Skip to main content
University Policies

About This Policy

Responsible University Office(s):

Office of the Provost and Executive Vice President

Category:

ResearchFaculty Handbook Chapter 3

Policy on Research Misconduct

Effective Date: June 16, 2026
Last Revision: June 16, 2026

Table of Contents

  1. Scope and Application

  2. General Policies and Principles of Conducting Research Misconduct Proceedings 
    1. Research Integrity Officer
    2. Responsibility to Report Misconduct
    3. Evidentiary Standards
    4. Cooperation with Research Misconduct Proceedings
    5. Confidentiality
    6. Protecting Complainants, Witnesses, and Committee Members
    7. Protecting the Respondent
    8. Legal Counsel
    9. Interim Administrative Actions
    10. Respondent Admissions
    11. Allegations Not Made In Good Faith
    12. Multiple Institutions
    13. Multiple Respondents
    14. Time Limitations
    15. Maintaining Records For External Review

  3. The Research Misconduct Proceeding: Assessment; Inquiry; Investigation Phases

    Phase One: Assessment of Allegations

    Phase Two: Inquiry

      1. Initiation and Purpose of Inquiry
      2. Notice to Respondent of an Inquiry; Sequestration of Research Records
      3. Use of an Inquiry Committee
      4. Use of Outside Experts
      5. Inquiry Process
      6. Inquiry Timeframe
      7. Elements of the Inquiry Report
      8. Notifying Respondents of the Outcome of the Inquiry and Opportunity to Comment
      9. If an Investigation is Warranted
      10. If an Investigation is Not Warranted


    Phase Three: Investigation

      1. Initiation and Purpose of an Investigation
      2. Notice to Respondent of an Investigation; Sequestration of Research Records
      3. Use of an Investigation Committee
      4. Use of Outside Experts
      5. Investigation Process
      6. Investigation Timeframe
      7. Elements of the Final Written Investigation Report
      8. Comments on the Draft Investigation Report and Access to Evidence
      9. Decision by Deciding Official
      10. Appeals
      11. Notice to Federal Agencies of Institutional Findings and Actions

  4.  Miscellaneous
    1. Notification of Sponsors
    2. Other University Policies and Requirements

  5. Definitions

The essence of all research and scholarship is the pursuit of truth. Santa Clara University (the "University") embraces a teaching scholar model that enables faculty to be at the cutting edge of their disciplines and keep student learning at the forefront. Actions that undermine the integrity of the teaching scholar model may impede the advancement of knowledge, adversely affect collaborators, compromise the work of other researchers, harm members of the general public, and negatively affects the reputation of the University.

The University is dedicated  to upholding the highest standards of integrity and professionalism in all research endeavors. As part of this commitment, we have established this Policy on Research Misconduct (this "Policy") to foster a culture of academic honesty, accountability, and trust. This Policy outlines the procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct, which we define in Section V as "Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism, whether committed by the Respondent directly or through the use or assistance of other persons, entities, or tools, including artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools, in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting research results; the unauthorized use of privileged information; and deliberate and substantial violation of federal, state, or University regulations relating to the conduct of research. Research Misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. For the avoidance of doubt, Research Misconduct is determined based upon the violations in process as specified within this definition, and not upon the substance or topic of the Research in the absence of Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism." All members of the University community involved in research are expected to adhere to this Policy to ensure the credibility and ethical conduct of scholarly activities.

I. Scope and Application

This Policy applies to all Research activities proposed and conducted by academic, scientific, and professional staff, employees, students, and contractors of the University (collectively, "University Personnel"), in the conduct of their Research activities, whether or not they are externally funded, during their employment by, or during the term of their contract with, the University. This Policy also provides guidance to University Personnel on the Assessment, Inquiry, Investigation, and reporting of Allegations of Research Misconduct. The University will comply with all relevant federal regulations pertaining to Research Misconduct.

All capitalized terms used within this Policy shall be as defined in Section V of this Policy. See Section V for applicable definitions.

II. General Policies and Principles of Conducting Research Misconduct Proceedings

a. Research Integrity Officer

The Research Integrity Officer ("RIO") will be responsible for coordinating the implementation of this Policy. Within 10 University Business Days of the initial notice to Respondent (as set forth in Part III, PHASE TWO, Section (b) of this Policy) of the Research Misconduct

Proceeding, Respondent may file a written request to the Provost to appeal the RIO on grounds of conflict of interest. The request must describe the factual basis for the alleged conflict. The Provost will review the request in Good Faith and determine, in the Provost's discretion, whether an actual or apparent conflict of interest exists. If the Provost determines that such a conflict exists, the Provost will appoint, in consultation with the Faculty Senate President, another tenured University faculty member to serve as RIO for the duration of the Research Misconduct Proceeding to ensure a fair and impartial process. "Conflict of interest" as used within this Policy has the meaning ascribed to such term in the University's Conflict of Interest Policy.

If the Provost is the Respondent or otherwise has a conflict of interest, the Provost will be recused from the Research Misconduct Proceeding and the President will undertake (or will appoint another University employee to undertake) the Provost's duties under this Policy. If the President is the Respondent or otherwise has a conflict of interest, the President will be recused from the Research Misconduct Proceeding and the Chair of the Board of Trustees will undertake (or will appoint another University employee to undertake) the President's duties under this Policy.

b. Responsibility to Report Misconduct

University Personnel will report (in writing, if possible) observed, suspected, or apparent Research Misconduct to the RIO or through EthicsPoint, the University's secure reporting system. If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of Research Misconduct, the individual may meet with or contact the RIO to discuss the suspected Research Misconduct informally, which may include discussing it anonymously and/or hypothetically. The RIO will discuss with this individual the procedures to be followed. If the individual decides to make a formal Allegation, the RIO will initiate an Assessment. If possible, such Allegation will be delivered to the RIO in person or in a sealed envelope delivered to the RIO marked "CONFIDENTIAL COMPLAINT." Even if the individual decides not to make a formal Allegation, the RIO may initiate an Assessment if in their judgment sufficient cause exists to warrant one.

