Research Misconduct

Scope

A. This Policy applies to: 1. all All individuals who hold University appointments and all graduate students who are engaged in the design, conduct, or reporting of research, whether or not conducted under the research is funded; and toauspices of Indiana University, regardless of funding source.

A. Anyone engaged in the design, conduct, or reporting or research through a Sponsored Program at Indiana University, to the extent of that research.

B. This policy applies to allegations of potential research misconduct received on or after January 1, 2026. 

C. Except for research misconduct in the context of a Sponsored Program, allegations of research misconduct by undergraduate students shall be dealt with through the STU-00: Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct. or such other disciplinary process duly established by a campus or academic unit.

1. The Deciding Officer (DO) may, in consultation with the Deans of the Graduate Schools, determine that an allegation of research misconduct on the part of a graduate student is more appropriately referred to the disciplinary channels provided in the Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct or such other disciplinary process duly established by a campus or academic unit.
2. All members of the University community have a duty to guard against and to report research misconduct; to cooperate with the Inquiry and Investigation Committees and the Research Integrity Officer (RIO); and to provide relevant evidence to the committees and the RIO in the course of research misconduct proceedings.

D. This policy ensures compliance with local, state, and federal requirements, including 42 CFR 93. IU Research, through the Research Integrity Officer (RIO), will monitor relevant requirements for research misconduct and associated reporting and ensure this Policy continues to align with such requirements through policy changes and procedural updates as appropriate.

E. A foundational principle of Indiana University is its enduring partnership across its units, including faculty and librarians, to collectively advance the institution's mission. The establishment, revision, and retirement of academic policies will occur with consultation and input from the University Faculty Council. 

F. Pursuant to IC-21-38-11, faculty governance organization actions are advisory only.

G. In the event of a conflict, this policy shall supersede all campus, school and college, program, department, center, institute, and unit policies on any core or regional campuses of Indiana University. 

Back to top

Policy Statement

General Policy on Research Misconduct

A. Responsibilities of All Members of the University Community. All members of the University community have a responsibility to must (1) guard against research misconduct by themselves, their colleagues and collaborators, and the people they teach or supervise mentor or supervise, (2) report promptly potential research misconduct to the Research Integrity Officer (RIO), and (3) to cooperate in good faith with, and provide relevant evidence related to, research misconduct proceedings.

1. All members of the University community shall report research misconduct to the RIO. If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of research misconduct, the individual may consult the RIO informally. The RIO will advise on whether the circumstances described by the individual appear to meet the definition of research misconduct. The RIO may refer the individual or allegation to other offices or officials if appropriate.
2. All members of the University community shall cooperate with a research misconduct preliminary assessment, inquiry, or investigation, and shall provide relevant evidence in the course of research misconduct proceedings.

1. All parties to research misconduct proceedings, including but not limited to respondents, complainants, witnesses, inquiry and investigation committee members, and the RIO,and their staff, are entitled to be treated with respect.
2. As requested, Upon request, at the conclusion of the research misconduct proceedings the RIO and other institutional officials shall make all reasonable and practical efforts to protect or restore the reputation of persons alleged to have engaged in research misconduct, but respondents against whom no finding of research misconduct is made.
3. No person may retaliate in any way against complainants, witnesses, inquiry and investigation committee members, or the RIO and their staff. The RIO shall investigate reports of alleged and other institutional officials must take reasonable steps to counter threatened and/or apparent actual retaliation and recommend appropriate actions toagainst any complainant who makes allegations of research misconduct in good faith and of any witnesses and committee members who cooperate in good faith with the DO research misconduct proceeding.
4. The RIO shall investigate reports of threatened and/or actual retaliation, and allegations that complainants, witnesses, and/or committee members did not cooperate in good faith with this Policy and may recommend appropriate actions to the Deciding Official (DO).
5. A respondent may be accompanied by an attorney or a personal adviser (who is not otherwise involved in the case) when interviewed in the course of research misconduct proceedings. Attorney and personal representatives may confer with the individual(s) they have been asked to represent but may not directly participate in interviews.

1. All research misconduct investigations shall protect the confidentiality of all parties to the greatest extent possible. The RIO shall:

1. Limit disclosure Disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses will be limited, to the extent possible, to those who need to know in order to carry out consistent with a thorough, competent, objective, and fair research misconduct proceeding; and while the research misconduct proceeding is ongoing.
2. Except as otherwise prescribed by law, limit the disclosure of confidentiality must be maintained for any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified. Disclosure is limited to those who need to know in order to carry out a research misconduct proceeding.

1. 1. The RIO shall use written confidentiality agreements or other mechanisms when appropriate to ensure that the recipient does not make any further disclosure of identifying information. If the complainant requests anonymity, the University will strive to honor the request within the limits set by applicable policy and law.

3. The DO may communicate Disclosure of information about research misconduct allegations and proceedings with other persons including the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses may be made as required by law or as necessary to protect public health or safety, the integrity of research, fundamental fairness to the respondent or other parties, or an overriding interest of the University.

D.Conflicts of Interest. At all stages of research misconduct proceedings, all persons involved shall identify and disclose to the RIO, DO, or President, as appropriate, report any real or potential, perceived, conflict or actual personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest.  to the RIO, to ensure that such conflicts do not affect, or appear to affect,the outcome of research misconduct proceedings.

