text: b' NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS\n\n CLOSEOUT MEMORANDUM\n\n11 Case Number: A04050029 11 Page 1 o f 1\n\n\n\n We received an allegation that the subject\' had plagiarized text from an NSF award abstract2\n posted on the NSF website into one of his NSF proposals.3 Our initial inquiry revealed three\n additional NSF proposals,4 which the subject submitted as the sole PI, containing 124 lines of\n apparently copied and unattributed text. The allegation was referred to the subject\'s university.5 The\n university\'s investigation concluded that although the subject had knowingly plagiarized 7 lines of\n text and recklessly plagiarized 117 lines of text, his actions constituted "low-level plagiarism" and\n was therefore not research misconduct.\n\n We disagreed and continued our investigation with a review of the subject\'s other NSF\n proposals. We identified two additional unfunded proposals6 and an NSF award7 into which the\n subject had copied text without proper attribution. We determined that in total the subject knowingly\n plagiarized 156 lines of text and recommended in the attached Investigation Report that NSF send\n the subject a letter of reprimand with a finding ofresearch misconduct; require the subject to certify\n completion of an ethics course; bar the subject from serving as an NSF peer reviewer for 3 years; and\n for the next 5 years require the subject to provide certifications and assurances with each proposal or\n report he submits to NSF stating that the proposal or report does not contain plagiarized, fabricated,\n or falsified material. NSF accepted our recommendations. This memo along with the report and the\n DD\'s letter to the subject constitute the close for this case.\n\n Accordingly, this case is closed.\n\n\n\n\n11\'\n NSF OIG Form 2 ( 1 1102)\n\x0c NATIONALSCIENCE FOUNDATION\n 4201 WILSON BOULEVARD\n ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22230\n\n\n\n\n OFFICE OF THE\n DEPUTY DIRECTOR\n\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL --RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n SEP 2 3 2006\n\n\n\n\n Re: Nodce of Misconduct in Science Deternzination\n\n\n\n\ndocumented in the attached lnvestigative Report prepared by NSF\'s Office of Inspector General\n("OIG"), these proposals contained text that was plagiarized.\n\nScientific Misconduct and Proposed Sanctions\n\n Under NSF\'s regulations, "research misconduct" is defined as "fabrication, falsification,\nor plagiarism in proposing or performing research funded by NSF . . ." 45 CFR 8 689.1(a). A\nfinding of research misconduct requires that:\n\n (1) There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research\n community; and\n (2) The research misconduct be committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly;\n and\n (3) The allegation be proven by a preponderance of evidence.\n\n45 CFR 5 689.2(c).\n\x0c Page 2\n In your proposals, you misappropriated text from several source docGments without\nproviding proper attribution for such material. By submitting proposals to NSF that copy the\nideas or.words of another without adequate attribution, as described in the OIG Investigative\nReport, you misrepresented someone else\'s work as your own. Your conduct unquestionably\nconstitutes plagiarism. I therefore conclude that your actions meet the definition of "research\nmisconduct" set forth in NSF\'s regulations.\n\n Pursuant to NSF regulations, the Foundation must also determine whether to make a\nfinding of misconduct based on a preponderance of the evidence. 45 CFR 689.2(c). After\n reviewing the Investigative Report, NSF has determined that, based on a preponderance of the\n evidence, your misconduct was committed knowingly and constituted a significant departure\n from accepted practices of the relevant research community. I am, therefore, issuing a finding of\n research misconduct against you.\n\n NSF\'s regulations establish three categories of actions (Group I, 11, and 111) that can be\ntaken in response to a finding of misconduct. 45 CFR \xc2\xa7689.3(a). Group I actions include issuing\na letter of reprimand; conditioning awards on prior approval of particular activities from NSF;\nrequiring that an institution or individual obtain special prior approval of particular activities\nfrom NSF; and requiring that an institutional representative certify as to the accuracy of reports\nor certifications of compliance with particular requirements. 45 CFR \xc2\xa7689.3(a)(l). Group I1\nactions include award suspension or restrictions on designated activities or expenditures;\nrequiring special reviews of requests for funding; and requiring correction to the research record.\n45 CFR \xc2\xa7689.3(a)(2). Group IrI actions include suspension or termination of awards;\nprohibitions on participation as NSF reviewers, advisors or consultants; and debarment or\nsuspension from participation in NSF programs. 45 CFR 689.3(a)(3).\n\n In determining the severity of the sanction to impose for research misconduct, I have\nconsidered the seriousness of the misconduct; our determination that it was knowing; and the fact\nthat your conduct did not have an impact on the published research record. I have also\nconsidered other relevant circumstances: 45 CFR fj 689.3 (b).\n\n In light of the foregoing, I am bamng you from serving as a reviewer of NSF proposals\nuntil October l , 2009. Ln addition, until October 1,2011, for each proposal or report you submit\nto NSF, I am requiring that you: (1) certify that the proposal or report does not contain\nplagiarized, falsified or fabricated material; and (2) submit assurances by a responsible official of\nyour employer that the proposal or report does not contain plagiarized material. Lastly, you must\ncomplete an ethics training course on research misconduct by April 1, 2007. You may not\nsubmit any additional proposals to NSF on which you are a principal investigator or co-principal\ninvestigator until you complete this course. You must certify in writing to the OIG that such\ntraining has been completed.\n\x0c Page 3\nProcedures Governing Appeals\n\n Under NSF\'s regulations, you have 30 days after receipt of this letter to submit an appeal\nof this decision, in writing, to the Director of the Foundation. 45 CFR \xc2\xa7689.10(a). Any appeal\nshould be addressed to the Director at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,\nArlington, Virginia 22230. If we do not receive a response to this notice within the 30-day\nperiod, this decision will become final. For your information we are attaching a copy of the\napplicable regulations. If you have any questions about the foregoing, please call ,\nAssistant General Counsel, at (703) 292-8060.