PRINT DISCLAIMER: Official version of this document is accessible in the online policy library at https://policyoffice.ku.edu/. Printed copies may not reflect the most recent updates.
DOCUMENT TYPE:
Policy
PURPOSE:
To uphold the highest standards of scientific rigor in research at the Institution, to foster an environment that promotes research integrity and responsible conduct of research and to fulfill the Institution’s requirements under federal law for handling allegations of research misconduct.
APPLIES TO:
Applicable to Institutional Members, in connection with all forms of scholarly research, research training, or related activities—regardless of funding source or whether the research was proposed, performed, reviewed, or reported.
CAMPUS:
Lawrence, Edwards, Leavenworth, Juniper Gardens, Parsons, Pittsburg, Salina (KUL), Topeka, Wichita (KUL), Yoder, Medical Center (KUMC), Salina (KUMC), Wichita (KUMC)
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
I. General Principles
II. Scope
A. Statute of Limitations
B. Policy Jurisdiction
III. Roles, Rights, and Responsibilities
A. Institution
B. Research Integrity Officer
C. Complainant
D. Respondent
E. Committee
F. Witness
G. Institutional Deciding Official
IV. Procedures for Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct
A. Allegation and Assessment
B. Inquiry
C. Investigation
D. Institutional Deciding Official Determination on the Investigation Report
E. Notice of IDO Final Decision
F. Appeals
V. Exclusions or Special Circumstances
A. Multiple Institutions and Multiple Respondents
B. Respondent Admissions
C. Other Special Circumstances
D. Records Retention
DEFINITIONS:
Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community. This term means those practices established by federal funding components as well as commonly accepted professional codes and norms within the overarching community of researchers and institutions that apply for and are eligible to receive external research funding.
Allegation. This term refers to a disclosure of possible Research Misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of an institutional or, in the case of federally-funded research, a federal agency official.
Assessment. Assessment means a consideration of whether an allegation of research misconduct (1) appears to involve conduct that fall within the definition of Research Misconduct; (2) appears to involve scientific research, research training, or activities related to that research or research training ; and (3) is sufficiently credible and specific enough 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. Complainant means an individual who in Good Faith makes an allegation of research misconduct.
Conflict of Interest. For the purpose of this Policy, a conflict of interest exists if an individual has personal, professional or financial interests that affects or could be perceived to affect the individual’s professional obligations to the Institution or the individual’s ability to be impartial when reviewing or deciding on allegations of research misconduct.
Evidence. Evidence means anything offered or obtained during a Research Misconduct Proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact. Evidence includes documents, whether in hard copy or electronic form, information, tangible items, and testimony.
External Funding Support. External Funding Support means funding, or applications or proposals for funding research, research training, or activities related to that research or training, from sources outside the Institution.
Fabrication. Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
Falsification. Falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the Research Record.
Federal Policy. Within this Policy, Federal Policy on Research Misconduct promulgated by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (Federal Register 60: 76260, December 6, 2000) and rules and policies issued subsequently by the sponsoring agency (e.g., National Institutes of Health (42 CFR Part 93), National Science Foundation (45 CFR Part 689), National Endowment for the Humanities policy).
Good Faith. (a) Good faith as applied to a Complainant or witness means having a reasonable belief in the truth of one’s Allegation or testimony, based on the information known to the Complainant or witness at the time. An Allegation or cooperation with a Research Misconduct Proceeding is not in good faith if made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for information that would negate the Allegation or testimony. (b) Good faith 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 Institution meet its responsibilities. An institutional or committee member does not act in Good Faith if their acts or omissions during the Research Misconduct Proceeding are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the Research Misconduct Proceeding.
Inquiry. Inquiry means preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding, if warranted following an Assessment, to determine if a formal Investigation is warranted.
Institution. The Institution means the University of Kansas, including all locations, and its controlled affiliates.
Institutional Deciding Official. Institutional Deciding Official (IDO) means the institutional official who receives the final report of a Research Misconduct investigation and determines the appropriate institutional response including imposition of institutional sanctions. The IDO shall have no direct involvement in any Research Misconduct Proceeding other than to be kept informed of the existence of and progress of those proceedings. In the event the IDO has a Conflict of Interest in a particular case, the Chancellor shall appoint another individual to act as the IDO. The same individual cannot serve as the IDO and the Research Integrity Officer.
Institutional Member. Institutional member and members means an individual (or individuals) who is employed by, is an agent of, or is affiliated by contract or agreement with the Institution. Institutional members may include, but are not limited to, officials, tenured and untenured faculty, teaching and support staff, researchers, research coordinators, technicians, postdoctoral and other fellows, students, volunteers, subject matter experts, consultants, attorneys, employees, agents of contractors, subcontractors, or sub-awardees.
Institutional Record. The Institutional Record comprises:
A. The records that the Institution compiled or generated during the Research Misconduct Proceeding including the following:
- 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, as required by Federal Policy;
- 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 conducted pursuant to Federal Policy, and information the Respondent provided to the Institution;
- Decision(s) by the Institutional Deciding Official.
- The complete record of any institutional appeal consistent with Federal Policy;
B. 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
C. A general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.
Intentionally. Intentionally means to act intentionally means to act with the aim of carrying out the act.
Investigation. Investigation means the formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record that meets the criteria and follows the procedures within this Policy. An investigation leads to either a decision not to make a finding of Research Misconduct or to a recommendation to the IDO for a finding of Research Misconduct.
Knowingly. Knowingly means to act with awareness of the act.
Notice. Notice means a written communication served in person, sent by mail or its equivalent, to the last known street address, facsimile number, or email address of the addressee.
Plagiarism. Plagiarism means the appropriation of another individual’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. Preponderance of the evidence means proof by evidence that, compared with evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely true than not.