1. If such conflicts are present the individual shall recuse himself or herself from any investigative or decisional role in the case.
   1. If any prospective committee member at any point in the process presents a conflict of interest, that committee member shall be replaced by the DO. 
   2. If the RIO has a conflict of interest, the DO shall name a replacement to carry out the functions of the RIO under this Policy for the particular matter.
   3. If the DO has a conflict of interest, the President shall name a replacement to carry out the functions of the DO under this Policy for the particular matter.
   4. Conflicts of interest on the part of deans or department chairs shall be dealt with by the DO.
2. If it becomes necessary to appoint any replacement during the course of the process, the new appointee shall be fully informed regarding earlier procedures and evidence secured, but the process shall not commence anew.
3. The DO is responsible for resolving disagreements over what constitutes a conflict of interest, except in the case of alleged conflicts involving the DO, in which case the President is responsible.

1. A finding of research misconduct requires that:
   1. There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
   2. The respondent committed the research misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.; and
2. Allegations of research misconduct must The allegations be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
3. The destruction, absence of, or A respondent’s failure to provide destruction of research records adequately documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct when the University establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that: the respondent intentionally or knowingly destroyed the 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 records but refuses to provide them upon request.
   1. The respondent:
      1. Had research records and intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly destroyed them;
      2. Had the opportunity to maintain the records but did not do so; or
      3. Maintained the records and failed to produce them in a timely manner; and that
   2. The respondent’s conduct constitutes a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.

1. The Standing Committee
   1. There shall be a Standing Committee that:
      1. Serves as the pool from which members of Inquiry Committees are drawn; and
      2. Upon request:
         1. Assists the RIO in evaluating allegations of Research Misconduct;
         2. Advises the RIO on appropriate members for Investigation Committees; and
         3. Advises the DO and the RIO on the implementation and revision of this Policy and Procedures.
   2. The Standing Committee shall consist of no fewer than six (6) members, all of whom shall be tenured members of the faculty, chosen to reflect disciplinary diversity, and including at least one member from each of the Bloomington and Indianapolis campuses and the Medical School.
   3. The DO shall appoint the Standing Committee following consultation with the Executive Committees of the Bloomington and Indianapolis Faculty Councils.
2. Factual Findings are Conclusive. The factual findings of the Investigation Committee shall be conclusive and binding on any later University proceeding convened for other purposes (e.g., grievances to the Faculty Board of Review relating to sanctions imposed).

1. The respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct that occurred before the 6six-year limitation through the citationuse of, republication of, or other use for citation to the potential benefit of the respondentportion(s) of the research record that is alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized; or
2. The DO or RIO, following consultation with ORI if the research is PHS-funded, determines that the alleged misconduct could reasonably would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public.

1. The DO shall appoint a Research Integrity Standing Committee (RISC) that serves to advise the DO and the RIO on the implementation and revision of this Policy and Procedures. RISC members will serve as members of inquiry and investigation committees.
2. The DO will appoint a Research Integrity Standing Committee (RISC) Chair who will assist in facilitating the work of the RISC, including:
   1. Assisting the RIO in assessing allegations of research misconduct;
   2. Conducting the inquiry process with the RIO, as described below; and
   3. Assisting the DO and RIO in identifying appropriate members for the RISC and Investigation Committees.

Back to top

Reason for Policy

Research rests on a foundation of intellectual honesty. Scholars must be able to trust their peers, students must be able to trust their teachersmentors, and both sponsors and the public must be able to trust the integrity of the results of research performed in institutions of higher education. The integrity of research is the subject of widely shared professional norms and regulatory requirements (see Scope) that place specific obligations on the University and all members of the University community. Indiana University is committed to fostering a research environment that promotes research integrity and the responsible conduct of research, discourages research misconduct, and deals promptly with allegations or evidence of possible research misconduct.  professional norms and legal requirements that place specific obligations on the University and all members of the University community.

This document sets forth Indiana University’s policy and procedures concerning research misconduct. It is intended to ensure impartial and accurate adjudication of allegations of research misconduct that respects the legitimate interests of all parties, enhances professional and public trust, and ensures compliance with professional norms and applicable legal requirements.

Back to top

Procedures

1. The Research Misconduct Resolution Process Proceedings
   1. Preliminary Allegation Assessment of Allegations. Process.

1. 1. Any person, whether associated with the University or not, may bring an allegation of research misconduct. Such allegations should be made to the RIO.
   2. On receipt of an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO shall assess the allegation to determine whether the allegation is frivolous, does not raise questions warrants inquiry.
      1. An inquiry is warranted if the allegation (1) falls within the definition of research misconduct, under this policy, and (2) is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified.
      2. The RIO may dismiss the allegation, even if it otherwise appears to warrant inquiry, if the RIO determines that the allegation is not made in good faith or is frivolous, or, if the allegation does not involve PHS or other federal support, does not otherwise warrant further action. In such a case, the RIO may dismiss the allegation, seek to handle the matter informally, or refer it to the another appropriate person or process. If the RIO determines that the allegation does not raise questions of research misconduct, does not warrant for further investigation or action., or
   3. The RIO will document the assessment, including whether an inquiry is determined to be frivolous, the warranted and the relevant justification.

1. The RIO shall take reasonable steps to inform the complainant and anyone else known to be aware of the allegation of the outcome of the assessment.

B. The Inquiry Process. If the RIO determines that the criteria for an inquiry are met, the RIO will initiate the inquiry process. immediately initiate the inquiry process. The purpose of the inquiry is to determine whether there is sufficient credible evidence of possible research misconduct to warrant conducting an investigation. An inquiry does not require a full review of all the evidence related to the allegation.