\n\n\n Sincerely,\n\n\n\n Kathie L. Olsen\n Deputy Director\n\n\nEnclosures\n- Investigative Report\n- 45 C.F.R. 689\n\x0c Summary\n\n The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has concluded that the subject\' committed\nknowing plagiarism of 124 lines fiom nineteen sources in four NSF research proposals.2 The\nSubject\'s ~ n i v e r s i t ydespite\n ,~ finding that he had recklessly (1 17 lines) and knowingly (7 lines)\nplagiarized text as a "violation of the institutional standard of scholarly integrity,"4 did not make\na finding of research misconduct under its policies and procedures.5 We disagreed with the\nUniversity\'s final conclusion because our assessment of the evidence supports a finding of\nresearch misconduct. We continued with our investigation, supplementing the evidentiary\nmaterial from the University\'s investigation. We identified another 29 lines of text from two\nadditional sources that the Subject knowingly plagiarized in three additional research proposals,6\none of which NSF awarded, and an additional 3 lines in one of the original four proposals,\nthereby bringing the total number of lines knowingly plagiarized to 156. Therefore, we\nrecommend that NSF make a finding of research misconduct and that NSF:\n\n send a letter of reprimand to the Subject informing him that NSF has made a\n finding of research misconduct;\n\n require the Subject to certify completion of an ethics course covering research\n misconduct before submitting any proposals to NSF on which he is a principal\n investigator (PI) or co-principal investigator (Co-PI);\n\n require the Subject to certify each time he submits a proposal or report to NSF\n that the proposal or report does not contain plagiarized, falsified, or fabricated\n material for 5 years commencing with the date of NSF\'s finding of research\n misconduct;\n\n require the Subject to submit assurances by a responsible official of his employer\n each time he submits a proposal or report to NSF that the proposal or report does\n not contain plagiarized, falsified, or fabricated material for 5 years commencing\n with the date of NSF\'s finding of research misconduct; and\n\x0c bar the Subject from serving as a reviewer of NSF proposals for 3 years\n commencing from the date of NSF\'s finding of research misconduct.\n\n\n\n OIG\'s Inquiry\n\n We reviewed an allegation that the Subject had copied text from an NSF CAREER award\n,abstract7into one of his proposals (Proposal 2).\' We analyzed Proposal 2 and determined that\n approximately 5 1 lines of text appeared to be copied verbatim andlor with de minimis alteration\n from other sources. We also determined that most of the remaining text was copied from one of\n the Subject\'s previous publications on the same topic.9 Although the Subject was free to use his\n previously published text without its constituting plagiarism, the large portion of the proposal\n attributed to this one source suggested a possible attempt to obtain funding for work already\n completed.\'0 Therefore, we analyzed three of the Subject\'s other NSF proposals (Proposal 1,"\n Proposal 3,12 and Proposal 4,13) to determine the apparent extent of the Subject\'s alleged\n conduct. Our analysis revealed copied text in Proposal 1 (40 lines), Proposal 3 (1 1 lines), and\n Proposal 4 (22 lines), all of which the Subject submitted to NSF as the sole PI.\n\n We wrote to the Subject to ask him about the apparently copied text in Proposals 1\nthrough 4.14 We also asked about the substantial use of text from his previous publication in\nProposal 2 to determine whether the proposal was an attempt to receive funding for work already\ncompleted. The Subject responded by letterI5 in which he grouped the questioned text into three\ncategories:\n\n (i) similarities in my proposals to descriptions of methods and\n principals, [sic] such as definitions, (ii) similarities in my proposals\n to descriptions of instruments and commercial software packages,\n and (iii) cases of misunderstandings andlor honest errors in my\n proposals, which could have been avoided if more care would have\n been taken.[I6]\n\n\n\n\nthrough Proposal 4 based on the order in which the Subject subrnitte; the proposals to NSF.\n Tab 32.U. The ~ u b j e c t \' s ~ c i e n article.\n ce See also Proposal 2 at Tab 29 where the text from the Science\narticle is underlined in green in those sections of the proposal related to the proposed work. We did not question the\n\n\n\n\n rn\ntext from the article that comprised the majority of the text in the Background section of Proposal 2.\nl o In our review we noted that at least one reviewer commented that it was difficult to distinguish between the\nSubject\'s earlier work left off and the new work began. See Tab 36, page 1.\n" Tab 28, Proposal 1).\n \'\' Tab 30, (Proposal 3).\n " ~ a 31,b (Proposal 4).\n 14\n Tab 4, OIG Inquiry Letter to the Subject.\n 1 5 Tabs 17-27. The Subject\'s responseeto OIG\'s Inquiry Letter.\n\n l6 Tab 17, page 2.\n\x0cThe Subject offered excerpts of somewhat similar text from other source^\'^ but did not explain\nthe verbatim and near-verbatim text in the four proposals as compared to the sources we\nidentified in our inquiry. The Subject also pointed out that Source 1\'\' had a publication date in\nFebruary 2004 whereas he submitted Proposal 2, which contained the questioned text, "several\nmonths" before the publication date.19 We agreed that Proposal 2 predated the publication of\nSource I, but we could not rule out the possibility that the Subject had access to the unpublished\nmanuscript.\n\n In response to our query regarding the possibility that he had already published the work\nhe proposed to do in Proposal 2, the Subject stated that the work involved newly synthesized\nmolecules20and that the reviewers had commented the proposal was "too ambitious" and not\n"repetitive and narr~w."~\'However, we found that at least one reviewer noted:\n\n Reference 4 . . . presents preliminary results and is featured in the\n proposal. This publication [Source U] includes [the Subject\'s\n postdoctoral mentor] as a co-author . . . . It is not made clear in the\n proposal where [the mentor\'s] work ends and the PI\'S begins. In\n general the proposal suffers from numerous grammatical errors\n that seemingly could have been avoided with careful\n proofreading.[221\n\nAlthough this statement does not appear to raise an allegation directly, it suggested to us, in light\nof the amount of copied text from Source U, that there was sufficient -substanceto investigate\nfurther. Therefore, we concluded that further investigation was warranted and referred this issue\nto the University.\n\n Because the Subject\'s response did not resolve the allegations of plagiarism and an\nattempt to acquire funding for work already published, we referred an investigation to the\nUniversity and deferred our investigation pending the University\'s final report.23\n\n\n The University\'s ~ n v e s t i g a t i o n ~ ~\n\n The University completed an investigation and forwarded its report to us. The ad hoe\ninvestigation committee (the ~omrnittee)~\'considered the allegations of plagiarism in\nProposals 1 through 4 (Sources A thorough T) and seeking funding in Proposal 2 for work\n\n\nI\' Tab 18, the Subject\'s Appendix A.\nl8 Tab 32.1.\nl 9 ~ a 18,\n b page 17.\n20 Tab 18, page 18.\n21\n Tab 18, page 18.\n22 Tab 36.\n23 Tab 3, OIG Referral of Investigation Letter.\n\n\n\n\n he other two Committee member\'\n Electrical Engineering and Computer Science:\n\x0calready published in Source u . The ~ ~Committee reviewed the material we provided in our\nreferral letter, its communications with the Subject, and a sizeable body of materials the\nUniversity library staff produced at its request. As summarized by the University\'s Deciding\nOfficial, 27 the Committee evaluated the evidence and concluded:\n\n That plagiarism was found in 26 of the 37 instances[281alleged by\n NSF. Of 1 1 instances foundnot to be plagiarism, one finding was\n unanimous, and 10 were by a 2-1 majority.\n ...\n That the allegation that [the Subject] requested funding from NSF for\n work that he had already completed and published is not supported by\n the evidence.\n\n With regard to the 26 instances of plagiarism . . . :\n\n None was "careless" in the sense of being inadvertent.\n Twenty-five were "reckless."\n One was "knowing."\n There was a clear pattern of low-level copying in the "reckless\n category."