Research Misconduct

Scope

1. This policy applies to all individuals engaged in the design, conduct, or reporting of research conducted under the auspices of Indiana University, regardless of funding source.
2. This policy applies to allegations of potential research misconduct received on or after December 16, 2025.
3. Except for research misconduct in the context of a Sponsored Program, allegations of research misconduct by undergraduate students shall be dealt with through STU-00: Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct or such other disciplinary process duly established by a campus or academic unit.
4. 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.  
5. 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.
6. Pursuant to IC-21-38-11, faculty governance organization actions are advisory only.
7. 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

1. Responsibilities of the University Community. All members of the university community must (1) guard against research misconduct by themselves, their colleagues and collaborators, and the people they 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.
2. Protecting Parties
   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. 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 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 and other institutional officials must take reasonable steps to counter threatened and/or actual retaliation against 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 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.
3. Confidentiality
   1. Disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses will be limited, to the extent possible, to those who need to know consistent with a thorough, competent, objective, and fair research misconduct proceeding while the research misconduct proceeding is ongoing.
   2. Except as otherwise prescribed by law, 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 to carry out a research misconduct proceeding.
   3. Disclosure of information about research misconduct allegations and proceedings, 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.
4. Conflicts of Interest. At all stages of research misconduct proceedings, all persons involved shall report any potential, perceived, 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.
5. Standard of Review
   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 misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
      3. The allegations be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
   2. A respondent’s destruction of research records 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.
6. Limitation of Actions. This policy applies to potential research misconduct occurring within six (6) years of the date on which the RIO receives an allegation of research misconduct unless:
   1. The respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct that occurred before the six-year limitation through the use of, republication of, or citation to the portion(s) of the research record 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 would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public.
7. The Standing Committee
   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. The majority of RISC members shall be tenured or tenure-track faculty members chosen to reflect disciplinary diversity. RISC members will serve as members of inquiry and investigation committees, advise inquiry and investigation committees, and will review and approve Research Integrity Office Standard Operating Procedures.
   2. The DO will appoint a Research Integrity Standing Committee (RISC) Chair who is a tenured, Full Professor faculty member with a proven track record in research. The RISC Chair will assist in facilitating the work of the RISC, including:
      1. Reviewing and revising this policy and Research Integrity Office Standard Operating Procedures;
      2. Assisting the RIO in assessing allegations of research misconduct, as needed;
      3. Conducting the inquiry process with the RIO, as described below; and
      4. 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 mentors, 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 in a thorough, competent, objective, and fair manner.

Back to top

Procedures

1. Research Misconduct Proceedings

1. Allegation Assessment Process.
   1. Any person, whether associated with the university or not, may bring an allegation of research misconduct.
   2. On receipt of an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO shall assess the allegation to determine whether the allegation 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 another appropriate person or process for further investigation or action.
   3. The RIO will document the assessment, including whether an inquiry is warranted and the relevant justification.
   4. 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.
2. The Inquiry Process. If the RIO determines that the criteria for an inquiry are met, the RIO will initiate the inquiry process.
   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. 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 all research records and other evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester them in a secure manner. Whenever possible, the RIO will obtain the research records and other evidence before or at the time the RIO notifies the respondent of the allegation.
      1. Wherever possible, custody will be limited to copies of the data or evidence, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value.
      2. Where appropriate, the RIO shall give the respondent copies of, or reasonable, supervised access to the sequestered research records and other evidence.
   3. Notice
      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.
      2. The RIO shall notify the DO, appropriate institutional officials, and others who need to know of the initiation of any inquiry.
   4. The inquiry will be conducted by an inquiry committee consisting of, at minimum, the Research Integrity Standing Committee (RISC) Chair and the RIO. The RISC 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.
   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. 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 RIO shall provide the respondent with a draft copy of the inquiry report with a written notice that the respondent may submit written comments within ten (10) calendar days. Any comments submitted by the respondent will be attached to the final inquiry report transmitted to the DO. Based on the comments, the 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 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 in writing. Alternatively, the DO 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 shall notify the following of the DO’s decision: the respondent; the complainant; appropriate institutional officials; the members of the inquiry committee; oversight and funding agencies as applicable, and government officials as applicable.
   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 90 calendar days of initiation of the inquiry, unless circumstances warrant a longer period. If the inquiry takes longer than 90 days to complete, the inquiry report must document the reasons for exceeding the 90-day period.
3. The Investigation Process
   1. 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.
   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 all research 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.
      1. Wherever possible, custody will be limited to copies of the data or evidence, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value.
      2. Where appropriate, the RIO shall give the respondent copies of, or reasonable, supervised access to the sequestered research records and other evidence.
   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.
   4. Investigation Committee. The investigation shall be conducted by an 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 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. Where the respondent is a member of the faculty, a majority of the investigation committee members shall be tenured or tenure-track faculty.
      3. The RIO shall notify the respondent of the committee membership and 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. If the objection is denied, the respondent will be provided with notice and rationale for the denial. The DO’s decision as to whether a committee member requires replacement is final.
      4. The Investigation Committee, assisted by the RIO, shall ensure that the investigation is thorough, impartial, fair, and appropriately documented. This includes:
         1. Examining all relevant research records and other evidence relevant to reaching a 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. 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
         4. 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)(2).
   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)(2).
6. The Investigation Report. The investigation committee, with the assistance of the RIO, shall prepare a written 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. The RIO shall provide the respondent with a draft copy of the investigation report and a copy of, or supervised access to, the evidence on which the report is based, with a written notice that the respondent may submit written comments within thirty (30) calendar days. Any comments submitted by the respondent will be attached to the final investigation report. Based on the comments, the investigation committee may revise the draft report as appropriate before preparing it in final form.
7. Institutional Determination and Notification
   1. Determination by Deciding Official. The RIO will transmit the final 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, if so, (2) the appropriate institutional actions in response to the accepted findings of research misconduct.
      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 Determination
      1. The RIO shall notify the following of the DO’s determination: the respondent; the complainant; appropriate institutional officials; the members of the investigation committee; oversight and funding agencies as applicable, and government officials as applicable.
      2. The RIO, in consultation with the DO, will determine whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals, collaborators of the respondent, or other relevant parties should be notified of the outcome of the case.
8. Time for Completion
   1. The investigation, including preparation of the final investigation report and the determination of the DO, must be completed within 180 calendar days of initiation of the investigation, unless the DO approves an extension. If extended, the investigation report must document the reasons for exceeding the 180-day period.
   2. For research involving PHS or other federal support, if the DO approves an extension, the RIO will submit a written request to the relevant funding agency for an extension, setting forth the reasons for the extension and will ensure that periodic progress reports are filed with the funding agency upon request.