1. Purpose. The purpose of the inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine whether an allegation warrants an investigation. An investigation is warranted if (1) there is reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct under the Policy, and (2) preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding indicates that the allegation may have substance. An inquiry does not require a full review of all the evidence related to the allegation and is not expected to determine whether misconduct occurred or the role of the respondent in any misconduct.
2. Sequestration of Research Records. As soon as practicable upon the initiation of an inquiry, At the time of or before beginning an inquiry, and thereafter during research misconduct proceedings whenever additional items become relevant or known, the RIO and staff shall promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the research records and other evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester them in a secure manner.
   1. Wherever possible, custody will be limited to copies of the data or evidence, so long as those copies have are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value. as the originals.
   2. Where appropriate, the RIO shall give the respondent copies of, or reasonable, supervised access to the sequestered research records and other evidence.

1. Upon initiation of the inquiry, the RIO shall provide the respondent with written notice of the allegation(s) and a copy of this Policy. The RIO shall also offer to meet with the respondent to review the contents of the allegations and related issues, describe the process that will be followed, and advise the respondent of their rights under this policy.the Research Misconduct Policy. If the inquiry subsequently identifies additional respondents, they shall receive the same written notice and offer to meet.
2. The RIO shall notify the DO appropriate institutional officials, and others who need to know of the initiation of any inquiry.
3. ; the dean of the School in which the respondent holds primary appointment; the Chancellor, Provost, or other senior official of the campus on which the respondent holds primary appointment; and the University General Counsel of the initiation of any inquiry.

4. The Inquiry Committee.The inquiry will be conducted by an inquiry committee consisting of, at minimum, the Research Integrity Standing Committee (RISC) Chair and the RIO. The DO shall appoint at least twoRISC Chair and the RIO may, in their sole discretion, supplement the inquiry committee with additional members of the RISC or other faculty members to obtain appropriate expertise or avoid conflicts of interest The inquiry committee will review the allegation and relevant research records and materials and may conduct interviews to determine whether an investigation is warranted based on the criteria in this policy.

1. 1. 1. Standing Committee to serve with the RIO as an Inquiry Committee. The membersof the Inquiry Committee shall have no conflicts of interest with the respondent or with the case in question and shall possess sufficient expertise to enable the committee to conduct the inquiry and to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation(s). To the extent practicable, the members of the Inquiry Committee shall be from the same campus as the respondent. If necessary to obtain appropriate expertise or avoid conflicts of interest the DO may appoint other faculty to serve on an Inquiry Committee.
      2. Inquiry Process
         1. At the committee's first meeting, the RIO will review the allegation an investigation is warranted based on the criteria in this policy.
         2.  with the committee; discuss the allegations, any related issues, and the appropriate procedures for conducting the inquiry; and work with the other members of the Inquiry Committee to organize its work.
         3. The Inquiry Committee will make a good faith effort to interview the complainant, the respondent, and key witnesses as well as examine relevant research records and materials. The Inquiry Committee will evaluate the evidence, including the testimony obtained during the inquiry. The committee will decide whether an investigation is warranted based on the criteria in this policy.
         4. The Inquiry Committee is not expected to determine whether misconduct occurred or the role of the respondent in any misconduct. However, if research misconduct is admitted by the respondent and there are no disputed factual issues, misconduct may be determined at the inquiry stage.

5. Additional Allegations and Respondents.

1. If additional allegations are identified during the course of the inquiry, the RIO shall provide the respondent with written notice of the additional allegation(s). Additional sequestration may be required per (B)(2).
2. If additional respondents are identified during the course of the inquiry, separate inquiry is not required. Additional respondents shall receive written notice per (B)(3)(a). Additional sequestration may be required per (B)(2).

6. The Inquiry Report. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the The RIO shall prepare a written inquiry report that describes: the committee’s recommendation as to whether an investigation is warranted and the basis for the committee’s recommendation.

1. The allegations of research misconduct;
2. Any federal support for research involved in the allegation;
3. The committee’s recommendation as to whether an investigation is warranted;
4. The basis for the committee’s recommendation; and
5. Any comments on the draft report by the respondent.

1. 1. Notification to the Respondent and Opportunity to Comment. The RIO shall provide the respondent with a draft copy of the Inquiry Committee inquiry report, together with a written notice that the respondent may submit written comments within ten (10) calendar days. The DO may extend this time for good cause. Any comments that are submitted by the respondent will be attached to the final inquiry report. transmitted to the DO. Based on the comments, the Inquiry Committee inquiry committee may revise the draft report as appropriate before preparing it in final form.

7. Institutional Decision and Notification

1. Decision by Deciding Official. The RIO will transmit the final inquiry report and any comments to the DO, who within ten (10) calendar days will determine respond in writing whether an investigation is warranted. In the event the DO disagrees with any of the Inquiry Committee’s recommendations, the DO will document the basis for their decision in writing. The inquiry is completed when Alternatively, the DO makes this determination.may return the report to the inquiry committee with a request for further analysis or clarification. In such an instance, the RIO shall give the respondent a copy of any revised inquiry report for additional comment.
2. Notification and Documentation of Decision. The RIO (or, in the case of federal agencies required to be notified, the DO), shall notify the following of the DO's decision: the respondent; the complainant; the relevant dean(s); the Chancellor, Provost, or other senior official of the campus on which the respondent holds primary appointment; the University General Counsel appropriate institutional officials; the members of the Inquiry Committee; and any inquiry committee; oversight and funding agencies as applicable, and government officials as applicable.required to be notified of the DO’s decision.
   1. If the DO decides that an investigation is not warranted, the RIO shall also take reasonable steps to inform anyone else known to have knowledge of the inquiry.
   2. If the DO determines that an investigation is not warranted, the RIO shall secure and maintain for seven (7) 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. These documents shall be provided to ORI or other authorized government personnel upon request.

