Research Misconduct Policy

SUBJECT:

Research Misconduct Policy

 Effective Date:
23March2026		 Policy Number:
10.1.1
  Supersedes:
11/20/2013
05/02/2012
12/22/2010
06/23/2010
03/27/2009 		Page 1 of 24
  Responsible Authorities:
Vice President for Research

APPLICABILITY:

Florida Atlantic University (“FAU” or “Institution”) strives to uphold the highest standards of rigor and integrity in the conduct of research and scholarly work. 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.

This Research Misconduct Policy (policy) describes the FAU process for handling allegations of research misconduct in accordance with applicable federal regulations, applicable sponsor requirements, and ethical principles inherent to the responsible conduct of research and scholarly work. The purpose of this policy is to set forth definitions, roles and responsibilities, and standards for handling allegations of research misconduct.

Regulations related to this policy include, but are not limited to, the following:

42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 – Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct; 45 CFR Part 689—National Science Foundation (NSF) Research Misconduct Policy; and other local, state, or federal laws and regulations that may apply in the context of research and scholarly work.

FAU Institutional Members (as defined below) are governed by this policy.

POLICY STATEMENT:

Aligned with its research mission, the institution seeks to foster and adhere to the highest standards of ethical research and scholarly work. This includes establishing and implementing policies and procedures that ensure the handling of allegations of research misconduct in a fair, competent, thorough, and objective manner. References to “research” in this policy are inclusive of research and scholarship.

Scope and Applicability

This policy applies to all allegations of research misconduct on the part of FAU’s institutional members engaged in the conduct of research or scholarly work, regardless of the source of funding. This policy is adopted by FAU in compliance and consistent with laws, rules and regulations of the United States, the State of Florida, the Florida Board of Governors, the Florida Atlantic University Board of Trustees, and, for those employees included in the bargaining unit, the FAU Board of Trustees/United Faculty of Florida Collective Bargaining Agreement. It will be updated administratively in accordance with changes in those laws, rules, and regulations.

This policy and procedures apply to allegations of research misconduct involving:

  • Applications or proposals for PHS support for biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or research training.
  • PHS-supported biomedical or behavioral research.
  • PHS-supported biomedical or behavioral research training programs.
  • PHS-supported activities that are related to biomedical or behavioral research or research training, such as, but not limited to, the operation of tissue and data banks or the dissemination of research information.
  • Research records produced during PHS-supported research, research training, or activities related to that research or research training. Research proposed, performed, reviewed, or reported, as well as any research record generated from that research, regardless of whether an application or proposal for PHS funds resulted in an awarded grant, contract, cooperative agreement, subaward, or other form of PHS support.
  • Any research, regardless of funding source proposed, performed, reviewed, or reported, or any research record generated from that research, regardless of whether an application or proposal resulted in a grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or other form of support.

This policy applies only to alleged research misconduct occurring within six years of FAU or a cognizant agency or sponsor receiving an allegation of research misconduct. The subsequent use exception provides the circumstances under which there is an exception to this six-year limitation, as follows:

  • 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 appears subject to this subsequent use exception, but FAU 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 seven years after completion of the institutional proceeding or the completion of any proceeding.
  • If FAU, following consultation with the Cognizant 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.

In addition to this policy, the applicable federal regulations will guide the research misconduct proceedings for research or scholarly work involving federal agency funds. In the event of a conflict between applicable federal regulations and this policy, the federal regulations will apply (or will be followed).

This policy and the associated procedures do not apply to authorship or collaboration disputes and apply only to allegations of research misconduct. Authorship or collaboration disputes are to undergo resolution procedures as outlined in FAU Division of Research Policy 10.1.7, “Authorship and Publication of Scholarly Work.”

DEFINITIONS:

Accepted practices of the relevant research or scholarly community. Practices established by applicable regulations and funding components, as well as commonly accepted professional codes, methods, or norms used by the community of researchers or scholars relevant to the allegation(s).

Administrative record. Comprises the institutional record relevant to the allegation(s), including documentation of correspondence, meetings, interviews, and other aspects of the proceeding that may constitute evidence or document the institutional process undertaken.

Allegation. A disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of an FAU institutional official, funder, or regulatory agency.

