perception that it could be applied inappropriately in cases of disputed scientific judgment.
The first annual report of the DHHS's OSIR suggests the types of alleged misconduct in science that might fall within the scope of this category (DHHS, 1991b):
Misuse by a journal referee of privileged information contained in a manuscript,
Fabrication of entries or misrepresentation of the publication status of manuscripts referenced in a research bibliography,
Failure to perform research supported by a PHS grant while stating in progress reports that active progress has been made,
Improper reporting of the status of subjects in clinical research (e.g., reporting the same subjects as controls in one study and as experimental subjects in another),
Preparation and publication of a book chapter listing co-authors who were unaware of being named as co-authors,
Selective reporting of primary data,
Unauthorized use of data from another investigator's laboratory,
Engaging in inappropriate authorship practices on a publication and failure to acknowledge that data used in a grant application were developed by another scientist, and
Inappropriate data analysis and use of faulty statistical methodology.
The panel points out that most of the behaviors described above, such as the fabrication of bibliographic material or falsely reporting research progress, are behaviors that fall within the panel's definition of misconduct in science proposed in Chapter 1.
The NSF's definition (NSF, 1991b) is broader than that used by the PHS9 and extends to nonresearch activities supported by the agency, such as science education. NSF also includes in its definition of misconduct in science acts of retaliation against any person who provides information about suspected misconduct and who has not acted in bad faith.
The panel believes that behaviors such as repeated incidents of sexual harassment, sexual assault, or professional intimidation should be regarded as other misconduct, not as misconduct in science, because these actions (1) do not require expert knowledge to resolve complaints and (2) should be governed by mechanisms that apply to all institutional members, not just those who receive government research awards. Practices such as inappropriate authorship, in the panel's view, should be regarded as questionable research practices,