8. Time for Completion. The inquiry, including preparation of the final inquiry report and the decision of the DO on whether an investigation is warranted, must be completed within 60 90 calendar days of initiation of the inquiry, unless the DO approves an extension. The circumstances warrant a longer period. If the inquiry record takes longer than 90 days to complete, the inquiry report must include documentation of document the reasons for exceeding the 6090-day period.

C. The Investigation Process

1. Initiation and Purpose of the Investigation. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of any determination by the DO that an investigation is warranted, the DO shall appoint an Investigation Committee. The DO may extend this time for good cause. Purpose. The purpose of the investigation is to develop a factual record by exploring the allegations in detail and examining the evidence in depth, leading to recommended findings on whether research misconduct has been committed, by whom, and to what extent, and steps to be taken to correct the research record. The investigation will also determine whether there are additional instances of possible research misconduct that would justify broadening the scope beyond the initial allegations. This is particularly important where the alleged research misconduct involves clinical trials or potential harm to human subjects or the general public or if it affects research that forms the basis for public policy, clinical practice, or public health practice.
2. Sequestration of Research Records. As soon as practicable upon the initiation of an investigation, the RIO shall take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all theresearch records and other evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, that were not previously sequestered during the inquiry per section (B)(2) of these Procedures.  The need for additional sequestration of records for the investigation may occur for any number of reasons, including the institution'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.
   1. Wherever possible, custody will be limited to copies of the data or evidence, so long as those copies have are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value. as the originals.
   2. Where appropriate, the RIO shall give the respondent copies of, or reasonable, supervised access to the sequestered research records and other evidence.
3. Role of Counsel. The respondent may be accompanied by counsel or a non-lawyer personal adviser (who is not otherwise involved in the case) when interviewed in the course of an investigation. Respondent’s counsel or adviser may provide the respondent advice, but may not participate in the proceedings.

3. Notice. Upon initiation of the investigation, the RIO shall provide the respondent with written notice of the allegation(s) to be investigated and a copy of this policy.allegations to be investigated, including any new allegations of research misconduct, and of the respondent’s right to have counsel present when interviewed as soon as practicable after the decision to pursue allegations not addressed during the inquiry or in the initial notice of the investigation.

4. Appointment of the Investigation Committee. The investigation shall be conducted by an Investigation Committee investigation committee of no fewer than three persons appointed by the RIO, on behalf of the DO.

1. The investigation committee must be appointed within thirty (30) calendar days of decision by the DO that an investigation is warranted. The DO may extend this time for good cause.
2. Members of the Investigation Committee investigation committee shall have no conflicts of interest with the respondent or other parties to the case in question, and shall, together possess the necessary expertise to enable them to evaluate authoritatively the relevant evidence of the alleged research misconduct and to conduct an investigation. A member of the Research Integrity Standing Committee (RISC) may serve as investigation committee Chair.To the extent practicable, a majority of the members of the Investigation Committee shall be from the same campus as the respondent. The DO shall designate a chair of the committee, who shall be a tenured member of the University faculty. Where the respondent is a member of the faculty, all appointees to the Investigation Committee shall be tenured faculty.

1. Notification of Appointment of Investigation Committee

c. The RIO shall notify the respondent of the committee membership and shall be given allow the respondent an opportunity to object to the committee membership on the grounds that one or more members do not meet the criteria in (C)(4)(b). Objections must be made in writing to the RIO within ten (10) calendar days of notification of the committee’s membership. The DO shall consider the objection, and if it is reasonable, instruct the RIO to replace the person with one who meets the stated criteria. The DO’s decision as to whether a committee member requires replacement is final.above-stated criteria. Objections shall be made in writing to the RIOwithin ten (10) calendar days of notification of the committee’s membership. The DO may extend this time for good cause.

1. The DO shall consider the objection, and if it is reasonable, the DO shall replace the person with one who meets the stated criteria. The DO’s decision as to whether the challenge is reasonable shall be final.

1. Charge to the Investigation Committee
   1. The RIO shall provide a written charge to the Investigation Committee that:
      1. Describes the allegations and related issues identified during the inquiry;
      2. Identifies the respondent;
      3. Informs the committee that it must conduct the investigation as prescribed in this policy;
      4. Defines research misconduct;
      5. Informs the committee that it must 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. Informs the committee that if it determines that the respondent committed research misconduct it must do so according to the standard of review set forth in the Research Misconduct Policy; and
      7. Informs the committee that it must prepare or direct the preparation of a written investigation report that meets the requirements of this policy.

d. Investigation Process. The Investigation Committee, assisted by the RIO, shall use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough, impartial, fair, and appropriately documented. This includes making diligent efforts to:

1. Examine Examining all relevant research records and other relevant evidence relevant to reaching a decision recommendation on the merits of each allegation;
2. Interviewing each respondent, complainant, 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;
3. Record or transcribe each interview, provide the recording or transcript to the interviewee for correction, and include the recording or transcript in the record of the investigation; and
4. Pursue Pursuing diligently 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.; and
5. Considering the prospect of additional researchers being responsible for the alleged research misconduct.

