Examples of Research Misconduct

Fraud/Research Misconduct

Research misconduct is defined by the United States Office of Research Integrity as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results” (42 Code of Federal Regulations, §93.103). ESL abides by this and other national responses to allegations of misconduct. For countries without formal national responses or regulations concerning research misconduct, ESL will abide by COPE recommendations and guidelines. Investigation into research misconduct is under the purview of the employing institution, often in coordination with the appropriate funding agency. ESL is committed to cooperating with investigations and abides by official institutional or governmental rulings with regard to publications affected by research misconduct.

For more information, please review the ORI module on research misconduct and the following COPE guidelines regarding the handling of Fraud/Misconduct allegations. The following lists are examples of fraud/research misconduct:

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the use of others' work without proper attribution and includes, but is not limited to:

  • Directly copying text from other sources without proper attribution.

  • Copying ideas, images, or data from other sources without proper attribution.

  • Reusing text from the author's previous publications without attribution or the editor’s approval.
    Exception: Reusing text from the Methods section of the author's previous publications is acceptable, provided proper attribution is given.

  • Using ideas from another source with only minor rewording, without proper attribution.

Data Fabrication

Data fabrication involves the creation or falsification of research findings that did not occur, including:

Data Falsification

Data falsification refers to the manipulation of research data to mislead or create a false impression. This includes:

  • Altering images/graphs.

  • Removing or omitting data points or outliers that are deemed inconvenient.

  • Modifying, adding, or deleting data points to misrepresent the results.

Duplicate Submissions

Duplicate submission refers to submitting the same or substantially similar manuscripts to multiple journals simultaneously, either within the same publisher or across different publishers. This includes submitting manuscripts based on the same data without meaningful differences. It also includes submitting the same or similar manuscript in different languages to different journals.

Authorship Issues

Authorship issues involve the misrepresentation of contributions to research, including improper attribution or disputes over who qualifies as an author. This misconduct can include:

  • Assigning authorship to individuals who did not contribute significantly to the research or writing.

  • Failing to acknowledge individuals who made substantial contributions to the work.

  • Altering the order of authorship without proper justification or agreement among the authors.

  • Disputes over authorship due to the lack of clarity or transparency in the authorship criteria or contribution statements.

Citation Manipulation

Citation manipulation involves the excessive or inappropriate citation of works that do not meaningfully contribute to the scholarly content. This practice is intended solely to increase citations to a specific author’s work or to articles published in a particular journal, misrepresenting the true impact of the cited work.

Suspected Manipulation/Bias in Editorial Process

Our policy is fully compliant with the COPE Guidelines on editorial process to ensure fairness and integrity in the review process. Suspected manipulation of the editorial process refers to actions that distort the impartiality and integrity of the review and publication process. This includes:

  • Influencing the selection of editors/reviewers or the review process to favor certain outcomes.

  • Engaging in inappropriate communication with editors/reviewers to manipulate the review or decision process.

  • Pressuring editors/reviewers to provide favorable feedback or to overlook ethical concerns.

  • Any attempt to unduly influence the editorial decision-making process in favor of the manuscript, outside of normal peer review practices.