Recklessly. Recklessly means to propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism.
Research Integrity Officer. The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) refers to the institutional official responsible for administering the Institution’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct in compliance with Federal Policy.
Research Misconduct. Research Misconduct means 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. Research misconduct proceeding for this Institution means any actions related to alleged Research Misconduct taken under this Policy. A research misconduct proceeding for a federal agency may include Assessments, Inquiries, Investigations, agency oversight reviews, and applicable appeals.
Research Record. Research record means the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry. Data or results may be in physical or electronic form. Examples of items, materials, or information that may be considered part of the Research Record include, but are not limited to, research proposals (whether funded or unfunded), raw data, processed data, equipment use records, clinical research records, laboratory records, study records, laboratory notebooks, progress reports, manuscripts, abstracts, theses, dissertations, records of oral presentations, online content, lab meeting reports, and journal articles.
Respondent. Respondent means the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a Research Misconduct Proceeding.
Retaliation. Retaliation means an adverse action taken against a Complainant, witness, or committee member by the Institution or an Institutional Member in response to (a) a Good Faith allegation of research misconduct or (b) Good Faith cooperation with a Research Misconduct Proceeding. See Whistleblower policy.
POLICY STATEMENT:
I. General Principles
The University of Kansas is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific rigor in research, fostering an environment that promotes research integrity and the responsible conduct of research, discouraging Research Misconduct, and dealing promptly with Allegations or Evidence of possible Research Misconduct.
Research misconduct is contrary to the interests of the Institution, the health and safety of the public, the integrity of research, and the conservation of public funds. In striving to reduce the risk of Research Misconduct, the Institution supports 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.
All Institutional Members are expected to conduct research with honesty, rigor, and transparency. Each Institutional Member is responsible for contributing to an organizational culture that establishes, maintains, and promotes research integrity and the responsible conduct of research.
When an Allegation relates to activities funded by a federal agency, this Policy is intended to fulfill the Institution’s requirements under the Federal Policy .
II. Scope
A. Statute of Limitations
This Policy applies only to Research Misconduct alleged to have occurred within six years prior to the date the Institution receives an Allegation. Exceptions to the 6-year limitation include:
1. Subsequent use exception
The six-year time limitation does not apply if the Respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged Research Misconduct that occurred before the six-year period through the use of, republication of, or citation to the portion(s) of the Research Record alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized for the potential benefit of the Respondent (“subsequent use exception”). For alleged Research Misconduct that could potentially be subject to this subsequent use exception, but which the Institution determines is not subject to the exception, the Institution documents its determination that the subsequent use exception does not apply and retains this documentation for the later of seven years after completion of the institutional proceeding or the completion of any proceeding of a federal agency.
2. Public Health and Safety Exception
The six-year time limitation also does not apply if the funding agency, or the Institution, in consultation with the funding agency, determines that the alleged Research Misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public.
B. Policy Jurisdiction
1. Federal and institutional Policies
In case of any conflict between this Policy and the federal regulation, the federal regulation shall prevail. Pursuant to federal regulation, a finding or settlement by a federal agency in a Research Misconduct case shall not affect the Institution’s findings, administrative actions, or sanctions based on application of this Policy.
2. Research and Academic Policies
Research misconduct does not include academic misconduct in the preparation, use, or submission of work or materials in courses offered for academic credit. In the event that misconduct relates to work that has both research and course-related elements, this Policy shall be used.
III. Roles, Rights, and Responsibilities
A. Institution
1. General Responsibility
To the extent possible, the Institution:
a. limits disclosure of the identity of Respondents, Complainants, and witnesses while conducting the Research Misconduct Proceeding to those who need to know. This limitation on disclosure no longer applies once the Institution has made a final determination of Research Misconduct findings.
b. informs all Institutional Members about this Policy, and makes this Policy publicly available.
c. responds to each Allegation in a thorough, competent, objective, and fair manner.
d. takes all reasonable and practical steps to ensure the cooperation of Respondents and other Institutional Members with Research Misconduct Proceeding, including, but not limited to, their providing information, Research Records, and other Evidence.
e. agrees to cooperate with the relevant federal agency during any Research Misconduct Proceeding or compliance review, including addressing deficiencies or additional Allegations in the Institutional Record if directed by the relevant federal agency and assisting in administration and enforcement of any administrative actions imposed by a relevant federal agency on Institutional Members.
f. may take steps to manage published data or acknowledge that data may be unreliable.
2. Responsibilities During and After a Research Misconduct Proceeding
a. Except as may otherwise be prescribed by applicable law, the Institution maintains confidentiality for any records or Evidence from which research subjects might be identified and limits disclosure to those who need to know to carry out a Research Misconduct Proceeding.
b. Before or at the time of notifying the Respondent of the Allegation(s) and whenever additional items become known or relevant, the Institution promptly takes all reasonable and practical steps to obtain all Research Records and other Evidence and sequester them securely.
c. The Institution ensures that the Institutional Record contains all required elements (i.e., research records that were compiled and considered during the proceedings, Assessment documentation, and Inquiry and/or Investigation reports).
d. Upon completion of the Inquiry, the Institution provides the relevant federal agency with the complete Inquiry report and adds it to the Institutional Record.
e. The Institution maintains the Institutional Record and all sequestered Research Records and other Evidence in a secure manner for seven years after completion of the institutional and/or relevant federal agency proceeding.
f. The Institution provides information related to the alleged Research Misconduct and proceedings to the relevant federal agency upon request and transfers custody or provides copies of the Institutional Record or any component of it and any sequestered Evidence to them, regardless of whether the Evidence is included in the Institutional Record. Additionally, the Institution promptly notifies the relevant federal authority of any special circumstances that may arise.
g. Disclosure of the identity of Respondents, Complainants, and witnesses while the Institution is conducting the Research Misconduct Proceeding is limited to those who need to know, which the Institution determines consistent with a thorough, competent, objective, and fair Research Misconduct Proceeding, and as allowed by law. Those who need to know may include institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions.
