C.F.R. » Title 42 » CHAPTER I—PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES › SUBCHAPTER H—HEALTH ASSESSMENTS AND HEALTH EFFECTS STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES › PART 93—PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT › Subpart A—General

42 C.F.R. § 93.104

Time limitations

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Six-year limitation. This part applies only to research misconduct occurring within six years of the date HHS or an institution receives an allegation of research misconduct.

(b) Exceptions to the six-year limitation. Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply in the following instances:

(1) Subsequent use exception. The respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct that occurred before the six-year limitation through the use of, republication of, or citation to the portion(s) of the research record (e.g., processed data, journal articles, funding proposals, data repositories) alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized, for the potential benefit of the respondent.

(i) When the respondent uses, republishes, or cites to the portion(s) of the research record that is alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized, in submitted or published manuscripts, submitted PHS grant applications, progress reports submitted to PHS funding components, posters, presentations, or other research records within six years of when the allegations were received by HHS or an institution, this exception applies.

(ii) For research misconduct that appears subject to the subsequent use exception, institutions must document their determination that the subsequent use exception does not apply. Such documentation must be retained in accordance with § 93.318.

(2) Exception for the health or safety of the public. If ORI or the institution, following consultation with ORI, determines that the alleged research misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public, this exception applies.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2016–2020 · leading case: Yuan v. Johns Hopkins Univ., 157 A.3d 254 (Md. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Yuan v. Johns Hopkins Univ., 157 A.3d 254 (Md. 2017). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to the federal regulations, 42 C.F.R. § 93.104 , *455 researchers can be found to have engaged in research misconduct when they violate scientific research norms.”
Yuan v. Johns Hopkins Univ., 135 A.3d 519 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2016). “[ 8 ] 42 C.F.R. § 93.104 . One legal commentator has noted the limited scope of the definition: The narrow definition that was finally adopted was the product of a prolonged battle over .”
Croce v. Sanders (S.D. Ohio 2020). · cites it 3× “” See 42 C.F.R. § 93.104 (b). If this were a debate about whether Dr.”
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.