Guidelines for Responding to Misconduct in
Research

Adopted August 26, 2014by Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology(MEXT)

Guidelines for Responding to Misconduct in ResearchContents

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
Section 1. Basic Idea of Misconduct in Research ....................................................... 5
1. What is Research? ................................................................................................... 5
2. What is Publication of Research Results? ................................................................ 5
3. What is Misconduct in Research? ............................................................................ 5
4. Basic Stance Regarding Misconduct in Research ..................................................... 6
5. Voluntary Self-Discipline by Researchers and the Scientific Community andManagement Responsibility of Research Institutions ............................................... 6
Section 2. Initiatives for Preventing Misconduct ........................................................ 8
1. Provision of Environment Discouraging Misconduct ............................................... 8
2. Listing and Publicizing Misconduct Cases ............................................................ 10
Section 3. Responding to Specific Research Misconduct .......................................... 11
1. Applicable Types of Misconduct in Research, etc. ................................................ 11
2. Providing and Disclosing Rules and an Organizational Structure in ResearchInstitutions and Research Funding Organizations .................................................. 12
3. Receiving Allegation of Specific Research Misconduct ......................................... 13
4. Investigating Reported Cases of Specific Research Misconduct ............................. 16
Section 4. Sanctions for Specific Research Misconduct and Management
Responsibility ............................................................................................................ 24
1. Sanctions on Researchers and Research Institutions for Specific Research
Misconduct ........................................................................................................... 24
2. Sanctions on Research Institutions for Failure to Fulfill Their Management
Responsibilities as Organizations .......................................................................... 26
3. Public Notice of Sanctions .................................................................................... 27
Section 5. Surveys and Support by MEXT ............................................................... 28
1. Ongoing Response to Misconduct in Research ...................................................... 28
2. Surveys of Implementation Status ......................................................................... 28
3. Encouraging Development of Programs in RCR Education .................................... 28
4. Support for Setting Up an Investigating Organization in Research Institutions ...... 28(Reference 1) .............................................................................................................. 29(Reference 2) .............................................................................................................. 30

About these Guidelines

Guidelines for Responding to Misconduct in Research have been adopted as follows andare here made public.

August 26, 2014
Hakubun Shimomura, Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology

Guidelines for Responding to Misconduct in ResearchAugust 26, 2014
Adopted by Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)
Introduction(Background and Objectives of the Guidelines)
The purpose of this document is to set out a basic policy on misconduct in research, toencourage initiatives by researchers, the scientific community and research institutions
to prevent such misconduct, and to present guidelines on measures to be taken inadvance by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology(MEXT), research funding organizations, and institutions conducting research that will
enable each of these institutions to deal appropriately with misconduct.* 1
Misconduct in scientific research violates the very essence of science, which is a
careful, continual pursuit of truth aimed at creating new knowledge. Such misconduct is
a disgrace that cannot be tolerated, since it undermines public faith in science andhinders scientific progress. A researcher who betrays science in this way negates thesignificance of his or her own existence as a researcher, causing loss of trust in thescientific community.
Everyone involved in scientific research must be aware that their activity is dependent
on the trust of and mandate from the public, and that any diminution or loss of that trust
and mandate undermines the very foundation of scientific research. The need to ensure
the propriety of research activities is all the stronger when research and development are
conducted using public funds, received even in the face of severe budgetary constraints
based on the trust of and mandate from the public as an investment in the future.
Scientific research today is becoming increasingly specialized, drawing on ever more
complex and diverse research methods and techniques. As scientific results andknowledge grow exponentially it is difficult even for researchers themselves to keep
abreast of each other’s research activities, making it more important than ever for
researchers to carry out their work properly.
For these reasons, the Council for Science and Technology Special Committee on
Scientific Misconduct drew up the document “Toward Guidelines for Responding to
Misconduct in Research: Report of the Special Committee on Scientific Misconduct”(August 8, 2006; hereinafter referred to as the “Special Committee Report”) and MEXT
demanded that all relevant institutions take stringent measures based on this report.
Even so, cases of misconduct in research continued unabated and have recently
received major coverage as an issue facing society. Against this background, MEXT in
August 2013 established a task force on research misconduct and misuse of researchfunds, which carried out intensive studies on countermeasures and made the results
public the following month.
*1 See the Guidelines for Supervision and Auditing of Public Research Funds at ResearchInstitutions (adopted by MEXT February 15, 2007; revised February 18, 2014) on proper
management of public research funds.

1Based on the task force report, a consultative council was set up in the Science andTechnology Policy Bureau to study ways of revising and improving the implementationof the existing Guidelines. The members conducted extensive studies centering on how
research institutions could apply their organizational strength to deal with research
misconduct, and in particular to prevent it from occurring. Sharing the common
awareness that following proper procedures in research activities helps to ensure thequality of research in Japan and increase trust in science, they considered how best torevise and improve implementation of the Special Committee Report and measures forenhancing education on responsible conduct of research(RCR). The results of theirdeliberations were then released on February 3, 2014.
The new Guidelines have been drawn up to reflect these various studies anddeliberations. In principle, they adhere to the basic recognition in the Special Committee
Report that dealing with the problem of research misconduct should be a self-correcting
process that relies on the self-discipline of researchers themselves and voluntary efforts
by research institutions and the scientific community. However, up to now there has
been a strong tendency to leave things to the responsibility of individual researchers
alone. The basic policy of these new Guidelines, therefore, is to strengthen the approachby assigning greater responsibility for preventing misconduct to research institutions. At
the same time, however, the emphasis on researcher self-discipline and the voluntary
efforts of the scientific community is retained.
These Guidelines ask that research institutions and research funding organizations
take more proactive and effective measures to deal with the issue of misconduct inresearch activities. For example, research institutions are expected to devise appropriate
mechanisms for dealing with misconduct, and research funding organizations are
expected to reflect these Guidelines in application guidelines for competitive funding,research commission contracts and other documents.
(Applicability)
These Guidelines shall take effect as of April 1, 2015. Section 3 and Section 4 shallapply to all research activities carried out from the initial budget of fiscal 2015
(including continuing projects) by funding from the Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology budget or by special budgetary measures.
The period through March 31, 2015, is considered as an intensive reform period for
application of these Guidelines, during which relevant institutions are urged to makeintensive preparations toward their effective implementation.
(Definitions of Terms)
Terminology used in these Guidelines is defined as follows.
(1) Competitive funding
Research funds distributed based on open calls for proposals, chiefly consistingof competitive funds allocated by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology (MEXT) or by independent administrative agencies under
MEXT jurisdiction.
(2) Research institution2Any institution (university, specialized vocational school, inter-university
research institute, independent administrative agency, national or local
government-operated testing and research agency, corporation, Public Interest
Incorporated Association, Public Interest Incorporated Foundation, General
Incorporated Association, General Incorporated Foundation, former public interest
corporation, etc.) whose affiliated researchers conduct research funded by theabove-defined competitive funding, by administrative cost grants to national
university corporations or to independent administrative agencies under MEXT
jurisdiction, by private school subsidies or other funding for basic operating
expenses, or by other funding budgeted or specially allocated by MEXT.
(3) Research funding organization
An institution (MEXT* 2 or independent administrative agency under MEXT
jurisdiction) allocating competitive funding (as defined in (1) above) to research
institutions (as defined in (2) above).
(4) Research institutions and funding organizations
Includes both research institutions (as defined in (2) above) and research fundingorganizations (as defined in (3) above).
(5) Research funding organization, etc.
An institution (MEXT* 3 or independent administrative agency under MEXT
jurisdiction) allocating competitive funding, funding for basic operating expenses,
or other funding budgeted or specially allocated by MEXT to research institutions(as defined in (2) above).
(6) Administrative conditions
In cases when MEXT determines based on an investigation that there are problems
with an institution, such as inadequate organizational structure, administrative
conditions are conditions set by MEXT for continued granting of competitive
funding, indicating to a research institution matters requiring remediation and thedeadline for implementing such remediation.
(Note)The provisions under each section of these Guidelines must be implemented in the formof practical measures that take into account the nature and scale of each institution alongwith costs and resources. However, the Guidelines may be applied as a clearly
designated part of existing measures in the case of certain companies and universities.
These include companies that have already devised rules or regulations and are
implementing measures as part of internal control system provision based on the
Companies Act (Act No. 86 enacted in 2007), etc., or universities with an existing
system of compliance-related rules or regulations that encompasses the provisions of*2 In the context of the definition of “Research funding organization,” MEXT refers to each of the
MEXT institutions and divisions responsible for competitive funding.
In the context of the definition of “Research funding organization, etc.,” MEXT refers to eachof the MEXT institutions and divisions responsible for competitive funding or funding for basic
operating expenses.

