddddddddddeeeenitt@fheheeegeefopksdddddddddddev@efehfnjehegeeegeeeokzqerjlsdddddddddddeeex@efeqdfhegeeegefeztqkivdddddddddddeefefz@esfheheeegheeelkzkpdddddddddddehffgff~@geeeggeefmgeeezenisddddddddddde@efeigljeiehgeefefedddddddddddeee@ehfwfheheeegeeenksmdddddddddddeeefh@fhdeheggeefefflendddddddddddegffeeo@feefqeegefeyjujxtqndddddddddddf@hfeojojfeeheeegeeenpltnvkimddddddddddd@moeiefgefgeeeonukxpdddddddddddeeffk@hsfieheeegeeepolwlldddddddddddeeeeee{@ggheggeeegogeeekrvddddddddddde@eefojwfheggefgeeenoxnkxtdddddddddddeee@efevifheheefgeeekhhqdddddddddddeeeeg@fgkeheheeeheeedddddddddddfhfffes@feehheeeheeekjolx|jkipmdddddddddddf@ffhfrmfeehheeefefedddddddddddeee@fgfhejdheeegeffknknskidddddddddddeeffe@e|gheheeeheffddddddddddd@hheheeeheeejuoxjssddddddddddde@effhffjehegeeeheeeo{nkfdddddddddddeef@egflgeiegeeefeeevsrzrledddddddddddeeefo@jujfheegefheeeotjjqpdddddddddddeeffgfh@gejdheeefefevesydddddddddddf@hffigzdgeehgefgeffwulwipdddddddddddeef@fhfkjehehgeegeeedddddddddddeeeff@ehhegfefheeezjpujkpdddddddddddeeefigh@oeiegeeegeeeddddddddddde@eefgfsdfhegeeeheeepoqkkldddddddddddeef@eeevifheggeegeeejkllqjqnpdddddddddddeefej@gijeheefeeheeelkpkfdddddddddddeefffeh@jehefeeegefezqrkddddddddddde@eeekhfeiegeeffefedddddddddddeee@ekhnehegmeeggefekukmdddddddddddeeeef @exhfhefeeegeeepokljmdddddddddddeeefojtƠ@fhehgeegeeedddddddddddeȠ@gfffemgejdgeeefeffokvdddddddddddfhfʠ@efekiehehgeeheeenkfxefdddddddddddeeefg̠@fmfejdhgeegeeev}kisdddddddddddeeeenisΠ@jfeefeefheeewllmdddddddddddeР@eeegfpofieheeegeefjvqlrjvsdddddddddddeeeҠ@fkhrdfjdhhkeeggefesokkpdddddddddddeefegԠ@foifhefeeeheeexqdddddddddddfhfejgl֠@eeefgeeggefekkdddddddddddeؠ@eeeojsjfeefeefgeeew{ru|kvykxedddddddddddeefޠ@efeggeieheeegfefemnquozxlomdddddddddddeeeff@ewhfheheeegeeevjnkidddddddddddeefemih@eehehgemjgeeeopnmvniddddddddddde@efehfghegeeeheefsdddddddddddfhf@ffehjeleeheeehefevkuokvlidddddddddddfhfeo@jhkeeefeeeheeejvejslvdddddddddddeeeefe}@hgeegeeeheeeopsikddddddddddde@efeniheegeneeheo{kwdddddddddddeef@efe~hghehgeegeeeyukvldddddddddddeeeff@e{glefeeeekheeeoo|ksdddddddddddeefelhl@iehehhmeegefezuz|pmddddddddddde@efeojfjeleeegeeheeer}lm|nkiddddddddddd@hhefgefheeekukrmdddddddddddeeeff@eqmfjdheeegefeovznknkjdddddddddddeeefhf@hefgefheeeddddddddddde@eeegfgfejdhgeegeeeddddddddddd@khhehgefheeepvjujnmvdddddddddddeeeeo@jqfieggeeggeeevspkynqidddddddddddeefegf@geeheeeheefddddddddddde@eeegfhjejdggeefeefpnundddddddddddeef @eeesdfheggeefeeeopknjivdddddddddddeeeee @etfheheeeheeeokpxzknlmtdddddddddddeeeefe@mghegeeeheeemvkqddddddddddde@efefesffefeeegeff~pk|ipdddddddddddeee@ffeeefgefheeeoukvmxvdddddddddddfhfeo@jneieheeffeeej}trqmdddddddddddeeeelh@gheeeefheeevljvmviddddddddddde@eeeojljeiehgeeggefejwkuojdddddddddddeee@feezghefeeegeeeqpkoldddddddddddeeeff@eufhefgeeggefedddddddddddeeffkhy@ghegeeegeee{exsddddddddddd @geehleeheeekvlxdddddddddddeee"@fig{jgeeheeegeeekmsnxjlknlpmdddddddddddeeeff$@eneiehgeegeefzllxxlrxsdddddddddddeeeejg&@jhheheeeheefwowkipddddddddddde(@eefojlleeeheeegeeedddddddddddeef*@ffegeefeeeheeendddddddddddeeefe,@eheehgefheffjzfxju{dddddddddddeeeegft0@fiehgeeggeeeonvknvnhddddddddddde2@eefgfqfhefgefheeeykkikpdddddddddddeee4@ehfghefgefhefeejnwqodddddddddddeeeel6@hjeeiehfeegeffddddddddddd8@meddddddddddde:@eefeevhfheheeeheeewowtwkodddddddddddeee>@ffefeiefgeefeeedddddddddddeeffj@@gufeeheeegeeedddddddddddeeeefefB@oejdheeefeffdddddddddddeF@effhfpjfhefheehefedddddddddddeeeH@efevkfhefgeegheeedddddddddddeeefiJ@gxfheggeegefedddddddddddeeefojeL@jeieggefgeeedddddddddddeN@efehfnieeeheeegeeedddddddddddeefP@efehhegeemheeedddddddddddeeefoR@jjejdhgeffeffdddddddddddfhffeelT@lelefgefgeeedddddddddddeX@eefigsffeehgeeegeeedddddddddddeeeZ@efe}fghefeeeheeedddddddddddeeeeg\@fdhehehgeeheeedddddddddddeefgfz^@hghefgefgeeeddddddddddde`@eeffe~ggeegeeeheffdddddddddddeeeb@egfghehgeeheedddddddddddeeeefd@emedddddddddddeeeeojf@hhehgefheeedddddddddddeh@eeehfvjfheheefheefdddddddddddjeefehfgheheeehfColleague didn't include a significant contributor to a research project as a coauthor on the publication. eegeeffzlzleddedfdedddddgdededddddddddddueeffhfkgehefeeegfColleague omitted data points that nullified hypothesis.eeeffeewokklkidddeeeeeddeddffggddeeddddeeddyeeeffeogfhehgeehfColleague download files from junior faculty grant into his to edit and modify eeeeffeewmrjpdddeeffeddeddeeggeeddddddddddeeeffehoeieeeeeffMisinterpreting data. eeefeeokdddeeggeddeddeeggddddddeeeeddeefegffoeiegeeegfI had a post doc who tried to make the data fit the hypothesis - fabricated evidence, falsified data. eeeffeemvuk}pdddeeeeeddeddffggddddddeeddddeeeegfmieheegefffResearch nurse lost consent of patient, then made a new one and signed it. eehefeekllwxtqeddedededddddhdfdddddddddddedeefflhmeieheeeffColleague appropriately unpublished data from another lab without