45 C.F.R. § 689.1

Definitions

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

The following definitions apply to this part:

(a) Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing or performing research funded by NSF, reviewing research proposals submitted to NSF, or in reporting research results funded by NSF.

(1) Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

(2) Falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

(3) Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit.

(4) Research, for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, includes proposals submitted to NSF in all fields of science, engineering, mathematics, and education and results from such proposals.

(b) Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2016–2018 · leading case: Competitive Enter. Inst. & Rand Simberg v. Michael E. Mann, Nat'l Review, Inc. v. Michael E. Mann, 150 A.3d 1213 (D.C. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Competitive Enter. Inst. & Rand Simberg v. Michael E. Mann, Nat'l Review, Inc. v. Michael E. Mann, 150 A.3d 1213 (D.C. 2016). “10; the National Science Foundation Office of Inspector General conducted a de novo review of the CRU emails and relevant documents against NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, 45 C.F.R. § 689.1 (plagiarism, fabrication, falsification), and other requirements applicable to…”

Competitive Enter. Inst. & Rand Simberg v. Michael Mann (D.C. 2018). “10; the National Science Foundation Office of Inspector General conducted a de novo review of the CRU emails and relevant documents against NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, 45 C.F.R. § 689.1 (plagiarism, fabrication, falsification), and other requirements applicable to…”

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.