5. Additional Allegations and Respondents.

1. If additional allegations are identified during the course of the investigation, the RIO shall provide the respondent with written notice of the allegation(s). Additional sequestration may be required per (C)(3).
2. If additional respondents are identified during the course of the investigation, separate inquiry is not required. Additional respondents shall receive written notice and an offer to meet to advise them of their rights. Additional sequestration may be required per (C)(3).

6. The Investigation Report. The Investigation Committeeinvestigation committee, with the assistance of the RIO, is responsible for preparing shall prepare a written report of the investigation report that: describes the committee's recommendation regarding whether research misconduct occurred in each described allegation and the basis for the committee's recommendation. The committee may also make recommendations regarding appropriate institutional actions and sanctions. 

1. Describes the nature of the allegation of research misconduct, including identification of the respondent;
2. Describes and documents the federal support, including, for example, the numbers of any grants that are involved, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing federal support;
3. Describes the specific allegations of research misconduct considered in the investigation;
4. Identifies and summarizes the research records and evidence reviewed and identifies any evidence taken into custody but not reviewed;
5. Includes a statement of findings for each allegation of research misconduct identified during the investigation. Each statement of findings must:
   1. Identify whether the research misconduct was falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism, and whether it was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly;
   2. Summarize the facts and the analysis that support the conclusion and consider the merits of any reasonable explanation by the respondent, including any effort by respondent to establish that they did not engage in Research Misconduct because of honest error or a difference of opinion;
   3. Identify the specific federal support;
   4. Identify whether any publications need correction or retraction;  
   5. Identify the person(s) responsible for the misconduct; and
   6. List any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with all federal agencies; and
6. Recommends appropriate corrective actions and/or sanctions if research misconduct is found.

1. Notification to the Respondent, Access to Evidence, and Opportunity to Comment
   1. The RIO shall give provide the respondent a with a draft 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 with a written notice that the respondent will be allowed may submit written comments within thirty (30) calendar days. from the date he/she received the draft report to submit comments to the RIO. Any comments that are submitted by the respondent will be attached to the final investigation report. Based on the comments, the Investigation Committee investigation committee may revise the draft report as appropriate before preparing it in final form.
   2. In distributing the draft 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. For example, the RIO may require that the recipient sign a confidentiality agreement.

7. Institutional Decision Determination and Notification

1. Decision Determination by Deciding Official. The RIO will transmit the final inquiry investigation report and any comments to the DO, who within ten (10) calendar days will determine in writing (1) whether the institution accepts the investigation report, and its findings, and the recommended institutional actions; and, if so, (2) the appropriate institutional actions in response to the accepted findings of research misconduct. In the event the DO disagrees with any of the Investigation Committee’s recommendations, the DO will document the basis for their decision in writing. Alternatively, the DO may return the report to the investigation Committee with a request for further fact-finding or analysis.
   1. In the event the DO disagrees with any of the investigation committee’s recommendations, the DO will document the basis in writing. Alternatively, the DO may return the report to the investigation committee with a request for further fact-finding, analysis, or clarification. In such an instance, the RIO shall give the respondent a copy of any revised investigation report for additional comment.
   2. The factual findings of the investigation committee, once accepted by the DO, are final and not subject to appeal. Factual findings of the investigation committee are binding for purposes of any later related University proceedings initiated by the respondent.
2. Notification of Decision Determination
   1. When a final decision on the case has been reached, the RIO (or, in the case of federal agencies required to be notified, the DO), The RIO shall notify the following of the DO's determination: the respondent; the complainant; the relevant dean(s); the Chancellor, Provost, or other senior official of the campus on which the respondent holds primary appointment; the University General Counsel; appropriate institutional officials; the members of the Investigation Committee; and any investigation committee; oversight and funding agencies as applicable, and government officials as applicable. required to be notified of the DO’s decision.
   2. The RIO, in consultation with the DO, 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 case.
   3. If the DO decides that there was no research misconduct, the RIO shall take reasonable steps to inform anyone else known to have knowledge of the investigation. Depending on the particular circumstances and the views of the respondent, the RIO shall also advise the DO concerning other measures to restore the reputation of the respondent, including publicizing the final outcome in any forum in which the allegation of research misconduct was previously publicized.

8. Time for Completion

1. The investigation, including preparing preparation of the final investigation report of findings, providing the draft report for comment, and the decision determination of the DO, must be completed within 120 180 calendar days of initiation of the inquiry investigation, unless the DO approves an extension. The If extended, the investigation record report must include documentation of document the reasons for exceeding the 120180-day period.
2. IfFor research involving PHS or other federal support, ifthe DO approves an extension, if applicable, the RIO will submit to ORI a written request to the relevant funding agency for an extension, setting forth the reasons for the delay. The RIO extension and will ensure that periodic progress reports are filed with ORI, if ORI grants the funding agency upon request. for an extension and directs the filing of such reports.