Assessment. Assessment means a consideration of whether an allegation of research misconduct appears to fall within the definition of research misconduct; appears to involve PHS-supported biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or research training; and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. The assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation.

Cognizant Agency. The organization associated with the funding source for the research activity in question is responsible for matters involving research misconduct. For example, the Cognizant Agency for research funded by the National Institutes of Health is the HHS Office of Research Integrity.

Complainant. A person who, in good faith, makes an allegation of research misconduct.

Conflict of interest. The real or apparent interference of an individual’s interests with the interests of another individual or organization, where potential bias may occur due to prior or existing personal, financial, organizational, or professional interests or relationships.

Day. Day means calendar day unless otherwise specified. If a deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the deadline will be extended to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday. Exceptions can be granted from the RIO in special circumstances such as institutional closures.

Evidence. Information or material offered or obtained during a research misconduct proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact. Evidence includes documents, whether in hard copy or electronic form, information, tangible items, and testimony.

Fabrication. Making up scholarly or research data or results and recording or reporting them.

Falsification. Manipulating scholarly work or research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results, such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

Good faith. (a) 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 an institution meet its responsibilities under § 93.214. An institutional or committee member does not act in good faith if their acts or omissions during the research misconduct proceedings are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.

Inquiry. Initial information gathering and preliminary fact-finding to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of research misconduct has substance and warrants an investigation.

Institution. Institution means any person who applies for or receives PHS support for any activity or program that involves the conduct of biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or training. This includes, but is not limited to, colleges and universities, PHS intramural biomedical or behavioral research laboratories, research and development centers, national user facilities, industrial laboratories or other research institutes, research institutions, and independent researchers.

Institutional Deciding Official (IDO). The FAU institutional official who makes final determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any institutional actions related to allegations of research misconduct. The FAU Provost shall serve as the IDO.

Institutional member. Institutional member and members mean 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 or agents of contractors, subcontractors, or sub-awardees.

Institutional record. Comprises the records compiled or generated by the institution during all phases of the research misconduct proceeding in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, except records that the institution did not consider or rely on in conducting the proceeding.

Intentionally. To act intentionally means to act with the aim of carrying out the act.

Investigation. The formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record meets the criteria and follows the procedures outlined in this policy and as set forth in applicable regulations.

Knowingly. To act knowingly means to act with awareness of the act.

Plagiarism. The appropriation of ideas, processes, images, results, or words of another person or source without giving appropriate credit. (a) Plagiarism includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another’s sources or person’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 or scholarly work. Self-plagiarism and authorship disputes do not meet the definition of research misconduct under this policy (see also Section B.1.).

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

Public Health Service or PHS. Public Health Service or PHS consists of the following components within HHS: the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, the Office of Global Affairs, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Indian Health Service, the National Institutes of Health, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and any other components of HHS designated or established as components of the Public Health Service.

Recklessly. To act recklessly means to propose, perform, or review research or scholarly work, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.

Research. A systematic experiment, study, evaluation, or survey designed to develop or contribute to generalizable or specific knowledge, including, but not limited to, basic, applied, or demonstration research, in all disciplines and fields.

Research Integrity Officer (RIO). The institutional official responsible for administering FAU’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct and doing so in compliance with applicable laws, federal regulations, and sponsor requirements. The FAU Vice President for Research will serve as the RIO.

Research misconduct. Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or scholarly work, or in reporting research results. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

Research misconduct proceeding. Research misconduct proceeding means any actions related to alleged research misconduct taken under this policy and/or 42 CFR Part 93, including allegation assessments, inquiries, investigations, Cognizant Agency oversight reviews, and appeals.

Research or scholarly record. Any data or results that embody the facts resulting from research or scholarly inquiry including, but not limited to, grant or contract applications, whether funded or unfunded; grant or contract progress and other reports; laboratory notebooks; notes; correspondence; videos; photographs; X-ray film; slides; biological materials; computer files and printouts; manuscripts and publications; equipment use logs; laboratory procurement records; animal facility records; human and animal subject protocols; consent forms; medical charts; and patient research files. “Data or results” shall be interpreted broadly to encompass all forms of scholarly information about the research or scholarly work at issue without regard to the type of recording or storage media, including, but not limited to, raw numbers, field notes, interviews, notebooks and folders, laboratory observations, computers and other research equipment, CD-ROMs, hard drives, all data storage devices, research interpretations and analyses, tables, slides, photographs, charts, gels, individual facts, statistics, tissue samples, reagents, and documented oral representations of research results.

Respondent. The individual(s) against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or whose actions are the subject of the research misconduct proceeding.

Retaliation. Retaliation means an adverse action taken against a complainant, witness, or committee member by an institution or one of its members in response to (a) a good faith allegation of research misconduct or (b) good faith cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding.

Scholarly work. Activity or endeavors involving the serious and detailed study of an academic subject, typically involving a peer-review process before publication.

Subsequent use exception. This policy applies only to allegations received by FAU and/or a pertinent agency involved in funding or overseeing the research or scholarly work in question within the previous six years, unless the allegations fall under the subsequent use exception defined in 42 CFR 93.104. The subsequent use exception, as defined in 42 CFR 93.104, will be applicable even where the research or scholarly work that is the subject of the research misconduct proceeding is not funded by PHS.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:

1. FAU's General Responsibilities

The institution will endeavor to inform all FAU institutional members about this policy and make the policy publicly available. FAU, through the Division of Research (DOR), will respond to each allegation of research misconduct in a thorough, competent, objective, and fair manner. Any institutional member who receives an allegation of research misconduct must report it to the RIO. If an individual(s) is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of research misconduct, they may meet with or contact the RIO or designee to discuss the suspected research misconduct informally; this may include discussing it anonymously and/or hypothetically.

Faculty members have the responsibility to oversee all students, graduate and undergraduate, conducting research under their supervision. This includes, to the extent possible, ensuring that the tenets for the responsible conduct of research are known and followed by these students. At any time, an institutional member may have confidential discussions and consultations about concerns of possible misconduct with the RIO and will be counseled about appropriate procedures for reporting allegations.

DOR will take all reasonable and practical steps to ensure the cooperation of complainants, respondents, witnesses, committee members, and other relevant FAU individuals involved in research misconduct proceedings. DOR will also take 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 relevant to the proceeding. In addition, DOR will make reasonable efforts to prevent retaliation against complainants, respondents, witnesses, committee members, and other individuals participating in research misconduct proceedings in good faith. As appropriate, in connection with a research misconduct proceeding, DOR may also take steps to manage published data or acknowledge that data may be unreliable, including correcting the scientific or scholarly literature.

The institution will maintain confidentiality of research misconduct proceedings to the extent possible, including limiting disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, witnesses, and committee members to those who need to know as determined by DOR in accordance with applicable regulations and as allowed by law. Those who need to know may include institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions. This limitation on disclosure no longer applies once FAU has made a final determination of research misconduct findings, but disclosure will remain subject to any applicable confidentiality agreements. Except as may otherwise be required by applicable law, FAU will maintain confidentiality for any records or evidence from which research participants might be identified and will limit disclosure of such records or evidence to those who need to know to carry out a research misconduct proceeding.

The RIO shall, at any time during a research misconduct proceeding, notify the Cognizant Agency immediately if they have reason to believe that any of the following conditions exist:

  • Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or
  • animal subjects.
  • HHS resources or interests are threatened.
  • Research activities should be suspended.
  • There is a 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 research misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely and HHS action
  • may be necessary to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved.
  • The research community or public should be informed.

2. Research Integrity Officer Role and General Responsibilities

The FAU RIO will assume the primary responsibility for implementation of this policy. The same individual will not serve as both IDO and RIO. The RIO should have authority over the research enterprise with sensitivity to the varied demands made on those who conduct research, those who are accused of research misconduct, those who make good faith allegations of research misconduct, and those who may serve on inquiry and investigation committees.

The RIO will take all reasonable and practical steps to ensure the cooperation of respondents and other institutional members with research misconduct proceedings, including, but not limited to their providing information, research records, and evidence. The RIO will keep the IDO apprised of review of the allegation of research misconduct. The RIO may designate an institutional member within DOR to oversee the procedures in their absence or in extenuating circumstances.

If the RIO has an unresolved conflict of interest with the complainant, respondent, or other key individual involved in the proceeding, the IDO will designate another institutional official with the appropriate level of administrative authority who does not have an unresolved conflict of interest to serve in the role of RIO and manage the proceeding as the designated institutional official.

At any stage in the proceeding, the RIO or designated institutional official may confidentially consult ad hoc subject matter experts as appropriate. The RIO or designated institutional official may also consult, on a confidential basis, with other FAU compliance units or offices as necessary to conduct the proceeding.

In compliance with applicable regulations, the RIO or designated institutional official shall ensure complete and accurate documentation, adhere to applicable timelines, fulfil reporting obligations, and respond to sponsor or agency requests.

3. Institutional Deciding Official Role and General Responsibilities

The IDO is responsible for rendering a final institutional determination of whether research misconduct occurred. The IDO’s written decision becomes part of the institutional record.

As appropriate, the IDO may coordinate with the RIO or other designated institutional official(s) on matters described in this policy. If the IDO has an unresolved conflict of interest with the complainant, respondent, or other key individual involved in the proceeding, the FAU President will designate another institutional official with the appropriate level of administrative authority who does not have an unresolved conflict of interest to serve in the role of IDO.

REPORTING SUSPECTED RESEARCH MISCONDUCT IN GOOD FAITH:

FAU institutional members have a shared responsibility to report suspected research misconduct in good faith. Allegations should be brought confidentially to the RIO or other institutional official in writing. Although anonymous allegations are acceptable, they must contain sufficient information, as determined by the RIO or designated institutional official, to enable an assessment.

1. Complainant Rights

As part of their responsibility to maintain confidentiality, the RIO will take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of complainants who bring allegations in good faith and to protect them from any form of retaliation. DOR will make every effort to honor a complainant’s request for non-disclosure of their identity; however, absolute non-disclosure cannot be guaranteed. As part of their obligation to cooperate throughout the proceedings, the complainant should also maintain confidentiality to protect the reputations of those involved.

The institution will also take 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. The institution agrees to take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of complainants.

2. Respondent Rights

As with complainants, the institution will provide confidentiality to all respondents in a research misconduct proceeding. The institution will make a good-faith effort to notify the respondent in writing with a summary of the allegations being made against them, take 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.

The respondent may consult with legal counsel or a non-lawyer personal advisor (who is not a principal or witness in the case) to seek advice and may bring the counselor or personal advisor to interviews or meetings on the case. The advisor may advise the respondent at any stage but will not speak for respondents or address institutional officials at any meeting, interview, or hearing.

3. Witness Rights

The institution will provide confidentiality for all witnesses. The institution 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. The institution will also take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of witnesses and to protect these individuals from retaliation.

4. Allegations Not Made in Good Faith

If relevant, the IDO will determine 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 will determine whether any administrative action should be taken against the person who failed to act in good faith.

The RIO will assist the IDO in implementing their decision to take administrative action against a complainant, witness, or committee members determined by the IDO to not have acted in good faith.

ASSESSMENT:

The purpose of an assessment is for DOR to review readily accessible information relevant to the allegation and determine whether an allegation warrants an inquiry.

Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO or designated institutional official will promptly assess the allegation to determine whether an inquiry is warranted. This includes a determination of whether the allegation: (a) falls within the definition of research misconduct; (b) falls within the six-year time limitation or the subsequent use exception; and (c) is sufficiently credible and specific such that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. If the project is not PHS funded, (a) and (b) are sufficient for a complete assessment.

If the RIO or designated institutional official determines that the allegation meets the above criteria, they will promptly document the assessment, initiate an inquiry, and sequester all research or scholarly work records and other evidence. If the RIO or designated institutional official determines that the alleged misconduct does not meet the criteria to proceed to an inquiry, they will prepare sufficiently detailed documentation in an assessment report describing FAU’s justification for not proceeding to an inquiry. FAU will securely retain this documentation, including the institutional record and all sequestered evidence, for seven years after completion of the proceeding, unless applicable federal law or regulations require a longer period.

INQUIRY:

1. Purpose of the Inquiry Process

The purpose of the inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the available evidence to determine whether an allegation warrants an investigation. The inquiry does not require a full review of all related evidence, nor does it involve determining whether research misconduct occurred or whether it occurred intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. The RIO may determine whether to conduct the inquiry independently or to convene a committee of subject matter experts to assist with the inquiry.

The inquiry committee must consist of individuals who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved with the inquiry. It should include individuals with the appropriate scientific expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation, interview the principals and key witnesses, and conduct the inquiry. The inquiry committee may use additional experts when necessary to evaluate specific allegations. The RIO or designated institutional official will notify the respondent of the proposed committee membership to give the respondent an opportunity to object to a proposed member based upon a personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest.

FAU will complete the inquiry within 90 days of its initiation unless circumstances warrant a longer period, with reasons for exceeding the time limit clearly documented in the inquiry report.

2. Notifying the Respondent and Sequestering Evidence

At the time of or before beginning the inquiry, the RIO or designated institutional official will take all reasonable steps to notify the respondent(s), in writing, that an allegation(s) of research misconduct has been raised against them, that relevant research or scholarly work records have been or will be sequestered, and that an inquiry will be conducted to determine whether to proceed with an investigation. If additional allegations emerge subsequent to the initial inquiry notification, the RIO or designated institutional official will provide additional written notification regarding any new allegations to the respondent(s). If additional respondents are identified, the RIO or designated institutional official will provide written notification to each individual to inform them of the allegations as described above. All additional respondents will be afforded the same rights and opportunities as the initial respondent. Only allegations specific to a particular respondent will be included in the notification to that respondent.

Notification(s) to respondent(s) will include a description of the allegations but will not include the complaint. Once an inquiry is initiated, respondents may, at their own expense, consult with legal counsel or a non-lawyer personal adviser (who is not a witness or institution official involved or to be involved in the proceedings) in an advisory capacity.

Before or at the time of notifying the respondent(s) and whenever additional items become known or relevant to the inquiry or investigation, the RIO or designated institutional official will take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain the original or substantially equivalent copies of all research or scholarly work 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 the conclusion of the proceeding, unless applicable federal law or regulations require a longer period.

Where appropriate, the RIO or designated institutional official will also provide the respondent(s) copies of, or reasonable supervised access to, any sequestered research or scholarly work records. A respondent’s destruction of research or scholarly work records documenting the questioned research or scholarly work is evidence of research misconduct where FAU establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the respondent intentionally or knowingly destroyed records after being informed of the research misconduct allegations. A respondent’s failure to provide research or scholarly work records documenting the questioned research or scholarly work is evidence of research misconduct where the respondent claims to possess the records but refuses to provide them upon request.

3. Documenting the Inquiry

At the conclusion of the inquiry, regardless of whether an investigation is recommended to be warranted, the inquiry committee, RIO, or designated institutional official will prepare a written inquiry report including the following:

  • The names, professional aliases, and positions of the respondent(s) and complainant(s).
  • A description of the allegation(s) of research misconduct.
  • Details about the PHS or other funding, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS or other support.
  • The composition of the inquiry committee, if used, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
  • An inventory of sequestered research and scholarly work records, and other evidence and description of the sequestration process.
  • Transcripts of any interviews conducted.
  • Inquiry 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.
  • Documentation of potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion.

4. Completing the Inquiry

The institution will provide the respondent(s) with a copy of the draft inquiry report for review and comment and may provide relevant portions of the report to the complainant(s) for comment. If appropriate, names or other identifying factors will be redacted from the draft inquiry report to protect the confidentiality of the complainant(s) to the greatest extent possible. Any comments received will be attached to the final inquiry report. The RIO or designated institutional official will then transmit the final report with recommendations to the IDO, who will make a final institutional determination as to whether an investigation is warranted.

FAU will notify the respondent(s) of the inquiry’s final outcome and provide the respondent(s) with copies of the final inquiry report, any pertinent regulations, and this policy. If appropriate, names or other identifying factors will be redacted from the final inquiry report to protect the confidentiality of the complainant(s) to the greatest extent possible. If appropriate, and in compliance with applicable law and regulation, the reason(s) warranting an inquiry period longer than 90 days may also be redacted from the final inquiry report. FAU may choose to notify the complainant(s) of the outcome of the inquiry. If there is more than one complainant, and FAU chooses to notify one complainant of the outcome of the inquiry, FAU will endeavor to notify all complainants.