*33

these Guidelines.

4Section 1. Basic Idea of Misconduct in Research
1. What is Research?
Research is the act of constructing knowledge systems based on the researchaccomplishments by the predecessors, making use of facts and data obtained throughobservation and experiment, and creating new knowledge and insights based on the
researcher’s own critical reflection, inspiration and ideas. It is a process in whichscientific research progresses by means of a cycle of hypothesis and verification;
while a hypothesis may later be rejected, it must not be forgotten that the hypothesis
itself is something that can have scientific value.
2. What is Publication of Research Results?
Publication of research results is the act of making public the results obtained fromresearch, while presenting data and materials that can be objectively verified, so thatthe scientific community can examine and judge those results. For the intellectual
resources shared by all human beings to be built up soundly through scientificresearch, a verification system, premised on the integrity of the people carrying out
the research and consisting of mutual examination and judgment among researchers,
is essential. The publication of research results means participation in thisverification system. In many cases it takes the form of research paper publishing, and
it is largely for the sake of this verification that there are certain fixed rules about
writing such papers (presentation of data and materials, logical development,
indication of conclusions, etc.).
3. What is Misconduct in Research?
Research misconduct goes against research integrity, distorts the essence andmeaning of 1. and 2. above, and hinders the normal process of communication in thescientific community. Specifically, misconduct consists of fabrication andfalsification (manipulation) of the data and results obtained from research, andappropriation of the research results by others (plagiarism). Other behaviors that havecome to be regarded as misconduct include duplicate submission (submitting
essentially the same research paper as one that has already been published or
submitted to another journal) and impropriate authorship (failure to attributeauthorship of a paper to the qualified authors). These kinds of behavior can occur in
any of the processes from planning and designing research to performing it andreporting the results.
Of these, duplicate submission, for example, differs from fabrication, falsification,and plagiarism, which fatally harm trust in science; but it is still harmful to theoriginality of a research paper or journal, raises problems of copyright ownership, andis a violation of researcher integrity in that it can improperly inflate researchaccomplishments. For these reasons it is forbidden in the submission rules of mostacademic societies and journals. Given this situation, there is a strong need in thescientific community to clarify just what constitutes conduct that violates research
integrity, such as duplicate submission and inappropriate authorship, and to indicate
5guidelines on how to respond when such conduct is disclosed. Such clarification
should be provided in academic societies’ ethical rules and codes of conduct and injournal submission rules and the like, based on cases in each research field where
misconduct was suspected, as well as on international trends.
It should be noted that for earlier hypothesis or research results to be overturned by
new research is the nature of research work, so that even if research results obtained
legitimately by proper scientific procedures prove to be wrong, this does not amountto misconduct.
4. Basic Stance Regarding Misconduct in Research
In the sense that misconduct in research violates the true nature of research
activities and publication of results, it is a betrayal of science itself, undermines faithin science, and hinders scientific progress, and can therefore in no way be tolerated
regardless of the amount of research funds involved or their provenance. Moreover,researchers guilty of misconduct negate the significance of their own existence as
researchers, leading to self-destruction.
These matters are to be understood not only by each individual researcher but by thescientific community, research institutions, and research funding organizations, whomust take a strict stance against misconduct.
While it is of course necessary to make rigorous efforts to combat misconduct, notonly must academic freedom not be violated, but research cannot be allowed toatrophy, such as by suppressing the publication of bold hypothesis. Rather it must be
remembered that the real intent of countering misconduct is to invigorate research.
5. Voluntary Self-Discipline by Researchers and the Scientific Community andManagement Responsibility of Research Institutions(1) Voluntary self-discipline by researchers and the scientific community
Dealing with misconduct in research and its prevention is a matter of research
integrity and responsibility to society. It must be approached first of all as an issue
requiring self-correction based on the voluntary efforts of researchers themselves
and of the scientific community and research institutions.
Efforts to strengthen voluntary self-discipline and self-correction must berecognized as an important issue at all levels. In a university, for example, such
efforts would apply at the laboratory and unit levels, as well as at the department
and faculty levels.
While maintaining this kind of research self-discipline as a premise, the scientificcommunity as a whole must exercise the extremely important duty of managing
quality throughout the process of building up intellectual resources shared by all
human beings. This entails rigorous examination and evaluation of the results
published by each researcher.
As part of this management, the senior researchers responsible for fostering young
researchers must understand voluntary self-discipline and properly educate young
researchers and students about it—which also requires self-discipline on the part ofthe senior researchers themselves. All researchers should bear in mind that this6

understanding of voluntary self-discipline by senior researchers, young researchers,
and students is a key premise for carrying out human resource development andtraining through research activities. When multiple researchers conduct joint
research and coauthor papers, the need for mutual clarification of the roles andresponsibilities of each researcher must be seen as a major precondition for
conducting research, and must further be recognized as an issue of researcher
self-discipline.
(2) Management responsibility of research institutions
It is of course assumed that researchers must understand the nature of research andthat they master good practices and research integrity based thereon. It would seem,
however, that a significant number of young researchers and students aiming tobecome researchers have not received adequate training regarding the responsible
research practices. And many researchers who should be providing instruction inthis regard seem to lack adequate awareness of their responsibility. Other factors
pointed to as potential contributors to research misconduct are the rapid
intensification of the competitive environment, the splintering of research fields into
small divisions and deepening of specialization, and the growing complexity anddiversity of research organizations, as a result of which it has become more difficult
for self-correction of the problems to take place in the scientific community.
Such potential contributors have, moreover, been supported by the strong tendency
up to now to rely solely on the self-discipline and responsibility of individual
researchers to deal with prevention of misconduct. From now on, therefore, while
retaining the emphasis on researcher self-discipline and the voluntary efforts of thescientific community, it will be necessary to strengthen the approach by assigning
greater responsibility for preventing misconduct to research institutions, so as tocreate an environment in which misconduct is discouraged. In research institutions
in particular, the management responsibilities of the organization should be clarified
by establishing lines of responsibility, and efforts should be made to prevent
misconduct from occurring.*3
Moreover, as the personnel involved in research have become more diverse,
encompassing researchers, research assistants, students, and foreign researchers, theway in which joint research is structured has also become more complex. Given thissituation, research institutions should clarify the roles and responsibilities of eachindividual involved in joint research and ensure that research activities and results
are appropriately verified by a principal researcher in a position to conduct overallmonitoring and management of research activities involving multiple researchers. In
addition, research institutions should assign mentors or take other measures toprovide an environment offering proper support and advice to help young
researchers conduct independent research. Effective initiatives should be carried out
in research institutions so that this kind of proper research structure can beestablished.
*3 See Reference 1 appended to these Guidelines on the respective responsibilities of researchers
and research institutions regarding research misconduct.