D. Institutional Administrative Actions. If and Sanctions. Based on, the DO determines that facts and circumstances of the research misconduct is substantiated by the findings, the DO will decide on the determine appropriate institutional actions to be taken, after consultation with the RIO. The and sanctions. Institutional administrative actions and sanctions may include, but are not limited to the following:

1. Withdrawal orActions to correct the research record, including correction or retraction of all pending or published abstracts and papers work emanating from or affected by the research where research misconduct was found;
2. Removal of the responsible person from the particular project,
3. Actions related to research grants, including withdrawal of pending applications, suspension and/or termination of grants, or payback of funds to the grantor agency;
4. Compliance and monitoring activities, including directing audits, requiring ongoing oversight, or revocation of compliance approvals; and
5. Prohibition on research activities conducted under the auspices of Indiana University; letter of reprimand, special monitoring of future work,; rescinding of degrees; removal from degree programs where research is an essential component; probation, suspension, salary reduction, or initiation of steps leading to possible rank reduction or termination of employment.;
6. Restitution of funds to the grantor agency as appropriate; and
7. Other action appropriate to the research misconduct.

E. Appeals

1. Through Upon completion of the process provided in this section investigation, the respondent may appeal a research misconduct determination or sanction. Appeals may be taken based on the following:
   1. Claims that the investigation proceedings deviated from this policy to the review body available to persons in the respondent’s appointment classification for the purpose of hearing employment grievances [e.g., extent that the respondent was denied due process; or
   2. Claims that sanctions related to employment or enrollment status imposed as a result of a finding of research misconduct are disproportionate to the finding.
   3. Faculty Board of review (in the case of academic appointees), the appropriate Graduate School body (where applicable in the case of graduate students), or the processes established by the University personnel policies relating to employee conduct (in the case of staff employees). The procedures described in this Policy constitute the exclusive internal process for appealing DO decisions concerning allegations of research misconduct.
2. Appeals must be in writing and must be submitted to the appropriate body within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of notice of the DO’s decision. The respondent shall submit a copy of the appeal to the DO.
3. Appeals shall be limited to:
   1. Claims that there were one or more specific procedural errors, which must be specified, that create a significant risk that the outcome was erroneous; or
   2. Grievances of sanctions imposed as a result of a finding of research misconductare.
4. The following are not subject to appeal:
   1. The factual record established during the investigation; shall constitute the factual record for the purposes of the Appeal. The Appeal body may not review the factual finding of misconduct.
5. Appeals involving research funded by the federal government must be completed within 120 calendar days, unless an extension is received from ORI.

1. Allegations Against Complainants
   1. If at any point during a research misconduct proceeding there is an allegation or a reasonable basis for believing that a complainant may bear any responsibility for the alleged research misconduct, the RIO shall:
      1. Notify the complainant promptly of that allegation or reasonable basis; and
      2. Accord the complainant all protections provided for respondents.
   2. Upon the request of any complainant receiving such notification, the DO may approve a reasonable delay in any proceeding necessary to protect the complainant’s interests, but the process shall not commence anew.
      1. Correction of Erroneous Findings of Research Misconduct. If at any time a competent court or other government body determines that a finding of research misconductwas erroneous, the DO shall promptly make all reasonable
      2. The DO's finding of research misconduct, or lack thereof; or 
      3. Institutional actions to correct the research record or institutional actions related to research grants or compliance and monitoring activities.
   3. Appeals must be in writing and must be submitted to the RIO and DO within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of notice of the DO's determination. practical efforts to restore the reputation of the respondent.
   4. Appeals will be reviewed by the Chief Academic Officer (CAO) of the responsible campus within 21 days of receipt. Upon review, the CAO may:
      1. Recommend to the DO that a new investigation be initiated, if the CAO determines that investigation pProceedings deviated from this policy to the extent that therespondent was denied due process;
      2. Recommend alternative sanctions to the DO, if the CAO determines that sanctions related to employment or enrollment imposed as a result of a finding of research misconduct are disproportionate to the finding; or
      3. Decline to recommend additional action.

F. Admissions of Research Misconduct. If, at any stage of a research misconduct proceeding, a respondent, having been informed of their rights under the Research Misconduct Policy, admits to research misconduct, the DO may elect to proceed directly to the determination of appropriate administrative actions and sanctions.

II. Maintaining Additional Procedures

1.  Retention of Records
   1. After completion of the case and all ensuing related actions, the RIO shall prepare a complete file, including the original records of all proceeding conducted by the inquiry and Investigation Committees and copies of all documents and other materials furnished to the RIO or to the Inquiry or Investigation Committee. Retention period. The RIO shall seal the file and retain itmaintain the Institutional Record and all evidence, including physical objects, in a secure manner for seven (7) years after completion of the proceeding from completion of the institutional proceedings (e.g., DO decision that inquiry is not warranted, DO determination after investigation, or completion of any appeal) or the completion of any subsequent government proceeding involving the alleged research misconduct, whichever is later.
   2. AccessDuring the retention period, access to the materials in the file shall be available only upon authorization of the DORIO, in consultation with the DO as necessary, for good cause.
   3. The RIO shallAt the end of the retention period, the RIO shall make all reasonable attempts to return all original documents and materials research records to the persons who furnished them. and will destroy the remaining file. 
   4. The RIO may retain the file if the RIO makes a written finding stating the reasons why retention is needed and the period during which the file is to be maintained.
2. After seven (7) years from the completion of the investigation and all ensuing related actions, if any, the RIO will destroy the file unless the reasons why and the period during which the file is to be maintained
3. the RIO makes a written findingthat there is reason to retain it. The finding will state explicitly the reasons why and the period during which the file is to be maintained, and will be entered in the file. The RIO shall provide to the respondent either a notice that the file has been destroyed or a copy of the written finding that the file will be retained.

