.. ' ' NATIONAL OFFICE OF SCIENCE INSPECTOR FOUNDATION GENERAL z OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS $j@ 4 o .QAI CLOSEOUT MEMORANDUM Case Number: A06120061 Page 1 of 1 The complainant1 received an email from a student that asks about procedures used in her research, specifically as described in the complainant's published papers. Since the student is at the same university as a self-identified reviewer2 of her declined NSF proposal3 , and the reviewer asked for copies of the published papers during the review process, the complainant is concerned that the student now aims to carry out research that the complainant proposed. The complainant therefore makes a claim of intellectual property theft. The student's questions are related specifically to the complainant's published paper, and make no reference to the complainant's proposal. The complainant admits that all elements of her proposed work are openly known and openly available, and that the approach described in her proposal would be obvious and apparent to anyone knowledgeable in the field. Given these facts, we conclude there is no substance to the allegation of intellectual property theft. It is reasonable that a research advisor might direct a student to initiate conversations with experts in the field of proposed research, and as noted above, the student directs questions towards the complainant's publications, not her proposal. We determine that there is no substance to suggest violation of proposal review confidentiality. \ Accordingly, this file is closed. I I I 1 I I ' Redacted. Redacted. 3 Redacted. -~ -- I a NSF OIG Form 2 (1 1/02)
Intellectual Theft Peer Review violation
Published by the National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General on 2007-02-02.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)