42 C.F.R. § 93.103
Requirements for findings of research misconduct
A finding of research misconduct made under this part requires that:
(a) There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
(b) The misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
(c) The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2010–2025 · leading case: Yuan v. Johns Hopkins Univ., 157 A.3d 254 (Md. 2017).
Yuan v. Johns Hopkins Univ., 157 A.3d 254 (Md. 2017). “” 42 C.F.R. § 93.103 . Dr, Yuan also brought claims for conversion and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.”
Anversa v. Partners Healthcare Sys., Inc., 835 F.3d 167 (1st Cir. 2016). “” 42 C.F.R. § 93.103 . Establishing research misconduct requires a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, of “a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community” that is “committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.”
Yuan v. Johns Hopkins Univ., 135 A.3d 519 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2016). “” 42 C.F.R. § 93.103 . (a) Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.”
Brodie v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 796 F. Supp. 2d 145 (D.D.C. 2011). “42 C.F.R. §§ 93.103 -.104 (emphasis added).”
Braun v. Hhs (Fed. Cir. 2020). “Such a reading is precluded by § L(1)’s express coverage of re- moval for “scientific misconduct,” which the Board and the parties agree means “research misconduct” as set forth in 42 C.F.R. § 93.103 . 1 J.A. 13; see NIH Intramural Research Program Policies & Procedures for…”
Croce v. Sanders (S.D. Ohio 2020). “See generally 42 C.F.R. § 93.103 . Also relevant to this case are the terms “image manipulation” and image or data “duplication.”
Baggett v. Merced Police Dept. (E.D. Cal. 2024). “May 11, 2021) (“Although Plaintiff’s Complaint makes no reference to any federal law, the 8 civil cover sheet does invoke 42 C.F.R. § 93.103 . That regulation, however, simply defines 9 “research misconduct” for purposes of policy statements pertaining to the Public Health…”
Houser v. Feldman (E.D. Pa. 2021). “” 42 C.F.R. § 93.103 . A finding of research misconduct requires a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, of “a significant departure from accepted practice of the relevant research community” that was “committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.”
Flavia Pichiorri v. Arthur Burghes (6th Cir. 2025). “(citing 42 C.F.R. § 93.103 (a)–(c) (2005)). So investigators may not treat an “honest error” as misconduct.”
Croce v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trs., 2023 Ohio 2656 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023). “OSU’s investigation ultimately concluded with the issuance of a final report that found that Plaintiff did not commit research misconduct as that term is defined in 42 C.F.R. 93.103. Complaint, ¶ 17-18; Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.”
Bois v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (D.D.C. 2012). “” 42 C.F.R. § 93.103 . 7 “Fabrication” involves “making up data or results and recording them,” while “falsification” is “manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the…”
Brodie v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (D.D.C. 2011). “42 C.F.R. §§ 93.103 – .104 (emphasis added).”
— 42 C.F.R. § 93.103(d) — 1 case
Yuan v. Johns Hopkins Univ., 157 A.3d 254 (Md. 2017). “” 42 C.F.R. § 93.103 . Dr, Yuan also brought claims for conversion and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.