PC 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 & 11Outdated 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One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchA 2019 comparison found that plagiarism made up 83.6% of NSF offenders found guilty in the cases studied, compared with 4.8% of NIH offenders found guilty. That is a striking difference in the mix of agency cases—not evidence that an NSF-funded researcher is more likely to plagiarize than an NIH-funded researcher. The study’s author pointed to differences in scientific fields, researchers, and publications as likely explanations, but the comparison does not establish a cause.
What the percentages measure
Donald S. Kornfeld’s 2019 comparison reports plagiarism in 83.6% of guilty NSF offenders and 4.8% of guilty NIH offenders. The denominator is offenders found guilty in the agency cases examined—not every researcher funded by either agency. The figures therefore describe case composition, not the share of NSF- or NIH-funded researchers who plagiarize or an individual researcher’s risk of doing so. The study abstract does not provide enough methodological detail to assess fully whether report intake, case selection, time periods, and denominators were comparable.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Research Ethics in the Life Sciences | $18.95 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics | $90.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Challenging Cases in Clinical Research Ethics | $31.68 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Principles of Animal Research Ethics | $57.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics | $18.00 | Buy on Amazon |
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The comparison also found that NIH supported four times as many grants as NSF while NSF reviewed 2.5 times as many research-misconduct reports. Among those found guilty, faculty made up 88% of NSF offenders and 42% of NIH offenders; trainees made up 6% and 42%, respectively. These are characteristics of the cases in the study, not population-wide rates. Kornfeld described NSF faculty as two times more likely to be found guilty in the comparison, but that should not be read as a general estimate of risk for all funded faculty.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Why the agencies’ case mixes may differ
Different scientific and publication contexts
Kornfeld suggested the gap was most likely related to “the nature of their respective sciences, scientists, and the nature of their publications.” This offers a plausible context, not a demonstrated causal explanation. The study does not show that an agency’s funding causes misconduct or that researchers supported by one agency are less honest.
#1 Best Overall
One possible interpretation is that copying text can arise in written materials such as proposals and reports, while misconduct cases in biomedical research may involve other categories, including fabrication or falsification. That distinction may help explain different case mixes, but the comparison does not establish how much it contributes to the observed percentages.
Different reports, investigations, and outcomes
The figures can also reflect which allegations are reported, how cases are selected and investigated, and how findings are categorized. The study reports different numbers of grants and misconduct reports, but its abstract does not establish the relative effect of these factors. A greater share of plagiarism among guilty offenders is not the same as a greater underlying prevalence of plagiarism.
Rank #2
Kornfeld also noted that NSF’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has subpoena power, unlike NIH’s Office of Research Integrity (ORI). He said that power would be infrequently used in NSF’s predominant plagiarism cases, though it could be useful in NIH investigations involving fabrication or falsification. The paper describes investigative policies and procedures as quite similar overall; it does not establish subpoena authority as the reason for the gap.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →How NSF and NIH define and handle misconduct
Both agencies’ frameworks include fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, but they operate through separate administrative systems.
Rank #3
| Agency framework | Scope and process |
|---|---|
| NSF | NSF defines research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing or performing NSF-funded research, reviewing NSF proposals, or reporting results. NSF OIG oversees investigations. Recipients generally conduct the initial inquiry and investigation and have primary responsibility for prevention and detection; the NSF Deputy Director adjudicates cases, and the Director decides appeals. NSF research-misconduct guidance. |
| NIH and the Public Health Service | NIH follows the Public Health Service (PHS) research-misconduct policy under 42 CFR Part 93. Its definition covers fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or reporting results. 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 on January 1, 2026. NIH research-misconduct policy guidance; ORI’s definition of research misconduct. |
ORI’s definition excludes honest error and differences of opinion. That distinction matters: an allegation or a disputed interpretation is not, by itself, a finding of research misconduct.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What a separate NSF case review can—and cannot—show
NSF OIG’s Strategies to Prevent Plagiarism examined subjects and proposals involved 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%) had plagiarized from more than one source. These findings describe the reviewed subjects, not all NSF-funded researchers, and they do not provide a comparison with NIH.
Quick Recap
Best Value
How to interpret the NSF–NIH comparison
- The 83.6% and 4.8% figures are reported shares among guilty offenders in Kornfeld’s 2019 comparison.
- They do not establish how common plagiarism is among all researchers funded by either agency.
- The agencies both include plagiarism in their misconduct definitions, but use separate policies and administrative processes.
- Differences in fields, researchers, publication types, reports, and case handling may shape the observed case mix; the comparison does not isolate their effects.
- NSF OIG’s subpoena authority is a procedural difference identified by the paper, not an established explanation for the plagiarism gap.
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.
