The Academic Council approved revised policies and procedures on Stanford’s definition of research misconduct last week, a move that brings the University up to national standards.

Presenting to the Academic Council on Tuesday, Management Science and Engineering Prof. Elisabeth Pate-Cornell reported on the actions of the Committee on Research and the Academic Council during the 2005 school year. Her report focused on the committee’s work revising the phrasing of the definition of scientific misconduct. Doing so follows the example of major federal agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services, which is Stanford’s primary source of research funding, said Arthur Bienenstock, vice provost and dean of research and graduate policy.

The change essentially clarifies a vague phrase from the list of “offenses” that are characterized as research misconduct, Bienenstock said in an email to the Daily.

In the presentation, “scientific misconduct” was formerly defined as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or any other practice that seriously deviates from those commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting or reporting research.

The final phrase, in italics, was considered vague and too loose of a definition. Therefore, it was amended in the year 2000, Bienenstock said.

Now, as described in Pate-Cornell’s presentation, the new definition for nation-wide use defines research misconduct as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.”

Seeing as the change in wording is not significant, the resulting effect on research should not be great.

“It is not anticipated that the revised policies will impact research at Stanford appreciably,” Bienenstock said.

Moreover, as Pate-Cornell noted in her presentation to the Council, research misconduct does not include such inaccuracies such as “honest error or differences of opinion.”

Pate-Cornell also advised researchers to use one definition for all research sponsors, “reduce vagueness and ambiguity” and “conform University policy to federal language” wherever possible.