7Section 2. Initiatives for Preventing Misconduct
1. Provision of Environment Discouraging Misconduct(1) Enhancing researcher integrity by conducting education on responsible research
practices
To prevent misconduct and ensure that responsible research is carried out, it isimportant first of all that research institutions enhance researcher integrity byproviding effective education to instill the standards for ethical practice demandedof those who carry out research. In implementing such education, institutions must
not only teach the code of conduct for research, including the basic responsibilities
of researchers and the required attitude toward research activities, but also ensurethat researchers obtain and master knowledge and skills relating to good research
practices. These vary with the research field, covering such matters as keeping andstoring the experimental and observation notes or other media for recording researchdata, preservation of test samples and reagents, and clarifying the roles andresponsibilities of each researcher when preparing research papers.
Each research institution carrying out education on responsible research practices
needs to provide the education not only to its own affiliated researchers but topersonnel with future intentions of becoming researchers, those providing research
assistance, and a wide range of other personnel involved in research activities. Evenin cases where, for example, persons from different countries, researchers fromprivate firms, or exchange students take part temporarily in joint research at a
research institution, that institution must enable them to receive education in
research integrity.
Moreover, as industry-academia-government collaboration deepens, theopportunities for students or others to become involved in joint research or
technology transfer are growing, making it important that not only university
personnel and researchers, but also students taking part in research activities, gain
the discernment necessary to deal with issues that can actually arise. To this end
they should also obtain knowledge about such matters as conflict of interest andnondisclosure obligations.
Research institutions should accordingly set up the necessary organizational
structure, such as appointing a RCR education officer.*4 In addition, they should
provide regular RCR education for their affiliated researchers, research assistants,
and a wide range of other personnel involved in research activities, so as toreinforce and renew their personnel’s knowledge of research integrity. Researchers
in a position to direct research activities by students and young researchers should
themselves actively take part in initiatives like these for enhancing self-disciplineand self-correction. The research institution as a whole should require such
*4 See Section 3.2, “Providing and Disclosing Rules and an Organizational Structure in ResearchInstitutions and Research Funding Organizations” regarding the appointing of a RCR education
officer.

8

supervising researchers to take part in regular programs on RCR education in order
to extend RCR education program throughout the entire organization and raiseawareness of responsible practices among researchers.
In universities in particular, to ensure proper awareness of responsible practices by
students as well as researchers, each university should provide students with RCR
education geared to the school’s education and research objectives and to the natureof each field of study. Specifically, graduate students should be given suitable
opportunities, both inside and outside the curriculum, to acquire knowledge andskills relating to research integrity and tailored to their field of study. From theundergraduate stage as well, arrangements should be made so that students canreceive RCR education enabling them to acquire basic learning in research integrity
based on the characteristics of their field of study.
In research funding organizations, all researchers taking part in research receiving
competitive funding or other funding by the organization should be required to takea RCR education program, and their completion of such a program should be
confirmed by presentation of a certificate or other means. The organization should
also take other initiatives toward furthering and raising the level of RCR education,
including providing support to enhance the knowledge and abilities of the RCR
education officer.
Matters to be implemented by research institutions○ Set up the necessary organizational structure, such as appointing a RCR education
officer, and provide regular RCR education to the wide range of personnel involved inresearch activities.
Matters to be implemented by universities○ To ensure proper awareness of responsible practices by students, provide them with
RCR education geared to the school’s education and research objectives and to thenature of each field of study.
Matters to be implemented by research funding organizations○ All researchers taking part in research receiving competitive funding or otherfunding by the organization should be required to take a RCR education program, andthe organization should take initiatives toward furthering and raising the level of RCR
education, including providing support to enhance the knowledge and abilities of the
RCR education officer.
(2) Preserving and disclosing research data in research institutions for a set period
As noted in Section 1.2, “Publication of Research Results,” publication of research
results is the act of making public the results obtained from research, while
presenting data and materials that can be objectively verified, so that the scientificcommunity can examine and judge those results. Accordingly, the willful
destruction of research data or loss resulting from improper management is not
responsible research behavior and can in no way be tolerated. Keeping research data9

for a predetermined time period, managing it properly and disclosing it ensures theverifiability of research results by a third party, discourages improper conduct, andprovides a means of self-defense if a researcher is suspected of wrongdoing. In
addition it is beneficial in sharing research results broadly among the scientificcommunity.
For these reasons research institutions need to adopt rules requiring researchers tokeep research data for a set period and to disclose the data as needed, and these rules
need to be enforced properly and effectively. The specific research data to bepreserved or disclosed, the time period, method, and to whom the data is to bedisclosed can be decided based on the nature of the data and of the research field.
Matters to be implemented by research institutions○ Draw up rules requiring researchers to preserve research data for a set period and to
disclose the data as needed, and enforce the rules properly and effectively.
2. Listing and Publicizing Misconduct Cases
As noted in Section 3.4, “Investigating Reported Cases of Specific Research
Misconduct,” when it has been determined that specific research misconduct has
occurred, the results of the investigation are to be made public promptly (the term
“specific research misconduct” used in this paragraph refers to any of the specificresearch misconduct defined in Section 3.1). For cases where specific research
misconduct has been confirmed, MEXT will make public a list outlining the instancesof misconduct and indicating the responses by the research institutions and researchfunding organizations. The expectation is that this will help discourage misconduct
by those seeing the list and will be useful when misconduct is disclosed.
Matters to be implemented by MEXT
○ For cases where specific research misconduct has been confirmed, make public a list
outlining the instances of misconduct and indicating the responses by the research
institutions and research funding organizations.

10

3. Responding to Specific Research Misconduct
1. Applicable Types of Misconduct in Research, etc.
The research activities, researchers, and misconduct to which this section applies are
as follows.
(1) Applicable research activities
The research activities to which this section applies are all those receiving
competitive funding, administrative cost grants to national university corporations
or to independent administrative agencies under MEXT jurisdiction, private school
subsidies or other funding for basic operating expenses, or other funding budgetedor specially allocated by MEXT.
(2) Applicable researchers
The researchers to whom this section applies are researchers conducting the
research activities defined in (1) above.
(3) Applicable misconduct (specific research misconduct)
The misconduct to which this section applies is the fabrication, falsification, or
plagiarism of data or research findings, etc., indicated in a submitted research
paper or other published research results (hereinafter “specific research
misconduct”), either willfully or due to gross neglect of the basic duty of care
expected of a researcher.*5(a) Fabrication
Making up data or research results, etc.
(b) Falsification
Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes to change data or
results obtained from research activities.
(c) Plagiarism
Appropriating the ideas, analysis, analytical methods, data, research results,
research paper(s), or words of other researchers without obtaining the permissionof the researchers or giving appropriate credit.
Note that in drawing up rules concerning the response to misconduct in a research
institution, there is no need to limit the applicability as in (1) to (3) above. For
example, research performed on commission by another government agency or*5 The “Guidelines on the Proper Implementation of Competitive Funding” (agreement of theliaison meeting of related offices and ministries on competitive funding, dated September 9,
2005; revised October 17, 2012) address the response to misconduct in research by stating that
if there is determined to be “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism” in a research paper orreport funded by competitive funding, administrative action shall be imposed such as requiringfunds to be returned and suspending eligibility for further funding. Because of this, the types of
misconduct to which this section applies (specific research misconduct) are limited to“fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism,” the same as in the Special Committee Report.

11

company should be included among applicable research activities regardless of thetype of funding.

