Research Misconduct vs. Questionable Research Practice: What’s the Difference?

When Does Bad Research Practice Become Research Misconduct?

Some integrity problems are comparatively easy to classify. Inventing participants, deliberately altering results, or appropriating another researcher's work may fall squarely within established misconduct definitions. Many real cases are less tidy.

What about inadequate recordkeeping? Selective reporting? Poor supervision? Inappropriate statistical choices? Undeserved authorship? Failing to share relevant limitations? These practices may damage the research record, but does that make them research misconduct?

The answer depends partly on terminology and jurisdiction. "Research misconduct" is often a formally defined category. "Questionable research practices," commonly abbreviated QRPs, is a broader and less standardized concept. More recent frameworks sometimes use terms such as "detrimental research practices" instead.

Not Every Integrity Violation Is Formal Research Misconduct

The Difference Is About More Than How Bad the Behavior Looks

Research misconduct usually has a formal definition

Under the U.S. federal research misconduct framework, misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. A finding additionally requires a significant departure from accepted practices, conduct committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly, and proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

That is a deliberately bounded category. It does not attempt to classify every form of irresponsible behavior occurring in research.

The specific forms of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism therefore need to be distinguished from the much larger universe of research practices that may be flawed, irresponsible, or harmful.

Questionable research practice is a broader and less standardized concept

The term "questionable research practices" has been used for practices that violate important norms of research but do not necessarily satisfy a formal misconduct definition.

In its 1992 report Responsible Science, the U.S. National Academies described questionable research practices as actions that violate traditional values of the research enterprise and may be detrimental to the research process. Examples discussed included inadequate research records, inappropriate authorship, failure to retain significant data, inappropriate statistical methods used to enhance findings, inadequate supervision, and presenting speculation as fact.

The category was never as sharply bounded as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. That ambiguity is one reason terminology has continued to develop.

Some contemporary frameworks prefer "detrimental research practices"

In its 2017 report Fostering Integrity in Research, the National Academies recommended the term "detrimental research practices" rather than "questionable research practices." It argued that some behaviors previously called questionable clearly damage research and should not be described in language that might make their seriousness sound uncertain.

The report gives examples such as misleading use of statistics that falls short of falsification and failure to retain sufficient research data. It also emphasizes that detrimental practices can involve institutions and journals, not only individual researchers.

The categories should not be treated as a simple severity scale

It is tempting to imagine a neat continuum: minor mistake, questionable practice, misconduct. Reality is more complicated.

Formal misconduct is defined by criteria, not merely by how harmful an outcome appears. A highly damaging negligent practice may fall outside a particular misconduct definition, while an act that meets the formal criteria for plagiarism may produce less empirical damage to a dataset. The legal or policy classification and the practical consequences of the behavior are related questions, but they are not identical.

This is why poor research practice is not automatically misconduct. It is also why the absence of a misconduct finding should not be interpreted as proof that the research was well conducted.

Intent, knowledge, and recklessness can change the classification

Two researchers can produce similar-looking errors through very different conduct.

Suppose both researchers omit a set of observations from an analysis. One accidentally uses an incorrect filter and later reports the error. The other knows the observations undermine the desired conclusion and deliberately conceals them. The resulting datasets may look identical, but the integrity analysis is not.

Under frameworks that require a particular mental state, investigators must consider whether the conduct was intentional, knowing, reckless, negligent, or genuinely accidental. In the U.S. federal framework, misconduct can be established for conduct that is intentional, knowing, or reckless. Mere negligence does not automatically satisfy that mental-state requirement.

The distinction between honest error and misconduct and the question of when negligence becomes an integrity problem therefore require separate analysis.

A questionable practice can still seriously distort research

The phrase "not research misconduct" can sound reassuring when it should not.

Imagine a researcher who repeatedly uses inadequate documentation, supervises junior researchers poorly, reports exploratory analyses as though they were planned, and makes exaggerated claims that outrun the evidence. Depending on the facts and governing policy, none of those behaviors may result in an FFP misconduct finding. Collectively, however, they can make the research difficult to verify and potentially unreliable.

The National Academies has emphasized precisely this problem. Practices outside FFP can waste resources, distort conclusions, weaken training, and erode confidence in research.

Questionable does not always mean prohibited

There is another danger in the opposite direction. Because QRP is a broad label, researchers should not automatically treat every debated practice as established wrongdoing.

Some research decisions are genuinely contestable. Disciplines differ in methodological conventions, authorship expectations, data-sharing norms, analytical practices, and standards of documentation. A practice may be discouraged, context-dependent, poorly justified, or methodologically controversial without being prohibited by policy.

That makes precise diagnosis important. Ask which norm was violated, how clearly the norm applies, what consequences resulted, what the researcher knew, and which policy or professional standard governs the situation.

Institutions can respond even when formal misconduct is not established

A narrow misconduct definition does not prevent research institutions from promoting higher standards of conduct or addressing other unacceptable practices through appropriate mechanisms.

Depending on the issue and institutional policy, responses outside a formal misconduct finding might include correction of the research record, additional supervision, methodological review, training, changes to laboratory or team procedures, authorship resolution, employment processes, or other proportionate action.

This distinction is especially important when a researcher is cleared of misconduct but the underlying research remains unreliable. A finding about culpability does not magically repair defective evidence.

The Same Research Problem Can Require Different Integrity Judgments

Common Mistakes When Drawing the Misconduct Boundary

Do Not Force Every Integrity Problem Into the Misconduct Box

When you encounter problematic research conduct, the practical objective should not be to find the most dramatic label. It should be to identify accurately what happened, determine which standards apply, protect the research record, and choose the appropriate response.

For researchers confronted by pressure from collaborators, this distinction is particularly useful. You do not need to prove that a requested action constitutes formal misconduct before declining to participate in something you cannot methodologically or ethically defend. A questionable request from a collaborator deserves scrutiny on its merits, not merely on whether it is likely to trigger a misconduct investigation.

How to Classify a Research Integrity Concern More Carefully

Frequently Asked Questions About Misconduct and Questionable Practices

“Not Misconduct” Does Not Mean “Good Research”

How to Cite This Guide

This guide is intended to be read, shared, and used in research, teaching, and academic work. If you draw on its ideas, explanations, or other content, please acknowledge the source by citing the guide. Doing so gives appropriate credit and helps your readers locate the original resource.