Rather, we examined the evidence in relation to the definition of research misconduct under
the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation.
Therefore, we initiated our own investigation under
the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation.
What in that email do you think would constitute «misconduct within the definition in
the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation»?
We reviewed the emails and concluded that nothing contained in them evidenced research misconduct within the definition in
the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation.
Rather, we examined the evidence in relation to the definition of research misconduct under
the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation.
Therefore, we initiated our own investigation under
the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation.
Not exact matches
And it has drawn attention to some apparently rare steps that
NSF took against researchers who the agency says engaged in unacceptable
research practices — but not
misconduct.
«The case breaks new ground for
NSF, say those who follow
research misconduct.
The National Science Foundation (
NSF) in Arlington, Virginia, has decided to double down on its implementation of a congressionally mandated policy aimed at reducing
research misconduct among
NSF - funded scientists, despite a new report that notes problems with the agency's approach.
The NIH and the
NSF say they should have enough staff to handle the flood of new grant requests, and both have introduced formal policies on
research misconduct.
When the
NSF - OIG completes an investigation and writes a report, they make a recommendation to the
NSF administration, but it's the deputy director who makes the decision whether to declare a «finding» of
research misconduct.
That quasi-independent office now investigates waste, fraud, and abuse of
NSF funds, as well as investigating allegations of
research misconduct.
The
NSF review found no «direct evidence of
research misconduct,» but it did conclude there were «several concerns raised about the quality of the statistical analysis techniques that were used.»
there are federal laws and policies implicated in this matter, including [the
NSF's] «
Research Misconduct» regulations, Title 45 CFR Part 689, that got beyond the scope of Penn State's inquiry.
Tagged as: AGW, anthropogenic global warming, climate change, climate disruption, climategate, ClimaTweet, CRU, Environment and Public Works Committee, global warming, James Inhofe, Matt Dempsey, Michael Mann, National Science Foundation,
NSF,
NSF - Mann series, office of inspector general, Office of Management of the Budget, OMB, Penn State, Pennyslviania State University, PSU,
research misconduct, Senate