2. Providing and Disclosing Rules and an Organizational Structure in ResearchInstitutions and Research Funding Organizations
A research institution or research funding organization should provide the appropriate
rules, mechanisms, and organizational structure (including investigation procedures
and methods) for responding when specific research misconduct as described in thissection is suspected. When devising rules and an organizational structure, it is ofparticular importance to (i) clarify the persons responsible for responding to
misconduct in research and define their roles and scope of responsibility, (ii) ensure
confidentiality of the people involved, including complainants, and clarify specificprocedures to be followed after an allegation, (iii) draw up rules requiring
reports—including notification of any decision to investigate a suspected case of
specific research misconduct—to be made to the relevant research fundingorganization, etc. and to MEXT, and (iv) prescribe the types and content ofinvestigation results to be made public in suspected cases of specific research
misconduct. Progress in developing rules and an organizational structure is to bemade public inside and outside the research institution or research fundingorganization.
In providing an organizational structure for responding to misconduct, a research
institution should appoint in each department a RCR education officer with a certain
degree of authority, and should as an organization provide regular RCR education to
the wide range of personnel involved in research activities.
Matters to be implemented by research institutions and research funding organizations○ Provide and disclose appropriate rules (including investigation procedures andmethods) for responding when specific research misconduct is suspected.
○ In so doing,
The research institution or research funding organization should clarify the
persons responsible for responding to research misconduct and should define theirroles and scope of responsibility.
The research institution or research funding organization should ensure
confidentiality of the people involved, including complainants, and should clarify
specific procedures to be followed after an allegation.
The research institution or research funding organization should draw up rules
requiring reports—including notification of any decision to investigate asuspected case of specific research misconduct—to be made to the relevant
research funding organization, etc. and to MEXT.
The research institution or research funding organization should prescribe thetypes and content of investigation results to be made public in suspected cases of
specific research misconduct.
12

As noted earlier, a research institution should set up the necessary organizational
structure such as appointing a RCR education officer and should provide regular
RCR education to the wide range of personnel involved in research activities.

3. Receiving Allegation of Specific Research Misconduct
3-1. Organizational Structure for Receiving Allegations(a) A research institution or research funding organization shall set up a contact point
for receiving allegations about specific research misconduct (whether frompersonnel within the organization or from someone outside; the same applies
hereinafter) or handling consultations where the intention to make an allegation is
not explicit. Note that this does not necessarily mean setting up a new position ororganization. Moreover, it shall be possible to delegate the receipt of allegations toa firm outside the institution in order to improve objectivity and transparency.
(b) A research institution or research funding organization shall decide the name of
the contact point, its location, contact information, and contact methods, etc., andshall make these known inside and outside the organization.
(c) A research institution or research funding organization shall set up the contact
point so as to allow complainants to choose their contact method freely, such as inwriting, by telephone, fax, email, or in person, etc.
(d) A research institution or research funding organization shall take care to ensurethat the persons receiving allegations or conducting investigations andconfirmations of fact (hereinafter “investigations”) do not become involved incases in which they have a conflict of interest.
(e) Regarding the organizational structure from receiving allegations to conducting
investigations, the research institution or research funding organization shallappoint as its representative a person of a suitable position such as a regent(trustee) or vice-president, shall create the necessary organization, and shall devote
to it the necessary planning, provisioning, and management.
3-2. Handling of Allegations(a) Allegations shall be made directly to the research institution or research fundingorganization via the contact point in writing, by telephone, fax, email, or in person,etc.
(b) As a general rule, allegations should be accepted only if they are madenon-anonymously, they clearly indicate the researcher or group suspected of
specific research misconduct along with the nature of the misconduct anddescription of the case, and a scientifically rational reason is indicated forconsidering it as misconduct.
(c) Notwithstanding (b) above, if an allegation is made anonymously, the research
institution or research funding organization may decide to treat it similarly to a
non-anonymous allegation depending on its nature.
(d) When the research institution or research funding organization receiving an
allegation is not the organization that should investigate the matter, the allegation
13

shall be forwarded to the research institution or research funding organization
corresponding to the investigating organization in 4-1, “Investigating
Organization.” The organization to which the allegation is forwarded shall treat it
as if the allegation had been made to that research institution or research fundingorganization. If based on 4-1, “Investigating Organization,” there are otherresearch institutions or research funding organizations that might need to conduct
an investigation in addition to the organization to which the allegation was made,the organization receiving the allegation shall notify such organizations of theallegation.
(e) If an allegation is made in writing or by other means that would preclude thecomplainant from knowing whether it was received, the research institution or
research funding organization shall notify the complainant that his or her allegation
was received (applies only to non-anonymous complainants, provided, however,that a complainant shall be treated as non-anonymous if his or her name becomes
known before the results of the investigation become clear; the same applies
hereinafter).
(f) In the case of a consultation where the intention to make an allegation is not
explicit, the organization receiving the consultation shall, depending on thecontents, check and examine the case as for a regular allegation. If there is deemed
to be sufficient reason to make an allegation, the organization shall confirm withthe consulter whether he or she intends to make an allegation or not.
(g) In the case of allegations or consultations declaring that someone intends tocommit specific research misconduct, or that someone was asked to commit such
misconduct, the organization receiving the allegation or consultation shall checkand examine the case, and if there is deemed to be sufficient reason, shall issue awarning to the respondent. Note that when the organization receiving an allegationor consultation is not the research institution with which the respondent isaffiliated, the organization may forward the matter to the research institution of the
respondent. If an organization that is not the research institution with which the
respondent is affiliated issues a warning to the respondent, that organization shallnotify the reason and details of the warning to the research institution of the
respondent.
3-3. Treatment of Complainants and Respondent(a) When receiving an allegation, proper measures shall be taken to protect theconfidentiality of the contents and the complainant, such as by holding
consultations in a private room and by ensuring that telephone calls, email andother information are not heard or seen by persons other than the staff handlingallegations (the term “complainant” used here in 3-3, “Treatment of Complainants
and Respondent” includes the consulter in 3-2, “Handling of Allegations” (f) and(g) above).
(b) To prevent information being leaked to persons outside the investigation against
the will of the complainant and respondent, a research institution or researchfunding organization shall hold all parties involved to an obligation of14

confidentiality. Such confidentiality shall apply to the complainant bringing an
allegation to its contact point, the respondent, details of the allegation, and detailsof the investigation, up until the investigation results are made public.
(c) If a case under investigation is leaked, the research institution or research fundingorganization shall, with the consent of the complainant and respondent, be able toprovide a public explanation of the case even though the investigation is stillongoing. If the complainant or the respondent was responsible for the leak,however, that person’s consent shall not be needed.
(d) To prevent allegations being lodged out of malice (hereinafter meaning for the
purpose of damaging the respondent, or of hindering research being conducted by
the respondent, or otherwise solely to cause some kind of harm to the respondent or
to disadvantage the institution or organization with which the respondent isaffiliated), the research institution or research funding organization shall make it
known in advance inside and outside the organization that as a general rule only
allegations filed non-anonymously will be accepted, that a scientifically rational
reason must be indicated for raising an allegation of misconduct, that thecomplainant may be asked to cooperate in the investigation, and that if theinvestigation determines that the allegation was made out of malice, thecomplainant may be subject to having his or her name made public, to dismissal, or
to criminal charges.
(e) Provided an allegation is not determined to have been made out of malice, theresearch institution or research funding organization shall not disadvantage thecomplainant such as by dismissal, demotion, salary reduction or other sanction,
simply for having brought an allegation.
(f) A research institution or research funding organization shall not, without alegitimate reason, disadvantage the respondent such as by limitation or prohibitionof research activities, dismissal, demotion, salary reduction or other sanction,
simply because an allegation was brought.
3-4. Handling of Cases Not Received As Allegations(a) In the case of consultations where the intention to make an allegation is not
explicit, as per 3-2, “Handling of Allegations” (f), even when no intention to issue
an allegation is indicated, an investigation of the case may be initiated at thediscretion of the research institution or research funding organization.
(b) When specific research misconduct is suspected by an academic society or othersin the scientific community or by the media, the case may be treated in a similar
way as if an allegation had been made to the research institution of the person or
persons suspected of specific research misconduct.
(c) If suspicions of specific research misconduct are posted on the Internet and theresearch institution of the person or persons suspected of the misconduct has
identified such Internet postings, the case may be treated in a similar way as if anallegation had been made to that research institution. (However, this applies only if
the postings clearly indicate the researcher or group suspected of specific research
misconduct along with the nature of the misconduct and description of the case, and15

a scientifically rational reason is indicated for considering it as misconduct.)

