NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR … · referral letter was not referenced' and the original 4 we p~ovlde~. The Subject was not interviewed; OIG's conversation, the

Case Number: A06090046

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS

CLOSEOUT MEMORANDUM

Page 1 of 1

Our office conducted an inquiry into an allegation the Subjectl submitted NSF proposals2

containing plagiarism. The Subject's response to our inquiry did not dispel the allegation and we concluded there was sufficient evidence to proceed with an investigation.

We referred the matter to the University.3 The University concluded, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the Subject knowingly and recklessly committe4 plagiarism, deemed a significant departure from accepted practices. The University President terminated the Subject's employment, effective December 31, 2007.

We accepted the University's Report and its evidentiary record. However, we found it appropriate to further investigate such elements as the standards of the Subject's research community. We concluded, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the Subject knowingly committed plagiarism in two proposals, deemed a significant departure from accepted practices.

This memo, the attached Report of Investigation, the Deputy Director's letter, and the Director's letter constitute the case closeout. Accordingly, this case is closed.

NSF OIG Form 2 (11102) . -

I .... "..

CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL

National Science Foundation Office of Inspector General

Confidential Report of Investigation

Case Number A06090046

Part 2 of 2, Tabs 10 - 25 March 16, 2009

This Confidential Report ofInvestigation is the pr{)perty oftbe NSF OIG-and may be disclosed outside NSF only by OIGunder the Freedom of 1iifo.i:n:iationahd Privacy Acts, 5 U.S.c. §§552a.

, ," ., " " " .. ,

NSF OIG Form 22b (il/o6)

CONFIDENTIAL

Allegation:

OIG Inquiry:

University Investigation and Action:

CONFIDENTIAL

Executive Summary

Plagiarism.

OIG identified 12 sources from which approximately 196 unique lines were apparently copied into 2 unfunded NSF proposals. Based on the Subject's response, OIG re-examined the proposals, identifying 486 additional lines apparently copied from 10 of the originally identified and 2 newly identified sources. 010 referred the matter to the Subject's home institution.

The University concluded, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the Subject knowingly and recklessly committed plagiarism, deemed a significant departure from accepted practices.

The University President terminated the Subject's employment, effective December 31, 2007.

OIG Investigation: To verify whether some copied material was attributable to the Subject's collaboration with another researcher, OIG initiated an investigation. OIG concluded that the Subject copied 320 unique lines from 12 sources.

OIG Assessment:

OIG Recommends:

Overall OIG concurs with the University assessment: • The Act: The Subject committed plagiarism in two proposals. • Intent: The Subject acted knowingly. • Standard of Proof: A preponderance of evidence supports the

conclusion that the Subject committed plagiarism. • Significant Departure: The SUbject's plagiarism represents a

significant departure from accepted practices. • Pattern: Two NSF proposals contain plagiarism.

• Make a finding of research misconduct against the Subject. • Send the Subject a letter of reprimand. • Require certifications from the Subject for a period of 3 years. • Require assurances from the Subject's supervisor for a period of3

years. • Require certification of attending an ethics class within 1 year.

1


OIG's Inqniry

The National Science Foundation (NSF) Office oflnspector General (OIG) conducted an inquiry into an allegation that the Subject1submitted an NSF proposal (Proposal 12) containing plagiarism. Our initial analysis of this proposal found approximately 120 unique lines allegedly copied from 8 source texts? Our initial analysis of the Subject's only other proposal (Proposal 24) also found 76 unique lines allegedly copied from 4 source texts.5 Neither proposal contained a "References Cited" section or referencing within the proposa1.6

OIG contacted the Subject about the allegation.? In his responses,s the Subject said he attended an NSF workshop9 where he asked about writing proposals on topics of which he had limited knowledge. He said: .