\n\n But:\n\n That the instances of plagiarism were not a breach of community\n standards because "the threshold at which low-level plagiarism\n becomes a clear violation of ethical standards is neither well defined\n nor widely understood within the Physical Science and Engineering\n research communities."[291\n\nThe Committee provided a tally of its members\' votes and rationale for each "instance" of text\nthat we questioned.30 The Committee classified twenty-seven "instancesM3under the heading \'\n"Seriousness, impact"32as "violates institutional standard of scholarly integrity."33 The\n\n26The Committee apparently interpreted our concern about the possibility that the Subject had obtained the Source I\ntext through a journal\'s peer review process as an allegation of a breach of reviewer confidentiality. With respect to\nthat allegation, jurisdiction would more properly rest with the publisher andlor the University, although it would\nhave relevance to our consideration of a~broaderpattern of misconduct. Therefore, we relv on the committee\'s\ninvestigation report only for its evidentiary value in accessinp the allegation of plagiarism.\n27\n28\n - . . as a separate\n The Committee investigation treated each discrete section of text that we identified in each woposal\nallegation rather than looking at all of the copied text in a proposal as evidence supporting an allegation of\nplagiarism. The numbering scheme, which used letters to designate source documents with numbers to identify\nsections of text from that source, was a means of correlating multiple sections of text from a single source with the\ntext as it appeared in the proposals. The numbering scheme does not delineate separate allegations.\n29\n Tab 2, page 3. We note our review of the Committee\'s tabulated rationale for each questioned passage showed 27\n"instances," not 26 "instances," of plagiarism (Tab 8).\n30 Tab 8.\n3 \' See footnote 29.\n32\n See Tab 8, page I..\n\x0cCommittee also utilized the library staff to identify other potential sources for the questioned text\nfrom which it concluded:\n\n . . . the Library search does not support the contention that copying for the\n purpose of providing context or to describe methodology is widespread in\n the literature of the field, or that apparent instances of copying are the\n result of using common technical vocabulary or modes of expression.[341\n\n The Committee relied on the library staff to research plagiarism in general. As a result\nthe Committee appeared to rely heavily on published articles about NSF \'s pre-2002 misconduct\nregulation and the previous Department of Health and Human Services\' (DHHS) misconduct\nregulation.35 The Committee concluded: "clearly enunciated standards for plagiarism are needed\nwithin the physical science and engineering cornmunitie~."~~\n\n Despite no finding of misconduct, the Committee recommended an educational\nrequirement for the Subject to complete in the area of research ethics.\n\n\n The Subiect\'s Response to the University Committee\'s Investigation Report\n\n The Subject accepted the Committee\'s report, writing:\n\n Moreover, I am in agreement with the conclusion of the report in\n that the evidence does not support NSF\'s allegations of research\n misconduct.\n\n\n\'\' The Committee defined "violates institutional standard of scholarly conduct" as:\n A fifth category [of seriousness, impact] involving violation of general institutional\n standards of copying in scholarly research as defined by the University . . ., has been\n added to the Levels of Seriousness defined by NSF. This category applies when copying\n does not result in a harm classified in categories 11-14, [Tab 8, page 5.1\nCategories 11-14, as identified by the Committee, are defined as seriousness or impact on: 1) "the research record";\n2) "stealing others\' results or methods"; 3) "Institution"; and 4) "public welfare." (Tab 8, page 1.)\n In response to our request for clarification of "violates institutional standard of scholarly conduct", the\nUniversity explained:\n The University in its review of allegations of wrongdoing in the conduct or reporting of\n research has found many grades of seriousness. A finding of no academic misconduct\n does not imply that a concern does not involve a questionable research practice; only that\n it is not a "hanging offense," warranting a determination of research misconduct. [Tab 34,\n page 6.1\nThus, we conclude that the Committee\'s use of "violates institutional standard of scholarly conduct" indicates a\ndeparture from accepted practices of the community. The Committee\'s method of treating each "instance" of\ncopying as a discrete allegation rather than considering the copied text in a proposal in the aggregate could\nreasonably lead to its conclusion that an individual "instance" was of minimal seriousness. In contrast, our general\ntreatment of all of the copied text in the aggregate, in a proposal regardless of its proximate locat~onto other copied\ntext, warrants interpretation of "violates institutional standard of scholarly conduct" as a significant departure of\naccepted practices. This is consistent with NSF\'s treatment of a proposal as the unit of submission.\n34\n Tab 7, page 7.\n35\n Tab 7, pages 8-9.\n36\n Tab 7, page 9.\n\x0c Although I agree with the Committee that the apparent similarities\n between my proposals and the documents identified by the NSF\n [OIG] do not establish a "breach of community standards," I\n strongly feel that more care should have been taken to avoid these\n instances. . . .\n\n Specifically, I feel the proposed educational component . . . could\n be [sic] valuable asset to my further career development."37\n\n\n The Universitv\'s Action Against the Subiect\n\n Although the University did not make a finding of misconduct regarding the Subject\'s\n copying of text, it required that the Subject:\n\n work under the mentorship of a senior [departmental] faculty member to\n learn the unwritten best practices in technical writing plagiarism, to\n complete an assignment to explore best practices at other institutions, and\n to prepare a written document of those best practices for the benefit of the\n [department].[381\n\n\n OIG\'s Investiaation\n\n We determined that the University assembled an adequate evidentiary record for its\n investigation but that we could not accept the University\'s conclusions. The Committee found\n no misconduct despite finding of numerous "instances" of knowing and reckless copying as part\n of a pattern of copying across the four questioned proposals. The Committee found the copying\n to be a violation of the "institutional standard of scholarly i n t e g r ~ t y . " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~\n\n We wrote to the University for clarification on the apparent contradictions between its\n conclusions and the evidentiary support.41The University but its response did not\n resolve our concerns. Therefore, we were unable to accept the University\'s conclusions. Where\na necessary, we will address particular points made by the Committee below as they pertain to our\n analysis and conclusions.\n\n\n\n\n 37\n Tab 15, page 2. The Subject\'s response to the Committee\'s report.\n 38\n Tab 2, page 4.\n 39 See footnote 33.\n 40\n Tab 7, pages 6-9. The Committee requested an impressive search of what it perceived to be the relevant literature\n on the accepted practices of chemical, materials science, and engineering disciplines. However, we found that most\n of the sources discussed were either outdated or inapplicable.\n 4 \' Tab 33.\n 42 Tab 34.