4. Investigating Reported Cases of Specific Research Misconduct
4-1. Investigating Organization(a) If an allegation of specific research misconduct is made involving a researcher
affiliated with a research institution, as a general rule that research institution shallinvestigate the reported case (hereinafter this includes someone not affiliated withany research institution but conducting research making use of the facilities andequipment of a specific research institution).
(b) If the respondent is affiliated with multiple research institutions, as a general rulethe investigation shall be carried out jointly by the multiple research institutions
concerned, with the central role being played by the research institution where therespondent conducted most of the research activities involved in the allegation. The
research institution to play the central role and the other research institutions toparticipate in the investigation may be decided by the relevant institutions taking
into account the nature of the case, etc.
(c) If the allegation concerns research conducted at a different research institution
than the one with which the respondent is currently affiliated, the reported caseshall be investigated jointly by the current research institution of affiliation and theone where the research in question was carried out.
(d) If the respondent has already left the research institution where the research
involved in the allegation was conducted, the reported case shall be investigatedjointly by the research institution with which the respondent is currently affiliatedand the one the respondent has left. If, after leaving the previous research
institution, the respondent is no longer affiliated with any institution, the reported
case shall be investigated by the research institution with which the respondent wasaffiliated when the research in question was carried out.
(e) A research institution investigating a reported case as per (a) through (d) above
shall conduct the investigation in good faith regardless of whether the respondent iscurrently affiliated with that institution or not.
(f) If the respondent was not affiliated with any research institution at the time theinvestigation was launched nor at the time the research involved in the allegation
was conducted, or if the research funding organization that allocated funds for the
research in question specifically acknowledges that it is extremely difficult for the
research institution responsible for the investigation to carry it out, the researchfunding organization shall conduct the investigation. In such a case the research
institution that normally would be conducting the investigation shall, when asked
for cooperation by the research funding organization, provide such cooperation ingood faith.
(g) A research institution may ask another institution or members of the scientificcommunity such as academic societies to conduct an investigation on its behalf or
to cooperate in conducting an investigation. Similarly, a research fundingorganization may ask organizations or members of the scientific community such as16

academic societies in the same field as that of the research in question toinvestigate on its behalf, or to cooperate in an investigation. In such a case 3-3,
“Treatment of Allegation and Respondent” (a) to (c) and Section 4, “Investigating
Reported Cases of Specific Research Misconduct” shall apply to the commissioned
organization or organizations cooperating in the investigation.
4-2. Organizational Structure and Methods Used in Investigating Allegations(1) Preliminary investigation(a) The organization conducting the investigation as per 4-1, “Investigating
Organization” (hereinafter “Investigating Organization”) shall, upon receiving an
allegation, promptly launch a preliminary investigation to determine thereasonableness of the allegation and whether it can be investigated properly.
Investigating the reasonableness of the allegation entails assessing the likelihoodthat the reported instance of specific research misconduct occurred and thelogicality of the scientifically rational reason indicated in the allegation.
Investigating whether the allegation can be investigated properly entails assessing
whether the length of time between the publication of the research involved in the
allegation and the allegation itself exceeds either (i) a reasonable period of time,
considering the nature of research in each field, for preserving raw data,experimental and observation notes, test samples, reagents and other items thatwould enable after-the-fact verification of research results, or (ii) the retention
period for research data set by the research institution of the respondent. The
investigating organization may establish an investigative committee as in (2)(b)below and have it conduct a preliminary investigation.
(b) If a preliminary investigation involves any research paper(s), etc., withdrawn
before a formal allegation was brought, the investigating organization should
examine the situation, including the background and circumstances of thewithdrawal, and determine whether or not the matter should be investigated as an
instance of specific research misconduct.
(c) If as a result of the preliminary investigation the investigating organization
determines that the matters in the allegation should be investigated morethoroughly, a formal investigation shall be conducted. The investigatingorganization’s rules should stipulate in advance the approximate time limit between
the receipt of an allegation and the decision whether to launch a formal
investigation (e.g., up to 30 days).
(d) If the investigating organization decides not to conduct a formal investigation, thisdecision shall be notified to the complainant along with the reasons. In such cases
the investigating organization shall preserve the materials, etc. involved in the
preliminary investigation and shall disclose them to the research fundingorganization, etc. involved in the case and to the complainant if so requested.
(2) Formal investigation(a) Notifications and reports
i. If the investigating organization decides to launch a formal investigation, it shall17

notify this decision to the complainant and to the respondent and ask for theircooperation in the investigation. If the respondent is affiliated with anorganization other than the investigating organization, notification shall be madealso to the organization of the respondent. In carrying out the investigation of theallegation, every precaution shall be taken not to allow the complainant to be
identifiable by the respondent or those outside the investigation without theconsent of the complainant.
ii. The investigating organization shall inform the research funding organization,etc. involved in the matter and MEXT that a formal investigation will be carriedout.
iii. The investigating organization’s rules should stipulate in advance theapproximate time limit between the decision to launch a formal investigation andthe start of the investigation (e.g., up to 30 days).
(b) Organizational structure for the investigationi. In conducting a formal investigation, the investigating organization shall form an
investigative committee including outside experts not affiliated with theinvestigating organization. At least half the members of this investigative
committee shall be outside experts, and all members shall be persons having no
direct conflict of interest with the complainant or the respondent (e.g., having nointerests in patents or technology transfer that may result from the researchsuspected of specific research misconduct if it should prove to be as described in
the associated research paper(s)).
ii. When the investigating organization forms an investigative committee, it shallindicate the member names and affiliations to the complainant and the
respondent. In response, the complainant or respondent shall be able to raise an
objection to any of the members by the deadline set in advance by theinvestigating organization. If an objection is raised, the investigatingorganization shall examine the details, and if the objection is deemed to bereasonable the member shall be replaced, and notification to this effect shall bemade to the complainant and the respondent.
iii. The position of the investigative committee in the investigating organization
shall be defined by the investigating organization.
(c) Investigation method and authority
i. The formal investigation shall be carried out by close examination of theresearch paper(s), experimental and observation notes, raw data, and othermaterials relating to the research in question, as well as interviews with theparties involved and requests to replicate experiments, etc. In so doing, theinvestigators must hold hearings to give the respondent an opportunity to offer adefense.
ii. In investigating the likelihood that the alleged specific research misconduct
occurred, the investigative committee may ask the respondent to demonstrate
reproducibility by such means as replicating experiments, or the investigative
committee may determine that replication is necessary following a request by the
respondent. In such cases, experiment replication shall be carried out within the18scope deemed by the investigating organization to be reasonably necessary withregard to the time and resources required (including instruments, costs, etc.).
Replication shall be conducted under the direction and supervision of theinvestigative committee.
iii. The investigating organization shall decide the investigative authority of theinvestigative committee regarding i. and ii. above and shall notify the persons
involved. The complainant, the respondent and other persons concerned shallcooperate in good faith with the investigation by the investigative committee
based on the above investigative authority. If an investigation takes place in an
organization outside the investigating organization, the investigatingorganization shall request cooperation by that organization. The organization
whose cooperation is requested shall provide such cooperation in good faith.
(d) Research activities covered by the investigation
In addition to the research activities related to the allegation, the investigative
committee may decide to include in the investigation other research activities
carried out by the respondent if deemed relevant to the investigation.
(e) Preservation of evidence
In conducting the investigation, the investigating organization shall take measures
to preserve materials that might be used as evidence regarding the research
activities subject to the allegation. If the research in question was conducted at a
research institution that is not the investigating organization, that research
institution shall on request by the investigating organization take measures topreserve materials that might be used as evidence regarding the research activities
subject to the allegation. Research activities by the respondent shall not be
restricted, provided that they do not affect these measures.
(f) Interim report on the investigation
When the investigating organization is a research institution, on request by the
research funding organization, etc. providing budgeted or specially allocated funds
for the research subject to the allegation, it shall submit an interim report on theinvestigation, even if the investigation is not yet completed, to the research fundingorganization, etc.
(g) Protection of research and technological information in the investigation
In conducting the investigation, all due care shall be taken not to leak information
beyond the scope necessary for conducting the investigation. Such information
includes data, research paper(s), or other information covered by the investigationthat has not yet been made public and whose confidentiality should be maintained
from a technical or research perspective.
4-3. Findings(1) Findings(a) The investigating organization’s rules should stipulate in advance the approximate
time limit between the start of the investigation and the summarizing of findings by
the investigating organization (e.g., up to 150 days).
(b) The investigative committee shall, within the approximate time limit as per (a)19above, summarize the findings of the investigation, giving its determination as towhether specific research misconduct occurred or not, the nature of the misconduct
if any, the persons involved in the misconduct and the degree of their involvement,
and the roles of each of the authors involved in any associated research paper(s)with regard to the research activities as well as the paper(s) themselves.
(c) If it is determined that specific research misconduct did not take place and theinvestigation shows that the allegation was lodged out of malice, the investigative
committee shall at the same time issue this as its finding. In making such a finding,the investigators shall give the complainant the opportunity to offer a defense.
(d) When the findings as per (b) and (c) above have been completed, the investigative
committee shall immediately issue a report to the investigating organization bywhich it was set up.
(2) Accountability regarding suspicion of specific research misconduct
If during the investigation by the investigative committee the respondent wishes todispel the suspicion raised concerning the research activity, the respondent shall be
responsible for presenting and explaining the scientific basis showing that the
research was carried out in accordance with scientifically proper methods andprocedures and that any research papers were written using proper expressions based
thereon.
(3) Determination as to whether there was specific research misconduct or not(a) To determine whether there was specific research misconduct or not, theinvestigative committee shall hear the explanations given by the respondent as per(2) above and shall also make a comprehensive assessment of the evidence obtained
through investigation, including the physical and scientific evidence, the testimony
and any admission by the respondent. The probative value of the evidence shall be
up to the investigative committee to judge. It is important, moreover, that any
judgment regarding the existence of misconduct and degree of intention, etc., bemade objectively, taking into account a variety of factors, including how the
respondent’s research was structured and how data checking was performed. Note,however, that specific research misconduct cannot be determined based solely onan admission by the respondent.
(b) If evidence was presented for the specific research misconduct, and the suspicionof specific research misconduct is not dispelled by the respondent’s explanations orother evidence, that specific research misconduct shall be determined.
The same shall be true if the respondent does not present sufficient evidence todispel the suspicion of specific research misconduct due to a lack of raw data,experimental and observation notes, test samples and reagents, etc., or other key
components of research that should normally exist. This shall not apply, however,if there is deemed to be a legitimate reason for which the respondent is not to blame(such as a natural disaster) that prevents him or her from presenting these key
research components, despite having exercised the due care of a prudent manager.
Similarly, it shall not apply if the lack of raw data, experimental and observation20

