Policy on Ethical Conduct in Research and Scholarship

  1. Home
  2. Offices and Services
  3. Office of Sponsored Programs
  4. Policies
  5. Policy on Ethical Conduct in Research and Scholarship
Offices and Services

This statement of Policy and Procedures on Ethical Conduct in Research and Scholarship (“Policy”) provides guidance on the reporting, Assessment, Inquiry, and Investigation of Allegations of Research Misconduct and is effective as of January 1, 2026. To report a potential violation of this policy please contact the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) identified in the Roles and Responsibilities section below.

Policy

Davidson College “dedicates itself to the quest for truth and encourages teachers and students to explore the whole of reality, whether physical or spiritual, with unlimited employment of their intellectual powers.” These words from the College's Statement of Purpose reflect its commitment to support and encourage full freedom, within the bounds of the law, of inquiry, research and publication. Members of the faculty and staff recognize that accuracy, forthrightness and dignity befit their association with the college and their position as men and women with a shared commitment to the highest principles of learning.

In addition to our policy that research and scholarship shall be characterized by the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior, it is further the policy of the college to inform fully all affected parties where research data or results of projects or programs sponsored by, under the administrative supervision of, or under the auspices of the college have been falsified or otherwise misrepresented or other misconduct in research or scholarship has occurred

Each member of the college community has a personal responsibility for implementing this policy in relation to any scholarly work with which he or she is associated, and for helping his or her associates in continuing efforts to avoid misconduct in research, scholarship and any other activity which might be considered in violation of this Policy. Failure to comply with this Policy is considered to be a violation of the ethical standards of the college and of the trust placed in each member of the faculty and staff and shall be dealt with according to the procedures specified herein.

Davidson College strives to reduce the risk of research misconduct, support all good-faith efforts to report suspected misconduct, promptly and thoroughly address all allegations of research misconduct, and seek to rectify the scientific record and/or restore researchers’ reputations, as appropriate.  The College is responsible for ensuring that this Policy meets the requirements of the Public Health Services Policies on Research Misconduct (42 CFR Part 93, the “PHS regulation”). 

1.Scope

This Policy applies to all Research activities proposed and conducted by academic, scientific, and professional staff, employees and faculty, emeritus faculty, and students of the College, whether or not they are externally funded and irrespective of the funding source, during their employment by or term of their contract with the College. The College will follow this Policy upon receipt of an Allegation of possible Research Misconduct. When applying this Policy to Allegations of Research Misconduct involving non-PHS supported Research, the College may, to the extent not prohibited by law and with prior Notice to the Respondent, waive or deviate from specific requirements in this Policy. In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between this Policy and the requirements of applicable law or regulation, such applicable law or regulation shall govern to the extent necessary to resolve such conflict or inconsistency. 

2. Definitions

For purposes of this Policy, the College uses the definitions in 42 CFR Part 93, Subpart B, including, but not limited to: Allegation, Assessment, Inquiry, Investigation, Research Record, Evidence, Complainant, Respondent, Research Misconduct, Retaliation, Preponderance of the Evidence, and related terms. Defined terms are capitalized throughout this Policy, and a full list of defined terms is included as an appendix to this Policy.

3. Commitment to Integrity

The College fosters a culture of research integrity and will:

  1. Respond to Allegations of Research Misconduct promptly and fairly;
  2. Protect the integrity of the Research Record;
  3. Protect Good-Faith Complainants, witnesses, and committee members from Retaliation;
  4. Provide Respondents a fair process, including timely Notice and opportunity to respond;
  5. Ensure that Research Misconduct Proceedings remain independent and thorough;
  6. Comply with all reporting, recordkeeping, confidentiality, and cooperation obligations under 42 CFR Part 93.

4. What Constitutes Research Misconduct

“Research Misconduct” means Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism in the proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting Research results. It does not include honest error or differences of opinion. 

A finding of Research Misconduct requires that:

  1. There was a significant departure from Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community;
  2. The misconduct was committed Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly; and
  3. The Allegation is proven by a Preponderance of the Evidence.

Other violations (e.g., authorship disputes, negligence, poor recordkeeping, IRB noncompliance) may be addressed under other College policies. 

5. Responsibility to Report Misconduct

Davidson College employees must report observed, suspected, or apparent Research Misconduct to the Research Integrity Officer (RIO). They may also be reported to the VPAA Office, the Office of General Counsel, a Chair, a Dean, or to a Program or Institute Director. Anonymous reports may be made to the Campus Conduct Hotline.

If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of Research Misconduct, they may contact the RIO to discuss the suspected Research Misconduct informally, which may include discussing it anonymously and/or hypothetically. If the circumstances described by the individual do not meet the definition of Research Misconduct, the RIO will make a referral to other offices with responsibility for addressing the issue. In the event that the discussion proceeds to an Allegation, the associated confidentiality provisions set forth in this Policy will apply.

6. Overview of the Research Misconduct Process

The Process occurs in three phases:

  1. Assessment, which is the initial review by the RIO;
  2. Inquiry, which is preliminary fact-finding and recommendation whether an Investigation is warranted; and
  3. Investigation, which is the formal development of a record and institutional findings.

7. Interim Administrative Actions

  1. At any stage, the College may take interim administrative actions to protect research funds, subjects, equipment, records, and the integrity of the research process.
  2. The College may temporarily suspend with pay the individual under investigation from research projects if the College determines that the integrity of the investigation or serious harm to the individual or others would be threatened by the individual's continuance of his or her duties.
  3. The RIO will promptly notify any federal sponsors if the College has reasonable indication of any of the following: (i) a threat to public health or safety; (ii) a need to protect human subjects or animal welfare; (iii) a need to protect Federal funds or equipment; (iv) a need to prevent or mitigate serious noncompliance with PHS requirements; (v) a reasonable indication of possible violations of criminal or civil law; or (vi) a need to protect the integrity of the research process (e.g., imminent publication or ongoing collaborations where integrity is at risk).
  4. The College will report any Allegations of Research Misconduct involving human or animal subjects to the Chair of the Human Subjects Institutional Review Board (HSIRB) or the Chair of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), as appropriate, to ensure compliance with federal regulations specific to research involving human or animal subjects.

8. Roles and Responsibilities

  1. Research Integrity Officer (RIO). The Assistant Dean for Research Development and Director of Sponsored Programs serves as the RIO and has primary responsibility for: (i) receiving Allegations; (ii) conducting Assessments; (iii) sequestering Research Records and Evidence; (iv) appointing Inquiry and Investigation committees; (v) ensuring timelines are met (or extensions justified and documented); (vi) communicating with the U.S. Office of Research Integrity, sponsors, journals, and other entities as required; and maintaining the official record of Research Misconduct Proceedings.
  2. Institutional Deciding Official (IDO). The Vice President of Academic Affairs and Dean of Faculty (“VPAA”) serves as the IDO and will: (i) receive Inquiry and Investigation reports; (ii) decide whether misconduct occurred; and (iii) ensure appropriate corrective actions are taken.
  3. Complainant. The Complainant should provide information in Good Faith, cooperate as requested, and maintain confidentiality.
  4. Respondent. The Respondent must cooperate, preserve records, maintain confidentiality, and may: (i) be accompanied by an advisor (including legal counsel) at the Respondent’s expense; and (ii) review and comment on draft Inquiry/Investigation reports and relevant Evidence as provided in this Policy.
  5. Committees (Inquiry and Investigation). Members must be impartial, have appropriate expertise, disclose conflicts, maintain confidentiality, and conduct proceedings competently and objectively.

9. Confidentiality and Privacy

To the extent allowed by law, and as required by any applicable federal regulations, the College and all parties involved with a Research Misconduct Proceeding shall, to the extent possible, limit disclosure of identifying information to those with a need to know to carry out a thorough, competent, objective, and fair Research Misconduct Proceeding. Limitations on the disclosure of identifying information does not apply once the College has made a final determination of Research Misconduct. 

The College will maintain records securely and restrict access to the RIO and authorized officials.

10. Non-Retaliation

The College prohibits Retaliation against Good-Faith Complainants, witnesses, committee members, and others who participate in the process. Alleged Retaliation should be immediately reported to the RIO and will be handled promptly under applicable College policies and may result in discipline. 

11. Assessment: Purpose and Process

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

Upon receiving an Allegation, the RIO will promptly assess whether: (i) the Allegation falls within the definition of Research Misconduct under this Policy; and (ii) the Allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential Evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified. An Inquiry must be conducted if both of these criteria are met. 

The RIO must document the Assessment. If the RIO determines that requirements for an Inquiry are not met, the RIO must keep sufficiently detailed documentation of the Assessment to permit a later review of the reasons why the College did not conduct an Inquiry. 

12. Inquiry: Purpose and Process

If the RIO determines that the criteria for an Inquiry are met, the RIO will initiate the Inquiry process. The purpose of an Inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the available Evidence to determine whether to conduct an Investigation. It is a limited, preliminary evaluation that does not require a full review of all related Evidence. This fact-finding process may include interviews of the Respondent and/or witnesses but does not require exhaustive interviews and analyses to determine whether misconduct definitely occurred. The RIO (or Inquiry Committee) will decide whether an Investigation is warranted based on the Inquiry process and the criteria in this Policy.

  1. Confirmation of Institutional Deciding Official (IDO). The RIO will confirm that the VPAA may serve as the IDO, except where the VPAA is the subject of a Research Misconduct Proceeding or has a personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest.
  2. Sequestration of Research Records and Evidence. Before or at the time the Respondent is notified of the Inquiry, the RIO will take reasonable and practical steps to sequester all relevant Research Records and Evidence needed to evaluate the Allegation. This includes: (i) obtaining the original or substantially equivalent copies of all Research Records and other Evidence that are pertinent to the proceedings; (ii) inventorying these materials; (iii) sequestering the materials in a secure manner; and (iv) retain them per the requirements established in this Policy. The RIO will maintain a documented chain of custody and ensure records are secured to prevent alteration, loss, or unauthorized access.
  3. Notice to Respondent. Before or at the time of the Inquiry, the RIO must make a Good Faith effort to provide written notice to the Respondent of: (i) the Allegation(s) and the general basis for them; (ii) the initiation of the Inquiry and applicable procedures; and (iii) the sequestration of records and the Respondent’s duty to cooperate and preserve evidence. The RIO will provide Respondent a copy of this Policy and will inform Respondent they will be given an opportunity to provide written comments to the draft Inquiry Report. If additional Allegations are subsequently raised, the RIO will notify the Respondent.
  4. Use of an Inquiry Committee. The RIO may conduct the Inquiry, may designate another institutional official to conduct the Inquiry, or may appoint an Inquiry Committee. If an Inquiry Committee is used, the RIO will appoint a committee of a size appropriate to the circumstances, normally three (3) to five (5) voting members. All voting members will be tenured faculty with appropriate expertise and no conflicts of interest. The RIO selects committee members after consultation with institutional officials who can recommend appropriate experts. Where possible, at least one member of the committee will be a current member of the Professional Affairs Committee. The RIO will document the basis for the committee size and composition (including expertise and conflict-of-interest review) in the case file.
  5. Use of Outside Experts. Outside experts may be used if there are no appropriate College faculty members with the necessary technical or scientific expertise or independence to evaluate the Evidence and issues related to the Allegation(s). Outside experts may also be used if special expertise regarding Evidence analysis or fact-finding is warranted. Outside experts are not committee members and serve in a strictly advisory capacity without making any binding decisions or commitments on behalf of the College. Outside experts may interview witnesses and respond to questions during Inquiry deliberations.
  6. Inquiry Process.  Whether conducted by the RIO, a designated official, or committee, the Inquiry process is as follows:
    • Describe the Allegations and any related issues identified during the Assessment.
    • Conduct an initial review of the Evidence, including, where appropriate, receiving and assessing the testimony of Respondent, Complainant, and key witnesses, to determine whether an Investigation is warranted. The purpose of this initial review is not to determine whether Research Misconduct definitely occurred or who was responsible.
    • Determine if an Investigation is warranted. An Investigation is warranted if the RIO or majority of committee members, as applicable, determines: (a) there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the Allegation falls within the definition of Research Misconduct and is within the scope of this Policy; and (b) the preliminary information and fact-finding from the Inquiry indicates the Allegation may have substance.
    • Prepare a written report of the Inquiry. The Inquiry report will include: (a) the committee’s determination of whether an Investigation is warranted; (b) the basis for that recommendation; and c) any recommended interim actions.
    • The Inquiry, including preparation of the final Inquiry report, should be completed within 90 calendar days of initiation of the Inquiry unless the RIO approves an extension with documentation of the reasons for the extension.
  7. Opportunity to Comment on Inquiry report. The RIO will provide Respondent a copy of the draft Inquiry report (or relevant portions, consistent with confidentiality and privacy obligations) and a reasonable opportunity to submit written comments. The College may, but is not required, to provide Complainant(s) with a copy of the draft Inquiry report (or relevant portions, consistent with confidentiality and privacy obligations) and a reasonable opportunity to submit written comments. Respondent and Complainant(s) may need to sign a confidentiality agreement to review the draft Inquiry report. Any comments submitted by Respondent or Complainant(s) will be attached to the final Inquiry Report. The RIO (or Inquiry Committee) may revise the draft report based on the comments and prepare it in final form to be retained by the RIO.
  8. If an Investigation is Warranted. If it is determined an Investigation is warranted, the RIO will provide written notice to the Respondent within a reasonable period of time and may, but is not required, to notify the Complainant(s). Within 30 days, the RIO will inform any responsible federal agencies and provide a copy of the Inquiry report.
  9. If an Investigation is Not Warranted. If it is determined an Investigation is not warranted, the RIO shall secure and maintain for 7 years sufficiently detailed documentation of the Inquiry to permit a later Assessment of the reasons why an Investigation was not conducted. The College will also take reasonable steps to restore Respondent’s reputation if requested and appropriate, and may consider whether any other non-misconduct issues (e.g., training, recordkeeping, mentorship) should be referred for improvement.

13. Investigation: Purpose and Process

The Investigation is a formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine whether Research Misconduct occurred, who was responsible, and the extent and impact of the misconduct. The purpose of the Investigation is to formally develop a factual record leading to recommended findings to the Institutional Deciding Official (IDO). The IDO makes the final decision, based on a Preponderance of the Evidence.

  1. Time Period. The Investigation begins within 30 calendar days after determining it is warranted, and the process will be completed within 180 calendar days, including conducting the Investigation, preparation of the draft and final Investigation reports, providing the draft report for comment, and, when required by applicable federal sponsor regulations, sending the final report to the agency in the timeframe required. The RIO may submit written requests for time extensions to PHS when PHS regulations apply.
  2. Sequestration of Research Records and Evidence. In the event there is a need for additional sequestration of records for the Investigation, the College shall follow the sequestration procedures applied in the Inquiry.
  3. Notice to Respondent. Before or at the time of the Investigation, the RIO must make a Good Faith effort to provide written notice to the Respondent of: (i) the Allegation(s) to be investigated, including any new Allegations; (ii) the Respondent’s rights and responsibilities (including cooperation and confidentiality); and (iii) the sequestration of records and the Respondent’s duty to cooperate and preserve evidence. The RIO will provide Respondent a copy of this Policy and will inform Respondent they will be given an opportunity to provide written comments to the draft Investigation Report. If additional Allegations are subsequently raised, the RIO will notify the Respondent.
  4. Use of an Investigation Committee. The RIO will appoint an Investigation committee of a size appropriate to the circumstances, normally five (5) to seven (7) voting members and will name a committee chair. All voting members will be tenured faculty with appropriate expertise and no conflicts of interest. The RIO selects committee members after consultation with institutional officials who can recommend appropriate experts. Where possible, at least one member of the committee will be a current member of the Professional Affairs Committee. The RIO will document the basis for the committee size and composition (including expertise and conflict-of-interest review) in the case file. The RIO may appoint members of the Inquiry Committee to serve on the Investigation Committee. Prior to initiating the Investigation process, the RIO shall notify the Respondent of the proposed committee membership and the Respondent may object to a proposed member based upon a personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest within ten (10) days of being notified of committee membership, or such objections are waived. The RIO makes the final determination of whether a conflict exists.
  5. Use of Outside Experts. Outside experts may be used if there are no appropriate College faculty members with the necessary technical or scientific expertise or independence to evaluate the Evidence and issues related to the Allegation(s). Outside experts may also be used if special expertise regarding Evidence analysis or fact-finding is warranted. Outside experts are not committee members and serve in a strictly advisory capacity without making any binding decisions or commitments on behalf of the College. Outside experts may interview witnesses and respond to questions during Investigation deliberations.
  6. Investigation Committee Charge. The RIO will provide a written charge to the Investigation Committee to: (i) examine all relevant Evidence and pursue reasonable leads; (ii) determine whether each Allegation is supported by a Preponderance of the Evidence; assess intent (intentional, knowing, or reckless conduct); (iii) identify whether the conduct represents a significant departure from accepted practices; (iv) recommend institutional actions and Research Record corrections; and (iv) prepare a written Investigation report that meets the requirements of this Policy. The RIO will be present or available throughout the Investigation to advise the committee.
  7. Investigation Process. The Investigation committee will use diligent efforts to ensure that the Investigation is thorough, impartial and unbiased, sufficiently documented, and includes an examination of all Research Records and Evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of each Allegation. The process includes as follows:
    • Review sequestered Records and any additional Evidence obtained during the Investigation.
    • Interview Respondent, Complainant(s), and any witnesses determined to have information relevant to the decision. Interviews will be documented (e.g., transcript or detailed notes) and interviewees will be given an opportunity to review and correct their interview record as the College determines appropriate.
    • Prepare a written Investigation report. The Investigation report shall include: (a) description of the Allegation(s) of Research Misconduct considered in the Investigation; (b) composition of the Investigation committee; (c) Inventory of sequestered Research Records and other Evidence considered in the Investigation; (d) transcripts or notes of interviews (redacted as appropriate to maintain confidentiality); (e) if the committee recommends a finding of Research Misconduct for an Allegation, the report shall identify the individual(s) who committed the Research Misconduct; indicate whether the Research Misconduct was Falsification, Fabrication, and/or Plagiarism; indicate whether the Research Misconduct was committed Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly; summarize the facts and analysis which support the conclusion; identify any PHS or other federal support; and identify whether any publications need correction or retraction; (f) if the committee does not recommend a finding of Research Misconduct for an Allegation, the report shall provide a detailed rationale.
  8. Opportunity to Comment on Investigation report. The RIO will provide Respondent a copy of the draft Investigation report and a copy of, or supervised access to, the Evidence on which the report is based (or relevant portions, consistent with confidentiality and privacy obligations) and a reasonable opportunity to submit written comments. The College may, but is not required, to provide Complainant(s) with a copy of the draft Investigation report (or relevant portions, consistent with confidentiality and privacy obligations) and a reasonable opportunity to submit written comments. Respondent and Complainant(s) may need to sign a confidentiality agreement to review the draft Investigation report. Any comments submitted by Respondent or Complainant(s) will be attached to the final Investigation Report. The RIO (or Investigation Committee) may revise the draft report based on the comments and prepare it in final form to be transmitted to the Institutional Deciding Official (IDO).
  9. Decision by Institutional Deciding Official. The IDO, on behalf of the College, will determine and document whether the IDO accepts the Investigation report, its findings, and the recommended institutional actions. If the IDO’s decision differs from the findings of the Investigation committee, the IDO will, as part of the written decision, explain in detail the basis for rendering this decision. When a final decision on the case has been reached, the RIO will normally notify both the Respondent and the Complainant in writing. The IDO will share their written decision with the President and the Professional Affairs Committee. Other than decisions to suspend the employment of, or dismiss a faculty member from employment, the decision by the IDO shall be deemed final. Decisions by the IDO to suspend or dismiss a faculty member shall take the form of a recommendation to the President.

14. Retention of Documents

All Evidence and the institutional record of a Research Misconduct process shall be securely maintained by the College for seven (7) years. Upon request, the College will transfer custody or provide copies of the institution record and Evidence to any federal agency as required by law.

15. Handling of Admissions, Settlements, Resignations, and Dismissals and Suspensions

  1. Admission of misconduct. If admitting to Research Misconduct, the Respondent will sign a written statement specifying the affected Research Records and confirming the Research Misconduct was Falsification, Fabrication, and/or Plagiarism; committed Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly; and a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community. The RIO will document the admission in writing, including scope (what, when, how) and affected research outputs. The College will ensure that the evidentiary record is sufficient to support findings, corrective actions, and sponsor/journal notifications. The IDO will determine appropriate institutional actions and corrective actions.
  2. Settlement agreements. The College may enter into a written settlement agreement with Respondent if it protects the integrity of the Research Record and includes appropriate corrective actions and, where applicable, it is consistent with the PHS regulation or other federal sponsor obligations.
  3. Resignation or departure. Resignation or departure does not end the College’s obligation to proceed, where feasible, to determine whether Research Misconduct occurred and take corrective actions to protect the Research Record. If the proceeding is terminated before completion, the College will document the reasons, preserve all records, and notify the Office of Research Integrity if and as required.
  4. Dismissals and Suspensions. Any recommendation to the President from the IDO for the suspension or dismissal from employment of a faculty member shall proceed in accordance with the established college policies and procedures on dismissal set forth in Article X, Section 8(c) of the College Constitution.

16. Multiple Respondents 

If there are multiple Respondents, the College is not required to conduct a separate Research Misconduct process for each Respondent. The College may convene with the same Inquiry and Investigation committee members but will maintain separate Inquiry and Investigation reports and make separate Research Misconduct determinations for each Respondent.

Appendix: Defined Terms

Accepted practices of the relevant research community: Practices established by applicable federal regulations, applicable federal funders, as well as applicable commonly accepted professional codes or norms within the overarching community of researchers and institutions.

Allegation: A disclosure of possible Research Misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of an institutional official. 

Assessment: Consideration of whether an Allegation of Research Misconduct appears to fall within the definition of Research Misconduct and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified. An Assessment also considers whether an Allegation of Research Misconduct appears to involve federally sponsored research, training, or activities related to that research or training. The Assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the Allegation.

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

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

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

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

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

(b) As applied to an institutional or committee member, means cooperating with the Research Misconduct Proceeding by impartially carrying out the duties assigned for the purpose of helping the College 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 conduct Proceeding.

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

Institutional Deciding Official (IDO): The institutional official who makes final determinations on Allegations of Research Misconduct and any institutional actions. The Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of Faculty (“VPAA”) is the designated Institutional Deciding Official, except where the VPAA is the subject of a Research Misconduct Proceeding or has a personal, professional, of financial conflict of interest. When this occurs, the President appoints another institutional official to serve as the IDO. The same individual cannot serve as the Institutional Deciding Official and the Research Integrity Officer.

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

Investigation: The formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record that follows the procedures set forth in this Policy.

Knowingly: To act with awareness of the act.

Notice: A written or electronic communication served in person or sent by mail or its equivalent to the last known street address or email address of the addressee.

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

(a) 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. 

(b) Plagiarism does not include self-plagiarism or authorship or credit disputes, including disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a research project. Self-plagiarism and authorship disputes do not meet the definition of Research Misconduct.

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

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

Research: A systematic experiment, study, evaluation, demonstration, or survey designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge (basic research) or specific knowledge (applied research) by establishing, discovering, developing, elucidating, or confirming information or underlying mechanisms related to biological causes, functions, or effects; diseases; treatments; or related matters to be studied.

Research Integrity Officer (RIO): The institutional official responsible for administering the institution’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of Research Misconduct in compliance with this Policy.

Research Misconduct: Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research Misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

Research Misconduct Proceeding: Any actions related to alleged Research Misconduct taken pursuant to this Policy, including Allegation Assessments, Inquiries, Investigations, oversight reviews, and appeals.

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, laboratory records, study records, laboratory notebooks, progress reports, manuscripts, abstracts, theses, records 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 a Research Misconduct Proceeding. 

Retaliation: An adverse action taken against a Complainant, witness, or committee member by an institution or one of its members in response to (a) a good faith Allegation of Research Misconduct or (b) good faith cooperation with a Research Misconduct Proceeding.