Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchPC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
A 2019 comparison found plagiarism in 83.6% of NSF offenders found guilty, compared with 4.8% of NIH offenders found guilty. That is a striking difference in the makeup of the agency cases studied—not evidence that an individual NSF-funded researcher is more likely to plagiarize. The study’s author pointed to differences in scientific fields, researchers and publication types as likely explanations, but the comparison does not establish why the gap occurred.
What did the study actually compare?
Donald S. Kornfeld’s study, published online August 20, 2019, compared research-misconduct cases handled by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Among offenders found guilty in the cases examined, 83.6% of NSF offenders were reported to have committed plagiarism, versus 4.8% of NIH offenders. These percentages describe guilty offenders in the comparison; they are not shares of all researchers funded by either agency. The study abstract on PubMed reports the comparison and its interpretation.
The same study reported that NIH supported four times as many grants as NSF, while NSF reviewed 2.5 times as many research-misconduct reports. It also reported that faculty made up 88% of NSF offenders found guilty and 42% of NIH offenders found guilty; trainees made up 6% and 42%, respectively. These are study-specific case characteristics, not general odds that a faculty member, trainee or funded researcher will be found guilty.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Why might the agencies’ case patterns differ?
Different fields and kinds of written work
Kornfeld suggested that the pattern most likely reflects “the nature of their respective sciences, scientists, and the nature of their publications.” One plausible interpretation is that copying text may be more readily visible in proposals and other written submissions, while the biomedical cases in this comparison more often involved other forms of misconduct. The study does not prove that explanation or show that funding by either agency causes misconduct.
#1 Best Overall
The agencies’ definitions both include plagiarism, but apply within their respective research contexts. NSF’s definition covers proposing or performing NSF-funded research, reviewing NSF proposals, and reporting results. The Public Health Service (PHS) framework used by NIH covers proposing, performing or reviewing research, and reporting results. See NSF research misconduct policy and process and ORI’s definition of research misconduct.
Different allegations, decisions and denominators
Agency case percentages can be shaped by which allegations are reported, which cases are investigated, the types of work submitted, and how misconduct is categorized. The published abstract does not establish how much each factor contributed or provide a population-based estimate. Its numbers therefore cannot answer whether plagiarism is more prevalent across all NSF-funded research than across all NIH-funded research.
A procedural difference is not a demonstrated cause
Kornfeld also noted that NSF’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has subpoena power, unlike NIH’s Office of Research Integrity (ORI). The article says subpoena power would be infrequently used in NSF’s predominant plagiarism cases, though it could be useful in NIH investigations involving fabrication or falsification. It describes investigative policies and procedures as quite similar overall; it does not establish subpoena authority as the cause of the difference in plagiarism shares.
How do NSF and NIH handle misconduct?
| Agency framework | Definition and scope | Investigation and oversight |
|---|---|---|
| NSF | Fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing or performing NSF-funded research, reviewing NSF proposals, or reporting results. | Recipients generally conduct the initial inquiry and investigation. NSF OIG oversees investigations; the NSF Deputy Director adjudicates cases, and the Director decides appeals. NSF policy and process. |
| NIH, under PHS policy | Fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research, or reporting results. Honest error and differences of opinion are excluded. | Institutions receiving PHS support must maintain compliant written procedures and make required reports to ORI. NIH guidance says the 2024 PHS final rule became applicable January 1, 2026. ORI overview and 2024 PHS final rule information. |
These are separate administrative systems, even though both define research misconduct to include plagiarism, fabrication and falsification. Their shared categories do not make agency case totals or case shares direct measures of underlying prevalence.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What can—and can’t—you conclude from the comparison?
- Supported: In Kornfeld’s 2019 comparison, plagiarism represented 83.6% of NSF offenders found guilty and 4.8% of NIH offenders found guilty.
- Not supported: That 83.6% of all NSF-funded researchers plagiarize, or that an NSF-funded researcher has a corresponding higher individual risk than an NIH-funded researcher.
- Suggested, not proven: Differences in fields, researchers and publication types may help explain the case mix.
- Not established as a cause: NSF OIG’s subpoena authority.
NSF OIG’s separate report, Strategies to Prevent Plagiarism, reviewed subjects and proposals in NSF plagiarism cases. In that selected review, 75 of 137 subjects (55%) were found to have plagiarized in more than one NSF proposal, and 118 (86%) from more than one source. Those figures describe the reviewed subjects, not all NSF researchers and not a comparison with NIH.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- Used Book in Good Condition
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
