1. NSF OIG: Stories from the Case Files
National Science Foundation
Office of the Inspector General
Dr. Jim Kroll
Director, Research Integrity and Administrative Investigations Unit

2. Inspector General (IG)
Who is NSF OIG?
Inspector General (IG)
Deputy IG
Office of Audits
Office of Legal,
Legislative, and External Affairs
Civil/Criminal Investigations
(Special Agents)
Legal and Outreach
(Investigative Attorneys)
Investigations Specialists and Analysts
Financial Audits
CPA Contract Audits
Grant and External Audits
Performance Audits
Office of Investigations
Admin. Investigations
(Investigative Scientists)
Expertise in all
areas of research,
grant, and contract administration

3. Who is NSF OIG? Independent office reporting to the Congress and NSB.
Promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness.
Prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse.
Accomplishes mission through:
Audits
Investigations
Criminal and Civil (e.g., false claims, false statements, embezzlement).
Administrative (e.g., regulatory and policy violations).
Where does research misconduct fit in?
OIG is delegated the responsibility for investigating
research misconduct allegations involving NSF programs.
Unique among the IG Community

4. But there are some subtle differences
NSF/OIG and ORI
Responsible for intake/assessment of allegations
Refer matters to university for investigation
Make recommendations regarding administrative actions
Work together on matters of joint jurisdiction
But there are some subtle differences
ORI NSF
Negotiates Voluntary Exclusions Refers exclusion requests to (VE) NSF/OGC
Oversees grantee investigations Ability to independently investigate
Not a law enforcement agency LE agency with subpoena authority
Search warrant capability (criminal)
Division of Education/Integrity Limited outreach by investigative staff
Publishes all findings/VEs with All closeouts online but names
names redacted except in debarment cases

5. Why do we care about RM? Fairness
An NSF proposal is a request to obtain Federal funds from the taxpayer.
NSF program officers/reviewers assess the proposers’ ability to carry out the proposed work and the proposers’ understanding of the current state of the field.
False representation of data and plagiarism misleads reviewers assessment of PI’s capabilities/knowledge
Economy, efficiency, and effectiveness
Do not want to pay for research already completed.
Do not want subsequent work to be based on misrepresented work.
How does this compare to fraud?

6. RM Relationship to Fraud
Pearls Before Swine – Stephen Pastis
Fraud: a misrepresentation of a material fact to induce another to act to their detriment.
If NSF awards funds based on a proposal containing research misconduct – the case is analyzed under the criminal and civil fraud statutes and common law fraud doctrine.
NSF funding may be temporarily suspended during the process.

7. What is “appropriate credit”?
Depends in part on the “relevant research community.”
Basic idea: tell the reader what material you copied or paraphrased and give the reader a map back to where you got it.
(Q) C R
Quotation
Citation
Reference

8. What if there is no other way to say it? technically constrained text
(Q) C R Quotation
General rule – it should be clear and obvious what is copied and what is your original work.
Distinguish material copied verbatim from your original work with quotation marks, block indentation, or other community standard.
If paraphrasing, make sure it is sufficiently paraphrased and not substantially similar text.
i.e., do not just rearrange the clauses or change every nth word to a synonym, put it in your own words.
What if there is no other way to say it?
technically constrained text
or common phrase

9. Hypothetical: Embedded Citations
This information not only furthers our understanding of cobalamin (B12) systems [1], but also produces a large database of structural and chemical information applicable to other areas of chemistry, such as the development of molecular mechanics force fields for organocobalt systems [2]. For example, the Co–C stretching frequencies of cobaloxime models with R = CH3 are very similar to this frequency in the methyl B12 coenzyme [3]. Of particular interest here is the fact that multiple factors influence NMR chemical shifts in such models and in B12 compounds themselves [4]. Specifically, both Co anisotropy and equatorial ligand anisotropy can affect shifts [4]. Model compounds have proved to be useful in deconvoluting the various contributions to NMR shifts [5] and [6].
= embedded
object
Source
Moore, et al., furthers our understanding of cobalamin (B12) systems [1], and also produces a large database of structural and chemical information applicable to other areas of chemistry, such as the development of molecular mechanics force fields for organocobalt systems [2]. The Co–C stretching frequencies of cobaloxime models with R = CH3 are very similar to this frequency in the methyl B12 coenzyme [3]. Of particular interest here is the fact that multiple factors influence NMR chemical shifts in such models and in B12 compounds themselves. Specifically, both Co anisotropy and equatorial ligand anisotropy can affect shifts [7].
Subject
[7] Moore, et al. 2009

10. Community Standards NSF Grant Proposal Guide: The full proposal . . .
Institutional Policies
Professional Societies
Journal Policies
Is there a different standard for faculty versus students?
Are there different standards for proposals and peer-reviewed journals?
NSF Grant Proposal Guide: The full proposal . . .
“should present the merits of the proposed project clearly and should be prepared with the care and thoroughness of a paper submitted for publication.”
“NSF expects strict adherence to the rules of proper scholarship and attribution. The responsibility for proper attribution and citation rests with authors of a proposal; all parts of the proposal should be prepared with equal care for this concern. Authors other than the PI (or any co-PI) should be named and acknowledged. Serious failure to adhere to such standards can result in findings of research misconduct.”