3. Responsibilities to the Complainant
a. The Institution provides confidentiality consistent with this Policy and relevant federal regulations for all Complainants in a Research Misconduct Proceeding.
b. The Institution also takes precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the Research Misconduct Proceeding do not have potential, perceived, or actual personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the Complainant(s).
c. The Institution agrees to take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of Complainants and to protect these individuals from Retaliation by Respondents and/or other Institutional Members.
d. The Institution has discretion to notify a Complainant of the status or outcome of the Research Misconduct Proceeding. If the Institution chooses to notify one Complainant of the status or outcome, all Complainants must be notified by the Institution, to the extent possible.
4. Responsibilities to Respondent(s)
Safeguards for Respondents:
a. As with Complainants, the Institution provides confidentiality consistent with Federal Policy to all Respondents in a Research Misconduct Proceeding. The Institution makes a good-faith effort to notify the Respondent(s) in writing of the Allegations being made against them.
b. Throughout a Research Misconduct Proceeding, RIO shall ensure that Respondents receive a copy of this Policy, and of all the Notices and opportunities provided for in this Policy.
c. The Institution takes precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the Research Misconduct Proceeding do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the Respondent.
d. The Institution is responsible for giving the Respondent(s) copies of or supervised access to the sequestered Research Records
e. The Institution notifies the Respondent whether the Inquiry found that an Investigation is warranted and provides the Respondent with an opportunity to review and comment on the Inquiry report.
f. If an Investigation is commenced, the Institution must notify the Respondent, give written Notice of any additional Allegations raised against them not previously addressed by the Inquiry report, and allow the Respondent(s) an opportunity to review the witness transcripts. The Institution gives the Respondent(s) an opportunity to read and comment on the draft Investigation report and any information or Allegations added to the Institutional Record.
g. In determining whether the Institution has carried the burden of proof imposed by this Policy, the Institution shall give due consideration to admissible, credible Evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the Respondent.
h. The RIO and other Institution officials make all reasonable and practical efforts, if requested and as appropriate, to protect or restore the reputation of Respondents against whom no finding of Research Misconduct is made.
5. Responsibilities to Committee Members
a. The Institution ensures that a committee or individual acting on the Institution’s behalf conducts Research Misconduct Proceeding in compliance with this Policy.
b. The Institution takes all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of good-faith committee members and to protect these individuals from Retaliation.
6. Responsibilities to the Witness(es)
a. The Institution provides confidentiality consistent with this Policy for all witnesses.
b. The Institutions takes precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the proceedings do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the witnesses.
c. The Institution also takes all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of witnesses and to protect these individuals from Retaliation.
B. Research Integrity Officer
1. The RIO is the institutional official responsible for administering the institution’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of Research Misconduct in compliance with federal regulation.
2. The same individual does not serve as both the Institutional Deciding Official (IDO) and the RIO.
3. The RIO, or another designated official serving as the RIO designee, performs the applicable Assessment, Inquiry, and Investigation process as described below.
4. Assessment Responsibilities
Upon receiving an Allegation, the RIO or another designated institutional official promptly assesses the allegation to determine whether the allegation:
a. is within the definition of Research Misconduct;
b. is within the applicability criteria; and
c. is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified.
5. Inquiry Responsibilities
a. If the RIO or another designated institutional official determines that the requirements for an Inquiry are met, they must document the Assessment, promptly sequester all Research Records and other Evidence, and promptly initiate the Inquiry. Notification to the Respondent of the Allegation must occur no later than at the time of sequestration.
b. If the RIO or another designated institutional official determines that requirements for an Inquiry are not met, they keep sufficiently detailed documentation of the Assessment to permit a later review by the relevant federal agency of the reasons why the Institution did not conduct an Inquiry. The Institution keeps this documentation and related records in a secure manner for seven years and provides them to the relevant federal agency upon request.
6. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Review
a. The RIO must use written confidentiality agreements to ensure that those receiving information understand the sensitivity of the situation and do not further disclose such information. Specific language in this confidential agreement must be developed and maintained in collaboration with the RIO and the Institution’s Office of the General Counsel.
b. The RIO must determine whether each individual involved in handling an Allegation has an unresolved personal, professional, or financial Conflict of Interest and take appropriate action in accordance with the relevant campus procedure, including recusal, to ensure that no individual with such conflict is involved in the Research Misconduct Proceeding.
c. The Respondent must be given the opportunity to raise Conflict of Interest concerns prior to committee appointments.
C. Complainant
The Complainant must bring allegations of research misconduct directly to the attention of an institutional official or official of the relevant federal agency through any means of communication including anonymously through the Institutional Hotline.
After making an Allegation, a Complainant shall have no further role in any Research Misconduct Proceeding that may follow, except to cooperate as a witness when appropriate.
D. Respondent
The Respondent is the individual against whom an Allegation is directed or who is the subject of a Research Misconduct Proceeding.
The Respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of the Evidence affirmative defenses raised.
The Respondent’s destruction of Research Records documenting the questioned research is evidence of Research Misconduct where a preponderance of the Evidence establishes that the Respondent Intentionally or Knowingly destroyed records after being informed of the Allegations. The 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.
The Respondent must not be present during the witnesses’ interviews but is provided a transcript of the interview after it takes place.
The Respondent is requested to maintain confidentiality of the Investigation and of the committee members and witnesses in order to assure a fair proceeding and protect Institutional Members from Retaliation. The Respondent is expected to cooperate in the course of an Inquiry and Investigation.