D. Institutional Actions and Sanctions. Based on the facts and circumstances of the research misconduct, the DO will determine appropriate institutional actions and sanctions. Institutional administrative actions and sanctions may include, but are not limited to the following:

1. Actions to correct the research record, including correction or retraction of pending or published work emanating from or affected by the research where research misconduct was found;
2. Actions related to research grants, including withdrawal of pending applications, suspension and/or termination of grants, or payback of funds to the grantor agency;
3. Compliance and monitoring activities, including directing audits, requiring ongoing oversight, or revocation of compliance approvals; and
4. Disclosure of findings to appropriate parties; prohibition on research activities conducted under the auspices of Indiana University; letter of reprimand; rescinding of degrees; removal from degree programs where research is an essential component; probation, suspension, or termination of employment.

E. Appeals

1. Upon completion of the investigation, the respondent may appeal based on the following:
   1. Claims that the investigation proceedings deviated from this policy to the 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.
2. The following are not subject to appeal:
   1. The factual record established during the investigation;
   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.
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 proceedings deviated from this policy to the extent that the respondent 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. Additional Procedures

1. Retention of Records
   1. Retention period. The RIO shall maintain the Institutional Record and all evidence, including physical objects, in a secure manner for seven (7) years 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. During the retention period, access to the materials in the file shall be available only upon authorization of the RIO, in consultation with the DO as necessary, for good cause.
   3. At the end of the retention period, the RIO shall make all reasonable attempts to return all original 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. The respondent shall be informed when files are retained, the reasons for retention, and the duration that the files are to be retained.
2. Interim Administrative Actions
   1. The DO may, at any time during a research misconduct proceeding, take appropriate interim actions 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 institution, unless prohibited by law, shall notify ORI immediately if 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.
3. 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 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.
4. Departure from Procedures. The DO may approve departures from these procedures, 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 RIO shall document any significant departures in writing.

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 disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication brought to the attention of the RIO that triggers the procedures described by this policy.

Assessment: A consideration of whether 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: An individual who makes an allegation of research misconduct.

Conflict of Interest: A 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, an individual’s ability to be impartial.

Deciding Official (DO): The 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 this policy for information gathering and preliminary fact-finding to determine if a research misconduct 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:
   1. Documentation of the assessment;
   2. 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;
   3. 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.
   4. Determination by the Deciding Official;
   5. The complete record of any institutional appeal;
   6. 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
   7. 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 this policy for the formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts, 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.

Knowingly: To act with awareness of the fact.

Office of Research Integrity (ORI): The federal office to which the HHS Secretary has delegated responsibility for addressing research integrity and misconduct issues related to PHS-supported activities.  

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 the 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, including  basic and applied research.  

Research Integrity Officer (RIO): Institutional official identified by the DO as the individual responsible for administering this policy. The RIO may delegate activities to staff members.

Research Misconduct: Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research misconduct does not include honest error, differences in 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: 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, animal research records, laboratory records, study records, laboratory notebooks, progress reports, manuscripts, abstracts, theses, recordings of oral presentations, online content, lab meeting reports, and journal articles.

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

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

Substantive revisions and update Responsible Administrator, June 2025.

Substantive revisions, December 2025.

Previous Version:

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

Effective Dates: 4/18/2017 through 12/15/2025

Back to top