notes, test samples, reagents and other items is due to having exceeded a reasonable
period of time, considering the nature of research in each field, for preserving suchitems, or the retention period set by the research institution with which the
respondent was affiliated at the time of the research in question.
(c) The degree of accountability in (2) above and the key components of researchthat should normally exist as in (b) above shall be left to the discretion of theinvestigative committee based on the nature of the research field.

(4) Notification and reporting of investigation results(a) The investigating organization shall promptly notify the investigation results(hereinafter to include the findings) to the complainant and the respondent(hereinafter to include persons other than the respondent determined to have been
involved in the specific research misconduct). If the respondent is affiliated with anorganization other than the investigating organization, notification of the results
shall be made also to the organization of the respondent.
(b) In addition to (a), the investigating organization shall report the results to theresearch funding organization, etc. involved in the matter and to MEXT.*6(c) If it is determined that the complaint was lodged out of malice, the investigatingorganization shall notify the organization with which the complainant is affiliated.
(5) Appeal filing(a) A respondent found to have committed specific research misconduct shall be able
to file an appeal to the investigating organization by the deadline set in advance by
the organization. It shall not be possible, however, to file repeated appeals for thesame reason, even if it is within the deadline.
(b) If the complainant is found to have lodged the allegation out of malice (including
cases in which malice was determined during the investigation following an appeal
by the respondent [as per (1) (c) above]), an appeal may be filed by the complainant
in line with (a) above.
(c) The investigation for an appeal shall be conducted by the investigative committee.
In that examination, if the nature of the appeal necessitates a decision requiring
new expertise, the investigating organization shall replace or add new investigative
committee members, or have the investigation carried out by other persons in placeof the investigative committee. This shall not apply, however, if the investigatingorganization deems there to be no sufficient reason requiring the makeup of theinvestigative committee to be changed.
(d) In the case of an appeal filed by the respondent after specific research misconduct
was determined, the investigative committee (including the persons chosen to
replace the initial investigative committee members as per (c) above; the same
applies throughout (5) “Appeal filing”) shall promptly decide whether to conduct a
new investigation of the case, taking into consideration the details of the appeal*6 See Reference 2 for the items to be incorporated in the report when reporting the results to theresearch funding organization, etc. and to MEXT.

21

and reasons given, etc. If the committee decides to reject the appeal without
conducting a new investigation of the case, this shall be reported immediately tothe investigating organization and the investigating organization shall notify the
respondent of the decision. If in such a case it is judged that the appeal was filed
mainly for the purpose of prolonging the case or delaying the sanctions
accompanying the determination, the investigating organization may decide not to
accept any further appeals.
If the committee decides to conduct a new investigation in response to the appealin (a) above, it shall request the respondent to present materials sufficient for
overturning the earlier investigation result and ask for cooperation toward theprompt resolution of the matter. If such cooperation is not obtained, the committee
shall be able to halt the investigation without going ahead with a new investigation.
In this case the decision shall be reported immediately to the investigatingorganization and the investigating organization shall notify the respondent of thedecision.
(e) If the respondent files an appeal against the finding of specific research
misconduct, the investigating organization shall notify this to the complainant. In
addition, the investigating organization shall report this to the research fundingorganization, etc. involved in the matter and to MEXT. The same shall apply to therejection of the appeal or to the decision to start a new investigation.
(f) If the investigative committee starts a new investigation, the committee shall,
within the approximate time limit stipulated in the investigating organization’s
rules (e.g., within 50 days), decide whether to overturn the earlier investigation andshall immediately report this decision to the investigating organization, which shallnotify this result to the respondent, to the organization with which the respondent isaffiliated, and to the complainant. In addition, the investigating organization shallreport this to the research funding organization, etc. involved in the matter and to
MEXT.
(g) If the complainant files an appeal against the finding that the allegation was
lodged out of malice as per (b) above, the investigating organization shall notify
the organization with which the complainant is affiliated and the respondent. In
addition, the investigating organization shall report this to the research fundingorganization, etc. involved in the matter and to MEXT.
(h) Regarding the appeal in (b) above, the investigative committee shall, within theapproximate time limit stipulated in the investigating organization’s rules (e.g.,
within 30 days), conduct a new investigation and immediately report the result tothe investigating organization. The investigating organization shall notify the result
to the complainant, to the organization with which the complainant is affiliated,
and to the respondent. In addition, the investigating organization shall report this to
the research funding organization, etc. involved in the matter and to MEXT.
(6) Announcement of investigation results(a) When it is determined that specific research misconduct has occurred, theinvestigating organization shall promptly make public the results of the22investigation.
(b) When it is determined that specific research misconduct has not occurred, theinvestigating organization shall not as a general rule make the results of theinvestigation public. If, however, the case under investigation has been leaked or if
unintentional errors in any research paper(s) or other forms of publication havebeen uncovered, the results of the investigation shall be made public. If it isdetermined that the allegation was lodged out of malice, the results of theinvestigation shall be made public.
(c) The types and content of the investigation results to be made public as per (a) and(b) above shall be prescribed by the investigating organization.
(7) Sanctions taken against the complainant and the respondent(a) If specific research misconduct was found to have occurred, the organizations of
persons determined to be responsible for the misconduct shall take suitablemeasures regarding such persons based on their internal rules and shall recommend
the withdrawal of any research paper(s) or other forms of publication connectedwith the misconduct. Hereinafter, “persons determined to be responsible for the
misconduct” refers collectively to persons determined to have committed the
misconduct, as well as persons whose commitment to the specific research
misconduct was not determined but who were found to bear prime responsibility as
co-authors of any research paper(s) or other forms of publication connected withthe misconduct.
(b) If the allegation was found to have been lodged out of malice, the complainant’sorganization shall take suitable measures regarding the complainant based on its
internal rules.