The Respondent is entitled to:
1. A Good Faith effort from the RIO to notify the Respondent in writing at the time of or before beginning an Inquiry.
2. An opportunity to comment on the Inquiry report and have their comments attached to the report;
3. Be notified of the outcome of the Inquiry, and receive a copy of the Inquiry report that includes a copy of this Policy and related procedures;
4. Be notified in writing of the Allegations to be investigated within a reasonable time after the determination that an Investigation is warranted, but before the Investigation begins, and be notified in writing of any new Allegations, not addressed in the Inquiry or in the initial Notice of Investigation, within a reasonable time after the determination to pursue those Allegations;
5. Be interviewed during the Investigation, have the opportunity to correct the recording or transcript, and have the corrected recording or transcript included in the record of the Investigation;
6. Have the Investigation committee interview any available witnesses who have been reasonably identified by the Respondent as having information on relevant aspects of the Investigation, have the recording or transcript provided to the witness for correction, and have the corrected recording or transcript included in the record of Investigation; and
7. Receive a copy of the draft Investigation report and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to the Evidence on which the report is based, and be notified that any comments must be submitted within 30 days of the date on which the copy was received and that the comments are considered by the Institution and addressed in the final report.
8. At any stage of a Research Misconduct Proceeding, the Respondent may consult with appropriate student, faculty, or professional advisory groups. The Respondent may consult with private legal counsel and may be accompanied and advised by counsel or another advisor at any interview or meeting under this Policy. The advisor may not present the case, give evidence, respond on behalf of the Respondent, or otherwise participate in the internal Research Misconduct Proceeding.
9. If admitting to Research Misconduct, the Respondent must sign a written statement specifying the affected Research Records and confirming the misconduct was Falsification, Fabrication, and/or Plagiarism; committed Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly; and a significant departure from Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community.
E. Committee
Committee members are experts who act in Good Faith to implement the Research Misconduct Proceeding by impartially carrying out their assigned duties for the purpose of helping the Institution meet its responsibilities under this Policy and applicable federal regulations. Committee members must have relevant scientific expertise and must be free of Conflicts of Interest with any of the involved parties.
Committee members may serve for more than one Investigation, in cases with multiple Respondents. Committee members may also serve for both the Inquiry and the Investigation of the same Research Misconduct Proceeding.
Committee members or, when applicable, the RIO or any individual acting on behalf of the Institution conducts Research Misconduct Proceeding consistent with this Policy. They determine whether an Investigation is warranted, documenting the decision in an Inquiry report. During an Investigation, committee members participate in recorded interviews of each Respondent, Complainant, and any other available individual who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the Investigation, including witnesses identified by the Respondent(s). They also determine whether or not the Respondent(s) engaged in Research Misconduct and document the decision in the Investigation report. They consider Respondent comments on the Inquiry/Investigation report(s) and document that consideration in the Investigation report.
An Investigation into multiple Respondents may convene with the same Investigation committee members or any individual acting on behalf of the Institution, but there must be separate Investigation reports and separate Research Misconduct determinations for each Respondent.
F. Witness
Witnesses are people whom the Institution has reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the Investigation. Witnesses provide information for review during Research Misconduct Proceeding. Witnesses must cooperate with the Research Misconduct Proceeding in Good Faith and have a reasonable belief in the truth of their testimony, based on the information known to them at the time.
G. Institutional Deciding Official
The Institutional Deciding Official (IDO) makes the final determination of Research Misconduct findings. The IDO cannot serve as the RIO. The IDO documents their determination in a written decision that includes whether Research Misconduct occurred, and if so, what kind and who committed it, and a description of the relevant actions the Institution has taken or will take. The IDO’s written decision becomes part of the Institutional Record.
Failure to complete an Inquiry, Investigation, or other process within these time frames shall not constitute ground for dismissal of an Allegation. Any undue delay may be considered by the IDO when reviewing recommendations for sanctions.
IV. Procedures for Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct
A. Allegation and Assessment
An Allegation may be filed by any individual, regardless of whether the individual making the Allegation is or is not an Institutional Member. The disclosure may be made by written or oral statement, or any other means of communication. Any number of Institutional officials, such as a research supervisor, department chair, dean or center director may receive an Allegation. To ensure consistency of handling allegations of research misconduct, any individual who receives an Allegation should immediately inform the RIO, who assumes responsibility for the Assessment. An Allegation involving federal funding may be filed directly with the federal agency sponsoring the research, which transmits it to the RIO.
An Assessment’s purpose is to determine whether an Allegation warrants an Inquiry. An Assessment is intended to be a review of readily accessible information relevant to the Allegation.
Upon receiving an Allegation, the RIO or another designated institutional official serving as RIO designee promptly assesses the Allegation to determine whether it (a) appears to involve conduct that falls within the definition of Research Misconduct, (b) appears to involve scientific research, research training, or activities related to that research or research training, and (c) is sufficiently credible and specific enough so that potential Evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified.
In conducting the Assessment, the RIO need not interview individuals nor gather data beyond any that may have been submitted with the Allegation, except as deemed necessary to reasonably determine whether the allegation is sufficiently credible and specific. The RIO may consult with Institution’s Office of the General Counsel and others as necessary.
If the RIO or another institutional official serving as RIO designee determines that the Allegation meets the criteria to move to an Inquiry, they promptly: (a) document the Assessment and (b) initiate an Inquiry and sequester all Research Records and other Evidence. The RIO must retain the Assessment documentation securely for seven years after completion of the Research Misconduct Proceeding. Notification to the respondent of the allegation must occur no later than at the time of sequestration.