permission. eeeefeeoxksdddeeffeddeddeeffddeeddddddddfhfelhnoefeheeegfA graduate student was found to have plagiarized when writing an assignment for an ethics course. eeheffejphjieeddedfdedddddhdfdddddddddedddeeeefe}fghegeeehfRe-labeling data to correct suspected mistake in switching samples. eegeefffwlwlqdddeeeeeddeddggeeddddddeeddddeefehfxfhegeeehfUse the same hypothesis and same procedures to get the same results. eehgfefeddedfdedddddhdhdddedddddddddeeeefem`c@neiefheeehfColleague reported more progress in progress report than had been accomplished. eeffeer{psrzkieddedededddddfdgdddeddddddddde f@efehfigheheeehfA 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. eefeeeemrtjnueddedfdedddddfdedddddddddedddeefg@fgfigehefeeegfPost 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 eeikfe~pwmunrlsmdddeeeeeddeddiiiiddddddeeddddeefee o@ehfeieheeegfStudent copied paragraphs from published work to write his/her thesis. efkmt|rwnqmdddeeggeddeddkkiiddddddddddddeeefojlp@eiehgeeggfPlagiarism in methods section of paper. eegeeeedddeeffeddeddggeeddddddeeddddep@efffexfiefgeehfFabrication of clinical pain response data. eeeffefwnvdddeeeeeddeddffggeeeeddddddddeefr@egfhieegeeehfPlagiarism of a long passage from a published article in a newly published article. eegeeeewlswlpldddeeffeddeddggeeeeddddddddddfhfffs@ekieieheeeffData was incorrectly labeled and the same data was published more than once with different labels. eeegefeekhyksdddeeeeeddeddggffddddeeddddddeeeegfkt@fejdgeeeffColleague used another investigator's data in a grant application without permission or inclusion of that investigator on the grant. eegffeoujkikdddeeffeddeddggggeedddddddddde`t@efeeejneiegeeegfMy student fabricated data in a lab notebook. She also altered some information in the lab notebook. eeefeeeeoljuqxo|kiudddeeeeeddeddffeeddddddddeeddeeet@fojrnfieheeegfPedigrees in an (name) grant application were falsified. I read about this incident on the (name) website - (name), (name). eeiefjeejjvdddeeeeeddeddiiffeeddddddddddeefeft@e}gheheeehfA post doc changed the numbers in essays in order to "improve" the data.eegefeeoljedddeeeeeddeddggffddddddeeddddeeefeext@ifhefeeeggfColleague falsely accused student of destroying research results and properly to collect insurance. eeehefeepnnkiqeddedededddddhdfdddedddddddddeu@eeeojhmeheheefgfColleague misrepresented data in publications in order to support his/her hypothesis - also ignored conflicting results and reported only results that agreed with hypothesis. eeeiefkeekwlpqkjkjwdddeeeeeddeddiiffddddeeddddddfhfw@ffegdeeeghoeegfPlagiarism on manuscript that was corrected before submission. eegfeeznonzknldddeeffeddeddggggddddddeeddddeeeefw@eghehefeeegfFirst year graduate student plagiarized answer to an exam question. *Note: that this was not in the context of research. eegfeevsoouevueddedfdedddddgdgdddddddddedddeeffhfpx@ofheheeeffStudent 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. eegfeezykqtipdddeeffeddeddggggddddddddeedde`}@eefgfkeiehgeegfPhD candidate - plagiarism of phases from a published review in their dissertation. eeffffze|idddeeffeddeddffggddddddddeeddfhf}@fojofeeghleeghfColleague apparently changed data inappropriately, a thorough and properly conducted investigation concluded that there was carelessness but no misconduct. eemeedddeeggeddeddkkeeddddddddddddeeeek~@hkeeiehfeegfInterviewer fabricated data for assessments that she had not done. eehefffkulxkivdddeeeeeddeddhhffddddddddddeeeefehfl~@heieggeegfColleague dropped subjects from a study in order to obtain significant group differences; these data were published. eeffeel|ukjzkisdddeeeeeddeddffggddddeedddddde@@feeojmfehehgemngfColleague's technician was fabricating PCR bands used for genotyping patients. eeeheffepnptnmpxdddeeeeeddeddhhffddddddddddeeeeeP@ffeleiegeeeffPlagiarism by graduate student. eegeeeexzlexwtxdddeeffeddeddggeeddddddddeeddeeeegp@fldehehgeegfIndividual used another individual's data as his own. eefeeeedddeeffeddeddffeeeeddddddddddeeefojgP@felefgefhfInvestigator/faculty member admitted to falsifying data submitted on grant application; fabricated results of clinical study. eeegefeektknpldddeeeeeddeddggffeeddddddddddeX@efeeekieiegeeeffPresenting same results at multiple conferences.eeggeewtppxnkeddedededddddgdhdedddddddddddeeeh@fgfhgheggefhfColleague cheery - picked data to reach a significant difference in results. eegfffxdddeeeeeddeddggggddddddddddeeeeeeg@fljejdeeeegfInvestigator falsified by performing only one experiment with an "n" of one and altered data to reflect desired result. Investigator was terminated. eehefeekn}njxlndddeeeeeddeddhhffddddddeeddddeefeigj@fefegeeeffResearcher 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. 