\n\x0c The Subject allegedly copied three pages (143 lines) of material into four NSF proposals\nfrom twenty source documents (Sources A through T ) . ~The ~ copying included verbatim\ncopying and substantially similar text. During the course of the investigation, the evidence\nshowed that the Subject legitimately used 19 lines of the questioned text from Source J , leaving\n ~ ~\n124 lines45of text unexplained. As noted above, the Subject subdivided the sections of\nquestioned text into three subgroups when he responded to our inquiry letter.46 We have used\nthe Subject\'s own subgroups to address the sections of text in summary, although we have\nreordered the groups for greater clarity.\n\n We have also summarized the contributions of each of the sources to the proposals in\nTable 1.\n\n\n\n\n41 Tab 32.A-32.T.\n44\n Tab 25, the Subject\'s Alternate Source for OIG Source J (Tab 32.5). The Subject provided a proposal on which\nhe, as a postdoctoral fellow, was named as an investigator along with the author of OIG\'s Source J. Although the\nSubject provided this document in his response to our inquiry, he did not discuss it in his letter. (Tab 17.) On its\nface, the document lacks sufficient information to identify the intended funding source although it appears to be a\nDARPA proposal.\n45\n This number reflects the total number of lines from 36 of the 37 passages identified in our initial inquiry.\n46 Tab 17, page 2.\n\x0c Table 1. Summary of Number of Lines Copied\n by Proposal and Source Document\n\n\n\n\n The same three lines of text from Source A that appear in Proposal 1 also appear in Proposal 2.\nW e originally questioned 19 lines of text from Source J, for which the Subject later provided evidence that he used\nthe text without citation appropriately.\n\'One line of text from Source K (specifically K1) appears in Proposal 2, Proposal 6, and Proposal 9. Of the\nremaining 4 lines from Source K found in Proposal 6 , 2 also appear in Proposal 2.\n\'%\n The same 3 lines of text copied from Source W appear in both Proposal 2 and Proposal 6.\n\n\n\n\n Misunderstandings and/or honest errors (2 Proposals, 51 lines). The Subject grouped\nSources A, B, C, L and M under this category. It was among these five sources that we found\nthe more egregious copying as described below.\n\n Source was the abstract of an NSF CAREER award to another PI:* from which the\nSubject copied approximately ten lines of text related to broader impacts into Proposal 2 and\nthree linesinto Proposal 1.49 The Subject explained the copied text:\n\n47 Tab 32.A.\n48\n See footnote 7\n\x0c I initially wrote this section in the abstract with the intention to\n revise it, once the actual activities were formulated. This occurred\n during an earlier period of the proposal writing process, when I\n was indeed reading several abstracts of successful NSF proposals\n (potentially including that abstract listed as [Source] A). During\n the further development, the proposal underwent several iterations\n and I finally decided not to include the activities that involve\n . At that time, I dealt with the abstract\n and proposal as two different entities, and when the proposal was\n submitted, a non-updated version of the abstract was included. I\n clearly should have avoided to include this passage (i) in the\n ,current form and (ii) without addressing in it in the text to ensure\n sufficient credit to relevant activities outside of the proposal.\n However this happened as a consequence of a technical mistake\n and without intention and is, as such, an honest error.[501\n\n The Subject\'s assertions regarding Source A do little to dissuade us fiom the conclusion\nthat he knowingly copied these texts verbatim into both Proposal 1 and Proposal 2.\n\n Source B involved approximately eleven lines of text,51copied verbatim into Proposal 152\nalong with the reference^^^ used by the Source B authors.54 We concluded that the references\nwere integral to the copied text. The selection of references in Source B represents the\nintellectual effort of the original authors to support the content of the text the Subject copied.\nThus, we considered the text and references fiom Source B as a whole rather than as discrete\nallegations.55 The references occurred in the same order in Source B as in Proposal 1 with the\nonly difference being selected omissions from the list in the source document.\n\n The Source C material56was ap roximately three lines of text, most of which was\ncontiguous and verbatim in Proposal 1.P7 The authors of the source text cited one reference;\n\n49\n Three of the lines in Proposal 2 were the same as the three lines in Proposal 1 .\n50\n Tab 17, page 3.\n51\n Tab 32.B, page 1 .\n52 Tab 28, project description, page I .\n53 For discussion purposes we are distinguishing between references as items in the reference section of the proposal\nand citations as the notation in the proposal text directing the reader to a specific reference.\n54\n The Committee report noted:\n The text is clearly copied. Two members of the Committee judged that plagiarism has\n not been demonstrated for B3-6 since [the Subject] has a right to cite references as he\n wishes, and it is not clear that the references were simply copied. The third member\n disagreed, considering the references to be an integral part of the text. [Tab 32.B,\n page 1 .I\nSee Tab 8, pages 5-6. We agreed with the third member of the committee, who was most representative of the\nSubject\'s own discipline.\n5 5 The Subject and the Committee frequently refer to the passages we identified in our inquiry as discrete, stand-\nalone allegations.\n56\n Tab 32.C, page 648.\n57\n Tab 28, project description, page 1 1 .\n\x0chowever, the Subject provided a citation to another reference." The Subject explained that the\ntext was taken from one of his 2001 publications (reference 41 in Proposal 1) and that when he\ntook the text from his paper he mistakenly copied the citation number, "[25]" from his paper into\nhis proposal. He went on to explain that reference 25 in his 2001 publication was a citation to\nSource C. We confirmed that the copied text does appear in the Subject\'s 2001 publication and\nthat the citation in his 2001 publication refers to a 1998 paper that predates Source C (published\nin 1999). The 1998 paper and Source C have authors in common. Thus, it appears that the\nauthors of Source C and the 1998 paper were the original authors of the text that the Subject\ncopied into both his 2001 paper and Proposal 1." The Subject included no citations to the 1998\npaper or Source C in Proposal 1. Furthermore, the Subject did not cite reference 4 1 in the\nvicinity of the copied text in Proposal 1.60\n\n The thirteen lines of text copied from both Source L and Source M into Proposal 2\ndescribed recent advancements in the particular area of science. With regard to Source L, the\nCommittee found:\n\n [Source] L involves a paper . . ., which [the Subject] cites in the\n appropriate place of the reference list . . .. That citation, however,\n is unnumbered, evidently the result of an oversight. The intention\n to reference the science is clear and appropriate, although the\n copying of the text of the review article . . . is inappropriate.[611\n\nThe Subject did make an attempt to cite the source that the is cited in Source L as the original\nsource. However, the Subject\'s citation appeared in the same place in the copied text as it did in\nthe Source L text. We interpret this to be less an effort to provide the appropriate citation and\nmore indicative of copying the Source L text.