If the RIO determines that the alleged misconduct does not meet the criteria to proceed to an Inquiry, they write sufficiently detailed documentation of the Assessment to permit a later review by the relevant federal authority of why the Institution did not proceed to an Inquiry. If an Inquiry is not warranted, the RIO shall close the case and take steps to remove any reference to the Allegation from the Respondent’s personnel and/or academic record.
B. Inquiry
An Inquiry’s purpose is to conduct an initial review of the Evidence to determine whether an Allegation warrants an Investigation. An Inquiry does not require a full review of all related Evidence. The Institution must complete the Inquiry within 90 days of initiating it unless circumstances warrant a longer period, in which it must sufficiently document the reasons for exceeding the time limit in the Inquiry report.
1. Sequestering Evidence and Notifying the Respondent
Before or at the time of notifying the Respondent(s), the Institution must obtain the original or substantially equivalent copies of all Research Records and other evidence that are pertinent to the proceeding, inventory these materials, sequester the materials in a secure manner, and retain them for seven years after completion of the Research Misconduct Proceeding. The Institution has a duty to obtain, inventory, and securely sequester Evidence that extends to whenever additional items become known or relevant to the Inquiry or Investigation. When appropriate, the Institution gives the Respondent(s) copies of, or reasonable supervised access to, the sequestered materials.
As soon as practical after the Assessment has been completed, but before beginning an Inquiry, the RIO must make a Good Faith effort to notify the presumed Respondent(s) in writing of the Allegation and that an Inquiry must be conducted to decide whether to proceed with an Investigation. If an Inquiry is not warranted, the RIO shall close the case and take steps to remove any reference to the Allegation from the Respondent’s personnel and/or academic record. If an Inquiry is warranted, the Respondent is provided with details of the Allegation, a copy of this Policy, and the relevant Federal Policy in the case of federally-funded research.
The RIO notifies the IDO of the decision whether or not an Inquiry is warranted and may choose to notify the Complainant. If one Complainant is notified, then all Complainants must be notified.
If additional Allegations are raised, the Institution notifies the Respondent(s) in writing. When appropriate, the Institution gives the Respondent(s) copies of, or reasonable supervised access to, the sequestered materials. All additional Respondents are given the same rights and opportunities as the initial Respondent in the Inquiry phase. Only Allegations specific to a particular Respondent are included in the notification to that Respondent.
2. Inquiry Process and Convening the Committee and Ensuring Neutrality
The Institution may choose to have the RIO or another designated institutional official conduct the Inquiry in lieu of a committee. The determination for the RIO to conduct the Inquiry shall be made with input from appropriate institutional officials, and documented in the Institutional Record.
When the Institution impanels a committee it ensures that all Inquiry committee members understand their commission, keep the identities of Respondents, Complainants, and witnesses confidential, and conduct the Research Misconduct Proceeding in compliance with this Policy and any federal regulation.
The Inquiry committee members shall have appropriate background and expertise to conduct the Inquiry and shall not have a Conflict of Interest with the known principals in the Research Misconduct Proceedings. In the case that the RIO or a designee conducts the Inquiry, it is expected that they will utilize subject matter experts as needed to assist in the Inquiry. The RIO must also follow all requirements of the Inquiry committee described in this Policy.
a. Initial Meeting of the Inquiry Committee
The primary purpose of the initial meeting of the Inquiry committee is to inform the committee members of their rights and responsibilities and to advise them of proper procedure. The RIO must hold an initial meeting of the Inquiry committee during which the committee is provided with the following: (a) a copy of this Policy; (b) the Allegation and any related issues identified during the Assessment; (c) the purpose of the Inquiry; (d) the criteria for determining whether or not an Investigation is warranted; (e) the responsibility to prepare a written Inquiry report that meets the requirements of this Policy; (f) the requirement to keep all matters related to the Research Misconduct Proceeding confidential; and (g) the timeline for completion of the Inquiry. A representative of the Institution’s Office of the General Counsel shall be present solely to advise on proper procedures.
b. Purpose of the Inquiry
The purpose of an Inquiry is to decide if an Allegation warrants an Investigation. An Investigation is warranted if there is (a) a reasonable basis for concluding that the Allegation falls within the definition of Research Misconduct; and (b) preliminary information gathering and fact-finding indicates that the Allegation may have substance. As soon as the Inquiry committee makes that determination, its task is done. An Inquiry does not involve a full review of all Evidence related to an Allegation, nor shall it attempt to reach a conclusion as to whether Research Misconduct has been committed.
The Inquiry committee shall request that the Respondent provide a written response to the Allegation within 14 days, but the committee may grant a reasonable extension of the deadline at its discretion. After receiving and reviewing the Respondent’s written response to the Allegation, or if the Respondent does not respond in writing, the Inquiry committee may invite the Respondent for a personal interview to discuss the details of the alleged misconduct. The interview may be conducted in person, by telephone or videoconference. If the Respondent declines to be interviewed, the Inquiry committee shall continue its Inquiry with the information available to it.
c. Determining Whether an Investigation Is Warranted
The Inquiry committee conducts a preliminary review of the Evidence. In the process of fact-finding, the Inquiry committee normally interview the Respondent. At its discretion, the Inquiry committee may interview the Complainant and other individuals to obtain information pertinent to the Inquiry. Any such interviews may be conducted in person, by telephone or videoconference, or through solicited responses to written questions, as appropriate. Any such interviews are conducted in a manner designed to preserve the confidentiality of the Inquiry process, including to the extent possible, the identity of the Complainant and Respondent. Witnesses are asked to sign a confidentiality agreement. Interviews shall be recorded and transcribed.
An Investigation is warranted if there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the Allegation falls within the definition of Research Misconduct and preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding from the Inquiry indicates that the Allegation may have substance.