23Section 4. Sanctions
Responsibility

forSpecific

Research

Misconduct

andManagement

1. Sanctions on Researchers and Research Institutions for Specific Research
Misconduct
If a research funding organization, etc. receives notice from an investigatingorganization of the decision to launch a formal investigation or other such reports
concerning specific research misconduct as defined in the previous section, thefunding organization relating to the case shall, as detailed below, urge theinvestigating organization to promptly and fully elucidate the case and shall request
related organizations to take necessary remedial measures based on the investigation
results submitted by the investigating organization. If specific research misconduct as
defined in the preceding section is confirmed, the research funding organization, etc.
shall impose the following sanctions on the researchers and research institutions
involved.
(a) If a research funding organization, etc. receives notice from an investigatingorganization of the decision to launch a formal investigation or other such reports,
the funding organization shall issue instructions to the investigating organization asneeded so that the investigation can be implemented properly, and shall urge theinvestigating organization to fully elucidate the case and promptly complete theinvestigation.
(b) If in the process of the investigation the research funding organization, etc.
receives a report from the investigating organization that some of the alleged
specific research misconduct was found to have occurred, the funding organization
shall as necessary defer any approval or decision to grant further funds, suspend
existing grants, or instruct the related organizations to suspend implementation
with regard to competitive funding proposals by those persons determined to be
responsible for the misconduct.
(c) If the research funding organization, etc. receives investigation results from theinvestigating organization finding that specific research misconduct occurred, andconfirms this, it shall impose sanctions as follows based on the contents of theinvestigation result.
i. Researchers to whom the sanctions apply
Authors (hereinafter including co-authors) found to have been committed in
specific research misconduct with regard to any research paper(s) connectedwith the research in which specific research misconduct was identified
Persons who were not authors of any research paper(s) connected with theresearch in which specific research misconduct was identified but who were
found to have been involved in the specific research misconduct
Authors who were not found to have been involved in the specific research
misconduct but who bear prime responsibility for content of any research
paper(s) connected with the research in which specific research misconduct
was identified
24

ii. Return of competitive funds relating to the specific research misconduct
A research funding organization providing competitive funding for research
activities in which specific research misconduct was identified shall, based on thenature of the case, cancel the decision to fund the researchers subject to sanctions
as per i. above or their research institutions, or ask for the return of some or all of
the competitive funds.
Note that administrative cost grants, private school subsidies and other forms offunding for basic operating expenses are not earmarked for particular research
activities or researchers but are provided to research institutions, and their
management is left to the institution. For this reason these Guidelines do notmake a blanket prescription for how to handle the return of funds when specificresearch misconduct occurs in research using such funding, but rather ask theresearch institution to take appropriate measures at its own discretion.
iii. Restrictions on application for competitive funding and eligibility to receive
such funding
The research funding organization, etc. shall, based on the nature of the case,place restrictions on the researchers subject to sanctions as per i. above regarding
application for competitive funding and eligibility to receive such funding.
Regarding specific research misconduct in research activities receiving
competitive funding, the research funding organization, etc. shall impose
sanctions based on the “Guidelines on the Proper Implementation of Competitive
Funding” (agreement of the liaison meeting of related offices and ministries oncompetitive funding, dated September 9, 2005; hereinafter “Competitive Funding
Guidelines”). It shall also restrict application for other competitive funding andeligibility to receive such funding as per the Competitive Funding Guidelines.
Similarly, with regard to specific research misconduct in other research activities(excluding those for which competitive funding was received) the researchfunding organization, etc. shall place restrictions as per the Competitive Funding
Guidelines on application for competitive funding and eligibility to receive suchfunding.
Matters to be implemented by research funding organizations, etc.
○ If notice was received from an investigating organization of the decision to launch aformal investigation or other such reports, issue instructions to the relatedorganizations as needed.
○ To enable sanctions related to specific research misconduct to be imposed on
researchers and research institutions, provide rules and regulations for the fundingorganization, and indicate the nature of sanctions to be imposed and the scope of theirapplicability to researchers when drawing up application guidelines for competitive
funding and research commission contracts (including appended materials). Obtainacknowledgement of these potential sanctions from researchers and research
institutions before funding applications are made or contracts are signed.

25

2. Sanctions on Research Institutions for Failure to Fulfill Their Management
Responsibilities as Organizations
It is important to promote ethical research activities by preventing misconduct fromoccurring and also by properly responding when cases of suspected misconduct are
disclosed. The basic policy of these Guidelines is to strengthen the approach throughgreater assumption of responsibility by research institutions for preventing
misconduct, so as to create an environment in which misconduct is discouraged. A
research institution is asked to clarify its lines of responsibility as an organization,and to provide rules and the organizational structure for responding appropriately to
misconduct in research. Based on this concept, MEXT and research fundingorganizations shall impose the following sanctions to ensure that research institutions
fulfill their management responsibilities as organizations. The research institution
shall be given an opportunity to provide an explanation prior to implementation ofthese sanctions.
(1) Establishing lines of responsibility as an organization(a) Setting administrative conditions
MEXT shall in any of the following cases assign administrative conditions to theresearch institution indicating improvements needed to remedy organizational orother inadequacies and the deadline for implementing them. MEXT shall confirm
progress in fulfilling those conditions each fiscal year.
i. When the investigations of research institutions as per Section 5.2, “Surveys of
Implementation Status” confirm inadequacies in organizational provision
ii. When a research institution in which specific research misconduct was
confirmed is found to need improvements in its organizational structure, etc.
(b) Reduction in indirect cost grants
If, as a result of its confirmation of progress in fulfilling administrative conditions,
MEXT judges that the conditions have not been fulfilled, the research fundingorganization providing competitive funding shall reduce by a fixed percentage theamount of indirect cost grants provided to the research institution in competitive
funding for the following fiscal year and thereafter.
The percentage of reduction in indirect cost grants shall be raised in stages basedon the results of confirmations by MEXT, with the upper limit being 15% of theamount of indirect cost grants. The criteria for setting the amount of reduction
shall be set separately by MEXT.
(c) Suspension of fundingIf, having decided to reduce indirect cost grants up to the limit, MEXT judges thatthe administrative conditions are still not being fulfilled, the research fundingorganization shall suspend the provision of competitive funding to that research
institution for the following fiscal year and thereafter.
The lifting of sanctions (a) through (c) above shall be as follows.
26

The sanctions in (a) shall be lifted by MEXT as soon as MEXT judges thatthe administrative conditions are being fulfilled faithfully in the research
institution.
The sanctions in (b) shall be lifted by the research funding organization fromthe following fiscal year if MEXT judges that the administrative conditions
are being fulfilled faithfully in the research institution or that there has been
progress in fulfilling the conditions.
The sanctions in (c) shall be lifted by the research funding organization assoon as MEXT judges that the administrative conditions are being fulfilled
faithfully in the research institution or that there has been progress infulfilling the conditions.
(2) Ensuring prompt investigation
If specific research misconduct is suspected in research activities for which a
research funding organization provided competitive funding and the research
institution is slow to conduct an investigation of the matter without a legitimate
reason, the funding organization shall reduce by a fixed percentage the amount of
indirect cost grants provided to the research institution in competitive funding forthe following fiscal year.
The percentage of reduction in indirect cost grants shall be decided individually by
the funding organization, with the upper limit being 10% of the amount of indirect
cost grants.
Matters to be implemented by research funding organizations, etc.
○ Enable sanctions to be imposed on a research institution for failure to fulfill its
management responsibility as an organization, by providing rules and regulations forthe funding organization, and indicating the nature of sanctions to be imposed inapplication guidelines for competitive funding and research commission contracts(including appended materials). Obtain acknowledgement of these potential sanctions
from research institutions before funding applications are made or contracts are
signed.
3. Public Notice of Sanctions
Upon deciding to impose sanctions as per 1. and 2. Above, MEXT and researchfunding organizations, etc. shall promptly make public notice of the matter.

27

Section 5. Surveys and Support by MEXT
1. Ongoing Response to Misconduct in Research
MEXT shall provide opportunities for studies by experts,
implementation of these Guidelines, and revise them as needed.

keep

track

of

2. Surveys of Implementation Status
MEXT shall monitor the status of organizational provision in each research institution
based on these Guidelines by conducting periodical surveys of institutions regarding
their implementation, and shall make public the results. The surveys shall be carriedout in writing, as interviews, as on-site investigations, or a combination of these.
When the surveys of research institutions reveal inadequacies in organizational
provision, guidance and advice shall be given such as by assigning administrative
conditions.
3. Encouraging Development of Programs in RCR Education
MEXT shall cooperate with the Science Council of Japan and research fundingorganizations to encourage the creation of standard programs and teaching materials
in RCR education. Taking into account the realities of research, the diversity of
research activities, and the nature of each research field, MEXT shall provide support
for and seek to improve programs in RCR education to ensure that they are highly
effective.
4. Support for Setting up an Investigating Organization in Research Institutions
When specific research misconduct is suspected, the first step is to conduct aninvestigation in the research institution, but it may be difficult in some cases for the
institution to carry out an adequate investigation on its own. For this reason, if MEXT
determines that the research institution lacks the organizational structure for
conducting a sufficient investigation, MEXT shall provide the research institution
with advice as needed, and in cooperation with the Science Council of Japan andresearch funding organizations, shall provide necessary support for proceedingsmoothly with a proper investigation, such as selecting and sending specialists.

28

Guidelines for Responding to Misconduct in Research (Summary)(Reference 1)

The responsibilities of researchers and research institutions with regard to misconduct
Basic Idea on Misconduct in Research○ Misconduct in research violates the true nature of research activities and publication of results, and is a betrayal of science itself. A strict stance must be taken against such misconduct.
○ Dealing with research misconduct must first of all be approached as self-correction based on the voluntary efforts of researchers themselves, of the scientific community, and of universities andother research institutions.
○ It will be necessary to strengthen the approach through greater assumption of responsibility by universities and other research institutions for preventing misconduct, so as to create anenvironment to discourage misconduct. In particular, the management responsibilities of the organization should be clarified by establishing lines of responsibility, and efforts should be made toprevent misconduct from occurring.

Responsibilities of Universities andOther Research Institutions

Responsibilities of Researchers
Integrity in Research

Establishing Lines of Responsibility as an Organization○ Conducting research with integrity, being aware that the pursuit of scientific research isdependent on the trust of and mandate from the public○ Clarifying the management responsibilities of the organization and making efforts to prevent
misconduct.
Providing and disclosing the rules and structure for responding when misconduct issuspected, including investigation procedures and methods
Taking effective measures (clarifying roles and responsibilities of researchers, having
research results confirmed by the principal researcher, assigning mentors to young
researchers and making other organized efforts)○ Carrying out responsible research and research management able to prevent misconduct
Clarification of roles and responsibilities of each researcher in joint research
Thoroughness in proper recording, preservation and strict handling of research data

Publication of Research Results○

24

Making public the results obtained from research to the scientific community, while
presenting data and materials that can be objectively verified(The publication of research results subjects the contents to close examination andjudgment among researchers, thereby helping to build up intellectual resources .)Preventing Misconduct○ Creating an environment that discourages misconduct
Providing RCR education
Universities: Ensure awareness of responsible research practices by students. Provide students with
RCR educatio n.
Universities and other research institutio ns: Appoint a RCR education officer. Provide regular RCR
education to the wide range of personnel invo lved in research activities.
Research funding organizations: Have all researchers involved in research receiving co mpetitive
funding take a RCR educatio n program, and thoroughly check participation in the progra m.

Compliance with Laws and Regulations○ Observing laws and relevant regulations in conducting research

Accountability Regarding Suspicion of Misconduct○ Taking responsibility for presenting and explaining the scientific basis of research whenattempting to dispel suspicions of specific research misconduct

Mandating the preservation of research data for a set period and disclosure as necessary

Responding to Alleged Misconduct○

Sanctions for Violations○ Return of competitive funds, restrictions on new application(Applies not only to competitive funding but to specific research misconduct in research
conducted using administrative cost grants and other funding for basic operating
expenses)○ Punishment in accordance with internal rules of the organization

Receiving allegations of specific research misconduct (fabrication, falsification, or
plagiarism), conducting investigations, disclosing investigation results
Introducing a third-party viewpoint in investigations (at least half outside experts; excluding
conflicts of interest)
Setting approximate deadlines for investigations in each research institution
Replacing or adding committee members in the case of appeals questioning expertise in theinvestigation

Sanctions for Violations○ Reducing indirect cost grants
Assigning administrative conditions in the case of organizational inadequacies in the
research institution, and thereafter imposing sanctions if the conditions are not fulfilled or if
the investigation is delayed without a legitimate reason

(Reference 2)
Items to be Incorporated in Investigation Result Report□ History and overview○ Timing and circumstances of disclosure (if a allegation was brought, time anddetails of allegation)○ Events leading up to investigation, etc.
□ Investigation○ Organizational structure of investigation (forming of investigative committee
including outside experts not affiliated with investigating organization)○ Details of investigation
・ Investigation period
・ Scope of investigation (persons and research activities covered, funding[competitive funding, funding for basic operating expenses])・ Investigation methods and procedures (e.g., document survey [examination ofresearch paper(s), experimental and observation notes, raw data and othermaterials relating to the research], interviews with persons involved, details andresults of attempts to replicate experiments, if any, etc.)
・ Investigative committee members (including names and affiliations), meeting
dates and agendas, etc.
□ Results of investigation (details of specific research misconduct)○ Types of specific research misconduct found (e.g., fabrication, falsification,
plagiarism)○ Researchers (including collaborators) involved in specific research misconduct(a) Researchers found to have been involved in specific research misconduct (name[affiliation, post (current post)], researcher number)(b) Researchers who were not found to have been involved in the specific research
misconduct but who were found to bear prime responsibility for the content of
any research paper(s) relating to the research in question (name [affiliation, post
(current post)], researcher number)○ Grants/research projects for which specific research misconduct occurred(Competitive funding)・ Program name・ Name of research category, research project, research period
・ Amount of grant decided or contracted amount・ Name of principal researcher (affiliation, post [current post]), researcher number
・ Names of research collaborators and partners (affiliation, post [current post]),researcher number(Funding for basic operating expenses)
・ Administrative cost grants
・ Private school subsidies○ Specifics of misconduct (give as much detail as possible)
・ Method・ Details of misconduct
・ Amount of competitive funding or funding for basic operating expenses provided
for the research in question, and how the funds were used30

○ Conclusions as an organization based on investigation and reasons for judgment□ Measures taken by investigating organization to dateE.g., sanctions such as suspending implementation of competitive funding proposals,etc., punishing persons involved, recommending withdrawal of any research paper(s),etc.
□ Factors behind occurrence of specific research misconduct and measures to prevent
recurrence○ Causal factors (including management structure of research institution at time of
misconduct, progress in providing necessary rules; give as much detail as possible)○ Measures for preventing a recurrence31