Six-Year Time Limitation and the Subsequent Use Exception – Standard Operating Procedures

ERIK, Office of Research Compliance, Revised 12/07/2020

I. Regulatory and Policy Authority and Requirement

The Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct, 42 C.F.R. Part 93, apply a time limitation for allegations of research misconduct that occurred outside six years from the date HHS or an institution receives an allegation of research misconduct. The federal regulations provide an exception at 42 C.F.R §93.105(b)(1) for those allegations that fall outside of the six-year time limitation as follows:

(b) Exceptions to the six-year limitation. Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply in the following instances:

Subsequent use exception. The respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct that occurred before the six-year limitation through the citation, republication or other use for the potential benefit of the respondent of the research record that is alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized.

Consistent with 42 C.F.R Part 93, the Research Misconduct policy, (the "Policy"), Policy Details X.A. states:

A. This policy applies only to allegations of research misconduct occurring within six years of the date the university, oversight agency, or funding entity receives an allegation of research misconduct. Exceptions to the six-year limitation include the following:

Subsequent use exception: The respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct that occurred before the six-year limitation through the citation, republication, or other use of the research record that is alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized for the benefit of the respondent.
Health or safety of the public exception: The university determines that the alleged research misconduct would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public.

The University has jurisdiction over all allegations of research misconduct that occur within six years of the date that the institution receives the allegation. Upon receipt of research misconduct allegations that fall outside of the six-year time limitation for a named Respondent, the Office of Research Compliance (ORC) will review each allegation for subsequent use by determining if the named respondent cites, republishes, or uses the allegedly falsified, fabricated or plagiarized research record within six years of the date that the allegation was received by the Institution.

II. Six-Year Time Limitation and the Subsequent Use Exception

To determine subsequent use, ORC will examine the citation, republication, or use of the questioned data, the conclusions or results derived from the questioned data, and/or the allegedly plagiarized text, as follows:

In any manuscripts in preparation or publications that are submitted, under review, and/or published on which the Respondent is listed as an author; or
In a Respondent's grant proposals (funded or unfunded), including the specific aims, research strategy, selected publications, and/or other substantive sections, and any research performance progress reports for a funded proposal to which the University has access. The entire period of a funded grant will be examined (i.e., from submitted proposal(s) through final award close out, including No Cost Extension periods).

In order to be considered subsequent use, the questioned data, or the conclusions or results derived from the questioned data, or the allegedly plagiarized text, must be cited, republished, or used as a direct reference in some manner to support the respondent's ideas, claims, theories, or conclusions. Simply including a citation to a time-limited publication without scientific context would not be considered subsequent use.

For example, if a Respondent's grant biosketch simply cites a time-limited publication, with no specific use of or reference to the allegedly falsified, fabricated or plagiarized data or to the conclusions or results from that data, then the time-limited publication would not meet the requirement of Subsequent Use and the allegation(s) in that time-limited publication would be omitted from the University's assessment, inquiry, and/or investigation.

Similarly, if a Respondent cites a time-limited publication, but the citation is to information in the publication that is unrelated to the allegedly falsified, fabricated or plagiarized data, or to the conclusions or results from the allegedly falsified, fabricated or plagiarized data, then time-limited publication would not meet the requirement of Subsequent Use and the allegation(s) in that time-limited publication would be omitted from the University's assessment, inquiry, and/or investigation.

The following example is presented for an allegation submitted in 2017, involving questioned data in a paper published in 2008.

Example – Citation or Use in grant proposals

Research misconduct is alleged in a paper published in 2008 and thus would be outside the original six-year time limitation in 2017 (2011-2017). However, data from the 2008 publication was cited and/or used by the Respondent as supporting evidence in the specific aims section of a NIH grant proposal submitted in 2012.

The citation or use of the data from the 2008 paper in a grant application submitted in 2012 would qualify under the "Subsequent Use Exception". The subsequent use of the questioned data as supporting evidence from the 2008 paper in 2012 would bring it into the six-year time limitation (2011-2017) and would therefore be included in the University's assessment, inquiry and/or investigation.

Conversely, if instead, the data was cited and/or used in a NIH grant proposal submitted in 2010 that would not bring it into the six-year time limitation (2011-2017) and would therefore not be included in the University's assessment, inquiry and/or investigation.

III. Six-Year Time Limitation and the Subsequent Use Exception for Allegations with No Named Respondent(s)

When research misconduct allegations are submitted without a named Respondent on publications that are outside the six-year time limitation, the data and/or text in question may have been subsequently used or cited by one or more of the authors.

An inequity may arise in situations where the subsequent use exception allows one author who potentially committed research misconduct and did subsequently cite, republish, or use the questioned work to be held accountable, while another author who potentially committed research misconduct, but did not subsequently cite, republish, or use the questioned work, would not be held unaccountable.

To reduce the possibility of disparity, when allegations are submitted with no named Respondent, ORC will examine the subsequent use of the questioned data and/or text by the first, senior, and/or corresponding authors who are affiliated with the University. If either the first, senior, or corresponding author(s) used, cited, or republished the questioned work in some manner to support the that person's ideas, claims, theories, or conclusions, within the six-year time limitation, the allegation(s) will be included in the University's assessment, inquiry and/or investigation as detailed above.

Article ID: 116
Created: August 28, 2025
Last Updated: September 10, 2025

Online URL: https://ohiostateresearch.knowledgebase.co/article/six-year-time-limitation-and-the-subsequent-use-exception-standard-operating-procedures-116.html