RESEARCH MISCONDUCT PROCEDURE

ROCHESTER INSTITUTE of TECHNOLOGY (RIT) PROCEDURES FOR RESPONDING TO ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT PURSUANT to C02.0

These updated RIT Procedures (“the Procedures”) are to supplement RIT Policy C02.0 Academic Misconduct in Research and Scholarship and ensure additional details and compliance with current Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and Public Health Service (PHS) regulations at 42 CFR Part 93 (PHS Policies on Research Misconduct). Where relevant, citations to the requirements of the PHS regulations are cited herein.

Where noted these Procedures supplement the RIT Policy C02.0 (“the Policy”) in the same section headings and topics noted in the main RIT Policy.  Any term capitalized herein is intended to be a defined term and to have the same meaning and definition provided in the Policy or these Procedures.  RIT will maintain the Policy and these Procedures, inform all institutional members about the Policy these Procedures, and make these them available. RIT is committed to following these policies and procedures when responding to allegations of research misconduct.[i]

SCOPE

  1. For clarity, the Policy applies to all research and scholarship, which includes proposals, research supported activities, and training and records created during research.  It is irrelevant to the application of the Policy that a proposal was not awarded.

  1. For clarity, the Vice President for Research is the Research Integrity Officer at RIT who will administer the Policy and these Procedures.  The RIO may appoint a staff member with experience in these matters to assist in the administration and execution of the Policy and these Procedures.

  1. The Policy and these Procedures apply only to research misconduct occurring within six years of the date[ii] RIT receives an allegation of research misconduct, subject to the following exceptions:
    • 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”).[iii] For alleged Research Misconduct that appears subject to this Subsequent Use Exception, but RIT determines is not subject to the exception, the institution will document its determination that the Subsequent Use Exception does not apply and will retain this documentation for the later of seven years after completion of the institutional proceeding or the completion of any federal agency proceeding.[iv]
    • The six-year time limitation also does not apply if the ORI, any other federal agency, or RIT, following consultation with ORI or the 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.[v]
    • The Policy and these Procedures do not supersede or establish an alternative to the federal regulations or any existing agency regulations for handling Research Misconduct involving non-PHS supported research.[vi] They do not replace the PHS or any other agency regulations, and in case of any conflict between the Policy, these Procedures, and 42 CFR Part 93, the PHS regulations will prevail.

REQUIRED GENERAL POLICY STATEMENTS and DEFINITIONS

RIT is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific rigor in research.[vii] RIT is committed to fostering an environment that promotes research integrity and the responsible conduct of research, discourages research misconduct, and deals promptly with allegations or evidence of possible research misconduct.[viii]

All RIT community members are expected to conduct research with honesty, rigor, and transparency pursuant to our Code of Conduct in RIT Policy C0.0. Each person at RIT is responsible for contributing to an organizational culture that establishes, maintains, and promotes research integrity and the responsible conduct of research.

Research misconduct is contrary to the interests of RIT, the health and safety of the public, the integrity of research, and the conservation of public funds. Both the institution and its institutional members have an affirmative duty to protect those funds from misuse by ensuring the integrity of all research conducted on behalf of RIT.[ix]

  1. Additional Definitions

    1. Accepted practices of the relevant research community. This term means those practices established by 42 CFR Part 93 and by PHS funding components, as well as commonly accepted professional codes or norms within the overarching community of researchers and institutions that apply for and receive PHS or other federal awards.[x]
    2. The Record.  The definition in the Policy shall be supplemented to include any transcripts of proceedings, and any information provided by Respondent or Complainant to ORI or any other federal agency, or information received by the Respondent or Complainant.
    3. 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 RIT or panel member means cooperating with the research misconduct proceeding by impartially carrying out the duties assigned for the purpose of helping an institution meet its responsibilities under the Policy, these Procedures, and the PHS regulations. An institutional or panel member does not act in Good Faith if their acts or omissions during the research misconduct proceedings are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.[xi]
    4. Institution Deciding Official. Institutional Deciding Official means the institutional official who makes final determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any institutional actions. At RIT this person is the Provost who reviews and decides the outcome after the FIP report, or an appeal from the Complainant. The same individual cannot serve as the Institutional Deciding Official (Provost) and the Research Integrity Officer (VPR).[xii]
    5. Institutional Record. The institutional Record comprises: (a) The records that the institution compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the institution did not consider or rely on. These records include but are not limited to (1) documentation of the Initial Evaluation of the Complaint or Allegation as required by § 93.306(c); (2) if an Preliminary Inquiry Panel (PIP) is conducted, the PIP report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the PIP, 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 § 93.309(c); (3) if a Full Investigation Panel (FIP)is conducted, the FIP 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 § 93.310(g), and information the Respondent provided to the institution; (4) decision(s) by the Institutional Deciding Official, such as the written decision from the Institutional Deciding Official under § 93.314; (5) the complete record of any institutional appeal consistent with § 93.315; (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.[xiii]
    6. Intentionally. To act intentionally means to act with the aim of carrying out the act.[xiv]
    7. Knowingly. To act knowingly means to act with awareness of the act.[xv]
    8. Recklessly. To act recklessly means to propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.[xvi]
    9. 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.[xvii]
    10. Plagiarism.  In addition to the definition in the Policy, (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. For clarity, 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.[xviii]