The Inquiry committee does not determine if Research Misconduct occurred, nor assess whether the alleged misconduct was done Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly; such a determination is not made until the case proceeds to an Investigation.
d. Documenting the Inquiry
At the conclusion of the Inquiry, regardless of whether an Investigation is warranted, the Inquiry committee prepares a written Inquiry report. The contents of a complete Inquiry report must include:
i. The names, professional aliases, and positions of the Respondent and Complainant(s).
ii. A description of the allegation(s) of research misconduct.
iii. Details about the external funding, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing External Funding Support.
iv. The composition of the Inquiry committee, if used, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
v. An inventory of sequestered Research Records and other evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted.
vi. Transcripts of interviews, if transcribed.
vii. Inquiry timeline and procedural history.
viii. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
ix. The basis for recommending that the Allegation(s) warrant an Investigation.
x. The basis on which any Allegation(s) do not merit further Investigation.
xi. Any comments on the Inquiry report by the Respondent
xii. Any institutional actions implemented, including communications with journals or funding agencies.
xiii. Documentation of potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion.
e. Completing the Inquiry
Before submitting the final Inquiry report to the RIO, the Inquiry committee submits the report to the Office of the General Counsel for a review of legal sufficiency.
The RIO gives the Respondent a copy of the draft Inquiry report and the Respondent has ten (10) days from receipt of the draft report to review and comment. Any comments received are reviewed by the Inquiry committee and attached to the final Inquiry report. The Inquiry committee may amend its draft report based on the Respondent’s comments, as appropriate.
The RIO notifies the Respondent of the Inquiry’s final outcome and provides the Respondent with copies of the final Inquiry report, the relevant federal regulation, and this Policy. The Institution may, on a case-by-case basis, notify a Complainant whether the Inquiry found that an Investigation is warranted. If the Institution provides Notice to one Complainant in a case, it must provide Notice, to the extent possible, to all Complainants in the case. The RIO shall notify the IDO whether or not the Inquiry found that an Investigation is warranted.
f. If an Investigation Is Not Warranted
If the Inquiry committee determines that an Investigation is not warranted, the Institution must keep sufficiently detailed documentation to permit a later review by a relevant federal agency of why the Institution did not proceed to an Investigation, store these records in a secure manner for at least seven years after the termination of the Inquiry, and provide them to a relevant federal agency upon request.
g. If an Investigation Is Warranted
If the Inquiry committee determines that an Investigation is warranted, the Institution must:
i. within a reasonable amount of time after this decision, provide written Notice to the Respondent(s) of the decision to conduct an Investigation of the alleged misconduct, including any Allegations not addressed during the Inquiry; and
ii. within 30 days of determining that an Investigation is warranted, provide the relevant federal agency(ies) information, as required, about the Inquiry outcome.
C. Investigation
The purpose of an Investigation is to formally develop a factual record, pursue leads, examine the record, and recommend finding(s) to the IDO, who makes the final decision, based on a preponderance of the Evidence, on each Allegation and any institutional actions. As part of its Investigation, the Institution pursues diligently all significant issues and relevant leads, including any Evidence of additional instances of possible Research Misconduct, and continue the Investigation to completion. Within 30 days after deciding an Investigation is warranted, the Institution must notify the relevant federal agency(ies) of the decision to investigate and begin the Investigation.
1. Notifying the Respondent and Sequestering Evidence
The Institution must notify the Respondent(s) of the Allegation(s) within 30 days of determining that an Investigation is warranted and before the Investigation begins. The Institution must notify the Respondent(s) in writing of any additional Allegations raised against them during the Investigation. If any additional Respondent(s) are identified during the Investigation, the Institution must notify them of the Allegation(s) and provide them an opportunity to respond consistent with this Policy. If the Institution identifies additional Respondents during the Investigation, the RIO, in consultation with the Institution’s Office of General Counsel, may choose to either conduct a separate Inquiry or add the new Respondent(s) to the ongoing Investigation. The Institution must obtain the original or substantially equivalent copies of all Research Records and other evidence, inventory these materials, sequester them in a secure manner, and retain them for seven years after its proceeding or any federal agency proceeding, whichever is later.
2. Convening an Investigation Committee
The RIO appoints at least three (3) voting members of faculty and/or staff of equivalent status to the Respondent. A tenured faculty member, who is not from the Department, Division, School, Center, or Office in which the Respondent holds a primary appointment, shall be appointed chair of the committee by the RIO. After vetting Investigation committee members for any Conflicts of Interest and appropriate scientific expertise, the Institution convenes the committee to conduct an impartial and unbiased Investigation and ensure that the members understand their responsibility to conduct the Research Misconduct Proceeding in compliance with this Policy.
A representative of the Office of the General Counsel may be present at all committee meetings and interviews to advise on proper procedure.
The Investigation committee conducts interviews, pursues leads, and examines all Research Records and other evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the Allegation(s). The Institution uses diligent efforts to ensure that the Investigation is thorough, sufficiently documented, and impartial and unbiased to the maximum extent practicable. The Institution must notify the Respondent(s) in writing of any additional Allegations raised against them during the Investigation.
3. Charge to the Investigation Committee
The RIO shall set the initial scope of the Investigation based upon the complaint and the Inquiry report, including any comments from the Respondent, in a written charge to the Investigation committee. If during the Investigation, new information comes to light that affects the scope of the Investigation, the RIO shall determine whether the Investigation committee should continue with its original charge or amend the scope of the Investigation. The Respondent shall be promptly informed in writing, if there is a change in the scope of the Investigation based on such new information.