B. Interim Administrative Actions

1. The DO shall may, at any time during a research misconduct proceeding, take appropriate interim actions as required by law or as necessary to protect public health or safety, the integrity of research, fundamental fairness to the respondent or other parties, or an overriding interest of the University.
2. Interim actions may include, but are not limited to, suspension of research, additional monitoring of the research process, including data and results, additional monitoring or reassignment of handling of federal funds and equipment, delay or suspension of publications and/or grants, reassignment of trainees or suspension of assignment of new trainees, or informing the research community or the public.
3. If the research involves federal funding, the DOinstitution, unless prohibited by law, shall notify ORI immediately if the DO 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. Federal government resources or interests are threatened;
   3. There is a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law;
   4. Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding;
   5. The research misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely and federal action may be necessary to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved; or
   6. The research community or public should otherwise be informed.

1. 1. Interim actions include, but are not limited to, a temporary suspension of research, additional monitoring of the research process and the handling of federal funds and equipment, reassignment of personnel or of the responsibility for the handling of federal funds and equipment, additional review of research data and results, delaying publication, or informing the research community or the public.
2. Reporting to Federal Agencies
   1. Premature Termination. The DO shall notify ORI in advance if there are plans to close a case at the inquiry, investigation, or appeal stage on the basis that respondent has admitted guilt, a settlement with the respondent has been reached, or for any other reason, except:
      1. Closing of a case at the inquiry stage on the basis that an investigation is not warranted; or
      2. Finding of no misconduct at the investigation stage, which must be reported to the federal agency, as prescribed in this policy.
   2. Notice to ORI of Institutional Findings and Actions. Unless an extension has been granted, the RIO must, within the 120-day period for completing the investigation, or the 120-day period for completion of any appeal, submit the following to ORI:
      1. A copy of the final investigation report with all attachments and any appeal;
      2. A statement of whether the institution accepts the findings of the investigation report or the outcome of the appeal;
      3. A statement of whether the institution found misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct; and
      4. A description of any pending or completed administrative actions against the respondent.

C. Termination or Resignation Prior to Completing Inquiry or Investigation. The termination of the respondent's institutional employment, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation of possible research misconduct has been reported, will not preclude or terminate the research misconduct proceeding or otherwise limit any of the institution’s responsibilities. If the respondent refuses to participate in the process after resignation, the RIO and any inquiry or investigation Committee committee will use their best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the allegations, noting in the report the respondent's failure to cooperate and its effect on the evidence.

1. Protection of the Complainant, Witnesses and Committee Members. During the research misconduct proceeding and upon its completion, regardless of whether the institution or ORI determines that research misconduct occurred, the RIO must undertake all reasonable and practical efforts to protect the position and reputation of, or to counter potential or actual retaliation against, any complainant who made allegations of research misconduct in good faith and of any witnesses and committee members who cooperate in good faith with the research misconduct proceeding. The DO will determine, after consulting with the RIO, and with the complainant, witnesses, or committee members, respectively, what steps, if any, are needed to restore their respective positions or reputations or to counter potential or actual retaliation against them. The RIO is responsible for implementing any steps the DO approves.
2. Allegations Not Made in Good Faith. If the DO determines that the complainant’s allegation of research misconduct was made with knowledge that the allegation was false, or with reckless disregard for or willful ignorance of facts that would disprove the allegation, or that any member of the University community acted in violation of this Policy, the DO will determine whether any administrative action should be taken against such person.

D. Departure from Procedures. The DO may approve departures from these procedures as required by law or, including appointment of an ad hoc investigation committee to address sensitive matters, as necessary to protect public health or safety, the integrity of research, fundamental fairness to the respondent or other parties, or an overriding interest of the University. The DO RIO shall document any significant departures in writing. and shall provide written notice to the Research Affairs Committees of the Bloomington and Indianapolis Faculty Councils of any systematically recurring departures from these procedures.

Back to top

Definitions

Accepted practices of the relevant research community: those practices established by applicable laws and regulations, institutional policy and procedures, funding components, as well as commonly accepted professional codes or norms within the overarching community of researchers and research institutions.

Allegation: A written disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication brought to the RIO or DO that triggers the procedures described by this policy Policy. An allegation must be more than

Assessment:a conclusory statement, and should provide sufficient specificity to allow a determination as to A consideration of whether the conduct alleged, if true, falls within this Policy.an allegation of research misconduct appears to fall within the definition of research misconduct and this Policy and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. The assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation.

Complainant:A person An individual who submits makes an allegation of research misconduct.

Conflict of Interest: A professional or personal, professional, or financial relationship or activity with the respondent or other parties, beyond that of a mere acquaintance or colleague, that might affect, or reasonably appear to affect, the an individual’s ability to be impartial.

Deciding Official (DO): The University institutional official appointed by the President to implement and oversee this policy consistent with applicable laws.and who makes final determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any institutional actions and sanctions. The Vice President for Research is delegated the authority to serve as the Deciding Official (DO) as outlined in this Policy. 

Evidence: anything offered or obtained during a research misconduct proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact, including documents, whether in hard copy or electronic form, information, tangible items, and interview transcripts.

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

Falsification:  manipulating research documents, 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:

1. As applied to a complainant or witness, 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.
2. As applied to an institutional or committee member, cooperating with the research misconduct proceeding by impartially carrying out the duties assigned for the purpose of helping an institution meet its responsibilities under this Policy. An institutional 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.

