03.300 Research Misconduct Policy

Chancellor

Revised April 21, 2026; Reformatted and revised December 12, 2006; December 1996; April 1990

Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct (42 CFR Part 93), Office of Science and Technology Policy, December 6, 2000, UNC Policy 500.7

UNCW Ethics Policy, UNCW Conflict of Interest Policy, UNCW Institutional Review Board Policies and Procedures, UNCW Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee Policies and Procedures, UNCW Research Misconduct Procedures

UNCW Research Integrity Office

Policy Details:

1. Introduction

   Each member of the university community has a responsibility to create and foster an environment promoting intellectual honesty and the highest standards of academic integrity. Research misconduct constitutes unacceptable personal conduct with respect to scholarship and research. Disdain for misconduct in any aspect of research or scholarly endeavor must be upheld, as misconduct in any form is destructive of the standards the university attempts to instill in its students, the public perception of academia and academic disciplines, and the financial support of the government and other sponsors for scholarship and research.

2. Definitions

   1. Allegation - a disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication.

   2. Assessment - a 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.

   3. Complainant - an individual who, in good faith, makes an allegation of research misconduct.

   4. 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.

   5. Fabrication - making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

   6. Falsification - manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research record is not accurately represented.

   7. Good Faith - having a belief in the truth of one's allegation or testimony that a reasonable person in the complainant's or witness's position could have based on the information known at the time. An allegation or cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding is not in good faith if made with knowing or reckless disregard for information that would negate the allegation or testimony.

   8. Inquiry - preliminary information gathering to determine whether an allegation warrants an investigation.

   9. Intentionally - to act with the aim of carrying out the act.

   10. Investigation - the formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record that meets the criteria and follows the procedures set forth in this policy and the associated procedures.

   11. Knowingly - to act with awareness, deliberateness, or intention.

   12. 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.

   13. Preponderance of the Evidence - proof by information that, when compared with the information opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the matter at issue is more likely true than not.

   14. Recklessly - to propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.

   15. Research - a systematic experiment, study, evaluation, demonstration, or survey designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge. This definition includes all basic, applied, and demonstration research in all academic and scholarly fields.

   16. Research Misconduct - fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting research results. Research misconduct does not include honest errors or differences of opinion.

   17. Research Misconduct Proceeding - any action related to an allegation of research misconduct, including but not limited to an assessment, inquiry, investigation, or federal oversight review.

   18. Research Record - any data, document, computer file, or other material that embodies the research process or results. 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.

   19. Respondent - a person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding, inquiry, or investigation.

   20. Retaliation - an adverse action taken against a complainant, witness, participant, 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.

   In the event of discrepancies in defined terminology, the Policy definitions shall control unless the SOP explicitly defines a term for procedural purposes.

   For PHS supported research, terms shall be interpreted consistently with 42 CFR Part 93. In the event of conflict, the federal definition controls.

3. Roles and Responsibilities

   1. Research Integrity Officer (RIO): The director of the Research Integrity Office oversees the assessment, inquiry, and investigation of allegations of research misconduct and ensures institutional compliance with this policy and applicable regulations.

   2. Deciding Official (DO): The Associate Provost for Research and Innovation (APRI) is the one who makes final determinations regarding findings of research misconduct and institutional actions.

   3. Inquiry, Investigation, and Appeal Bodies: Ad hoc committees or officials responsible for conducting inquiries, investigations, appeals, and oversight, as described in the university's Research Misconduct procedures.

   All individuals involved in these processes should be free of unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the respondent, complainant, potential witnesses, or other individuals involved in the matter. Any such conflict of interest which a reasonable person would consider demonstrating potential bias shall disqualify the individual from participation in the process.

4. Individual Reporting Responsibility

   1. All members of the university community are responsible for reporting research misconduct when it is suspected or known to have occurred. The initial step for any member is to discuss the situation and seek the advice of the department chair or director of the unit, unless there are concerns of impartiality or confidentiality. With or without the advice of the department chair/director, any member who, in good faith, has reason to believe an act of research misconduct has occurred or is occurring shall notify the RIO.

   2. The university may accept a substantiated complaint from an individual external to the university community.

   3. A report may be made to the RIO by any means of written or verbal communication. If made verbally, the RIO shall document the accuracy and completeness of the allegation through email with the complainant.

5. Confidentiality and Non-Retaliation

   1. The university will make reasonable efforts to protect the confidentiality of complainants, respondents, and witnesses, consistent with the need to conduct a thorough, fair, and effective review and with applicable legal requirements.

   2. Retaliation against individuals who make allegations in good faith or who participate in research misconduct proceedings is strictly prohibited. Retaliation is grounds for appropriate disciplinary action.

6. Inquiry and Investigation

   Allegations that meet the criteria for research misconduct and are sufficiently credible and specific will be reviewed in accordance with university procedures that provide for the following:

   • Preliminary assessment of allegations;

   • Inquiry to determine whether an investigation is warranted;

   • Investigation when required;

   • Notice to respondents;

   • Opportunities for respondents to review and comment on reports; and,

   • Timely completion of proceedings consistent with federal requirements.

7. Findings and Institutional Actions

   1. There is a presumption that no research misconduct occurred unless proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

   2. A finding of research misconduct requires that the following conditions be met:

      • A significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community;

      • The misconduct be committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly; and,

      • The allegation be proven by a preponderance of evidence.

   3. If research misconduct is substantiated, the university will take appropriate administrative or disciplinary actions in accordance with applicable policies and procedures. The university will also take reasonable steps to correct the research record.

   4. When required, the university will notify and cooperate with relevant external agencies.

8. Record Retention and Cooperation

   Records of research misconduct proceedings will be retained in accordance with federal regulations and university procedures. The university will maintain records in accordance with the UNC System Records Retention Schedule. The policy and associated procedures will be reviewed annually by the RIO and updated as necessary to ensure continued compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

9. Right to Appeal

   The respondent has the right to appeal to a finding of research misconduct within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the final investigational report. The appeal shall be made in writing to the provost. The only grounds for requesting an appeal are if the researcher believes that the APRI's decision is due to inadequate or inaccurate information, or noncompliance with university policy, state law, or federal regulation. Mere disagreement with the APRI's decision does not constitute grounds for an appeal. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receiving the appeal, the provost shall make a determination, which shall be the final decision of the university. If the circumstances warrant a longer evaluation period, the provost shall document the reasons for the delay.

10. Institutional Actions

    1. If the APRI concurs with the recommendations of the committee that sanctions and/or discipline are warranted, the APRI shall confer with the provost and refer the final report and recommendation for either sanctions, discipline, or both to the chancellor or designee, who shall determine whether disciplinary action should ensue.

    2. In deciding what sanctions or disciplinary actions are appropriate, the chancellor or designee shall consider the seriousness of the misconduct, including, but not limited to, the degree to which the misconduct was knowing, intentional, or reckless; was an isolated event or part of a pattern; or had a significant impact on the research record, research subjects, or other researchers, institutions, or the public welfare.

    3. Sanctions and disciplinary actions available include, but are not limited to, appropriate steps to correct the research record; letters of reprimand; the imposition of special certification or assurance requirements to ensure compliance with applicable regulations or terms of an award; suspension or termination of an active award; demotion; suspension; dismissal; or other discipline according to the appropriate policies applicable to students, faculty or staff.

    4. If sanctions or discipline result, the chancellor or designee shall provide written notification to the APRI, who shall append that information to the final investigational report.