INSTITUTION’S DUTY TO ENSURE A FAIR PROCESS

  1. Supplemental information

    1. Role and duties of the VPR as RIO to staff and panel members. 
      1. In addition to all the duties as set forth in the Policy, the VPR will ensure that the panel members or any person acting on the institution’s behalf conducts research misconduct proceedings in compliance with the Policy, these Procedures, and the PHS regulations. The institution will take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of good-faith panel members and to protect these individuals from retaliation.[xix]
    2. Role and duties of the VPR as RIO to any Witness[es].
      1. In addition to the confidentiality of the entire process in the Policy, the VPR will provide confidentiality (consistent with 42 CFR Part 93) for all witnesses. The institutions will take 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.[xx] The institutions will also take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of witnesses and to protect these individuals from retaliation

RESEARCH MISCONDUCT PROCESS

  1. Documentation and Sequestering of Evidence during Initial Evaluation.

    1. Initial Evaluation of the Complaint.  At the time the VPR as RIO has determined the Allegations fall within the definition of Research Misconduct, the VPR on behalf of the institution will 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.[xxi] The institution has a duty to obtain, inventory, and securely sequester evidence that extends to whenever additional items become known or relevant to the PIP, FIP, or investigation.[xxii]
    2. VPR Determination.  The VPR shall make a written determination at this Evaluation/Assessment of the Allegations no matter which way the outcome.  This shall occur as soon as possible after receipt of the allegations, but no later than 30 days after VPR receipt of the allegations.  If the determination is negative, the institution shall maintain the documentation to present to ORI or any federal agency for seven years from the determination date.

  1. PIP Process.

    1. Timeline.  The VPR shall be able to extend the 30 day PIP convening deadline for good cause found and documented, for up to 90 days if necessary.
    2. PIP Report. In addition to the information in the Policy, the PIP shall write a report that must include.
      • the names, professional aliases, and positions of the respondent and complainant(s).
      • A description of the allegation(s) of research misconduct.
      • Details about the sponsor funding, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing the sponsor funding support.
      • The composition of the inquiry committee, if used, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
      • An inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted.
      • Transcripts of interviews, if transcribed.
      • PIP timeline and procedural history.
      • Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
      • The basis for recommending that the allegation(s) warrant an investigation.
      • The basis on which any allegation(s) do not merit further investigation.
      • Any comments on the inquiry report by the respondent or the complainant(s).
      • Any institutional actions implemented, including internal communications or external communications with journals or funding agencies.[xxiii]
      • Documentation of potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion.[xxiv]

  2. FIP Process.

    1. The FIP Report shall include a rationale for its conclusions and:
      • Description of the nature of the allegation(s) of research misconduct, including any additional allegation(s) addressed during the research misconduct proceeding.
      • Description and documentation of the PHS support, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS support. This documentation includes known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with PHS and non-PHS Federal agencies.
      • Description of the specific allegation(s) of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation of the respondent. 
      • Composition of investigation committee, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
      • Inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence, except records the institution did not consider or rely on.  This inventory will include manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied on during the investigation. The inventory will also include a description of how any sequestration was conducted during the investigation.
      • Transcripts of all interviews conducted.
      • Identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), PHS funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, or other research records that contain the allegedly falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material.
      • Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
      • A copy of these policies and procedures.
      • Any comments made by the respondent and complainant(s) on the draft investigation report and the committee’s consideration of those comments.
      • A statement for each separate allegation of whether the committee recommends a finding of research misconduct. 

  1.  Institutional Determination Official (IDO) and Appeal.

No matter whether an appeal is filed by the Respondent(s) or not, it is the Provost as IDO who shall by final written decision, upon review of the FIP report and the Record, make the final determination that research misconduct occurred, and if so, by whom.[xxv] In this statement, the IDO will include a description of relevant institutional actions taken or to be taken.[xxvi]  If the Respondent did file an appeal of the FIP findings, this same IDO shall decide that appeal when documenting the final determination.

  1. Final Collection of the Record. After the IDO has made a final determination of research misconduct findings, RIT will add the IDO’s written decision to the investigation report and organize the institutional Record in a logical manner.  The Record consists of the records that were compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the institution did not rely on.  These records include documentation of the assessment, a single index listing all research records and evidence, the inquiry report and investigation report, and all records considered or relied on during the investigation.  The institutional Record also includes the IDO’s final decision and any information the Respondent provided to the institution.  The institutional Record must also include a general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.

  1. Appeal to Provost.  If the Respondent filed an appeal, the complete record of any institutional appeal also becomes part of the institutional Record. 

  1. Transmittal.  RIT shall wait until the appeal is concluded to transmit the institutional record to ORI or the applicable federal agency.

References

[i] § 93.300(a).

[ii] § 93.104(a).

[iii] § 93.104(b)(1).

[iv] §§ 93.104(b)(1) and 93.318.

[v] § 93.104(b)(2).

[vi] § 93.102(c).

[vii] at 42 CFR Part 93 generally.

[viii] 42 CFR Part 93 § 93.300(c).

[ix] § 93.100.

[x] § 93.200.

[xi] § 93.214.

[xii] § 93.218.

[xiii] § 93.220.

[xiv] § 93.221.

[xv] § 93.223.

[xvi] § 93.231.

[xvii] § 93.228.

[xviii] § 93.227.

[xix] §§ 93.305(f) and 93.300(d).

[xx] § 93.300(b).

[xxi] §§ 93.305(a) and 93.318.

[xxii] §§ 93.305(a)(2) and 93.318.

[xxiii] § 93.309(a)(1-12).

[xxiv] § 93.307(g)(2).

[xxv] § 93.314(a).

[xxvi] § 93.314(b)

Procedures document updated April 29, 2026.