The RIO shall define the subject matter of the Investigation in a written charge that:
a. Identifies the Respondent;
b. Describes the Allegations and related issues identified during the Inquiry;
c. Instructs the Investigation committee that it must conduct the Investigation as prescribed in this Policy;
d. Instructs the committee that it must interview each Complainant, Respondent, and any other available individual who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the Investigation, including witnesses identified by the Respondent.
e. Informs the committee that each interview must be recorded and transcribed, that a copy of the recording and transcript must be provided to the interviewee for correction, and that the recording and transcript must be included in the record of the Investigation.
f. Instructs the committee to pursue diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the Investigation, including any Evidence of additional instances of possible Research Misconduct, and continue the Investigation to completion.
g. Informs the committee that in order to make a finding of Research Misconduct, it must find (1) that Research Misconduct, as defined in this Policy, occurred; (2) that the Research Misconduct represents a significant departure from accepted practices of the Relevant Research Community; and (3) the Respondent committed the Research Misconduct Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly; and (4) the Allegation is proven by a preponderance of the Evidence.
h. Instructs the committee to prepare a written Investigation report that meets the requirements of this Policy at the conclusion of the Investigation proceeding.
The Investigation committee may engage external individuals with appropriate expertise as consultants where warranted by the nature of the scholarly field or by the nature of the Allegations. Any consultant must not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts with principals of the case and is subject to the same confidentiality requirements as committee members. Consultants are not members of the Investigation committee and have no vote. They may not participate in the final committee deliberation or finding.
4. Conducting Interviews
The Institution interviews each Respondent, Complainant(s), and any other available individual who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the Investigation, including witnesses identified by the Respondent. The Institution numbers all relevant exhibits and refers to any exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview by that number. The Institution records and transcribes interviews during the Investigation and makes the transcripts available to the interviewee for correction. The Institution includes the transcript(s) with any corrections and exhibits in the Institutional Record of the Investigation. The Respondent must not be present during the witnesses’ interviews, but the Institution does provide the Respondent with a transcript of each interview, with redactions as appropriate to maintain confidentiality.
5. Documenting the Investigation
The Institution must complete all aspects of the Investigation within 180 days. The Institution conducts the Investigation, prepares the draft Investigation report for each Respondent, and provides the opportunity for Respondents to comment. The Institution documents the IDO’s final decision and transmit the Institutional Record (including the final Investigation report and IDO’s decision) the relevant federal agencies. In the case that an Investigation takes more than 180 days to complete, the Institution asks the relevant federal agency in writing for an extension and documents the reasons for exceeding the 180-day period in the Investigation report. If no federal funding is involved in the research, the decision to extend the Investigation period shall be left to the RIO. In either case, the RIO must document the reasons for the extension and inform the Respondent.
6. Investigation Report
The Investigation report for each Respondent includes:
a. Description of the nature of the Allegation(s), including any additional Allegation(s) addressed during the Research Misconduct Proceeding.
b. Description and documentation of External Funding Support, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing the External Funding Support. This documentation includes known applications or proposals for support that the Respondent has pending with federal agencies.
c. Description of the specific Allegation(s) for consideration in the Investigation of the Respondent.
d. Composition of Investigation committee, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
e. Inventory of sequestered Research Records and other Evidence, except records the Institution did not consider or rely on. This inventory includes manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied on during the Investigation. The inventory must also include a description of how any sequestration was conducted during the Investigation.
f. Transcripts of all interviews conducted.
g. Identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), external funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, or other Research Records that contain the allegedly falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material.
h. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
i. A copy of this Policy.
j. Any comments made by the Respondent and Complainant(s) on the draft Investigation report and the committee’s consideration of those comments.
k. A statement for each separate Allegation of whether the committee recommends a finding of Research Misconduct.
If the committee recommends a finding of Research Misconduct for an Allegation, the Investigation report must present a rationale for the finding. Findings must:
a. identify the individual(s) who committed the Research Misconduct;
b. indicate whether the misconduct was Falsification, Fabrication, and/or Plagiarism;
c. indicate whether the misconduct was committed Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly;
d. identify any significant departure from the Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community and that the Allegation was proven by a preponderance of the Evidence;
e. summarize the facts and analysis supporting the conclusion and consider the merits of any explanation by the Respondent;
f. identify the specific External Funding Support; and
g. state whether any publications need correction or retraction.
If the Investigation committee does not recommend a finding of Research Misconduct for an Allegation, the Investigation report provides a detailed rationale for its conclusion.
The Investigation committee should also provide a list of any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the Respondent has pending with federal agencies.
7. Completing the Investigation
The RIO assists the Investigation committee in finalizing the draft Investigation report. The RIO submits the draft report to the Office of the General Counsel for a review of legal sufficiency.
The Institution gives the Respondent a copy of the draft Investigation report and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the Research Records and other evidence that the Investigation committee considered or relied on. The Respondent submits any comments on the draft report to the Institution within 30 days of receiving the draft Investigation report. The RIO ensures that the Respondent's comments are included and considered in the final report. The Institution adds any comments received to the Investigation report.
D. Institutional Deciding Official Determination on the Investigation Report
The RIO transmits the final Investigation report to the IDO, who reviews the Investigation report and makes a final written determination of whether the Institution found Research Misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct. In this statement, the IDO includes a description of relevant institutional actions taken or to be taken. The IDO determines in writing:
a. whether the Institution accepts the Investigation report, its findings, and the recommended institutional actions, if any. If this determination varies from the findings of the Investigation committee, the IDO, as part of their written determination, explains in detail the basis for rendering a decision different from the findings of the Investigation committee, which may include returning the report to the Investigation committee with a request for further fact-finding or analysis; and
b. whether, in consultation with other Institution officials, appropriate personnel actions should be taken in response to any accepted findings of Research Misconduct.
The IDO determines whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals in which falsified reports may have been published, or other relevant parties should be notified of the outcome of the case.