\n\n We conclude similarly for the Source M text, which was a catalog of applications cited to\nnumerous references in Source M. The Subject copied both the text and the references from\nSource M . ~ ~\n\n With regard to the text copied from Source A, C, L, and M and part of the copied\nmaterial from.Source B, the Committee found that the copying violates the "institutional\nstandard of scholarly integrity."63 Therefore with respect to the text in these passages, we\nconcluded that the Subject significantly departed from accepted practices.\n58\n See footnote 53 for the distinction between citations and references.\n59 This would tend to suggest that the Subject\'s 2001 publication contained a statement copied verbatim from either\nthe 1998 paper or Source C. We note that the work reported in the 2001 publication does not appear to have been\nconducted with NSF funds. A detailed examination of the Subject\'s published works did not appear warranted\ngiven that a pattern of copying in NSF proposals, as described below. Therefore, we have not conducted a full\nexamination of the Subject\'s 2001 publication and other publications.\n60\n The Committee found that the Subject "properly referenced" the source of the text in the proposal; however, that\nconclusion was unsupported. See Tab 8, page 6 note 6).\n61\n Tab 8, page 6 note (m).\n62 The Committee\'s only comment was that the Source M text was "generic material to provide context and an\nintroduction" (See Tab 8, page 5 note (d)). Although, the Committee did conclude that the text was copied without\nproper attribution (See Tab 8, page 4).\n63\n Tab 8, pages 2-4. See also footnote 33.\n\x0c Descriptions of methods and principles, such as definitions (4 Proposals, 39 lines).\nThe Subject included under this category Sources D, E, F, G, H, I, N, 0 , and Q . The ~ ~Subject\nchallenged Source I as being published after his submission of the proposal and Source Q as "a\ndubious French hornepage" that he was unable to access.65 While in the inquiry phase, we were\nunable to rule out the possibility that the Subject had pre-publication access to Source I, the\nCommittee found a source that predated Source I containing the same copied text.66 With regard\nto Source Q, we have had no difficulty accessing the page repeatedly during our investigation.\n\n The Subject provided us with examples of similar text in the literature to demonstrate that\nthe questioned language appeared in other sources.67 In those instances, we determined that his\nproffered examples were less similar to the source text than the text he copied into his proposals\nwas to the text from the source documents. The Subject\'s examples negated any claim that the\ntext was technically constrained so as to require the use of those specific words. The\nCommittee\'s statement regarding the library search supported this conclusion in this regard when\nit wrote:\n\n . . . the Library search does not support the contention that . .\n apparent instances of copying are the result of using common\n technical vocabulary or modes of expression.[681\n\nWith the exception of Source ~ , the6 Committee\n ~ also found these instances to be violations of\nthe "institutional standard of scholarly integrity."\'\' Therefore with respect to the text from\nSources D, E, F, G, H, I, N, 0," and Q copied without proper attribution, we concluded that the\nSubject significantly departed from accepted practices.\n\n Descriptions of instruments and commercial software packages (2 Proposals, 21\nlines). The Subject included under this subgroup Sources K, P, R, S, and T. These passages\ninvolved text describing software and instrumentation. The Subject explained that he used the\ntext from these sources:\n\n\n\n64 AS we stated in footnote 44, we have accepted the Subject\'s earlier proposal to another agency as evidence that he\nhad authorship in the text from Source J.\n65\n Tab 17, page 4.\n Tab 16, page 2268.\n67 Tab 18-27, the Subject\'s Appendices A-D.2.\n Tab 7, page 7.\n69\n We note that the Committee\'s one member most aligned with the Subject\'s own discipline (i.e.,the Committee\nchairman), found that the Source N text "involves a specific methodological research result that was copied and used\nwithout attribution." (See Tab 8, page 6, explanatory note (n).) We agree with the Committee chairman with regard\nto Source N.\n70\n Tab 8, pages 2-4. See also footnote 33.\n7\' The Committee\'s email to the Subject\'s faculty mentor (Tab 37) contained the text the Subject copied from\nSource 0 as it appeared in the mentor\'s publication rather than as it appeared in Proposal 3. The mentor addressed\nthe technical constraints on the language in his response to the Committee but did so outside of the context of\nProposal 3. The Subject did not offer technical constraints of the language as an explanation for his copying and\ninstead pointed us to reference I03 in Proposal 3. Although he did cite reference 103, another of his mentor\'s\npublications, he did not distinguish the copied text with quotation marks or indentation.\n\x0c To avoid confusion due to ambiguous descriptions that a complete\n rewrite of.the features of the commercial products would have\n caused (I am not an expert in the development of any of these\n instruments or software packages, nor do I claim to be one), I tried\n to adhere to the product descriptions supplied by the company -\n where appropriate.[721\n\nThus, the Subject admitted to copying text from the suppliers.\n\n While it can be beneficial to stay close to the developer\'s description of a particular\nproduct, our concern was and still is that the Subject copied text from the documentation, in\nseveral instances from manufacturers\' literature, without attribution. For example fiom\nSource P , the\n ~ Subject\n ~ copied verbatim six lines of text74and provided a citation to sources that\ndo not contain the text copied.75 Source R is a manual for a fiom which the\nSubject copied a partial list of common problems.76\n\n With regard to Sources S and T, which we found in the budget justification of Proposal 4,\nthe Subject wrote these sections "clearly refer to the attached quotations fiom the companies and\nproducts."77 The Subject explained Source K in a similar manner, pointing out that he\nreferenced the name of the software package in the first sentence of that discussion "to ensure\nthat the producer of the software receives all the credit he deserves.\'778While we do agree that\nthe Subject\'s text established a context in which he was discussing the particular instrumentation\nor software, the Subject did not offset the copied text or provide citation to the source of the text\nor the ideas contained therein. The Subject seems to argue simultaneously that the intellectual\ncontent of the text is ubiquitous such that citation is not warranted while at the same time he is\nfree to use another author\'s text that embodies the ideas much better than he can state them\nhimself. We concluded that the text was not technically constrained. Thus, we concluded that\nthe Subject copied the text without proper attribution from Sources K, P, R, S, and T.\n\n The Committee found that the copied material from these sections of text were violations\nof the "institutional standard of scholarly integrity.7y79Therefore with respect to the text in these\npassages, we conclude that the Subject significantly departed from accepted practices.\n\n Pattern of Copying\n\n Although the Subject continued to submit proposals to NSF through the University\n during the course of the investigation, the Committee\'s conclusion that the Subject\'s actions\n constituted a pattern of copying was limited to Proposals 1 through 4." The Committee did not\n..lookbeyond the scope of the four proposals we referred for investigation. As part of our\n\n72 Tab 17, pages 2-3.\n73 Tab 32.P, pages 1-2.\n 1, page 14.\n74 ~ a 3 b\n75 Tab 35.\n76\n Tab 32.R, page 2- 17.\n77\n Tab 17, page 3.\n78\n Tab 17, page 3.\n79 Tab 8, pages 3-4. See also footnote 33\n\x0cinvestigation, we have reviewed Award l a \' and the six proposals the Subject submitted since the\nbeginning of our inquiry.82 In our review, we found that the Subject continued to copy verbatim\ntext from sources without distinguishing that text from his own with quotation marks or\nindentation in three of those proposals, two of which he submitted after November 2004 when\nwe referred the investigation to the University. Notably, we did not find copied text within his\nfunded proposal (Award In the declined proposals, the text copied tended to be\ninstrumentation or software descriptions taken from the manufacturer\'s literature.\n\n In Award 1,84we identified 20 lines of text copied from an instrument manufacturer\'s\nproduct literature (Source v).~\' The Subject was the PI on this award with four Co-PIS, all of\nwhom were senior faculty members at the University including his senior faculty mentor. The\ncopied text appeared in a section of the proposal discussing the generalities of an instrument\nunder consideration, rather than in a section describing a particular PIICo-PI\'S contribution to the\nproject. The copying was consistent with the Subject\'s other copying. Although the section of\ncopied text introduced the instrument by name, the following 20 lines of text were verbatim with\nonly minor exceptions and without citation, quotation marks, or other mechanism to signify that\nthe words originated with another author.\n\n In Proposal 6,86the Subject copied text not only fiom the software manufacturer\'s\nliterature (5 lines) but also from a review of that software on the Internet (3 lines, Source w).~\'\nThe Subject did provide a reference to the manufacturer\'s website\'s homepage at the end of the\nentire passage of copied text; however, it was clear that the original text on the manufacturer\'s\nsite was part of a white paper by a named author several levels removed fiom the homepage. In\nfact, that white paper was Source K, which was also copied into Proposal 2. Furthermore, the\nlargest string of text copied in this passage came from Source W, which was an independent\nwebsite with reviews of similar software packages. We did not find the Source W text on the\nmanufacturer\'s website, therefore, the Subject\'s attempt at citation did not encompass this part of\nthe copied text. The Subject used no means of offsetting the copied text fiom his own. We\nconcluded that the Subject copied this text into Proposal 6, providing only a token reference.\n\n\n\n\n-\'submited o n i . e . , two months after the Subject responded to our inquiry letter\n and more than two weeks after we referred the investigation to the University.)\n 84 Tab 39.\n 85 Tab 40.\n 86 ~ a 41.b\n " Tab 42.\n\x0c We also found one line of text from Source K copied verbatim into Proposal 9, submitted\non 24 August 2005. The copied line contains a citation to the manufacturer\'s website as\ndescribed for the same text in Proposal 6. Although this involves a single line, it is a line of text\nthat we questioned in Proposal 2 in our inquiry. The Subject continued to use the line verbatim\nin a proposal he submitted during the course of the investigation.\n\n When the additional instances of copying found in Award 1, Proposal 6, and Proposal 9\nare aggregated with the copying found in Proposals 1 through 4, the total number of lines copied\nis 156 as summarized in Table 2.\n\n\n Table 2. Summary of Proposals Containing Plagiarized Material\n and Associated Source Documents\n\n Date Proposal Type Source Total Lines Citations\n Submitted . Documents of Text copiedg8\n Copied\n Proposal 1 Research A, B7C, D, E 40 14\n Proposal 2 Research A, D, E, F, G , H, 54\n 17 K, L, M\n YW\n Proposal 3 Research N, 0 . 11\n Proposal 4 Research P7Q, R, S7T 22\n Award 1 Instrumentation V 20\n Proposal 6 Research K, W 8\n Proposal 9 Research K 1\n\n Totals 156 14\n\n\n OIG Assessment\n\n A finding of misconduct requires that (1) there be a significant departure from accepted\npractices of the relevant research community, (2) the research misconduct be committed\nintentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly, and (3) the allegation be proven by a preponderance of\nthe evidence.g9\n\n The Act\n\n As described above, we identified 124 lines of text copied into Proposals 1 through 4\nfrom nineteen sources. We also identified copied material in Award 1 (20 lines), Proposal 6\n(8 lines), and Proposal 9 (1 line) drawn from two additional sources as well as one of the original\nnineteen we identified. The preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that the\n\n\n In this case, each citation was equivalent to one line of text and has been included under "Total Lines of Text\nCopied."\n\'\'45 C.F.R. $ 689.2(c).\n\x0cSubject\'s copying without appropriate attribution to the sources violated the "institutional\nstandard of scholarly integrityMg0\n and as such was a significant departure from accepted practice.\n\n Intent\n\n The Subject\'s actions could be considered reckless if we, like the Committee, treated\neach "instance" of text as a discrete and separate allegation giving rise to 37 allegations.91192In\ncontrast, we considered the totality of the text copied in each proposal and the circumstances\nsurrounding the Subject\'s preparation of the proposals. The evidence supports a finding that the\nSubject acted knowingly with regard to copying from the sources we identified.93\n\n The Subject\'s actions in this case involved finding text in numerous sources and placing\nthat text into his proposals. The act of copying is a knowing act by its very nature. There was no\nevidence to indicate that any other person was involved in this process beyond the Subject\'s\n faculty mentor suggesting some references for con~ideration.~~ In some instances, the Subject\n edited the copied text creating de minimis differences from the source documents. Such editing\n.is by its nature a knowing act. Thus, the extent of the copying from numerous sources with\n selective editing demonstrated a knowing intent.\n\n Pressing submission deadlines do not appear to be a motivating factor behind the\nSubject\'s actions. Proposals 1 through 3 had the same timestamp indicating that the three were\nsubmitted simultaneously.g5 Although the Subject may have been pressured by an impending\ndeadline for Proposal 1y6the Subject submitted Proposal 2 and Proposal 3 as unsolicited\nproposals (i.e.,not in response to a specific program announcement or soli~itation).~\'Therefore,\nhe had no NSF imposed deadlines for completing Proposal 2 and Proposal 3. The Subject also\nstated in his initial response to us: "The fact that my ideas matured.over several years enabled me\nto submit three proposals . . . within a relatively short period after my starting date\'\' at the\nUniversity. Regardless, it appeared that the Subject failed to prepare each proposal according to\nthe scholarly standards expected by N S F . ~ ~\n\n\n\n\n Tab 8, pages 2-4. See also foomote 33.\n The Committee concluded that the Subject demonstrated knowing intent with regard to the text copied from\nSource A and reckless intent with regard to the remaining instances in which it found plagiarism. See Tab 2, page 3.\n92 See footnote 28.