5. Determination of whether an Investigation is Warranted

The RIO, designated institutional official, or inquiry committee will conduct a preliminary review of the evidence to recommend to the IDO whether an investigation is warranted. An investigation is warranted if (a) there is a reasonable basis for concluding that an allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct, and (b) preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding from the inquiry indicate that an allegation may have substance.

If the respondent raises any affirmative defenses against the research misconduct allegation(s), the respondent has the burden of presenting and proving, by a preponderance of evidence, any defenses raised. FAU will give due consideration to credible and specific evidence of honest error or differences of opinion presented by the respondent(s).

If the IDO determines that an investigation is not warranted, FAU will keep sufficiently detailed documentation, including a detailed justification for not proceeding to an investigation. The institutional record from such proceedings will be provided to regulatory agencies, as appropriate, and stored in a secure manner for seven years after the conclusion of the proceeding, or longer if required by applicable law or regulation.

If the IDO determines that an investigation is warranted, FAU will (a) provide written notice to the respondent of the decision to conduct an investigation of the alleged misconduct, including any other allegations of research misconduct not addressed during the inquiry; and (b) within 30 days of determining that an investigation is warranted, provide the Cognizant Agency (if applicable) with a copy of the inquiry report.

INVESTIGATION:

1. Purpose of the Investigation and Investigation Process

The purpose of an investigation is to formally develop a factual record, examine the record, and recommend findings to the IDO. The IDO is responsible for making a final determination on each allegation of research misconduct.

DOR will initiate the investigation within 30 days after the IDO’s determination that an investigation is warranted, and will complete all aspects of the investigation within 180 days of its initiation, including conducting the investigation, preparing the draft investigation report for each respondent, providing the opportunity for respondent(s) (and complainant(s), if appropriate) to comment on the draft investigation report, transmitting the institutional record to the IDO (including the final investigation report), and decision by the IDO. If circumstances warrant a longer period, FAU may, in compliance with applicable law and regulation, take longer than 180 days to complete the investigation. If FAU is unable to complete an investigation within 180 days, the reasons for exceeding the 180-day time limit must be clearly documented in the investigation report.

As part of its investigation, DOR will pursue diligently all significant issues and relevant leads, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion. A finding of research misconduct must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.

2. Notifying the Respondent and Sequestering Evidence

DOR will notify the respondent(s) in writing of the allegation(s) within 30 days of the IDO’s determination that an investigation is warranted and before the investigation begins. If any additional respondent(s) are identified during the investigation, DOR will notify respondent(s) in writing of the allegation(s) and provide them with an opportunity to respond consistent with this policy and any applicable regulations. If additional respondents are identified during the investigation, DOR may choose to either conduct a separate inquiry or add the new respondent(s) to the ongoing investigation. If new allegations emerge during the investigation, the institution will also notify the respondent(s) in writing of those new allegations. To the extent it has not already done so during the inquiry, DOR will obtain the original or substantially equivalent copies of all research or scholarly records and other evidence, inventory these materials, sequester them in a secure manner, and retain them for seven years after its proceeding or any pertinent agency proceeding, whichever is later.

3. Convening an Investigation Committee

After identifying appropriate subject matter experts and documenting that they are free of potential, perceived, or actual personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest, the RIO or designated institutional official will convene the members of the investigation committee, which can include the same committee members from the inquiry. The RIO or designated institutional official will notify the respondent of the proposed committee membership to give the respondent an opportunity to object to a proposed member based upon a personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest.

The RIO or designated institutional official will advise the committee members of their responsibility to impartially conduct the research misconduct proceedings in compliance with this policy and any applicable regulations. The RIO or designated institutional official will ensure that the investigation is sufficiently documented and that the investigation committee understands and fulfils its required tasks, including conducting interviews, pursuing leads, and examining research records and other evidence relevant to making a recommendation on the merits of the allegation(s).

Committee members may serve on more than one investigation committee when there are multiple respondents involved in the same investigation.

4. Conducting Interviews

The investigation committee will interview each respondent, complainant(s), and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding the allegations, including witnesses identified by the respondent(s). The RIO or designated institutional official will number all relevant exhibits and refer to any exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview by that number to ensure appropriate documentation of the record. Interviews conducted during the investigation will be recorded and transcribed, with transcripts made available to the interviewee for correction. Transcripts with any corrections and exhibits will be included in the institutional record. The respondent(s) will not be present during any witness interviews, but the RIO or designated institutional official will provide the respondent(s) with a transcript of each interview, with redactions as appropriate to maintain confidentiality to the greatest extent possible.

5. Documenting the Investigation

At the conclusion of the investigation, the investigation committee, RIO, or designated institutional official will prepare a written investigation report for each respondent, including the following:

  • 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 or other support, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS or other support. This documentation includes known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with PHS and non-PHS Federal agencies, if applicable.
  • Description of the specific allegation(s) of research misconduct considered in the investigation of the respondent.
  • Composition of investigation committee, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
  • Inventory of sequestered research or scholarly records and other evidence, except records the institution did not consider or rely upon. This inventory will include manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied upon during the investigation, along with a description of the sequestration process.
  • Transcripts of all interviews conducted.
  • Identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), PHS or other funding applications (if applicable), 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 FAU policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted.
  • 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.

If the investigation committee recommends a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the investigation report must, for that allegation, (a) identify the individual(s) who committed the research misconduct; (b) indicate whether the research misconduct constituted falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism; (c) indicate whether the research misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; (d) identify any significant departure from the accepted practices of the relevant research or scholarly 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 PHS or other support, if any; 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 will provide 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 PHS and non-PHS Federal agencies.

6. Completing the Investigation

DOR will provide each respondent with a copy of the draft investigation report for that respondent and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the research records and other evidence that the investigation committee considered or relied upon. If appropriate, names or other identifying factors will be redacted from the draft investigation report to protect the confidentiality of the complainant(s) to the greatest extent possible.

The respondent(s) will submit any comments on the draft report to DOR within 30 days of receiving the draft investigation report, and such comments will be included in the final investigation report. In distributing the draft report, or portions thereof, to the respondent, the RIO or the designated official will inform the recipient of the confidentiality under which the draft report is made available and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure such confidentiality. For example, the RIO may require that the recipient sign a confidentiality agreement.

FAU will notify the respondent(s) of the investigation's final outcome and provide the respondent(s) with copies of the final investigation report, any pertinent regulations, and this policy. If appropriate, names or other identifying factors will be redacted from the final investigation report to protect the confidentiality of the complainant(s) to the greatest extent possible. FAU may choose to notify the complainant(s) of the outcome of the investigation. If there is more than one complainant, and FAU chooses to notify one complainant of the outcome of the investigation, FAU will endeavor to notify all complainants.

If a respondent raises any affirmative defenses against the research misconduct allegations, the respondent has the burden of presenting and proving, by a preponderance of evidence, any defenses raised. FAU will give due consideration to credible and specific evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the respondent(s).

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS:

The institution may take appropriate administrative actions against respondents when the IDO makes a finding of research misconduct or when the institution accepts an admission of research misconduct from a respondent. Consistent with applicable law and FAU policies, administrative actions are determined by the IDO after consultation with the RIO and other institutional officials as appropriate, and may include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating
  • from the research where research misconduct was found.
  • Removal of the person responsible from the particular project, letter of reprimand,
  • special monitoring of future work, probation, suspension, salary reduction, or initiation of
  • steps leading to possible rank reduction or termination of employment.
  • Restitution of funds to the grant or agency as appropriate.
  • Dismissal of a student from a program, College or the University.
  • Revocation of a degree from a former student who has received a degree from FAU.
  • Other action consistent with institutional policy appropriate to the misconduct. This includes action by the IDO or referral of the matter for further administrative action by the institution and if a student has been involved, application of the Student Code of Conduct.

The termination of a respondent's university employment or affiliation, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation of possible research misconduct has been alleged, will not lead to termination of the research misconduct proceeding under this policy or as required by applicable law. If the respondent refuses to participate in the process after resignation, the RIO or designated institutional official, and/ or inquiry and investigation committees will use their best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the allegations, noting in the report the respondent's failure to cooperate and its effect on the evidence.