E. Notice of IDO Final Decision
1. Notice
When a final decision on the case has been reached, the RIO notifies both the Respondent and the relevant federal agency in writing. The RIO may choose to notify the Complainant. If the RIO provides Notice of the final decision to one Complainant in the case, it must provide Notice, to the extent possible, to all Complainants in the case. After the RIO informs the relevant federal agency, the IDO determines whether law enforcement agencies (if not already reported), editors of journals in which falsified reports may have been published, or other relevant parties should be notified of the outcome of the case, and advise the RIO to take such actions. The RIO, in consultation with the Institution’s Sponsored Projects Administration or Research Administration, is also responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification requirements of funding or sponsoring agencies.
2. Creating and Transmitting the Institutional Record
After the IDO has made a final determination of Research Misconduct findings, the Institution adds the IDO’s written decision to the Investigation report and organize the Institutional Record in a logical manner. The RIO transmits the Institutional Record in accordance with the federal funding agency policy, as applicable.
F. Appeals
1. The IDO Final Decision on findings of Research Misconduct, as a final agency action of the Institution, is not subject to appeal within the Institution.
2. If personnel actions are recommended, the Respondent may appeal only the personnel actions, but not the findings of Research Misconduct, under the applicable campus grievance procedures, if any, for the Respondent's status as faculty, staff, resident, or student.
EXCLUSIONS OR SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES:
A. Multiple Institutions and Multiple Respondents
If the alleged Research Misconduct involves multiple institutions, the Institution may work closely with the other affected institutions to determine whether a joint Research Misconduct Proceeding is conducted. If so, the cooperating institutions choose an institution to serve as the lead institution. In a joint Research Misconduct Proceeding, the lead institution obtains Research Records and other evidence pertinent to the proceeding, including witness testimony, from the other relevant institutions. By mutual agreement, the joint Research Misconduct Proceeding may include committee members from the institutions involved. The determination of whether further Inquiry and/or Investigation is warranted, whether Research Misconduct occurred, and the institutional actions to be taken may be made by the institutions jointly or tasked to the lead institution.
If the alleged Research Misconduct involves multiple Respondents, the Institution may either conduct a separate Inquiry for each new Respondent or add them to the ongoing proceedings.
B. Respondent Admissions
The Institution promptly notifies the relevant federal agency in advance if at any point during the proceedings (including the Assessment, Inquiry, Investigation, or appeal stage) it plans to close a Research Misconduct case because the Respondent has admitted to committing Research Misconduct or a settlement with the Respondent has been reached. If the Respondent admits to Research Misconduct, the Institution must not close the case until providing the relevant federal agency with the Respondent’s signed, written admission. The admission must state the specific Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism that occurred, which Research Records were affected, and that it constituted a significant departure from accepted practices of the Relevant Research Community. The Institution must not close the case until giving the relevant federal agency a written statement confirming the Respondent’s culpability and explaining how the Institution determined that the Respondent’s admission fully addresses the scope of the misconduct.
C. Other Special Circumstances
1. Notice to federal agency
At any time during the misconduct proceedings, the Institution immediately notifies the relevant federal agency if any of the following circumstances arise:
- Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects.
- Federal agency resources or interests are threatened.
- Research activities should be suspended.
- There is reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law.
- Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the Research Misconduct Proceeding.
- The relevant federal agency may need to take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved.
2. 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, must not preclude or terminate the Research Misconduct Proceeding or otherwise limit any of the Institution's responsibilities under federal regulations.
If the Respondent, without admitting to the misconduct, elects to resign their position after the Institution receives an Allegation, the Assessment must proceed, as well as the Inquiry and Investigation, as appropriate based on the outcome of the preceding steps. If the Respondent refuses to participate in the process after resignation, the RIO and any Inquiry or Investigation committee must 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.
3. Allegations Not Made in Good Faith
If relevant, the IDO determines whether the Complainant's allegations of research misconduct were made in Good Faith, or whether a witness or committee member acted in Good Faith. If the IDO determines that there was an absence of Good Faith they determine whether any administrative action should be taken against the individual who failed to act in Good Faith.
D. Records Retention
The Institution maintains the Institutional Record and all sequestered Evidence, including physical objects (regardless of whether the Evidence is part of the Institutional Record), in a secure manner for seven years after the completion of the Research Misconduct Proceeding or the completion of any proceeding of the relevant federal agency, whichever is later, unless custody has been transferred to the relevant federal agency.
CONTACT:
Lawrence campus and all reporting units:
Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research
Youngberg Hall
2385 Irving Hill Rd.
Lawrence, Kansas 66045-7563
785-864-3441
Susan MacNally
Director, Research Integrity
785-864-4148
sumac@ku.edu
KU Medical Center and all reporting units:
Office of Integrity and Compliance
3901 Rainbow Blvd., MS 7004
Kansas City, KS 66160
Ryan Werth
Director, Research Integrity
913-588-1206
rwerth@kumc.edu
RESPONSIBLE UNIT:
Office of the Chancellor
APPROVED BY:
Chancellor
APPROVAL DATE:
2025-12-22
EFFECTIVE DATE:
2025-12-22
REVIEW CYCLE:
2 years
RELATED STATUTES, REGULATIONS, AND/OR POLICIES:
Federal Policy on Research Misconduct
Whistleblower Policy
Lawrence Campus and all Reporting Units:
Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities (Student Code)
KU Medical Center and all Reporting Units:
Student Handbooks
RELATED PROCEDURES:
Procedures for Addressing Conflicts of Interest in Research Misconduct Matters
University Senate Rules and Regulations Article IX
RELATED RESOURCES:
University Guidance on Generative Artificial Intelligence
CHANGE HISTORY:
12/22/2025: New policy uploaded to Policy Library.
TITLE:
Policy and Procedure for Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct