oversight

Plagiarism (Verbatim)

Published by the National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General on 2017-03-08.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                                                       NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
                                                        OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
                                                          OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS

                                               CLOSEOUT MEMORANDUM

Case Number: A14100059                                                                      Page 1of1



                 We conducted an inquiry into an allegation that a Subject1 copied text without adequate
         attribution in one declined NSF Proposal. 2 Our review found the Proposal contained 112 lines
         copied from 13 sources. The copied material generally included citations before and after the
         copied text, but the text was not demarcated as verbatim. It comprised nearly three pages of the
         12-page Proposal, and three pages of the five-page literature review. Our inquiry did not dispel
         the allegation against the Subject. We referred the investigation to the Subject's University. 3

                 The University conducted an investigation and concluded, based on a preponderance of
         the evidence, that the Subject, at a minimum, recklessly committed plagiarism. It deemed this a
         significant departure from accepted practices. It required that the Subject participate in a
         supervisory meeting to discuss the seriousness of his plagiarism; take training about plagiarism
         prevention; and submit to a University official for review all grant proposals for two years.

                 We reviewed the University's Report and concluded that it followed reasonabie
         procedures and produced an acceptable evidentiary record. However, we disagreed with its
         assessment of intent. Accordingly, we adopted the findings in part and conducted our own
         investigation.

               Our investigation concluded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Subject
         knowingly plagiarized material in the Proposal, thereby committing an act of research
         misconduct. We did not identify a pattern of plagiarism.

                 We recommended that NSF make a finding of research misconduct against the Subject;
         send him a letter of reprimand; require certification of compliance with University-imposed
         actions; and require submission of certification and assurances for two years. NSF's Chief
         Operating Officer made a finding ofresearch misconduct against the Subject, sent him a letter of
         reprimand, and required submission of certifications to NSF that he fully complied with the
         University-imposed actions.

                   Accordingly, this case is closed.




NSF OIG Form 2 (11/02)