11. The Inquiry/Investigation Process
Inquiry – Confidential; establishes substance; 120 days; may close institution ever knowing;
Potential QRP letter; data fabrication usually referred
Investigation - Substantive matters referred unless institution conflicted; 180 days to
complete; we use institution report as basis for our investigation;
OIG investigation independent – additional 180 days; may come back to you
to address unanswered questions
Adjudication - Institution should act only to protects its interests; OIG makes
recommendations to protect federal interests; NSF adjudicates, not OIG
Appeal - Director is final appeal
Closeout – We will inform you of our case close. All case closeout documents are
available online

12. The Elements of an RM Finding
Act must meet the definition
Must be with a culpable intent (reckless, knowing or purposeful, not careless)
Preponderance of the evidence
Act must be a significant departure from accepted practice of the relevant community

13. The Research Misconduct Finding
For an NSF finding of RM the preponderance of the evidence must support: The act (e.g., plagiarism) committed by the subject; and The subject’s intent in doing the act was at least reckless.
Careless
Reckless
Knowing
Intentional (purposeful)
Reasonable Person Standard
Individual Standard
No Finding
Finding of Research Misconduct
Where would you put copy-and-paste plagiarism
on the intent continuum?

14. Plagiarism Detection Methods
Review process
NSF program officers and reviewers frequently notice text copied from their own works appearing in proposals.
General complaints/allegations.
Software
Only finds textual similarities not figures, images, or ideas.
Does not determine plagiarism.
Proactive reviews by OIG.
Many programs out there with different features.
BOTTOM LINE:
There is no substitute for a manual analysis.

15. Community Standards NSF Grant Proposal Guide: The full proposal . . .
Institutional Policies
Professional Societies
Journal Policies
Is there a different standard for faculty versus students?
Are there different standards for proposals and peer-reviewed journals?
NSF Grant Proposal Guide: The full proposal . . .
“should present the merits of the proposed project clearly and should be prepared with the care and thoroughness of a paper submitted for publication.”
“NSF expects strict adherence to the rules of proper scholarship and attribution. The responsibility for proper attribution and citation rests with authors of a proposal; all parts of the proposal should be prepared with equal care for this concern. Authors other than the PI (or any co-PI) should be named and acknowledged. Serious failure to adhere to such standards can result in findings of research misconduct.”

16. Case Statistics Number of RM Allegations

17. Case Statistics Data Fabrication/Falsification Allegations

18. Case Statistics

19. Case Statistics - Trends
Allegations peaked in
Upward slope on number of substantive allegations
Upward slope on the number of RM findings by NSF
Recent increase in number of substantive data fabrication allegations in research by students and post-docs
Disconcerting number of PIs who believe that copying text is ok if you include a citation to the source or if it is just “background” material
Disconcerting number of PIs who rely on post-doc or grad students to write their proposals without making sure they understand the rules/expectations
Upward trend in violations of peer review confidentiality
Conflicts between faculty and small business time and effort

20. Why the Increase? We are better at what we do Culture clash
More experienced staff, better tools, internet
Culture clash
Explanation, not an excuse
Technology is a game changer
Makes it easier to cheat
High profile cases raises awareness regarding RM
RCR training raises awareness regarding RM
Government agency interactions with the research communities raise awareness of where complaints can be sent

21. Avoiding the dilemma
When in doubt, make a clear distinction between what is your original work and what is someone else’s.
Know your communities’ practices (hint: look at the standards for the journals in which you publish).
When you work cross-discipline, know the other discipline’s standards also.
Adhere to the standards.
Check with work of co-authors; especially of post-docs or grad students are involved

22. A few of our favorite excuses
Can you explain why these do not work?
It’s only background material.
I did not put the text taken from a specific reference in quotes since it usually makes reading a proposal difficult.
The reviewers are smart enough to know what is mine and what is not.
I used the same words, but I meant something different.
I copied the original sources that the review paper used so it’s cited.
I was told that having between citations in a proposal was enough. Anymore and I would look like I wasn’t proposing to do something new.
It’s not plagiarism if you change every seventh word.
My graduate student / post doc / lab manager / etc. wrote that part.
I was distracted by bird vocalizations outside my thatched roof hut, grabbed my digital camera … , and when I returned to my computer where I thought I had saved my changes to the material, it had crashed with the wrong draft saved.

23. Case Files SBIR gone bad SUNY shenanigans US – Egypt program
A three-fer in PA
Can I borrow your awarded proposal?
Disney Syndrome – It’s a small small world

24. Contact Information
Hotline:
Fax:(703)
Mail:
4201 Wilson Boulevard
Suite II-705
Arlington, VA 22230
ATTN: OIG HOTLINE
Jim Kroll
nsf.gov

25. ?