Inquiry: The process under the Policy this policy for information gathering and preliminary fact-finding to determine if an allegation or apparent instance of a research misconduct has substance and therefore allegation warrants an investigation.

Institutional record: The records compiled or generated during a research misconduct proceeding, except records not considered or relied upon.

1. The institutional record includes, but is not limited to:
   • Documentation of the assessment;
   • If an inquiry is conducted, the inquiry report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the inquiry, including, but not limited to, research records, and the transcripts of any transcribed interviews conducted during the inquiry, information the respondent provided to the institution, and the documentation of any decision not to investigate;
   • If an investigation is conducted, the investigation report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the investigation, including, but not limited to, research records, the transcripts of each interview, and information the respondent provided to the institution.
   • Determination by the Deciding Official;
   • The complete record of any institutional appeal;
   • A single index listing all the research records and evidence that the institution compiled during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the institution did not consider or rely on; and
   • A general description of the records and evidence that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.
2. Records are “not considered” if they are not provided to the full inquiry or investigation committee for review as part of the research misconduct proceedings.
3. Records are “not relied upon” when they do not form the basis of the committee’s justification for whether an investigation is warranted or whether a finding of research misconduct is recommended. In general, all records that are relied upon will be cited in the final inquiry or investigation report.
4. “Drafts of the report” include any work product in furtherance of a final report, including committee deliberation, draft analysis, draft language, and communication between committee members and/or RIO staff about such drafts.

Intentionally: To act with the aim of carrying out the act

Investigation: The process under the Policy this policy for the formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts, leading to determine recommended findings on whether research misconduct has occurred been committed, by whom, and, if so,to what extent, and steps to be taken to correct the responsible person and the seriousness of the misconduct research record.

ORI: The federal

Knowingly: To act with awareness of the fact

Office of Research Integrity.

Reckless:
The researcher, in proposing, performing, or reviewing (ORI): The federal office to which the HHS Secretary has delegated responsibility for addressing research, or in reporting research results, was or should have been aware that an act or omission: integrity and misconduct issues related to PHS-supported activities.

1. was a significant departure from accepted standards of the relevant research community; and b. posed a substantial risk that such conduct could result in falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism; and
2. The researcher, either by action or inaction, failed to do what a researcher adhering to the standards of research practice and oversight in the relevant research community would have done under these circumstances to prevent the falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism.

Plagiarism: The appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. 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. 

Preponderance of evidence: Proof by evidence that, compared with evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely true than not true.

Recklessly: To propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. Indifference includes failure, either by action or inaction, to do what a reasonable researcher would have done under the circumstances to prevent the falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism.

Research: A systematic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge. The term encompasses, including basic and applied research, as well as research training activities.

Research Integrity Officer (RIO):A person Institutional official identified by the DO to have primary responsibilityas the individual responsible for assuring adherence to these procedures. administering this policy. The RIO may delegate activities to staff members.

Research Misconduct:The fabrication, Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.

1. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
2. Falsification is 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.
3. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
4. Research misconduct does not include disputes regarding honest error or good faith, differences in interpretations or judgments of data, and is not intended to resolve good faith scientific or scholarly disagreement. Research misconduct is also not intended to include “opinion, self-plagiarism, or authorship” disputes such as complaints about appropriate ranking of co-authors in publications, presentations, or other work, unless the dispute otherwise constitutes falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism.

Research Record:Any The record of data, document, computer file, digital medium, or any other written or non-written account or object results that reasonablyembody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry. Data or results may be expected to provide evidencein physical or electronic form. Examples of items, materials, or information regarding the proposed, conducted, or reported that may be considered part of the research that constitutes the subject of an allegation ofrecord include, but are not limited to,research misconduct. A proposals, raw data, processed data, clinical research record includes, but is not limited to, grant or contract applications, whether funded or unfunded; grant or contract progress and other reports; records, animal research records, laboratory records, study records, laboratory notebooks; notes; printed or electronic correspondence; memoranda of telephone calls; videos; photographs; X-ray film; slides; biological materials; computer files and printouts; progress reports, manuscripts and publications; equipment use logs; laboratory procurement records; animal facility records; human and animal subject protocols; consent forms; medical charts; and patient research files.abstracts, theses, recordings of oral presentations, online content, lab meeting reports, and journal articles.

Respondent: The person individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed, or the person whose actions are who is the subject of an inquiry or investigation.

Sponsored Programs: Research, training, and instructional projects involving funds, materials, gifts, or other compensation from external entities (including any individual and government agencies) under agreements with the University.

Retaliation: Acts of retaliation include intimidation, threats, coercion, discrimination, and/or harassment, whether physical or communicated verbally or via written communication (including the use of e-mail, texts, and social media).

Back to top

History

(By Action of the University Faculty Council: February 10, 1998; By Action of the University Faculty Council: April 24, 2007; Adapted from Policy On Research Integrity And Guidelines For Establishing Procedures For Responding To Allegations Of Research Misconduct, By Action of the University Faculty Council: November 24, 2009 By Action of the University Faculty Council: March 27, 2012)

Revisions to policy approved by UFC and University President, April 18, 2017

June 2025- Substantive revisions and update Responsible Administrator

Previous Version:

Effective Dates: 3/27/2012 through 4/18/2017

Effective Dates: 4/18/2017 through 12/31/2025

Back to top