1. Restoration of the Respondent's Reputation

If the institution determines not to proceed from an inquiry to an investigation and/or finds no research misconduct after an investigation, the RIO or designated institutional official will consider reasonable, practicable, and appropriate efforts, if requested by and in consultation with the respondent, to address any concerns relating to the respondent's position, reputation and any public knowledge of the research misconduct allegations. Depending on the particular circumstances, the RIO or designated institutional official may consider such actions as notifying those individuals aware of or involved in the inquiry and/or investigation of the final outcome, publicizing the final outcome in a forum in which the allegation of research misconduct was previously publicized, or including clear reference to findings of no research misconduct under this policy in the respondent's official personnel file. Upon the respondent’s reasonable request, the IDO will consider additional measures to address concerns relating to the consequences of the research misconduct proceeding, including consideration of interim support (ordinarily not to exceed one year) for the respondent’s ongoing research activities.

2. Protection of the Complainant and Others

The RIO or designated institutional official will undertake reasonable efforts to protect the position or reputation of complainants who made allegations of research misconduct in good faith and others participating in good faith in research misconduct proceedings. When appropriate, the RIO or designated institutional official will consult with the individual and the IDO to determine necessary steps for such protection.

3. Failure to Cooperate with Research Misconduct Proceeding

If a complainant, respondent, witness, committee member, or other individual fails to cooperate with the research misconduct proceeding, the RIO or designated institutional official will nevertheless carry the proceeding to conclusion in accordance with this policy and applicable law. The RIO may determine whether any action should be taken against an individual who, under this policy and applicable law, has been found by the RIO or designated institutional official to have failed to cooperate with the proceedings. The RIO or designated institutional official may consult with the IDO and other appropriate institutional officials regarding such actions.

4. Protection of Funds and Resources

Institutional officials will take interim administrative actions during a research misconduct proceeding, as appropriate, to protect federal or institutional funds or resources, protect ongoing research activities, and protect any animal subjects or human research participants involved in or relevant to a research misconduct proceeding.

RECORDS RETENTION:

FAU will maintain 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 proceeding or the completion of any Cognizant Agency proceeding, whichever is later, unless custody has been transferred to the Cognizant Agency, as applicable.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES:

1. Multiple Institutions

If the alleged research misconduct involves multiple institutions, FAU will coordinate with the other affected institutions to determine whether a joint research misconduct proceeding should be conducted. If a joint proceeding is conducted, the cooperating institutions will choose an institution to serve as the lead institution. In a joint research misconduct proceeding, the lead institution will obtain 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 other institutions involved. The determination of whether an inquiry and/or investigation is warranted, whether research misconduct occurred, and institutional actions to be taken may be made by the institutions jointly, if appropriate, or tasked to the lead institution or respective institutions.

2. Respondent Admissions and Settlement

During research misconduct proceedings, a respondent may admit to having committed research misconduct. To ensure that the entire scope of research misconduct is addressed, any admission by a respondent must be in writing, signed, and reviewed and approved by the RIO or designated institutional official. The admission must specify the entire scope of falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism that occurred and which research records were affected and include sufficient specificity to meet requirements of regulatory agencies and/or research sponsors as applicable. If required by applicable law, when the institution deems it appropriate to close the proceedings based on a respondent's admission, the signed admission will be approved by the RIO or designated institutional official only after notification of and consultation with relevant federal agencies and/or research sponsors. The institution may still take appropriate administrative actions in cases where a respondent has admitted to research misconduct.

FAU may also close a research misconduct proceeding at the assessment, inquiry, or investigation stage when a settlement with the respondent has been reached. Closure due to settlement with the respondent will only take place after notification of and consultation with relevant federal agencies and/or research sponsors. The institution may still take appropriate administrative actions in cases where a respondent has settled the research misconduct proceeding with the institution unless the settlement precludes such actions.

3. Notification During Special Circumstances

At any time during the research misconduct proceedings where the research or scholarly work in question involves federal funding or oversight, FAU will immediately notify the pertinent 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.
  • Pertinent 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.
  • Any pertinent agency may need to take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved.

REFERENCES:

United States Code of Federal Regulations,
Title 42, Part 50- Policies of General Applicability

United States Code of Federal Regulations,
Title 42, Part 93- Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct

United States Code of Federal Regulations,
Title 42, Part 689, National Science Foundation, Research Misconduct

INITIATING AUTHORITY:

Vice President for Research
Gregg B. Fields, Ph.D.
March 18, 2026

Executed signature pages are available in the Initiating Authority Office