The answer I got was to allow me to copy the materials from other documents, and was told that I do not need the citations because my proposal is not mrc publication; it is just a research plan what I am going to do [sic]. 0

He also said most of the copied material was located in the proposals' introductions/overviews, and that he had permission from a Colleague11 to use materials the Colleague had shared with him. 12

The Subject noted he used one source containing material identical to Sources F and GI3 and not the sources we identified. He also identified text from the Colleague's previously funded proposal14 he had used in his own. 15 The Subject concluded, "Again, I would apology [sic] the mistakes I made and deeply appreciated your corrections [sic] me on this issue.,,16 '

Tabs

suggested the 5 Tab 3, Sources I-L.

Program Officer the proposal because the proposed project did not suit the program announcement.

6 Proposal} contained the Subject's Biographical Sketch and Proposal 2 contained the Subject's Colleague's Biographical Sketch in the proposals' respective "References Cited" Sections. 7 Tab 4. 8 Tab 5 contains the Subject's initial response; Tab 6 contains additional questions posed to the Subject and his

2


We reviewed his response and noted that although NSF does not distinguish between the locations of aJlegedly plagiarized text, the annotated text was not localized to the proposals' introductions or overviews, as the Subject claimed. We also noted the Subject could not provide OIG with either the information needed to corroborate his claim regarding the NSF workshop, or with evidence indicating the Colleague granted him permission to include 271 lines from his own previously-funded NSF proposal.1 7 However, most crucially the Subject did not contest that he had copied text without adequate citation.

OIG re-annotated the proposals based on the Sqbject's response. IS The following chart summarizes the allegedly copied text in each proposal: .

Proposall Proposal 2 Total Source (Declined) (Withdrawn) (Unique)

A 5 lines 5 lines

B 67 lines 67 lines

C 5 lines 5 lines D 6 lines 6 lines E 6 lines 6 lines F 38 lines 38 lines G 16 lines 16 lines 8 19 271 lines 271 lines I 10 lines 10 lines J 14 lines 14 lines K 15 lines 15 lines L 33 lines 33 lines Total (Non-Unique) 143 Iines20 343 lines21 486 lines

We concluded there was sufficient evidence to proceed with an investigation.

University Inquiry and Investigation

Per our policy, we referred the matter to the University 22 and informed the Subject that we contacted his University to initiate an investigation.23

17 The Subject did however provide emails in which his colleague wrote "I am very happy to have you as a Collaborator," and that he was "attaching copies of our grant (and the abstract to the grant) that was funded by NSF" (Tab 6, pg. 1 of Subject's response). 18 Tab 7 contains Proposal J; Tab 8 contains Proposal 2; and Tab 9 contains Source A-L. 19 Source H is the Colleague's proposal. . 20 These 7 sources consist of 4 journal articles, 1 website, and 2 publications from professional organizations. 21 These 5 sources consist of I NSF 1 journal articie, and 3 books.

23 It was brought to our attention that the Subject did not receive the attachments to the investigation referral letter. Tab 12 contains a letter we provided the Subject to which we attached a copy of the attachments. .

3


Although the University initially did not have a research misconduct policl' the University adopted a policy prior to our referra1.24 However University officials

2 decided to

conduct the investigation pursuant to its Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).26

The University produced an Investigation Report (Report) with attachments, including Committee members' CVs; three Interoffice Memoranda (IM#l; IM#2; IM#3) from the Committee; notes from a.Pre-Disciplinary Conference (PDC); a letter from the Subject to the University President; and documentation of final action.

27

In each of its thr~e IMs,28 the Committee determined that the Subject committed plagiarism. IM#l states:

After extensive and careful investigation ofthe evidence forwarded to [the] University by the National Science Foundation that accuses [the

, Subject] of research misconduct, the [Committee] finds in good faith that [the Subject] committed research misconduct.

29

The specific evidence by which it made its determination comprised the annotated sections OIG provided for review. The Committee turned the matter over to the University President for furth~r action, s~ting "that the plagiarism involved in the investigation are [sic] persistent and egregIous, suffiCIent to warrant sanctions.,,3o

. The Subject received a copy ofIM# 1 in a letter informing him about the PDC. The Subject then requested a meeting with the Committee.31

24 b th~~e~O' OIG strongly suggested the University consult with its counsel regarding implementation and operation of

was conducted by academics who they . a report. said the Investigation referral letter was not referenced' and the original 4 we p~ovlde~. The Subject was not interviewed; OIG's conversation, the University cho~e not t6 subm't th'-P~~t~ rlepo contamed no.a~achments. Based on our 28 D ' I IS 1m la report, and re-do It mstead

ue to procedural glitches, the Committee wrote three Int ffi M '. . . Tab 17, pg 47-50 contains IM#1 which th C 'tt er~ Ice emoranda (IMs) contammg theIr findings: contains IM#2, which the Com~ittee wr te om~l. ~e w~ote ~for~ interviewing the Subject; Tab 17, pg 54-56 contains IM#3, which the Committee wr~t: :~:~ :~~~!IY m~~~tlhewsmgb.the Sbubj~ct by his request; and Tab 17, pg 63 29 Tab 17, pg 47. mg WI e u ~ect y hIS request following the PDC.

30 b Ta 17, pg 50, 31 Tab 17, pg 6.

4

CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTWJ

During this meeting, the Subject "provided proof that he formally withdr~;v NSF gran.t [Proposal 2]." 32 Because "the document was not formally reviewed by the NSF, the CommIttee decided "the document should not be considered in this investigation:.33 Nonetheless, the Committee upheld its original finding of research misconduct.

AHhe subsequent PDC, the Subject reiterated his previous contentions: he did not have a clear example / template of how an NSF proposal should appear; he received misinformation at the NSF workshop; and he never received formal English training. However, he also acknowledged he did not read NSF's instructions on proposal preparation, but rather focused only on the proposal's scientific content.34 Moreover, the Subject voiced discontent with aspects of the investigation he felt unfair?S

Following the PDC, the Subject requested another meeting with the Committee. According to the committee, the Subject again "insisted that he was misinformed and misunderstood that the NSF proposal should have references," yet "did agree that he failed to look at the complete guidelines posted by the NSF for documenting sources within a proposal.

36

IM#3 states,

The Committee still finds that the document was plagiarized extensively and cannot change its decision. It is the opinion ofthe Committee that citing references in papers, whether proposals, articles, books, or other written academic undertakings is common knowledge among academic experts.37 {

The Subject also provided the University President with a written statement,38 reiterating he h~d limited e~perience writing grant proposals, had never had formal English training, had provIded OIG WIth all the references in his response to our inquiry, and did not intend to plagiarize material. He further explained that "The reason I had to make copies was that the research and education related biomedical fields are really beyond my professional knowledge, In order to describe my research topic, I have to use them.,,39 He held NSF and its workshop responsible for not providing example / template proposals or a clear answer regarding the need for ,refer,ences. He said his motivations for writing the proposal were to better opportunities for Umversity students and University programs.

32 Tab 17 54 ,pg . 33 Tab 17 54 34 ,pg.

Tab 17, pg 59. ;: These will be discussed later in the section "OIG's Assessment of the R rt"

Tab 17 pg 63. epo . 37 ' Tab 17, pg 63. 38 Tab 17, pg 67-72. 39 Tab 17, pg 68.

5


University Adjudication

The ProvostlVice President for Academic & Student Affairs40 recommended the Subject lose one month of2007-2008 academic year salary, and the Subject's third year renewal evaluation take into account the misconduct.41

The Universit1' President, however, decided to terminate the Subject's contract effective December 31,2007.4 She stated that "Neither before the Committee nor at the Pre-Disciplinary Conference did [the Subject] present any persuasive evidence which refuted the allegation of research misconduct in the form ofplagiarism.,,43 Furthermore, "Nowhere in his response does he accept responsibility for his failure to give credit to the sources he used.,,44 The University President, using "the preponderance of the evidence as the standard ofproof,,,45 concluded:

Taking into consideration all of the aforementioned evidence, there is sufficient evidence that [the Subject] committed plagiarism as defined by NSF regulation. This constitutes a significant departure from accepted practices of the research community. [The Subject] acted knowingly and recklessly.46

In addition, the University President said that, although the Committee removed Proposal 2 from analysis, "it too contained plagiarized materials," and therefore "presents evidence to suggest a pattern ofbehavior.,,47

OIG's Assessment of the Investigation and Report

OIG received the Report and attachments, and invited the Subject to provide comment.48

As part of his response, the Subject noted aspects of the process he believed deviated from the University's policy, stating "It seems that [] University failed to adhere to this process appropriately. ,,49

OIG acknowled~es the University's process fell short of optimum in reviewing and evaluating this matter.5 Nonetheless, we believe the Subject received ample opportunities to

17,pg 42 Tab 17, pg l. 43 Tab 17, pg 8-9. 44 Tab 17, pg 6. 45 Tab 17, pg 9. 46Tab 17, pg 10. 47 Tab 17, pg 8. 48 Tab 18. 49 Tab 19, pg 3. 50 Our evaluation of the Report identified a number of deficiencies:

• The Committee did not interview the Subject before completing its initial report, thus not allowing the Subject to present his account and thus creating additional issues in accurately investigating the matter.

• The Committee did not examine the Subject's explanations regarding the plagiarism. Specifically, they did not explore his claims regarding the NSF workshop or permission received from a Colleague.

6


address his concerns prior to compilation of its final Report. OIG therefore accepts the University's Report and its evidentiary record. However, we found it appropriate to further investigate certain elements such as plagiarism in Proposal 2, the possible collaborative relationship between the Subject and the Colleague, the sAndards of the Subject's research community, and evidence indicating whether the action was indicative ofa pattern of behavior.

OIG's Investigation

As part of our investigation, OIG re-examined Proposal 2, specifically focusiny on Source H, a funded NSF proposal from which the Subject allegedly copied 271 lines.5

Documents the Subject provided reveal a relationship between the Subject and the Colleague. For example, the Subject wrote in his response that the Colleague' added him to a research team and as Co-PIon grants.52 The Subject provided an email in which the Colleague said he would like to have the Subject's CAREER grant written as an extension of his own project,53 have the Subject train two students, and write grants with the Subject over the summer. Further, the Subject said the Colleague emailed him documents to share.54

Most notable, the Subject and the Colleague did collaborate on another NSF proposal, one which did not receive funding.55 Our office examined this proposal to determine whether any of the verbatim text copied from Source H also appeared therein. Of the 271 lines copied from Source H in Proposal 2, 166 were identical to those in the collaborative NSF proposaL 56

Because the Subject was co-PIon this NSF proposal and this joint proposal was submitted prior to Proposal 2, the Subject arguably has authorship rights to the text therein. Accordingly, only

• The Committee removed Proposal 2 from its investigation because the Subject withdrew the proposal. Once a proposal has been submitted to NSF, it is considered to be part of NSF's research record. Accordingly, we disagree with the committee's decision to exclude this proposal from the investigation.

• The Committee itself did not address the standard of proof used, explain its decision regarding level of intent, or determine whether the act was a significant departure from accepted practices as NSF requires. The Committee also did not investigate whether the act was part of a larger pattern of conduct. The University President however did address these issues in the Report.

• The Subject was not inforined the investigation was proceeding under the CBA instead of the policy he received from University administration.

• The Subject did not receive a copy ofthe Report and attachments for review or comment until we provided it to him.

• The PDC transcript contains inaccuracies (according to the subject) causing one to question its accuracy. The Subject did not receive an opportunity to review or correct the transcript.

• The Report attachments did not include certain documents, such as a copy of another federal grant discussed PDC.

51 Tab 9, Source subsequently transferred 52 Tab 6. 53 Tab 6. 54 Tab 5. Although unclear from the email the Subject provided which grant the Colleague sent, the email's time frame and the Colleague's statement that the proposal was funded indicate that is referring to

The email

NSF received Portions of Sources H2, H4, H5, and H6 were identical between and the Colleague's proposal and

Proposal 2. Since Proposal 2 was received by NSF (July 15,2005) after the joint proposal, and the proposal is not separable, the Subject may use this text in subsequent submissions as his own.

7


105 lines from Source H could fairly be considered copied verbatim from a text the Subject did not author or co-author, Based on this analysis, Proposal 2 contains 177 lines of plagiarized text, as illustrated below:

Source A B C D E 6 lines 6 lines F 38 lines 38 lines

G 16 lines 16 lines H 105 lines 105 lines I 10 lines 10 lines J 14 lines 14 lines K 15 lines 15 lines L 33 lines 33 lines Total

143 lines 177 lines 320 lines

OIG contacted the Colleague to ask whether he granted the Subject, with whom he clearly had a collaborative relationship, permission to include the additional verbatim, uncited proposal text.S7 He responded that he provided the Subject "copies of my previous successful proposal to the NSF as a format guide for his own proposal efforts!,58 He "did not give [the Subject] permission to copy, verbatim or otherwise, any portion of my profosal," and added he had "never seen final copies of any proposal submitted by [the Subject].,,5 Nonetheless, the Colleague said he and another colleague agree "the Subject did not abscond with or claim as his own our scientific ideas, proprietary information, research data, or intellectual property :,60

OIG examined the ethical guidelines for one of the leading professional associations61 in the Subject's field to determine standards of the 'ecl's research The

its members

By not crediting others' contributions properly, the Subject violated accepted practices of his relevant research community,

57 Tab 22. 58 Tab 23, pg 1. Emphasis as in original. 59 Tab 23, pg 1. "My proposal" refers to the proposal labeled Source H. Emphasis as in original. 00 )

8

CONFIDENTLA"L CONFIDENTIAL

Lastly, OIG examined three articles63 and one DOE report64 the Subject authored. None ofthe documents contained plagiarism.

OIG's Assessment

A finding of research misconduct by NSF requires (1) there be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community, (2) the research misconduct be committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly, and (3) the allegation be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.65

.

The Act The Subject plagiarized 320 unique lines, from 12 source texts into two unfunded

proposals, neither of which contained "References Cited" sections or referencing within the document. Throughout the inquiry and investigation the Subject said he was unaware of NSF proposal requirements because, although he had attended NSF workshops, he had been given both erroneous information and had not received a clear example I template of a complete NSF proposal.66 He provided other works he authored to illustrate that he does include references when instructed to do so.

OIG concurs with the University Report that the Subject significantly departed from the accepted. standards of his research community in offering text written by others as his own words, and in providing those words as emblematic of his own understanding of the research field. Furthermore, OIG finds that by copying a rather large amount of text, the Subject misrepresented his own effort and underlying body of knowledge regarding that scientific field. Indeed, the Subject said he copied the material because he was not familiar with that area of science. The Subject thus presented reviewers with an incorrect measure of his abilities in that area.

Intent OIG concurs with the Report's conclusion that the Subject acted knowingly. First, the

extent of plagiarism suggests the Subject's actions were more than reckless. Second, the Subject's other authored works indicate he is aware that references are necessary. Although he argues that he did not know NSF proposals require citation, the proposal itself has a section

63 The three articles were: •

•

•

which the Subject was co- PI, did include a "References Cited" section, the section Additionally, ~nse to the draft report (Tab 25, pg 1), the Subject said "the

totally made by_[sic]. Hejust added my name as co-Pl." The Subject himself not contribute to the proposal or the "References Cited" section.

9


entitled "References Cited." The Subject does not explain why such a section would appear were citations unnecessary.67

Standard of Proof 010 concludes that the Subject's actions and intent were proven based on a

preponderance of the evidence.

010 concludes that the Subject, by a preponderance ofthe evidence, knowingly plagiarized, thereby committing an act of research misconduct.68

OIG's Recommended Disposition

When deciding what appropriate action to take upon a finding of misconduct, NSF must consider:

(1) How serious the misconduct was; (2) The degree to which the misconduct was knowing, intentional, or reckless; (3) Whether it was an isolated event or part of a pattern; (4) Whether it had a significant impact on the research record, research subjects, other researchers, institutions or the public welfare; and (5) Other relevant circumstances.69

Seriousness The Subject's actions are an egregious violation of the standards of scholarship and of

the fundamental tenets of research ethics. First, the extent of the plagiarism - approximately 320 . unique lines within 2 unfunded NSF proposals from 12 source texts is in itself serious.

Second, we note that the copied text was intended to misrepresent the Subject's body of knowledge in that the Subject himself said he copied the material because he was not familiar with that area of science. NSF reviewers therefore received an inaccurate means of judging the proposals' respective merit.

Lastly, the SUbject still continues to deflect responsibility for his actions. He continues to place blame on NSF for not spelling out the requirements for him at a workshop he claims he attended and on University officials for not informing him that the rroposal erroneously did not contain citations before they submitted the proposal on his behalf.7

67 In his response to the draft report (Tab 25, pg 1), the Subject stated "I thought this section ["References Cited"] should put the information ofa person who was a reference to me [sic], and this problem was not corrected by the NSF officer [ ] when I was asked to withdraw my first proposaL" However, DIG notes that while Proposal 2 included his Colleague's Biographical Sketch in the "References Cited" section, Proposal 1 included the Subject's own Biographical Sketch in that section. By the Subject's reasoning, he would have been using himself as his own reference. 68 45 C.F.R. part 689. 69 45 C.F.R. § 70 Tab 19, pg 2: "I had identified the lack of references they could have

. alerted me and the proposal would not have been sent with this error."

10


Degree to which Action was Knowing Our office generally believes that the act of plagiarism is an act done knowingly. In

submitting the NSF proposals, the Subject clearly knew he had copied the text without attribution. Although he explains that he was told NSF proposals do not require citations, he does not explain why the proposal would then contain a section entitled "References Cited." Instead, he said he did not spend time reading the Grant Proposal Guide. Had he read this guide, which is often most useful for those who are begi~ning to write grants, he might have seen that the Grant Proposal Guide clearly articulates NSF's expectations: .

NSF expects strict adherence to the rules of proper scholarship and attribution. The responsibility for proper attribution and citation rests with authors of a proposal; all parts of the proposal should be prepared with equal care for this concern. Authors other than the PI (or any co-PI) should be named and acknowledged. Serious failure to adhere to such standards can result in findings of research misconduct. NSF policies and rules on research misconduct are discussed in the AAG Chapter VII.C, as well as in [45] CFR Part 689.71

Furthermore, although the Subject received his bachelor's degree in another country,72 he received his master's and Ph.D. in the United States.73 Similarly, much of the Subject's teaching experience is in the United States.74 As such,he is expected to be knowledgeable in what constitutes research misconduct within the United States.

Pattern OIG concludes the current evidence - extensive plagiarism in 2 proposals - supports a

finding of pattern within the Subject's actions.

Recommendation

Based on the evidence, OIG recommends NSF:

• send a letter of reprimand to the Subject informing him that NSF has made a finding of research misconduct; 75

• require the Subject to certify to OIG's Associate Inspector General for Investigations (AlGI) that proposals or reports he submits to NSF do not contain plagiarized material for 3 years;76 ' .

71 GPG Section J.D.3. (June 2007). An identical provision existed in the GPG in effect at the time the Subject submitted the proposal.

In his response to our report, years years teaching (Tab 25, pg 6). He noted "All of my duties did not require to [sic] write any proposal at all," and that when he did choose to write an NSF proposal, the Authorized Organizational Representative at his University edited, reviewed and submitted it but "did not point out my proposal totally lacking of the references at all [sic]" (Tab 25, pg. 6). 75 A letter of reprimand is a Group I action (45 C.F.R. §689.3(a)(1)(i)).

11

CONFIDENTW" CONFIDENT~

• require the Subject to submit assurances by a responsible official of his employer to the AlGI that any proposals or reports submitted by the subject to NSF do not contain plagiarized material for 3 years/7 and

• require the Subject to complete an ethics course, which includes discussion on citation practices, within 1 year and provide certification of its completion to OIG upon completion.

The Subject's Response to Draft Investigation Report

We provided the Subject with, a copy of our draft report and attachments for comment. 78

The Subject submitted a response79 in'which he argued, among other things, that he did not commit plagiarism knowingly. Whi\e we did incorporate some of the Subject's comments into the final report and footnotes, we determined the Subject's reply did not provide adequate reason for OIG to change its original determinations and recommendations, as stated above.

76 Certification by an individual is authorized in 45 C.F.R. §689.3{a). 77 Requirement for assurances is a Group I action (45 C.F.R. §689.3{a){I){iii». 78 Tab 24. 79 Tab 25.

12

, I

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 4201 WILSON BOULEVARD

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22230

JUL 1 6 2009

CERTIFffiD MAIL --RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Re: Notice of Research Misconduct Determination

Dear Dr .• ,

Fro~ 2005-2006, you subrilitted two nrumo:salS to the National Science Foundation (''NSF''). The 2005 proposal was and the ~ was entitled, ~ As documented in the attached Investigative Report prepared by NSF's Office of Inspector General ("DIG"), these proposals contained plagiarized text.

Research Misconduct and Proposed Sanctions

Under NSF's regulations, ''research inisconduCt" is defined as "fabricatio~ falsification, or plagiarism in proposing or performing research funded by NSF ... " 45 CFR § 689.1(a). NSF defines "plagiarism" as "the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit." 45 CFR § 689. 1 (a)(3). Afinding ofresearch misconduct requires that:

(1) There be a significant departure from accepted practices 0 f the relevant research community; and

(2) The research misconduct be committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly; and

(3) The allegation be proven by a preponderance of evidence.

45 CFR § 689.2(c).

Your proposals contained verbatim and paragraphed text, copied from 12 source documents. By sUbmitting proposals to NSF that copied the ideas or words of another without adequate attribution, as descnbed in the DIG Investigative Report, you misrepresented someone else's work as your own. YoUr conduct unquestionably constitutes plagiarism. I therefore conclude that your actions meet the definition of ''research misconduct")set forth in NSF's regulations. '

Page 2

Pursuant to NSF regulations, the Foundation must also determine whether to make a finding of misconduct based on a preponderance of the evidence. 45 CFR § 689.2(c). After reviewing the Investigative Report, NSF has determined that, based on a preponderance of the evidence, your plagiarism was committed knowingly and constituted a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community. I am, therefore, issuing a finding of research misconduct against you.

NSF's regulations establish three categories of actions (Group I, II, and III) that can be taken in response to a finding ofmiseonduct. 45 CFR § 689.3(a). Group I actions include issuing a letter ofreprirnand; conditioning awards on prior approval of particular activities from NSF; requiring that an institution or individual obtain special prior approval of particular activities from NSF; and requiring that an institutional representative certify as to the accqracy of reports or certifications of compliance with particular requirements. 45 CFR § 689.3(a)(l). Group II actions include award suspension or restrictions on designated activities or expenditures; requiring special reviews of requests for funding; and requiring correction to the research record~ 45 CFR § 689.3(a)(2). Group III actions include suspension or termination of awards; prolnbitions on participation as NSF reviewers, advisors or consultants; and debarment or suspension from participation in NSF programs. 45 CFR § 689.3(a)(3).

In determining the severity of the sanction to impose for research misconduct, I have considered the seriousness of the misconduct, our determination that it was committed knowingly, as well as our determination that it was part of a pattern of plagiarism. I have also considered the fact that your misconduct had no impact on the research x:ecord, as well as other relevant circumstances. 45 CFR § 689.3(b).

After assessing the relevant facts and circumstances ofthis case, I am taking the following actions against you:

(1 ) Until iu.1y30,2()12, yOu must provide certincations to the OfG that any proposal .. you submit to NSF as a PI or co-PI does not contain plagiarized, falsified, or fabricated material;

(2) Until July 30,2012, you must submit assurances from a responsible official of your employer to the OIG that your submissions to NSF do not contain plagiarized, falsified, or fabricated material; and

(3) You must certify to the OIG that you have completed a research ethics training course on plagiarism by July 30,2010.

AU certifications and assurances should be submitted in writing to OIG, Associate Inspector General for Investigations, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 3.

Procedures Governing Appeals

Under NSF's regulations, you have 30 days after receipt ofthis letter to submit an appeal of this decision, inwriting, to the Director ofthe Foundation. 45 CFR § 689.10(a). Any appeal should be addressed to the Director at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230. Ifwe do not receive your appeal within the 30-day period, this decision will become final.

For your information,we are attaching a copy ofthe applicable regulations. If you have any questions about the foregoing, please call Assistant General Counse~ at (703) 292-8060.' ,

Sincerely,

Cora B. Marrett Acting Deputy Director

Enclosures - Investigative Report - 45 C.F.R. Part 689

I , I I I I I I

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

· NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 4201 WILSON BOULEVARD

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22230

OCT 2 6 2009

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Re: . Decision 0" Appeal of Research Misco"duct Determination

Dear Dr .•

On September 9, 2009, you filed. an appeal ofthe August 19, 2009 decision issued by Dr. Cora Marrett, the National Science Foundation's ("NSF") Acting Deputy Director. In this decision, Dr. Marrett made a finding of research misconduct against you because you submitted. two proposals to NSF that contained plagiarized text As a result ofthis finding, NSF required that you provide written certifications and assurances for any proposal that you submit to NSF through July 30,2012. In addition, NSF required you to complete an ethics training course on plagiarism by July 30, 2010 ..

In your appeal, you argue that you did not kno'Wingly commit plagiarism. In support of your argument, you indicate that English is not your native language, and, as a result, you were forced to rely on the <assistance of native English speakers to help you prepare yourproposals for. submission to NSF. Moreover, you assert that, at a workshop you attended in 2005, NSF personnel did not provide you with information about the reference requirements applicable to proposals. Thus, you request that I reverse NSF's August 19, < 2009, decision.

Your appeal is denied. You submitted two proposals for funding to NSFand, as a result, you were required to comply with the rules of scholarly attnbution ~pplicable to such proposals. You earned your master's and Ph.D. degrees in the United States, and therefore shOUld have known that copying text with inadequate attribution is improper. Your failure to provide proper attribution for the copied material in your proposals constitutes plagiarism, and your actions in this regard are a serious deviation, and a significant departure, from the accepted practices of your research community. .

Page 2

Moreover, in accordance with NSF regulations, a finding ofresearch misconduct is warranted even ifI were Ito conclude that you recklessly, as opposed to knowingly, committed plagiarism. Thus, I affirm the August 19, 2009, decision in its entirety. '

This is NSF's fmal administrative action in this case. There is no further right of appeal. If you have any questions about the foregoing, please call Lawrence Rudolph, General Counsel, at (703) 292-8060. .

Sincerely,

~-(.~-. -:t'sr--Arden L. Bement, Jr. Director