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. eeeegeeefefeozulumeededeeddeeddddgeddfedddedddddddddddddddddddddde؂@eeehfvfhefeeeghfStudent took scanned blot results from another lab, flipped them 180 degrees and used them as his/her own. eegefeevpssutikudddeeeeeddeddggffddddddddeedd@zjghehhlefgfWas asked by my institution to chair a committee evaluating a researcher who was accused of misconduct. Did not observe it. ehefeeuqudddeeggeddeddhhffeeddddddddddeeeef@esnfieggeeffPhD student submitted two thesis chapters that I am 90% and certain were directly "outsourced." eeefeezo{nepsdddeeffeddeddeeggddddddddeeddeeeeoj~@gheggeeghfResults reported in a manuscript provided by an investigation who was not credited with the data. eeiefkeeopukyipdddeeffeddeddiiffeedddddddddde@efefekheieeeeegfTwo faculty members supported their master's student when he plagiarized significant portions of his thesis. The lab head wanted to manufacture (cut & paste) get data to put in a grant. eeeeegeefeeewxwxwkixdddeefefeeedeedgegeegegddddededdededdddddddddddeeeh@efefjehehgeegfPlagiarism by post doc. eegeeeeu}l{dddeeffeddeddggeeddddddeeddddp@mfPlagiarism - 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 eeedddeeffeddeddeeiieeddddddddddeeeegfx@nfheggeehfColleague admitted to doctoring figure. Colleague was investigated and sanctioned by institution and NIH. eehefeeeuulzpdddeeeeeddeddhhffddeedddddddde@efehfzghegeeehfGraduate 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. eeeeiefeeeeuowtuodddeeeeeddeddiiffddddddddeeddeee@@efezgheeeeehfPost doc made up data, paper was retracted. eeehefeeumkjjkipdddeeeeeddeddhhffddddddeeddddeeeekP@hhhehhmeehfA faculty member lied about the severity of a patient's (my wife) condition to get them to join a clinical trial. eeefefvkq|seddedededddddedgdedddddddddddeefegfg@feieggeehfLab technician was stealing subject fees and then fabricated data so the number of subjects would match the subject payments. eegeeeejljpvdddeeeeeddeddggeeddddddddddeee@eeefesfeehfeehfResearch nurse falsified data on study report forms for a clinical trial. eeegefeejkkjknnodddeeeeeddeddggffddddddddddeeeef@efeleiehfeeffColleagues inappropriately tracked research participants and were not truthful with the institutional review board when activities were reported to the board. eeehefeeuljtjeddedededddddhdfdddedddddedddfhffk @hqfheheeeggfSuspected fraud was identified for a post doctoral trainee in my lab by a co-worker. None. None. eehefeepoktlkypqdedeeeggegdeeeeedhkkhkdfiifidddddddddddddddddddeddeddddddddddddddeeefeem@ehehgeegfColleague plagiarized text from a funded grant proposal of which he was a co-I and misappropriated data and falsified a citation. eeefeeeeju{jkikveddedededddddfdededdddddddddde(@eeegfvdfeehgeehfFalsely took credit for originating a new treatment which they did not. eefeeeeffx|mdddeeeeeddeddffeeddddeeddddddfhfX@ffe}ngleeheeegfColleague fabricated construction of a plasmid that was supposedly used as a positive control in an experiment. The results were not published.eeeeeeeomwpqknt{edddeeeeeddeddeeeeddddddeeddddeefee؋@ejdehefeeehfColleague discarded data that was inconsistent with his hypothesis and published the result. eeiglffyzkimdddeeeeeddeddiihhddeeddddddddgP@hejdgeeeffPost doctoral student fabricated data in order to hide the fact that the student made a sequence of mistakes during data collection. eeefeeeevk|roxrklspdddeeeeeddeddffeeddddddeedddde@eefojsmfhegeefgfPost doc fabricated data on a paper submitted and accepted - I withdrew the accepted paper. eeeieeeeexllkdddeeeeeddeddiieeddddddeeddddeeeH@ejgofjdheeeffPeers could not reproduce faculty members' data.eeiefleentmejzvkipdddeeeeeddeddiiffddddeeddddddeefel`@hjhehegeeeggfPost doc in neighboring lab falsifying flow cytometry data. eegefeeovpkvkwvmoqdddeeeeeddeddggffddddddeeddddeefefew@jfhegeeegfGraduate student plagiarized portions of his examinations from the Internet. eegeeeejsew~mipdddeeffeddeddggeeddddddddeedde(@efeoj}hghefeeegfA graduate student copied a research proposal and represented it as his own work. eegefeekyjxdddeeffeddeddggffddddddddeeddeeep@efe}ghefgeehfFabrication: individual reported the generation of specific mutants that were non-existent. Plagiarism: senior investigator removed from authorship a key contributor of data for a manuscript that was published. eeeeeffeeeelxmqljnvnoidddeeefefeedeedefefgegedededdddddddddddededddddeeeej@gkejdhfkeeffColleague forgot to inform co-author about a death that occurred for a manuscript in which mentality rates were calculated. eeegfffkxlyljeddedededddddgdgdddddddddddedeeeffe{@egheegefgfColleague attempted to use illegal recruiting methods to obtain patients for a clinical research study in order to fulfill enrollment deadlines.eehefeeeddedededddddhdfdedddddddddddf @hffgfxfeefeeehfWe cannot find data from an experiment from one of my post docs. Also, blots and PCR results are mislabeled. eegfeeok|rnnkvkirdddeeeeeddeddggggddddddeeddddeefH@eeeghefeeehfA 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. eeefeekn|lkvmeddedededddddedgdedddddddddddeeeek\@hqfhegfeehfResearch assistants falsified recruitment procedures & a recruitment database. eeeegefeej}upjldddeeeeeddeddggffddddddddddeeeeefemd@dehehgeehfLab technician fabricated data and encouraged others to do the same. eegeeeelnplnkyidddeeeeeddeddggeeddddddddddeee$@eefeewhfheheeegfA 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 eegeffe{xli}rdddeeeeeddeddggffddddddeeddddeeeX@fjgjiehehgefgfPostdoctoral 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. eeffeewoptkkidddeeeeeddeddffggddddddeeddddeefefh@etkfiegeeegfVery 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. eefffenllpnkxlzdddeeffeddeddffggddddddeeddddeeefoj@hhehgefhfColleague selected desired (or not representational) tissue sections from study of an RNA expression of cellular/membrane proteins. eeefeeynphknkpmdddeeeeeddeddeeggddddeeddddddeԒ@efehfufheheeegfOne 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 eeffeejwslplwvnueddedfdedddddfdgdedddddddddddeefܒ@eeeylgfeheeehfResident plagiarized excerpts in writing of thesis. Excerpts were from published papers. eegfeetrjkidddeeffeddeddggggddddddeeddddeeeef@ewffhegeeegfGraduate student extensively altered data to fit better with preconceived hypothesis. None of the falsified data were published or used in grant applications. eeegefeewofwzrdddeeeeeddeddggffddddddddeeddeefekhs,@jfhegfeegfProposal included material originally written in another investigator's proposal without attributing the work. eeffeedddeeggeddeddffggddeeddddeedde@efehfneeeggeegfYoung faculty "used" sections of a colleagues grant proposal in his own application. eegffefxeuxtdddeeffeddeddggggddddeeddddddeeeԔ@eeeilehegeeehfColleague 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. eeffeejvz|jkpdddeeeeeddeddffggddddddddeeddeeefe@eneiegeeeggfPost 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 eeffffkopkqweivrdddeeeeeddeddffggddddddeeddddeeefhfl(@ieheheeegfThis 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 eeiefmeevxeknvvp}dddeeeeeddeddiiffddddddeeddddf@eefeenlehdefgeeggfPost doctoral fellow falsifies data and used data from another individuals as his. eeeegefeeykplrxpdddeeeeeddeddggffddeeddeeddddfhf@efexjfiehgeehfOne 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. eeifmeevskvknmipdddeeeeeddeddiiggddddddeeddddeeeff@esofjdheeeffColleague 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. eeeieejffmsnxjveddedededddddidededddddddddddfhfeeeo@gffehgeeffColleague 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 eehffeskox|xzwikdddeeffeddeddhhggeedddddddddde@efehfghehegeeehfColleagues used ideas from a paper without citing it. eefffeflxjdddeeffeddeddffggeeddddddddddfhf@fhfyighefgefgfData falsification by a postdoctoral fellow. eejefeeoqpzxozqdddeeeeeddeddjjffddddddeeddddeeeeh@fijeheggeegfColleague selected assay data that were not consistent with the majority of assays, in order to keep project afloat and secure internal funding.eefefmeepn|lnqxm{pdddeeeeeddeddffffddddddddddeeeeefgfi$@ejdheeeffInvestigator removed animals from a study without valid reason. eeffeeuqpdddeeeeeddeddffggddeedddddddde4@efefehhefegeeeffSwitched lanes on a gel to give cleaner result. eefffevoptkildddeeeeeddeddffggddddddeeddddeeeH@eninhefehgefgfColleague presented confusing analysis of "data" favoring colleague's interpretation with no supporting evidence. eifjffffjfdddeeggeddeddiiggeeddddddddddfhfff\@ejfeheheeeggfPost doc accused of misleading data interpretation and selective use of controls and data points. eeeiefkeeykopykvwrndddeeeeeddeddiiffddddddeeddddfhffoj|@iheeheeehfPublication, November 2003. Publication, November 1994. Publication, May 1993. eeeeeeeeefffeggfeevkzvreedeeeeeeddeeeeddffffddfhhhddeddddddeeedddddddddddddddddddddddddde@eefeehgeiehgeeffI 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.eeeiefkeejrnltv{kipdddeeeeeddeddiiffddddeeddddddee@feeljehehfeehfResident plagiarized literature review. eeefeeeewplxdddeeffeddeddffeeddddddddddeeeefee@elehehgeehfIncluding favorable data, withholding unfavorable data. eeffeefurikdddeeeeeddeddffggeeddddddddddeeffojh$@jegdgfeegfIncompletely analyzed results reported as conclusions in an abstract to a major scientific meeting. Incompletely analyzed results presented & accepted in a peer reviewed publication. eeeeffffeeeededeeddeeddddffddggddddddddddeedddddddddddddde`@eeefexffhefeeehfStudent plagiarized in writing a take home exam.eehfeejkurkikpeddedfdedddddhdgdddddddddedddeee@fojnheheheefgfCalled to serve on committee investigating faculty member accused of using Photoshop to place control lanes on gel. Controls were not run. Apparently, these allegations were substantiated. eeeiefkeeuwtnxljdddeeeeeddeddiiffeeddddddddddeeeeh@fioeieheeegfGrad student copied extensive portions of PI's RO1 into their pre doctoral fellowship application. eeifjffjyvnrkjvpimdddeeffeddeddiiggddddddddeeddfhffgfm$@neeehmeegfPlagiarism of parts of a grant application. eefffeefppjxkidddeeffeddeddffggddddeeddddddeH@eeeojznghefeeegfColleague fabricated and published data.eegeeeeluvnxrdddeeeeeddeddggeeddeeddddddddfhfԙ@ffeleeeeeelgfColleague 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. eeegeeeewepipdddeeffeddeddggeeddddddddddeeeeeeo`@jiheheggeehfOne person presented results which appeared too good to be true.eeieemeeomtlskdddeeeeeddeddiieeddddddeeddddeeeefes@fiegeeegfUsed 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. eegffeejopnewnklpidddeeffeddeddggggddddddddeedde@effgfigeiehgeeffFavorable statistical analysis. eeffefeddedededddddfdgdddedddddddddeee @ehfsfiefgefgfColleague used other's data without informing. eegfeedddeeffeddeddggggddddeeddddddeeefmt@ivhfiehgefgfAsked to discuss confidential document - I refused. ehfeexn|eddedgdedddddhdgdddddedddddddeeefig}@gfehgeehfResearch assistant entered values for a test without conducting the test. eegeefeolldddeeeeeddeddggeeddddddddddeee@ffeigpdfhegeeegfA 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.eeehefeeipdddeeeeeddeddhhffddeedddddddd@neheheeegfLocal author published same data in two different journals and submitted and accepted duplicate findings. eeiefkeeontqzxlukieddedfdedddddidfdddddedddddddeefefܜ@evfheheeehfColleague submitted results of another investigator in grant proposal. eeefeeexllkidddeeffeddeddkkffddddeeddddddeeeeigk@keheeeeegfColleague changed data in notebook to fit hypothesis. eegfeeoeokkiudddeeeeeddeddggggddddeedddddde@eeegfsfhefgefgfColleague 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. eefeeffpwmkdddeeffeddeddffeeddeeddddddddeee @ehfijeiehgeeffColleague generated misleading preliminary data for a grant application. The grant was funded. eefffeffxidddeeeeeddeddffggddeeddddddddeeeef0@emjehehgeegffOne of the technicians in the division was fabricating the results of genotyping experiments. eeheffenodddeeeeeddeddhhffddddddddddeeeeffgf4@hheheeehfA "top" graduate student falsified synthetic results and "made" NMR showing successful synthesis. eeiefeeeznxxlmudddeeeeeddeddiiffddddddddeedde|@efffeyggheheeegfGraduate student altered electrophysiological recording records to suggest that there was a positive result, when in fact there was not.eeegefeeouorvsidddeeeeeddeddggffddddddddeeddeef@ehfhdeiegeeegfA 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. eeeifeeevwrxypdddeeeeeddeddiiggddddddeeddddeeeeo@jtfeeheefgfI was on a review committee for (name), now a nationally publicized misconduct case. Data were reversed on Excel spreadsheets. eeiefkeeoukqdddeeeeeddeddiiffeeddddddddddeefelhm@@deheffeehfColleague attempted to publish another's work without giving proper citation. It was caught by the editor who contacted the original researcher. eehefeekpuzkpildddeeffeddeddhhffeedddddddddde@eefgfjgheggefhfColleague omitted some low values in one group to make preliminary statistically significant for a grant application. eegeffflidddeeeeeddeddggffddddeeddddddeee@feephfiegeeegfSelective data acquisition. eeeheeeekpjvxodddeeeeeddeddhheeddeeeeddddddeeefe*@ehehehgeegfPlagiarism of a book chapter from a grant proposal. eefeeeejukelidddeeffeddeddffeeeeddddddddddeeefmi|B@jghefgefhfPlagiarism - use of text from an article published previously. eeffewqsnwkpdddeeffeddeddffggddddddeedddded@eefojieheegfColleague completely fabricated the results and published the results and hypothesis in two well reported journals. eefefeesvqjkdddeeeeeddeddffffddddddeeddddeef|@efewjfheheeegfPost Doc altered data in notebook, this changed the interpretation of the experiments. eehfffjpjznkvpdddeeeeeddeddhhggddddddeeddddeefeh@fleheggeegfAn 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 eegefeejwkedddeeffeddeddggffddddeeddddddeeefferĠ@fiehfefffFellow 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. eefeeeeplkmpkllndddeeffeddeddffeeddddddeeddddeڠ@eeeojieieffefffA researcher well known to the academic world, (1) Modified report of results after given negative feedback. He manipulated amateurs and omitted data results. eeeieejffdddeeeeeddeddiieeeeddddddddddeeeܠ@fhfuifiegeeegfFaculty member used graduate student's data (after she switched labs) in publication without giving appropriate credit (co-authorship). eehefeeep{dddeeffeddeddhhffddddeeddddddeeeef@efjejdhgeeffColleague claimed authorship on manuscript, ideas and words without giving appropriate credit. eeeffeffffdddeeffeddeddeeggddddddeeddddeeefig}@giehgeehfResearch assistant failed to conduct a test but recorded fabricated values. eegeefeyll|pdddeeeeeddeddggeeddddddddddeee<@eeflhsfheegefgfResearch fellow plagiarized for a review paper. eeffefdddeeffeddeddffggddddddeeddddeeeD@eojgeeggefhfPost doc may have fabricated DNA sequencing results. eehefeedddeeeeeddeddhhffddddddeeddddeeefniufhegeeeggColleague duplicated results between three different papers but differently labeled data in each paper. Graduate student plagiarism on an exam. eeeeeggeeeeeepp~lmekiodedffefedeededdgggdeeedddddddddededdddddeddddddeefehfnjehefeeefgSupposed total synthesis of complex drug from small molecules suspected to be based on a natural product precursor much closer to target molecule. Implanted surgical materials and inflammatory responses misrepresented in reporting animal study outcomes. eeeehgeeffeejvuvntlndddffeeeeeedeedhghgffffdddddddddedeededddddddddegfefehghefeeehgStudent plagiarized extensively in a senior research paper. Student plagiarized in a research paper that was part of a course requirement. eeeejgfeefeeellsxplmdedfffffdeededdgfgdfefdddddddddddddddddddddeeedeeefeeijejdheeefgA 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 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. eeeeegffffjuelqxtpmieedfdffddeeddddegddggdddeddddddedddddddddddddddeeffeejhejdgeeeggColleague used "photo shop" to eliminate background bands on western blot to make the data look more specific than what they were. Colleague breached confidentiality of peer review process and gave to (cr) a privileged communication to a competitor of the author. eeeeeeffffwwnqidedffefedeededdeeedgggddeddddddededddddddddddddeefegfjneieheeefgUsing same data in two publications. Was forced to retract one article.Same person falsifying data to match hypothesis.eeeeehheeffeepukipzdddffeeeeeedeedhhhhffffddddddddeeeeddddddddddddeeeeojneheghoefggGrad student forged/falsified data. Grad student mixed up strain and did not rectify. eeeeehieeefleezuzmkidddffeeeeeedeedhihiefefddddddddddddddddeeeeddddeee@g@fgf~hgeeggeehgColleague ignored data relevant to publication. Colleague reported data not present - specifically - stated control data had been accumulated but that was not the case.eeeegeefeeejrpvdddffeeeeeedeedgegeegegddddddddeeeeddddddddddddeefef`m@etfhefgeeggFailure to report all data in a clinical study. Reporting only post (cr) analysis when original hypotheses was not confirmed in prospective study. eeeefeffffvtxmsdedffeeedeededdfefdgggdeeedddddddddddddddddddddeeefjg}@o@hgheffefggColleague falsified missing research data. Colleague reported research results without patient knowledge of being in a research study. eegffeejpldedffgggdeededdgfgdiiiddeddededddddddddddddddddep@eefeemejdhgeefgColleague published data that wasn't right. Colleagues worked with different substance than reported. eeeefgfefeeffkeddffeeedeededdfggdgffddddddeededddddddddddddddPr@ndeeegeeeegggA 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. 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. Patent and inventorship disputes brining in aspects of plagiarism. But not strictly within definition of misconduct, as above. eeeeeeeeeigheggeeeekveonkopr}deefffeffddeeeeddighiddehheddedeedddeddddddddddedeedddddddddeddddegffes@eegeiefeeegggColleague used data from another researcher and published it. Colleague used ideas from another researcher and used them in a grant proposal. eeeehhefffemp~zvpdddffffffeedeedhhhhfgfgeeeeddddddddddddddddddddeeeelhl u@defehgeefgUsing someone else's data and methods expertise in a grant submission. Using some data/figures in a meeting poster without listing the appropriate sources as authors. Taking ideas and text from someone else's grant proposal. eeeeeeeehffffffffzwmlnmzdddffffffffeeeeeeeeheehggggggddeddededdededdeddddddddddddddddddddep~@efffesjfheheeeggPost doc falsified replicates in a published paper - i.e., used duplicates of one experiment and reported it as a separate experiment. Post doc may have fabricated data published in a paper. eeeeigeeffkeejnwx|njk}wdddffeeeeeedeedigigffffddddddddddddeeeeddddddddeef@fojpfiehgeefgFaculty 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. 