\n93\n This excluded the material copied from Source J, as the Subject ultimately produced a proposal to another funding\nsource that showed he shared the text as a coauthor at some point with an author of Source J.\n94\n Tab 37, page 2. The Subject\'s mentor wrote to the Committee:\n I have indeed been mentoring [the Subject], and have recommended that he readand cite\n important previous papers from our laboratory to help justify and support the feasibility\n of his own research plans. [emphasis added]\n95 The timestamp reflects the time the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) certified the proposals, it\n\n\n96 The Subject submitted Proposal 1 in response to which designated a submission\n time for unsolicited proposals.\nThe Subject\'s submission was three days after that deadline.\n97 AS designated on the proposal Cover Pages as NSF 04-2 at the top of the page. See Tabs 29 and 30.\n98\n NSF Grant Proposal Guide 1.B (October 2003).\n\x0c With respect to the manufacturer\'s product literature copied into Proposals 2,4, 6, and 9,\nand Award 1, we concluded that the Subject\'s copying was knowing. He admitted that he used\nthe words from manufacturer\'s product literature because he did not feel capable of providing a\nbetter description.99\n\n The preponderance of the evidence supports our conclusion that the Subject\'s actions\nwere knowing.\n\n\n Standard o f Proof\n\n We conclude that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the Subject knowingly\ncopied 156 lines of text, including 14 references, from twenty-one references into seven NSF\nproposals, one of which was awarded. Therefore, the Subject\'s violation of the "institutional\nstandard of scholarly integrity" is research misconduct.\n\n\n OIG\'s Recommended Disposition\n\n When deciding what appropriate action to take upon a finding of misconduct, NSF must\nconsider:\n\n (1)How serious the misconduct was; (2) The degree to which the\n misconduct was knowing, intentional, or reckless; (3) Whether it\n was an isolated event or part of a pattern; (4)\'Whether it had a\n significant impact on the research record, research subjects, other\n researchers, institutions or the public welfare; and (5) Other\n relevant circumstances.[\'001\n\n Seriousizess\n\n The pattern of the Subject\'s actions elevated the seriousness of his misconduct. The\nSubject\'s copying was not an isolated event. Furthermore, the Subject\'s conduct continues as\ndemonstrated in proposals submitted during the course of this investigation. In submitting these\nlatter proposals, the Subject may have relied on the Committee\'s assertion of the nebulous\nconcept of "low-level copying" as permissible because of its perceived prevalence. These more\nrecent proposals the Subject submitted do include some citations to the source material; however,\nthe Subject continues to copy text verbatim without offsetting the text to distinguish it fiom his\nown original text or his own paraphrase of the source. The three lines of Source W text also\nappeared in Proposal 2, although we had not identified it at the time of our initial inquiry.\'\'\'\n\n\n\n\n99 Tab 17, pages 2-3.\nloo 45 C.F.R. 5 689.3(b).\n101\n Tab 44, Excerpt fiom Proposal 2 containing Source W text\n\n\n 16\n\x0c Degree o f Intent\n\n The Subject\'s degree of intent was knowing and consistent with NSF\'s past findings of\nresearch misconduct in plagiarism cases.\n\n Pattern\n\n In addition to the four NSF proposals we referred to the University for investigation,\nthree of the Subject\'s other six NSF proposals contained plagiarized material. The number of\nlines of plagiarized material in those submissions decreased over time (Table 2) suggesting\nimprovement in the Subject\'s citation practices. However the most recent submission,\nProposal 9, contained one line of text that we havequestioned since the beginning of our inquiry.\nThe Subject provided citation for the intellectual content of the text copied, but he did not\ndistinguish the copied text from the his text with quotation marks or indentation, thereby failing\nto provide appropriate credit to the source material.\n\n Both Proposal 1 and Proposal 2 each individually contain an amount of knowing copying\nfor a finding of research misconduct consistent with past NSF findings. While the copying\ncontained in the other five proposals may or may not rise to a finding of research misconduct\nindividually, the five proposals demonstrate a continuing pattern of copying spanning two years\nduring which the Subject has submitted NSF proposals.\n\n Thus, we concluded that the Subject has exhibited and continues, although to a lesser\ndegree, to exhibit a pattern of plagiarizing the words of others.\n\n\n Impact on the research record\n\n Based on the evidence in this case, the Subject\'s actions in his NSF proposals did not\nappear to impact the research record.\n\n Other Relevant Circumstances\n\n The Subject acknowledged that he had some difficulty with English because it is not his\nnative language. Io2,lo3 However under the circumstances in this case, we concluded that the\nSubject had sufficient skill with the English language as demonstrated by his publication record\nin ~ n ~ l i s h .Many\n " ~ of those publications appeared to be collaborative efforts during his\n\n\n Tab 7, page 11.\nlo\' The Committee used the language difference as a factor mitigating against the Subject\'s knowing intent. In fact,\nthe Committee went further using it to mitigate against a finding of research misconduct. While such an approach is\nat the University\'s discretion, we found n o basis for such an approach in our investigation or past NSF findings.\nRather the Subject\'s facility with the English language is a more appropriate consideration when determining what\naction to take after reaching a finding of research misconduct.\n\'04 Tab 38, the Subject\'s publication record as reported online in the Science Citation Index. The Subject has\npublished in English), 4 of which he published between 1998 and 2003. Of those , he was the\nfirst author on ( in English). While there is no definitive rule or practice in the Subject\'s discipline as to which\n\x0cpostdoctoral training and research positions at U.S. institution^,\'^^ most likely involving some\neditorial collaboration to smooth out any of his difficulties with the language. The Subject\nacknowledged to us his perceptions of his own limitations specifically in describing\ninstrumentation and software.\'06 But he appeared to have sought out little or no editorial\nassistance with the preparation of his proposals despite having a senior faculty mentor advising\nhim on substantive content.\n\n Recommendation\n\n Based on the evidence, OIG recommends that NSF:\n\n send a letter of reprimand to the Subject informing him that NSF has made a\n finding of research misconduct;\n\n require the Subject to certify completion of an ethics course covering research\n misconduct before submitting any proposals to NSF on which he is a principal\n investigator (PI) or co-principal investigator (Co-PI);\n\n require the Subject to certify each time he submits a proposal or report to NSF\n that the proposal or report does not contain plagiarized, falsified, or fabricated\n material for 5 years commencing with the date of NSF\'s finding of research\n misconduct;\n\n require the Subject to submit assurances by a responsible official of his employer\n each time he submits a proposal or report to NSF that the proposal or report does\n not contain plagiarized, falsified, or fabricated material for 5 years commencing\n with the date of NSF\'s finding of research misconduct; and\n\n bar the Subject from serving as a reviewer of NSF proposals for 3 years\n commencing from the date of NSF\'s finding of research misconduct.