Some concerns reported to the RIO may fall outside the scope of this Policy (by way of example only, misallocation of Research funds, sexual harassment, discrimination). In such a case, the RIO will advise the person reporting the concern about other policies or procedures that may pertain.

c. Evidentiary Standards

Standard of proof:

A finding of Research Misconduct must be proved by a Preponderance of the Evidence.

Burden of proof:

  1. The University has the initial burden of proof for making a finding of Research Misconduct. In determining whether the University has carried the burden of proof as required under this Policy, the finder of fact shall give due consideration to admissible, credible Evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the Respondent. A Respondent's destruction of Research Records documenting the questioned Research is Evidence of Research Misconduct where the University establishes by a Preponderance of the Evidence that the Respondent Intentionally or Knowingly destroyed records after being informed of the Research Misconduct Allegations. A Respondent's failure to provide Research Records documenting the questioned Research is Evidence of Research Misconduct where the Respondent claims to possess the Research Records but refuses to provide them upon request.
  2. Once the University has satisfied its burden of proof for making a finding of Research Misconduct, the Respondent then has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a Preponderance of the Evidence, all affirmative defenses raised and any mitigating factors relevant to a decision to impose Administrative Actions after a Research Misconduct Proceeding.

d. Cooperation with Research Misconduct Proceedings

University Personnel will cooperate with the RIO and other University officials in the review of Allegations and the conduct of Inquiries and Investigations. University Personnel, including Respondents, have an obligation to provide Evidence relevant to Research Misconduct Allegations to the RIO or other University officials.

e. Confidentiality

To the extent allowed by law, and as required by any applicable federal regulations, the University shall:

  1. limit disclosure of the identity of Respondents and Complainants to those who need to know in order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective and fair Research Misconduct Proceeding;
  2. when committees are used, ensure committee members keep the identities of Respondents, Complainants, and witnesses confidential; and
  3. except as otherwise prescribed by law, limit the disclosure of any records or Evidence from which human Research subjects might be identified to those who need to know in order to carry out a Research Misconduct Proceeding. The RIO should use written confidentiality agreements or other mechanisms to ensure that the recipient does not  make any further disclosure of identifying information.

f. Protecting Complainants, Witnesses, and Committee Members

University Personnel may not Retaliate in any way against Complainants, witnesses, or committee members. University Personnel should immediately report any alleged or apparent Retaliation against Complainants, witnesses or committee members to the RIO, who shall review the matter and, as necessary, make all reasonable and practical efforts to counter any potential or actual Retaliation and protect and restore the position and reputation of the person against whom the Retaliation is directed.

g. Protecting the Respondent

As requested and as appropriate, the RIO and other University officials shall make all reasonable and practical efforts to protect or restore the reputation of persons alleged to have engaged in Research Misconduct, but against whom no finding of Research Misconduct is made.

During the Research Misconduct Proceeding, the RIO is responsible for ensuring that Respondents receive all the Notices and opportunities provided for in the policies and procedures of the University (and will comply with the applicable notification requirements and regulations regarding Research Misconduct of funding or sponsoring agencies as set out in Part III, PHASE THREE, Section (k) and Part IV, Section (a) of this Policy).

h. Legal Counsel

The Respondent may be represented by an attorney of their choosing, but an attorney shall not be provided by the University.

i. Interim Administrative Actions

Throughout the Research Misconduct Proceeding, the RIO will review the situation to determine if there is any threat of harm to public health, federal funds and equipment, the integrity of the Research process or the interests of the University. In the event of such a threat, the RIO will, in consultation with other University officials and any responsible federal agencies, take appropriate interim action to protect against any such threat.

Interim action might include additional monitoring of the Research process and the handling of federal funds and equipment, reassignment of personnel or reassignment of the responsibility for the handling of federal funds and equipment, additional review of Research data and results or delaying publication. The RIO will also comply with the notification requirements set forth in  Section (a) of Part IV of this Policy.

j. Respondent Admissions

If at any point during the Research Misconduct Proceedings (including the Assessment, Inquiry, Investigation, or appeal stages), an admission of Research Misconduct is made by the Respondent, Research Misconduct may be determined if the requirements for a legally sufficient admission as set forth below are satisfied.

If the Respondent admits to Research Misconduct, the University will not close the Research Misconduct Proceeding unless and until the Respondent submits a signed, written admission that includes the following:

  1. A clear description of the specific Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism that occurred;
  2. Identification of the Research Records affected; and
  3. An acknowledgement that the elements required for a finding of Research Misconduct have been satisfied, including that: (a) for Research Misconduct Proceedings involving PHS Funded Research and for Research Misconduct Proceedings involving NSF Funded Research, the conduct constituted a significant departure from Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community; and for non-PHS Funded Research and for non-NSF Funded Research, that the conduct violates this Policy; (b) the Research Misconduct was committed Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly; and (c) the Allegation was proven by a Preponderance of the Evidence.

For Research Misconduct Proceedings involving PHS Funded Research, in the event of Respondent's admission of Research Misconduct, the University will not close the Research Misconduct Proceeding until (i) the Respondent submits the signed, written admission described above and (ii) the University provides to the Office of Research Integrity ("ORI") such signed admission and a written statement describing how the University determined that the scope of the Research Misconduct was fully addressed by the admission and confirmed the Respondent's culpability.

In the event that the University closes the Research Misconduct Proceeding due to the Respondent submitting a signed, written admission and the requirements in this section are satisfied, the RIO (at the Assessment phase) or the committee (at the Inquiry or Investigation phase), as applicable, will recommend appropriate sanctions to the Provost. Sanctions will be considered and implemented in accordance with Section 3.9 of the Faculty Handbook, the Staff Policy Manual and the Student Conduct Code (as applicable) and this Policy.

k. Allegations Not Made In Good Faith

If at any time during the processes outlined in this Policy, it is determined that an Allegation of Research Misconduct was not made in Good Faith, the RIO shall report the determination to the Associate Provost for Research (or such other person designated by the Provost if the RIO is the Associate Provost for Research). If the Associate Provost for Research (or such other person designated by the Provost if the RIO is the Associate Provost for Research) determines that an Allegation of Research Misconduct was not made in Good Faith, the Inquiry or Investigation shall be discontinued. Appropriate actions may be taken against a Complainant who is found to have made an Intentionally false Allegation against a Respondent.

l. Multiple Institutions

When multiple institutions are involved in a Research Misconduct Proceeding, one institution must be designated as the "lead institution" if a joint Research Misconduct Proceeding is conducted. In a joint Research Misconduct Proceeding, the lead institution should obtain Research Records and other Evidence pertinent to the Research Misconduct Proceeding, including witness testimony, from the other relevant institutions. By mutual agreement, the joint Research Misconduct Proceeding may include committee members from the institutions involved. The determination of whether further Inquiry and/or Investigation is warranted, whether Research Misconduct occurred, and the institutional actions to be taken may be made by the institutions jointly or tasked to the lead institution.

m.  Multiple Respondents

If the University identifies additional Respondents during an Inquiry or Investigation, it is not required to conduct a separate Inquiry for each new Respondent. The University may choose to either conduct a separate Inquiry or add new Respondent(s) to an ongoing Investigation. Each new Respondent must be provided Notice of an opportunity to respond to the Allegations. Separate Investigation reports and Research Misconduct determinations are required for each Respondent.

n. Time Limitations

For purposes of applying this Policy, the determination of whether an Allegation of Research Misconduct involves Public Health Service (PHS) Funded Research or non-PHS Funded Research shall be made by the RIO, in consultation with the Faculty Senate President.

For Research Misconduct Proceedings involving non-PHS Funded Research, this Policy applies only to Research Misconduct occurring within six years of the date that the University receives an Allegation of Research Misconduct, unless the University determines that the Alleged Research Misconduct, if it occurred, would have a significant adverse impact on the reputation or integrity of the University. For example, if a journal concludes or suspects misconduct, the University is expected to initiate (or continue) its own inquiry/investigation process into the identified article as well as related work.

For Research Misconduct Proceedings involving PHS Funded Research, this Policy applies only to Research Misconduct occurring within six years of the date that the University receives an Allegation of Research Misconduct, with the following exceptions:

  1. Subsequent use exception: This exception allows the University to address Allegations of Research Misconduct that occurred before the six-year limitation if the Respondent continues or renews the incident of alleged Research Misconduct through the use of, republication of, or citation to the disputed portion of the Research Record within the last six years. For Research Misconduct that appears subject to the subsequent use exception, the University must document its determination that the subsequent use exception does not apply. Such documentation must be retained in accordance with applicable law.
  2. Exception for the health or safety of the public: In Research Misconduct Proceedings involving PHS Funded Research, if the University, following consultation with ORI, determines that the alleged Research Misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a  substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public, this exception applies.

o. Maintaining Records for External Review

Maintenance of Institutional Record and all sequestered Evidence: The University must maintain the Institutional Record and all sequestered Evidence including physical objects (regardless of whether the Evidence is part of the Institutional Record) in a secure manner for seven years after completion of the Research Misconduct Proceeding.

Provision for HHS custody: In Research Misconduct Proceedings involving PHS Funded Research, on request, the University must transfer custody, or provide copies, to HHS of the Institutional Record or any component of the Institutional Record and any sequestered Evidence (regardless of whether the Evidence is included in the Institutional Record) for ORI to conduct its oversight review, develop the administrative record, or present the administrative record in  any Research Misconduct Proceeding under applicable regulations.

III. The Research Misconduct Proceeding: Assessment; Inquiry; Investigation Phases

There are three phases of a Research Misconduct Proceeding, which are described in detail below.

Phase One: Assessment of Allegations

The purpose of an Assessment is to determine whether an Allegation warrants an Inquiry. It is intended to be a review of readily accessible information relevant to the Allegation.

Upon receiving an Allegation of Research Misconduct, the RIO and the Chair of the Research Committee ("CRC") will jointly and immediately assess the Allegation to determine whether:

  1. it is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential Evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified; and
  2. the Allegation falls within the definition of Research Misconduct under this Policy.

If the RIO and the CRC jointly decide that both of the above two criteria are met, an Inquiry must be conducted. If they cannot reach an agreement, or if they lack the requisite knowledge of the discipline of the Respondent, they will bring in a third member, a tenured faculty member with discipline knowledge, to break the tie and provide relevant disciplinary information. Additionally, the Faculty Senate President must be informed about any such Research Misconduct Proceedings before and after the RIO/CRC decision-making process. All such Research Misconduct Proceedings, including the results of the decision-making process, must be documented in writing.

The RIO must document the Assessment and, to the extent obtained during the Assessment, sequester all Research Records and other Evidence pursuant to this Policy.

When an Allegation identifies a possible violation of University policies that does not involve Research, the RIO refers the matter to the appropriate University official.

The Assessment period should be brief, preferably concluded within 30 University Business Days from receipt of the Allegation. In conducting the Assessment, the RIO may, but is not required to, interview the Complainant, Respondent, or other witnesses, or gather data beyond any that may have been submitted with the Allegation, except as necessary to determine whether the Allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential Evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified.

If the RIO and the CRC determine that requirements for an Inquiry are not met, they must keep sufficiently detailed documentation of the Assessment to permit a later review of the reasons  why the University did not conduct an Inquiry. Such documentation must be retained in accordance with any applicable federal regulations.

If the RIO or the CRC are replaced (whether due to a conflict of interest or otherwise) for the purposes of a particular Research Misconduct Proceeding, the new RIO and/or CRC for such Research Misconduct Proceeding will review prior documentation of the Assessment and will, at their joint discretion, determine whether a new Assessment is necessary.

Phase Two: Inquiry

a. Initiation and Purpose of an Inquiry

If the RIO and the CRC determine that the criteria for an Inquiry are met, the RIO will immediately initiate the Inquiry process. The purpose of the Inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the available Evidence to determine whether the Allegation has substance and  therefore whether to conduct an Investigation. An Inquiry does not require a full review of all related Evidence.

b. Notice to Respondent of an Inquiry; Sequestration of Research Records

At the time of or before beginning an Inquiry, the RIO must make a good faith effort to Notify the Respondent of the Research Misconduct Proceeding. For this initial notice, the RIO will Notify using two methods concurrently: (i) written communication served in person or sent by mail or its equivalent to the last known street address of the Respondent, and (ii) electronic communication sent to the Respondent's University email address, if the Respondent is known. Such initial notice will be effective upon (i) a "read receipt" of such email or (ii) the Respondent (via an email sent to the RIO) acknowledging having received such email, provided that notice will be deemed effective without regard to Respondent's express response or acknowledgement (a) within 5 University Business Days during the University's academic year and (b) within 10 University Business Days during the University's summer session or during Respondent's approved sabbatical from the University, after which the timelines set forth in this Policy will begin. If the Inquiry subsequently identifies additional Respondents, they must be Notified in writing and given the same rights and opportunities as the initial Respondent. Only Allegations specific to a particular Respondent will be included in the Notification to that Respondent.

Notification includes:

  1. Informing the Respondent that an Allegation of Research Misconduct has been raised against them;
  2. A copy of this Policy;
  3. Identification of the Research project(s) in question (including, but not limited to, grant and sponsor information related to such Research project(s), if known);
  4. Identification of the relevant Research Records that have been sequestered;
  5. Informing the Respondent that an Inquiry will be conducted to decide whether to proceed with an Investigation; and
  6. Informing the Respondent that they will be given an opportunity to provide written comments to the institution's draft Inquiry report.

If additional Allegations are raised, the RIO will Notify the Respondent.

Before or at the time of Notifying the Respondent, the RIO will:

  1. Obtain the original or substantially equivalent copies of all Research Records and other Evidence that are pertinent to the Research Misconduct Proceedings;
  2. Inventory these materials;
  3. Sequester the materials in a secure manner, and
  4. Retain them per the requirements established in this Policy.

Where the Research Records or Evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or Evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments.

c. Use of an Inquiry Committee

An Inquiry determines if an Investigation is warranted. The RIO, in consultation with the Faculty Senate President, will appoint an Inquiry committee of three University employees to conduct a prompt and thorough Inquiry as soon after the initiation of the Inquiry as is practical. At least one member of the Inquiry committee must have relevant subject-matter expertise related to the Allegation under review. The RIO will determine which committee members meet this expertise requirement. The RIO will not serve on the Inquiry committee. If the Respondent is a faculty member, the Inquiry committee members will be tenured faculty members. In such cases, the RIO will select tenured faculty whose expertise most closely aligns with the Allegation. If the Respondent is not a faculty member, the Inquiry committee will consist of associate or senior research staff and at least one tenured faculty member. In these cases, the RIO may also include a non-faculty member with relevant subject-matter expertise to ensure the committee has appropriate knowledge for the review. The Inquiry committee must consist of individuals who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved with the Inquiry and should include individuals with the appropriate subject-matter expertise to evaluate the Evidence and issues related to the Allegation and conduct the Inquiry.

d. Use of Outside Experts

Outside experts may be used if special expertise regarding Evidence analysis is warranted. Such experts shall serve in a strictly advisory capacity and shall not make binding decisions or commitments on behalf of the University. Experts may interview witnesses and respond to questions during Inquiry deliberations.

e. Inquiry Process

The Inquiry is a preliminary review of the Evidence. This fact-finding process may include interviews of the Respondent and/or witnesses. The scope of the Inquiry is not required to, and does not normally, include deciding whether Research Misconduct definitely occurred, determining definitely who committed the Research Misconduct or conducting exhaustive interviews and analyses. The Inquiry committee will decide whether an Investigation is warranted based on the criteria in this Policy.

The Inquiry process is as follows:

  1. Set forth the time for completion of the Inquiry;
  2. Describe the Allegations and any related issues identified during the Allegation Assessment;
  3. Conduct an initial review of the Evidence, including the testimony of the Respondent, Complainant and key witnesses, to determine whether an Investigation is warranted, not to determine whether Research Misconduct definitely occurred or who was responsible;
  4. Determine if an Investigation is warranted. An Investigation is warranted if the Inquiry committee determines:
    1. there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the Allegation falls within the definition of Research Misconduct and is within the jurisdictional criteria of this Policy; and
    2. The preliminary information and fact-finding from the Inquiry indicates that the Allegation may have substance;
  5. Prepare a written report of the Inquiry that meets the requirements of this Policy.

f. Inquiry Timeframe

The Inquiry, including preparation of the final Inquiry report, must be completed within 90 Calendar Days of initiation of the Inquiry (as required under the PHS Rules on Research Misconduct and NSF Rules on Research Misconduct), unless the Inquiry committee determines that circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If the Inquiry committee approves an extension, the Inquiry report must include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the 90-day period.

g. Elements of the Inquiry Report

The written Inquiry report must include the following information:

  1. The names and positions of the Respondent and Complainant;
  2. A description of the Allegations of Research Misconduct;
  3. PHS or any other externally sponsored Research support, including, for example, grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and any publications listing externally sponsored support;
  4. The composition of the Inquiry committee, if used, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise;
  5. A description of any scientific or forensic analyses conducted;
  6. Transcripts of any interviews that were transcribed;
  7. A timeline and procedural history of the Inquiry;
  8. An inventory of sequestered Research Records and other Evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted;
  9. Any institutional actions implemented;
  10. The basis for recommending or not recommending that the Allegation warrants an Investigation;
  11. Any comments on the draft report by the Respondent or Complainant;
  12. Any institutional actions implemented, including communications with journals or funding agencies; and
  13. If there is potential Evidence of honest error or difference of opinion, this must be noted in the report.

h. Notifying Respondents of the Outcome of the Inquiry and Opportunity to Comment

Within 10 University Business Days after determining the outcome of the Inquiry, the RIO shall Notify the Respondent whether the Inquiry found an Investigation to be warranted, and include a copy of the draft Inquiry report for comment, transcripts of any transcribed interviews, and this Policy for reference.

A confidentiality agreement is a condition required in order for the Respondent to have access to the full Inquiry report.

Any comments that are submitted by the Respondent will be attached to the final Inquiry report. Based on the comments, the Inquiry committee may revise the draft Inquiry report as  appropriate and prepare it in final form, retained by the RIO.

i. If an Investigation is Warranted

If it is determined that an Investigation is warranted, the RIO will, within 10 University Business Days after such determination (but before the Investigation begins), provide written Notice to the Respondent(s) of the decision to conduct an Investigation. Such Notice must include a copy of the final Inquiry report and a copy of this Policy. The RIO will also notify the Respondent(s)' immediate supervisor, the appropriate chair and dean, and the Provost.

In Research Misconduct Proceedings involving PHS Funded Research: Within 30 Calendar Days of determining that an Investigation is warranted (as required under the PHS Rules on Research Misconduct), the RIO will inform ORI that an Investigation is warranted and provide a copy of the Inquiry report. Upon ORI's request, the University will provide to ORI this Policy, the Research Records and other Evidence reviewed, and copies of all relevant documents relating to such Investigation.

In Research Misconduct Proceedings involving NSF Funded Research: Immediately upon determining that an Investigation is warranted (as required under the NSF Rules on Research Misconduct) but no later than within 10 University Business Days after such determination, the RIO will inform the NSF Office of Inspector General ("OIG") that an Investigation is warranted. The RIO will keep OIG informed during the Investigation.

j. If an Investigation is Not Warranted

If the Inquiry committee decides that an Investigation is not warranted, the RIO shall secure and maintain for at least ten years after the termination of the Inquiry sufficiently detailed documentation of the Inquiry to permit a later Assessment of the reasons why an Investigation was not conducted. In Research Misconduct Proceedings involving PHS Funded Research, these documents must be provided to ORI upon request.

Phase Three: Investigation

a. Initiation and Purpose of an Investigation

The purpose of the Investigation is to formally develop a factual record by exploring the Allegations in detail and examining the Evidence in depth, leading to recommended findings to the Deciding Official. The Deciding Official makes the final decision, based on a Preponderance of the Evidence, on each Allegation and any University actions.

As part of its Investigation, the University will diligently pursue all significant issues and relevant leads, including any Evidence of additional instances of possible Research Misconduct, and continue the Investigation to completion.

The Investigation must begin within 30 Calendar Days (as required under the PHS Rules on Research Misconduct) after determining it is warranted.

The findings of the Investigation must be set forth in an Investigation report.

b. Notice to Respondent of an Investigation; Sequestration of Research Records

On or before the date on which the Investigation begins, the RIO must Notify the Respondent in writing of the Allegations to be investigated. If there are then additional Allegations raised against Respondent during the course of the Investigation, the RIO will Notify the Respondent and will also inform the Provost.

The RIO must also give the Respondent written Notice of any new Allegations of Research Misconduct within a reasonable amount of time after deciding to pursue Allegations not addressed during the Inquiry or in the initial Notice of the Investigation. In such case, the RIO must also inform the Provost of the additional Allegations.

The need for additional sequestration of records for the Investigation may occur for any number of reasons, including the University's decision to investigate additional Allegations not considered during the Inquiry stage or the identification of records during the Inquiry process that had not been previously secured.

The sequestration procedures applied in the Inquiry should also be applied in the Investigation. The RIO should take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of and sequester in a secure manner all necessary Research Records and Evidence that were not previously sequestered during the Inquiry.

c. Use of an Investigation Committee

After the initiation of the Investigation, the RIO, in consultation with the Faculty Senate President, will appoint an Investigation committee of three University employees to conduct the Investigation and the members of such committee will comply with this Policy. At least one member of the Investigation committee must have relevant subject-matter expertise related to the Allegation under review. The RIO will determine which committee members meet this expertise requirement. The RIO will not serve on the Investigation committee. If the Respondent is a faculty member, the Investigation committee members will be tenured faculty members. In such cases, the RIO will select tenured faculty whose expertise most closely aligns with the Allegation. If the Respondent is not a faculty member, the Investigation committee will consist of associate or senior research staff and at least one tenured faculty member. In these cases, the RIO may also include a non-faculty member with relevant subject-matter expertise to ensure the committee has appropriate knowledge for the review. The Investigation committee will comply with the process and procedures set out in this Policy, and will make its recommendations in accordance with this Policy. The Investigation committee must consist of individuals who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved with the Investigation and should include individuals with the appropriate subject-matter expertise to evaluate the Evidence and issues related to the Allegation and conduct the Investigation. Individuals appointed to the Investigation committee may also have served on the Inquiry committee. The Investigation committee will secure the expertise that is necessary and appropriate to carry out a thorough and authoritative evaluation of the relevant Evidence.

The RIO will ensure that the committee members understand their responsibility to conduct the Research Misconduct Proceedings in compliance with this Policy. The Investigation committee will conduct interviews, pursue leads, and examine all Research Records and other Evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the Allegation(s). The University will use diligent efforts to ensure that the Investigation is thorough, sufficiently documented, and impartial and unbiased to the maximum extent practicable.

If the Investigation committee finds that Research Misconduct has occurred, the committee will recommend appropriate sanctions to the Provost. Sanctions will be considered and implemented in accordance with Section 3.9 of the Faculty Handbook, the Staff Policy Manual and the Student Conduct Code (as applicable) and this Policy.

d. Use of Outside Experts

Outside experts may be used if special expertise regarding Evidence analysis is warranted. Such experts shall serve in a strictly advisory capacity and shall not make binding decisions or commitments on behalf of the University. Experts may interview witnesses and respond to questions during Investigation deliberations.

e. Investigation Process

The Investigation committee will use diligent efforts to ensure that the Investigation is thorough and sufficiently documented and includes examination of all Research Records and Evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of each Allegation. To the maximum extent practical, the Investigation committee will take all reasonable steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased Investigation. The committee will diligently pursue all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the Investigation, including any Evidence of any additional instances of possible Research Misconduct, and continue the Investigation to completion.

The process will include interviews of each Respondent, Complainant(s), and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the Investigation, including witnesses identified by the Respondent. The Investigation committee will number all relevant exhibits and refer to any exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview by that number. The Investigation committee will record and transcribe interviews during the Investigation and make the transcripts available to the interviewee for correction. The Investigation committee will include the transcript(s) with any corrections and exhibits in the Institutional Record of the Investigation. The Respondent will not be present during the witnesses' interviews, but the Investigation committee will provide the Respondent with a transcript of each interview, with redactions as appropriate to maintain confidentiality.

