What Is the Typical First Main Phase in Response to a Research Misconduct Allegation?

The answer

The typical first main phase in responding to a research misconduct allegation is the inquiry. Under the U.S. federal research misconduct framework (42 CFR Part 93, administered by the Office of Research Integrity for PHS-funded work), the response follows an ordered sequence: allegation → inquiry → investigation → adjudication.

The inquiry is a preliminary review. Its narrow purpose is not to decide guilt but to assess whether the allegation is credible and specific enough that a reasonable person would conclude a full investigation is warranted. An inquiry gathers and sequesters relevant records, interviews the parties where needed, and produces a written report with a recommendation. Federal rules generally give the institution 60 days to complete the inquiry. If the inquiry finds sufficient substance, the matter proceeds to the investigation phase.

Why the inquiry comes first

The inquiry exists as a screening gate. Research misconduct allegations can be serious and career-altering, so the process deliberately builds in a low-stakes threshold step before committing to a resource-intensive investigation. This protects respondents from unfounded or malicious complaints while ensuring that genuine concerns are not dismissed prematurely. The key word for the inquiry is whether — whether the claim merits deeper scrutiny. The key word for the investigation is what — what actually happened and whether misconduct occurred by a preponderance of the evidence.

Ruling out the other phases

• Investigation is not first. It is the formal, thorough fact-finding phase that only begins if the inquiry concludes there is enough substance. It examines evidence in depth, interviews witnesses, and reaches a finding.
• Adjudication is the final phase, where an institutional or agency deciding official reviews the investigation report, determines whether misconduct occurred, and decides on any sanctions or corrective actions.
• The allegation itself is the triggering event, not a "phase" of the response. The response process begins once an allegation is received and assessed for whether it falls within the definition of research misconduct.

The three forms of research misconduct

Federal policy defines research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (often abbreviated FFP):

• Fabrication — making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
• Falsification — manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data so the record does not accurately reflect the research.
• Plagiarism — appropriating another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

Misconduct requires that the act be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly and represent a significant departure from accepted practices. Honest error and legitimate differences of opinion are explicitly excluded.

The bigger picture

In PHS-funded research, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) oversees institutional handling of misconduct; for NSF-funded work, the NSF Office of Inspector General plays the parallel role. Institutions run the day-to-day process, but must report to the relevant federal oversight body. Understanding that the inquiry precedes the investigation is the single most commonly tested point on CITI RCR modules, because students frequently confuse the two by using "investigation" loosely to mean the whole process.