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. eeeehhffeeopkukikedddffffffeedeedhhhhggggddddeeeeddddddddddddddddeefehh@fjfeiehhneeeeggPlagiarism - graduate student prelim exam. Plagiarism - graduate student prelim exam. eeeeggeeffeeujn|ekkpndedfffffdeededdgggdfffdddddddddddddddddeeedddddeefelhl@heiehfeehgUndergrad student falsified data and signed participants names to receipts for money. This was uncovered, the data destroyed and appropriate reporting to officials took place.Staff member fabricated data. When discovered, data was destroyed and appropriate reporting occurred. eeeejfgeeefeezexx|fdddffeeeeeedeedfgfgefefddddddddddddddddddddedede@efefehnehefeeefgA colleagues graduate student falsified data in immunoblotting experiments and attempted to conceal the falsification by destroying her research notebooks. My own student extensively plagiarized the text of another student's dissertation when preparing a manuscript for publication. eeeegfeefeeew{opn|pipdddffefefeedeedgfgffefeddddddddddddddddeeeeddddeee@enighehehfeegggI 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 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 eeeefffeefekupqznkim}dddffeeeeeedeedffffgegeededdededdddddddddddddddeeeef@ergfhegeeeggExtensive plagiarism by a foreign post-doc when submitting a draft of a manuscript to me. Same as #1, same post-doc. (#1 - Extensive plagiarism by a foreign post-doc when submitting a draft of a manuscript to me.) eeeeffffeevvlvlkqndddffffffeedeedffffggggddddddddddddeeeeddddddddeeeeigxx@lfheheeeggGraduate student plagiarism (multiple students provided the same answer "word for word" on a test.) 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. eeeefgeeffeepownkltkneddfffeedeededdfggdfffddddddddddeedddddedddddddfЌ@hefhfqffhehfeefgGraduate student plagiarized. Under grad student plagiarized. eeeejffggefjlqwkpldddffffffeedeedffffhhhhddddddddddddddddededdedeeee@fkhnjeieffmeeggFaculty member listed himself as first rather than an abstract that was entirely the work of a trainee. A post hoc protocol revision that significantly changed the results. eeeeefffeezjruewp|liseddfffeedeededdeffdgggddeedddddedddddddddddddddfhfff@eohfiehfeeggPI 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. 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). eeeeeegeeeefeeunkmveddffeeedeededdgeedeffdeeedddddedddddddddddddddeeefojnP@hegdheeeggPlagiarism in a grant application. Entire sections of a recent review article were used in a background and significance section. The grant was not submitted.Mislabeling of experimental samples. The same identical images were used to represent two different conditions. This was caught before publication. eeeeeeefeffp|okn~idddfffefeeedeedeeeeegegddddddddddddddddddddeeeeed@eeeojlfeiehfeefgColleague used specimens without IRB approval. Colleague used specimens without knowledge of PI. eeeeggeeeeeeeddffeeedeededdgggdeeedddddddddddddddddddddeeedeeeD@eeeiehegeefggFailed to retract paper with data proven to be artifact.Send comments on a grant to PI. eefefeefeuxleedfdegddeeddddfeddgeddddddedddddddddddddddddddeeefoؑ@jsgfhegfeegg1) 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. eeeehheefffeulj|qdddffeeeddeddhhffddddeeeeddddddeeeegfe@hehefgefggColleague got consent signed after the procedure. Same colleague had nurse "fix" the records so that consents looked appropriate. Same colleague was involved in release of confidential information to parties when the study patient had not consented. eeeeehhieeeeeelfekjuupltmoedeffeegeddeeeeddhhihddeeeeddddddddeeeedddddddddddddddddddddddddde@eeeigghehheeehgInvestigator 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." 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 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 demoeenstrating equivalence eeeeeeefffeeffjvpzieedffeeeeddeeeeddeeffddggeeddeddddddeddddddddddddddddddddddddeeddfhf@fgftefeegeeehgColleague 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. 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. eeeefgffffk~urxzkipeedfdeeddeeddddfgddggdddddddeddddddedddddddddddfhffe@efeheheeeggStatements were included in a proposal that had not been done. Misappropriated funds. eeeeeeeeeeeeuupdedffeeedeededdeeedeeedeeedddddddddddddddddddddeeefgfgD@gehefeeeggA professor started to do research in a given area only after seeing the ideas of a junior investigator.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. eeeehefeeeeesvkwidedfffffdeededdhehdgegdeeeddddddddddddddddddddde\@efegf}ghefeeehgPerson took a proposal authored by another person and submitted it as his/her own. 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.eeeeegegeeeussnvdedfffffdeededdegedehedeeeddddddddddddddddddddd8@hhegeeehgColleague duplicated a figure within a paper and also in a separate paper. Colleague substituted a response curve obtained from a control experiment to the real experiment to prove the effect of a ligand. eeeeeffeeffeesknrvkmkqeddffeeedeededdfffdfffdeddddddddddddeedddddddddeeeef@eieeiegeeeggGraduate student plagiarized his mentor's NIH proposal for the student's candidacy proposal. Postdoctoral fellow plagiarized from literature while writing a manuscript. eeeegeeffeeptlkvpdddffffffeedeedgegefgfgdddddddddddddedeededddddeeeee0@ieeehfefggA post-doctoral fellow plagiarized sections of other researcher's work and used them in his own grant application. An associate Professor excerpted sections from other researchers' grants and research protocols and used them in her own grant application. eeeefeffffjyopmnk{tidddffffffeedeedfefeggggdddddededdddededddddddddf@hefojhjeheheeegggColleague apparently destroyed records on computer hard drive. His results could never be repeated. Colleague published two identical blots as separate experimental data. eeeefhefeeejlqljklpjqdddffeeeeeedeedfhfhegegddddddddddddeeeeddddddddeee0@ffekejdheeefgColleague manipulated instrument to get data as desired.Colleague manipulated data to make them consistent. eeeefhffffuldddffeeeeeedeedfhfhggggddddddddeeeeddddddddddddeefj@gegeieheeefgColleague knew knockout mice were on a mixed background and used the results that fit the hypothesis. 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. eeeeggfefeejpnsvkivdddffefefeedeedgggggfgfededdddddddddddddddddedeeeefen@ehegeeehgPlagiarism in writing a manuscript, using paragraphs from another published paper. Same. eeeeeiiffjeejludddffffffeedeediiiiggggddddddddddddddddddddeeeef@hffiglkefegeeeggColleagues published results of analyses using a methodology proposed by me, without my knowledge and without crediting me or providing coauthorship. 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. eeeeeefffffe~uededfffffdeededdfffdgggddeddededededdeddddddddddeef@ehfodfhefeeeggGraduate students plagiarized on coursework. Same as above. (Above: Graduate students plagiarized on coursework.) eeeeiieeeeleeunlwueedfdffddeeddddiiddeeddddddddddddddddddeeddddddeefeh@fkjeieggeefgResearcher omitted data contrary to hypothesis and published. Researcher omitted data contrary to hypothesis and published. eeeeffffffdddffeeeeeedeedffffggggddddddddeeeeddddddddddddeeeejgn@eiehgeefgeeeeggeeffeemqlnevnpidddffeeeeeedeedggggffffddddeeeedddddddddddddddde@eeffeghegeefhhIgnoring refs that challenged results and conclusions. Ignoring refs that challenged results and conclusions. Ignoring refs that challenged results and conclusions. eeeeeeefffffffeedeggeeeeddeeeeddffffddggggddedddddddddddeeeedddddddddddddddddddd@xffheffeeghConflict of interest between investigator's business and research enterprise. Doctoral student plagiarizing a peer's work. Doctoral student plagiarizing the literature. eeeeeeeegiiefffeejee|epjknueddggeffffdeeeeedgiiiidfeeeededddddeddddddddddddddddddeeeededddddeeefo@jsfiegeeeghStudent changed voting values on flow analyses to fit the hypothesis. Also fabricated # of times done. Post doc mixed samples and failed to report mixing. Ignored other negative data. Missed controls put, did them later, wrote up as done at same time. eeeeeeehggefgfeexvluqwvjvmqdddggeeeeeeeeeeeehgghggfghfghddeddedddddddddddddeddededdeddddddddeeeefej@jejdheeefhRecycling of funded grants through multiple agencies. eeeeggffefnkkytrieddgdfdedddddgdgdeededdddddddddfV@hfeojneeehfeehhI 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 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 edata set one-third of eeeeeeeggffeeeeeeeddggffefedeeeeedggfgfdgeeeedeeeeedddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddeee~@ffeghegeeehiI 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). Incident #2 Ditto. Incident #3 - Fabrication of data. Intentional misinterpretation of data. eeeeeeegggeeefffeeponu{lnxmndddhhffeffeeeeeeeggggggffffffeddedddeddedddddddddeddeddddddddddddeeefox@jpfhehgefhiPlagiarism. Plagiarism. Plagiarism. eeeeeeeiifffjeeplxkkmedddhhffffffeeeeeeeiieiiggggggeeeeeeddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddeeeeig{`@ghehgeegiLie on grant application - include investigators without their permission - PI #1. 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). 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.eeeeeeeeeeeeeeieefeejeewuq|xmjldedhheeeeedeeeeedeeieideegegdeeeeedddededddddddddddddddddddeededde @efeeelheiegeeegiResearcher used powerpoint software to insert bands into a gel blot test for publication. Researcher manipulated western blot data - shrank a portion (several bands) to artificially line up with desired results. Post doctoral researcher knowingly submitted incorrect data that had been shown to be in error. eeeeeefffeefeeeeedddhheeeeeeeeeeeeffffffeegeegeedeedddddddddddddddeddedddddddddddd