The RIO will define the subject matter of the Investigation in a written charge to the committee that:

  1. Describes the Allegations and related issues identified during the Inquiry;
  2. Identifies the Respondent;
  3. Commits the committee to conduct the Investigation as prescribed in this Policy;
  4. Defines Research Misconduct;
  5. Commits the committee to evaluate the Evidence and testimony to determine whether, based on a Preponderance of the Evidence, Research Misconduct occurred and, if so, the type and extent of it and who was responsible;
  6. Commits the committee to prepare a written Investigation report that meets the requirements of this Policy;
  7. Commits the committee that in order to determine that the Respondent committed Research Misconduct, the committee must find that a Preponderance of the Evidence establishes that:
    1. the Allegation of Research Misconduct is proven by a Preponderance of the Evidence; Research Misconduct, as defined in this Policy, occurred;
    2. for Research Misconduct Proceedings involving PHS Funded Research and for Research Misconduct Proceedings involving NSF Funded Research, the Research Misconduct is a significant departure from Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community; and for non-PHS Funded Research and for non-NSF Funded Research, the Research Misconduct violates this Policy; and
    3. the Respondent committed the Research Misconduct Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly.

The RIO will be present or available throughout the Investigation to advise the committee. At the committee's first meeting, the committee will review: the charge, the Inquiry report, and the prescribed procedures and standards for the conduct of the Investigation, including the necessity for confidentiality and for developing a specific Investigation plan.

The Investigation committee will be provided with a copy of this Policy and any supplemental procedures.

f. Investigation Timeframe

The Investigation is to be completed within 180 Calendar Days (as required under the PHS Rules on Research Misconduct and NSF Rules on Research Misconduct) of beginning the Investigation, including:

  1. conducting the Investigation,
  2. preparing the report of findings,
  3. providing the draft report to each Respondent for comment, and;
  4. in Research Misconduct Proceedings involving PHS Funded Research, sending the final report to the ORI in the timeframe required.

For Research Misconduct Proceedings involving PHS Funded Research: If the RIO determines that the Investigation will not be completed within this 180-day period, the RIO will submit a written request for an extension to the ORI, setting forth the reasons for the delay. If ORI grants the request for an extension, the RIO will ensure that any required periodic progress reports are filed. The Investigation report must include the reasons for exceeding the 180-day period.

For Research Misconduct Proceedings involving NSF Funded Research: If the RIO determines that the Investigation will not be completed within this 180-day period, the RIO will submit a written request for an extension and deferral of NSF investigation to the OIG, setting forth the reasons for the delay. NSF may require the RIO to submit periodic progress reports.

g. Elements of the Final Written Investigation Report

The final written Investigation report will include the following:

  1. Description of the nature of the Allegation(s) of Research Misconduct, including any additional Allegation(s) addressed during the Research Misconduct Proceeding.
  2. Description and documentation of PHS or any other form of federal support, including, for example, any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing such support.
  3. List of any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the Respondent has pending with PHS and non-PHS Federal agencies.
  4. Description of the specific Allegation(s) of Research Misconduct for consideration in the Investigation of the Respondent.
  5. Composition of the Investigation committee, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
  6. Inventory of sequestered Research Records and other Evidence, except records the institution did not consider or rely on; and a description of how any sequestration was conducted during the Investigation. This inventory must include manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied on during the Investigation.
  7. Transcripts of all interviews conducted, as described in this Policy.
  8. Identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), PHS and other federal funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, or other Research Records that Allegedly contained the Falsified, Fabricated, or Plagiarized material.
  9. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
  10. This Policy and any other University policies and procedures under which the Investigation was conducted.
  11. Any comments made by the Respondent and Complainant on the draft Investigation report and the Investigation committee's consideration of those comments.
  12. A statement for each separate Allegation of whether the Investigation committee recommends a finding of Research Misconduct.

If the Investigation committee recommends a finding of Research Misconduct for an Allegation, the Investigation report must, for that Allegation:

  1. Identify the individual(s) who committed the Research Misconduct.
  2. Indicate whether the Research Misconduct was Falsification, Fabrication, and/or Plagiarism.
  3. Indicate whether the Research Misconduct was committed Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly.
  4. State whether the other requirements for a finding of Research Misconduct, as described in this Policy, have been met.
  5. Summarize the facts and the analysis which support the conclusion and consider the merits of any explanation by the Respondent.
  6. Identify the specific PHS or other federal support.
  7. Identify whether any publications need correction or retraction.

If the Investigation committee does not recommend a finding of Research Misconduct for an Allegation, the Investigation report must provide a detailed rationale.

h. Comments on the Draft Investigation Report and Access to Evidence

Respondent

The RIO must give the Respondent a copy of the draft Investigation report for comment and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the Evidence on which the report is based.

The Respondent will be allowed 30 Calendar Days from the date the Respondent received the draft Investigation report (as required under the PHS Rules on Research Misconduct) to submit comments to the RIO. The Respondent's comments must be included and considered in the final report.

Confidentiality

In distributing the draft Investigation report, or portions thereof, to the Respondent, the RIO will inform the recipient of the confidentiality under which the draft report is made available and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure such confidentiality, including requiring that the recipient sign a confidentiality agreement.

i. Decision by Deciding Official

The Investigation committee will finalize the draft Investigation report, including ensuring that the Respondent's comments are included and considered, and transmit the final Investigation report to the Deciding Official.

The Deciding Official will determine and document:

  1. whether the University accepts the Investigation report, its findings, and the recommended University actions; and
  2. the appropriate University actions in response to the accepted findings of Research Misconduct.

If this determination varies from the findings of the Investigation committee, the Deciding Official will, as part of his/her written determination, explain in detail the basis for rendering a decision different from the findings of the Investigation committee. Alternatively, the Deciding Official may return the report to the Investigation committee with a request for further fact-finding or analysis.

When a final decision on the case has been reached, the RIO will Notify both the Respondent and the Complainant in writing. The RIO will also notify any University officials who need to know the Deciding Official's decision.

Findings by any involved federal agencies are not required for the University's decision to be considered final and to warrant remediation under this Policy.

In Research Misconduct Proceedings involving PHS Funded Research, after the Deciding Official has made a final determination of Research Misconduct findings in accordance with this Policy, the RIO must transmit the Institutional Record to ORI.

In Research Misconduct Proceedings involving NSF Funded Research, after the Deciding Official has made a final determination of Research Misconduct findings in accordance with this Policy, the RIO must transmit the final Investigation report to OIG.

j. Appeals

Within 15 University Business Days of receipt of the final decision and Notification from the Deciding Official, the Respondent may appeal in writing, on procedural grounds only, directly to the President. The President shall review the Respondent's appeal based on the written appeal submission and the record of the Investigation, including the Investigation report and supporting Evidence. The review is limited to the grounds for appeal identified by the Respondent unless the President determines that extraordinary circumstances warrant broader review. The President shall determine whether (i) the Investigation followed University policies; (ii) the finding of Research Misconduct was proved by a Preponderance of the Evidence; (iii) any procedural errors materially affected the outcome; and (iv) the sanction is appropriate. The President may affirm or modify the findings and sanctions; reverse the findings; or remand the matter to the Investigation committee. The President shall issue a written decision to the Respondent, the RIO, and the Investigation Committee within 30 University Business Days of receiving the appeal. The decision shall summarize the grounds for appeal, describe the review conducted, and state the basis for the President's determination. The President's decision shall be final.

k. Notice to Federal Agencies of Institutional Findings and Actions

The RIO is responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification requirements of funding or sponsoring agencies.

In Research Misconduct Proceedings involving PHS Funded Research, unless an extension has been granted, the RIO must, within the 180-day period for completing the Investigation (or, if applicable, within the 180-day period for completion of any appeal), submit the following to ORI (collectively below, the "Institutional Record"):

  1. documentation of the Assessment;
  2. if an Inquiry is conducted, the Inquiry report with all records considered or relied on during the Inquiry;
  3. if an Investigation is conducted, a copy of the final Investigation report with all records considered or relied on during the Inquiry (and, if applicable, the complete record of any institutional appeal);
  4. a statement of whether the University accepts the findings of the Investigation report (or, if applicable, the outcome of the appeal);
  5. a statement by the Deciding Official of whether the University found Research Misconduct and, if so, who committed the Research Misconduct;
  6. a description of any pending or completed Administrative Actions against the Respondent;
  7. a single index listing all the Research Records and Evidence that the University compiled during the Research Misconduct Proceeding considered or relied on by the University; and
  8. a general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.

The Deciding Official will determine whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals in which falsified reports may have been published, collaborators of the Respondent in the work, or other relevant parties should be notified of the outcome of the Research Misconduct Proceeding.

IV. Miscellaneous

a. Notification of Sponsors

External sponsors have the right to expect that the integrity of Research for which they provide funding will be maintained.

Notifications to ORI for PHS Funded Research

In Research Misconduct Proceedings involving PHS Funded Research, the RIO, in consultation with the Inquiry committee and/or Investigation committee, as applicable, shall, at any time during a Research Misconduct Proceeding, promptly notify ORI in the case of the following:

  1. if the RIO has reason to believe that any of the following conditions exist:
    1. Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects;
    2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") resources or interests are threatened;
    3. Research activities should be suspended;
    4. There is a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law;
    5. Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the Research Misconduct Proceeding; or
    6. HHS may need to take appropriate steps to safeguard Evidence and protect the rights of those involved;
  2. if the University plans to close a Research Misconduct Proceeding at the Assessment, Inquiry, Investigation or appeal stage on the basis that the Respondent has admitted to committing Research Misconduct or a settlement with the Respondent has been reached; or
  3. if the Respondent decides to file an appeal after receiving the final decision and Notification from the Deciding Official.

Notifications to OIG for NSF Funded Research

In Research Misconduct Proceedings involving NSF Funded Research, the RIO (in consultation with the Inquiry committee and/or Investigation committee, as applicable) shall, at any time during a Research Misconduct Proceeding, promptly notify the OIG if the RIO has reason to believe that any of the following conditions exist:

  1. Health or safety of the public is at risk;
  2. NSF's resources, reputation or other interests need protecting;
  3. Research activities should be suspended;
  4. There is a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law;
  5. Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the Research Misconduct Proceeding or others potentially affected; or
  6. The scientific community or the public should be informed.

Notifications to Sponsors for all Research projects

If the University decides after the Inquiry phase to proceed with an Investigation of Research Misconduct in any Research project supported by external funds, the RIO will notify the sponsoring agency on or before the date the Investigation begins. The final Investigation Report will ordinarily be submitted to the sponsoring agency within 180 Calendar Days of the appointment of the Investigation committee (as required under the PHS Rules on Research Misconduct). When government agencies or other sponsors require more detailed reporting procedures, the University will comply with those procedures.

Depending on the nature of misconduct that is found, the University may also have an ethical responsibility to notify other parties of the conclusions of a formal Investigation. These parties may include Research collaborators, editors of journals in which the Research was published, professional licensing boards, other institutions with which the individual has been affiliated, or other persons or organizations with a direct interest in the matter.

b. Other University Policies and Requirements

The University may have other policies, requirements, or standards of conduct that are different from the standards for Research Misconduct under this Policy. Findings of Research Misconduct or resolution of Research Misconduct Proceedings per this Policy, or the absence thereof, do not affect University findings or actions taken based on other University policies, requirements, or standards of conduct.

V. Definitions

Defined Term Definition

Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community

Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community means those practices established by applicable federal regulations, federal funders, as well as commonly accepted professional codes or norms within the overarching community of Researchers and institutions.

Administrative Action

Administrative Action means either a University or a federal agency action taken in response to a Research Misconduct Proceeding to protect the health and safety of the public, to promote the integrity of Research, Research training, or activities related to that Research or Research training, or to conserve public funds.

Allegation

Allegation means a disclosure of possible Research Misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of a University official or at the federal agency that has oversight responsibility for the questioned research.

Assessment

Assessment means a consideration of whether an Allegation of Research Misconduct appears to fall within the definition of Research Misconduct and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential Evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified.

An Assessment also considers whether an Allegation of Research Misconduct appears to involve PHS or any other federally sponsored Research, training, or activities related to that Research or training.

The Assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the Allegation.

Calendar Day

Calendar Day means calendar day unless otherwise specified. If a deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the deadline will be extended to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday.

Complainant 

Complainant means an individual who in Good Faith makes an Allegation of Research Misconduct.

Deciding Official

Deciding Official means the Provost of the University, who makes final determinations on Allegations of Research Misconduct and any Administrative Actions of the University. The Deciding Official will not be the same individual as the Research Integrity Officer and should have no direct prior involvement in the University's Inquiry, Investigation, or Allegation Assessment. The Deciding Official must be an employee of the University and shall not be an outside contractor. In the event that the Provost is the Respondent or the Provost has a conflict of interest, the President will appoint another Deciding Official.

Difference of Opinion

Difference of Opinion means an alternative view held by a researcher who is substantively engaged in the Research subject area. It generally contrasts with a prevailing opinion included in a published research record or generally accepted by the relevant Research community. The differing opinion must concern Research data, methodology, analysis, interpretations, or conclusions, not policy opinions or decisions unrelated to data practices.

Evidence 

Evidence means anything offered or obtained during a Research Misconduct Proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact. Evidence includes documents, whether in hard copy or electronic form, information, tangible items, and testimony.

Fabrication

Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

Falsification

Falsification means manipulating Research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the Research is not accurately represented in the Research Record.

Good Faith

Good Faith as applied to a Complainant or witness means having a reasonable belief in the truth of one's Allegation or testimony, based on the information known to the Complainant or witness at the time. An Allegation or cooperation with a Research Misconduct Proceeding is not in Good Faith if made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for information that would negate the Allegation or testimony.

Good faith as applied to a University or committee member means cooperating with the Research Misconduct Proceeding by impartially carrying out the duties assigned for the purpose of helping the University meet its responsibilities under this Policy. A University or committee member does not act in Good Faith if their acts or omissions during the Research Misconduct Proceedings are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the Research Misconduct Proceeding.

Honest Error

Honest Error means a mistake made in Good Faith.

Inquiry 

Inquiry means preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding that meets the criteria and follows the procedures set forth in this Policy.

Institutional Record

Institutional Record means the records that the University compiled or generated during the Research Misconduct Proceeding, except records the University did not consider or rely on. These records include, but are not limited to:

  1. documentation of Assessment, Inquiry report and Investigation report and all records considered or relied on for each; final interview transcripts; decisions by the Deciding Official, and the complete records of any appeal;
  2. single index listing all the Research Records and Evidence that the University compiled during the Research Misconduct Proceeding, except records the University did not consider or rely on; and
  3. a general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.

Intentionally

To act Intentionally means to act with the aim of carrying out the act.

Investigation

Investigation means the formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record that meets the criteria and follows the procedures set forth in this Policy.

Knowingly

To act Knowingly means to act with awareness of the act.

Notice

Notice means a (i) written communication served in person or sent by mail or its equivalent to the last known street address, or (ii) electronic communication sent to the email address of the addressee.

NSF

NSF means the U.S. National Science Foundation.

NSF Rules on Research Misconduct

NSF Rules on Research Misconduct means 45 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 689.

OIG

OIG means the NSF Office of Inspector General.

ORI

ORI means the Office of Research Integrity, the federal office within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that is responsible for research integrity activities for PHS Funded  Research.

PHS

PHS means the Public Health Service.

PHS Funded Research

PHS Funded Research means federally-funded Research that is subject to the PHS Rules of Research Misconduct.

PHS Rules on Research Misconduct

PHS Rules on Research Misconduct means 42 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 93.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving appropriate credit.

  1. Plagiarism includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another's work that materially misleads the reader regarding the contributions of the author. It does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology.
  2. Plagiarism does not include self-plagiarism or authorship or credit disputes, including disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a Research project. Self-plagiarism and authorship disputes do not meet the definition of Research Misconduct.

Preponderance of the Evidence

Preponderance of the Evidence means proof by Evidence that, compared with Evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely true than not.

Recklessly

To act Recklessly means to propose, perform, or review Research, or report Research results, with indifference to a known risk of Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism.

Research

Research means, in any academic discipline, a systematic experiment, study, evaluation, demonstration, or survey designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge (basic Research) or specific knowledge (applied and demonstration Research) by establishing, discovering, developing, elucidating, or confirming information about, or the underlying mechanism relating to, causes, functions or effects.

Research Integrity Officer or RIO

Research Integrity Officer or RIO refers to the University official responsible for administering the University's written policies and procedures for addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct in compliance with this Policy. The RIO will initially be the Associate Provost for Research, although the Provost may appoint another individual to serve as the RIO in accordance with this Policy. The RIO must be a tenured faculty member of the University and shall not be an outside contractor.

Research Misconduct

Research Misconduct means Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism, whether committed by the Respondent directly or through the use or assistance of other persons, entities, or tools, including artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools, in proposing, performing, or reviewing Research (including Research proposals), or in reporting Research results. Research Misconduct does not include Honest Error or Differences of Opinion. For the avoidance of doubt, Research Misconduct is determined based upon the violations in process as specified within this definition, and not upon the substance or topic of the Research in the absence of Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism. In other words, an Allegation of Research Misconduct cannot be levied against a Respondent based solely on their area of Research.

Research Misconduct Proceeding

Research Misconduct Proceeding means any actions related to alleged Research Misconduct taken per this Policy, including Allegation Assessments, Inquiries, Investigations, oversight reviews, and appeals.

Research Record 

Research Record means the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific Inquiry. Data or results may be in physical or electronic form. Examples of items, materials, or information that may be considered part of the Research Record include, but are not limited to, Research proposals, raw data, processed data, clinical Research Records, laboratory records, study records, laboratory notebooks, progress reports, manuscripts, abstracts, theses, records of oral presentations, online content, lab meeting reports, and journal articles.

Respondent

Respondent means the individual against whom an Allegation of Research Misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a Research Misconduct Proceeding.

Retaliation

Retaliation means an adverse action taken against a Complainant, witness, or committee member by the University or one of its members in response to:

  1. A Good Faith Allegation of Research Misconduct; or
  2. Good Faith cooperation with a Research Misconduct Proceeding.

University Business Day

University Business Day means any day the administrative offices of the University are open for business.