\n\n\n The Subiect\'s Response to Draft Investigation ~ e p o r t \' ~ \'\n\n The Subject provided comments to our Draft Investigation Report (the Draft). Those\ncomments focused primarily on our decision to recommend a finding of research misconduct in\nlieu of deferring to the University\'s decision and his perception that we have not made our\nrecommendations objectively. With specific regard to the text of the Draft, the Subject objected\nto the content of several quoted passages and to the objectivity of phrases characterizing his\n\n\nauthor\'s name appears first, one of the most common practices in that discipline is to list the author who drafted the\n\n\n\n\n . -\n\'07 Tab 45.\n\x0cactions. The Draft accurately reflected the content of the quoted sources and our assessment of\nthe facts. We have nevertheless modified the text to accommodate the Subject\'s expressed\nconcerns. The quotes have been expanded to provide the context that the Subject stated was\nnecessary to evaluate their content. In some quotes, we have expanded the quotations beyond\nthe text that the Subject requested to insure that the reader has sufficient information to discern\nthe context of the statements. We have also removed the phrases that he specifically found\nobjectionable and provided additional explanatory information where necessary. We have also\nprovided additional line counts and other metrics in response to his comments. In light of these\nchanges, our analysis and recommendations based on the facts in this case remain the same.\n\n The Subject provided an email dated 23 March 2006 from the instrument manufacturer\nfiom which he copied the Source V text into Award 1. The manufacturer\'s representative stated:\n"The quote and description of the [instrument] that I provided you was intended for use in the\nNSF proposal."\'08 It is common for NSF PIS to include materials from product vendors as\nsupplementary materials in a proposal. In this case, the Subject copied text fiom the product\nliterature directly into Award 1 rather than appending the materials as supplemental information.\nThe Subject referred to the instrument by name and manufacturer in the text of Award 1 but used\nthe manufacturer\'s words (20 lines) without quotation marks or other distinguishing treatment. It\nwas clear that the copied text was a description of the instrument, but it was not clear that the\ndescription was authored by someone other than the Subject. We analyzed Award 1 with respect\nto the Subject\'s pattern of copying and included those lines in the final total of lines copied. Our\nline totals continue to include those lines in light of the Subject\'s previous statement regarding\nhis abilities to describe the instrumentation, as quoted above.Iog Whether the Source V text is\nincluded in the totals has no bearing on our recommendations because it is a relatively small\nportion of the text copied without attribution.\n\n In addition to his concerns with the text of the Draft, the Subject wrote:\n\n Your report implies that a middle ground, poor practice, but not\n misconduct, is a theoretically impossible state, seriously distorting\n the real world.[\' lo]\n\nWe agree that a "middle ground" exists. However, the Subject\'s actions in this case fall squarely\n \'\nwithin the applicable definition of research misconduct, specifically plagiarism. \' I The extent of\nhis plagiarism well exceeds the amount for which NSF has previously made findings of research\nmisconduct. The Subject\'s rationale for classifying his actions within the "middle ground,"\nwhich we interpret to mean a questionable research practice (QW),appears to rely extensively\non the University\'s determination that his actions were not "a significant departure from\naccepted practices of the relevant research c~mmunity.""~We agree that QRPs are part of the\n"real world" of scientific research, but the rationale upon which the University and the Subject\n\n\n\n\'08 Tab 45.\n109\n See page 2.\nl lo\n Tab 45, page 3.\n"\' 45 C.F.R. 689.1.\n\'I2 45 C.F.R. 689.2(~)(1).\n\x0chave characterized the copying in this case as a QRP appears premised on the pervasiveness of\ncopying, not the acceptability of it, in the relevant research community.\n\n Our recommendation for a finding of research misconduct in this case is consistent with\nthe policy statements of those communities in which the Subject has published the majority of\nhis work. We have reviewed the policy statements from professional societies and the journals\nin which the Subject has published and found that regardless of the University\'s perception of\nthe prevalence of. copying\n . within the community, the community appears to reject copying\n\n\n\nAccording to the Guidelines:\n " We acknowledge that assessing what is\n"common knowledge" is an exercise in discretion, but it would be difficult to rationalize that full\nsentences or paragraphs such as those copied from Sources A or B would qualify as "common\nknowledge" when the subject matter is not technically constrained to those particular words or a\nunique set of circumstances. As stated above,\'16 the University elected to analyze the questioned\ntext as individual discrete allegations corresponding to our numbering scheme which correlated\nproposal text with the source text.\n\n NSF reviews a proposal as a single submission unit when determining whether to fund a\nproject. Therefore NSF assesses the whole proposal as a unit in relation to the source\ndocument(s) in making a determination of research misconduct rather than assessing the\nindividual line, word, or phrase corresponding to our correlation scheme. In this manner, NSF\nassesses the text in the aggregate much like a chemist analyzes the molecule as an aggregate of\nbonded atoms. The University\'s approach reduced the text to its elemental form by focusing on\nits constituent parts (the atoms) rather than their connection and relation to the whole (the\nmolecule). The University\'s assessment may be consistent with its own policies but it is\ninconsistent with past NSF cases in this area.\'17 Some of the copying we identified could be\nconsidered an example of a QRP except that is was within a much larger body of unattributed\ncopied text. Our analysis of the copied text in the aggregate is consistent with our\nrecommendation for a finding of research misconduct, although some of the materials copied,\nsuch as those from Source B, are likely sufficient on their own for a misconduct finding.\n\n The Subject proposed three "voluntary sanctions" in his response, in lieu of our\nrecommendations to NSF. Two are remedial education courses which are consistent with our\n\n\n\n\nthis statement.\n\n\n\n\n See footnote 28.\n"\'See discussion on pages 4-5, particularly footnote 33.\n\x0crecommendations. The third is a certification requirement requiring him to certify to the\nUniversity rather than to NSF that his proposals and reports to NSF "fully comport[] with the\nresearch conduct standards of the University and of the research funding agency.""8 We agree\nthat certification is a necessary and useful means of helping the Subject "avoid any kind of bad\npractice in the future." \' I 9 Our recommendations for certifications and assurances to NSF in\nconjunction with a finding of research misconduct are appropriate for protecting the interests of\nNSF and are consistent with past cases.\n\n\n\n\n\'I8 Tab 45. page 6.\n119\n Tab 45. page 6.\n\x0c'