Printed on: 01/21/2026. Please go to policy.umn.edu for the most current version of the document.
University of Minnesota  Administrative Policy

Research Misconduct

Sidebar

Expand all

Sidebar

Table of Contents

Questions?

Please use the contact section below.

Leave Feedback

Policy Statement

The University expects academic integrity from its Researchers at all times and in all circumstances. Researchers may not engage in actions that constitute research misconduct in research or other scholarly activity.

Researchers must adhere to Board of Regents Policy: Academic Misconduct and must cooperate with the assessment and review of any allegation. This policy governs all individuals identified as “Researchers” involved in research at the University of Minnesota (see definition of “researcher”).

If an allegation of research misconduct is made, the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) will follow the procedures as outlined in the Administrative Procedure: Research Misconduct Review.

Retaliation

The University prohibits retaliation against persons who in good faith report suspected misconduct, including research misconduct. More information on retaliation, reporting retaliation concerns, and the consequences of filing intentionally false reports, is found in Administrative Policy: Retaliation.

Students

Scholastic dishonesty by a student is a violation of the Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code and is regulated by that policy and related administrative policies and procedures. As required by federal regulations, in cases where a student is accused of research misconduct while working on federally sponsored University research or acting as an agent of the University to perform University research, the question of whether research misconduct occurred will be determined according to this policy and related administrative policies and procedures.

Conflicts of Interest

The University will respond to each allegation of research misconduct in a thorough, competent, objective, and fair manner, including taking 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 complainant, respondent, or witnesses. For more information about the conflict of interest review of panel members, see Administrative Procedure: Research Misconduct Review.

Notification and Reporting Requirements

Many sponsors have published requirements and regulations regarding the inquiry and investigation of allegations of research misconduct involving activities they are considering for funding or have been funded. These regulations contain requirements to report to these sponsors under certain conditions and at specified stages in the process. The Institutional Deciding Official (IDO) and/or the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) for the University is responsible for the preparation and submission of any required notifications or reports. In addition, for Public Health Service (PHS) proposals and awards, the University Institutional Certifying Official will work with the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) to assure compliance on an annual basis.

The University may immediately notify a funding or oversight agency if it has reason to believe that there is/are:

  • a risk to public health or safety, including an immediate need to protect human participants or animal subjects;
  • a threat to federal resources or interests; are research activities that should be suspended;
  • a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law;
  • federal actions that are required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceedings; or
  • a federal agency that may need to take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved.

Interim Administrative Action

As provided by federal regulations (42 CFR, part 50, subpart A and 45 CFR, part 689), at any stage in the process of inquiry, investigation, formal finding, and disposition, the University may take interim administrative action to protect federal funds.

The University may take interim administrative actions to protect the health and safety of research participants and patients, as well as the interests of students and colleagues. The University may also take interim administrative action to protect federal funds. Such actions may range from slight restrictions to reassignment of the activities of the respondent. In extreme circumstances, the respondent may be suspended temporarily. Any actions will be in accordance with the procedures specified in Board of Regents Policy: Faculty Tenure, the contract between the Regents and unionized groups, any other labor agreements, or other applicable employee policies. Interim administrative actions will be taken in full awareness of how they might affect the respondent and the ongoing research projects of the University.

Confidentiality

Disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses while conducting the research misconduct proceedings is limited, to the extent possible, to those who need to know, as determined by the University, 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. The University, however, must disclose the identity of respondents, complainants, or other relevant persons to ORI pursuant to an ORI review of research misconduct proceedings under this part.

The University must comply at all times with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. This may mean that information that may be permitted to be disclosed under federal regulation is not able to be disclosed due to restrictions under the MGDPA.

Time Limitations

This policy applies only to research misconduct occurring within six years of the date the allegations are received by the University or an applicable agency.

Exceptions to the six-year limit:

  1. Subsequent Use Exception: The exception to the six-year time limitation occurs when the respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct that occurred before the six-year limitation through the use of, republication of, or citation to the portion(s) of the research record ( e.g., processed data, journal articles, funding proposals, data repositories) alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized, for the potential benefit of the respondent. This exception also applies when the respondent uses, republishes, or cites to the portion(s) of the research record that is alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized, in submitted or published manuscripts, submitted PHS grant applications, progress reports submitted to PHS funding components, posters, presentations, or other research records within six years of when the allegations were received by Health and Human Services (HHS) or the University.
  2. Exception for the health or safety of the public: If ORI or the University, following consultation with ORI, determines that the alleged research misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public, this exception applies.

Sequestration of Research Records and Potential Evidence

The Research Integrity and Compliance (RIC) Program must promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain all research records and other evidence, which may include copies of the data or other evidence so long as those copies are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value, needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding; inventory the research records and other evidence; and sequester them in a secure manner.

Where the research records or other evidence are located on or encompass scientific instruments shared by multiple users, the University may obtain copies of the data or other evidence from such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value to the instruments. Whenever possible, the University must obtain research records or other evidence:

  1. Before or at the time the RIO notifies the respondent of the allegation(s); and
  2. Whenever additional items become known or relevant to the inquiry or investigation.

A detailed protocol can be found in the Appendix: Protocol for Handling Physical Evidence in Research Misconduct Cases.

Institutional Record

The University will maintain an institutional record of all assessments, inquiries, and investigations conducted for a period of seven years after completion of the proceeding or the completion of ORI/HHS proceeding. These records include, but are not limited to:

  • The records that the University compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the University did not consider or rely on. These records include, but are not limited to:
    • Documentation of the assessment with record of why the determination was made to close or move to an inquiry;
    • All inquiry reports with all records considered or relied on during the inquiry, including but not limited to research records, transcripts of any transcribed interviews, and information the respondent provided to the University.
    • All investigation reports with all records considered or relied on during the investigation, including without limitation, research records, transcripts of interviews, and information the respondent provided to the University.
    • Decisions made by the Institutional Deciding Official (the Vice President for Research and Innovation).
    • The complete record of any institutional appeal.
  • A single index listing of all research records and evidence compiled by the University during the research misconduct proceeding, except the records that were not considered or relied on for all stages of review.
  • A general description of records sequestered but were not considered or relied on for any stage of review.

This record is required for all proceedings pursuant to 42 CFR 93, PHS Policies on Research Misconduct.

Multiple Institutions

In the event allegations involve research that was conducted at the University and other institutions, one institution is to be designated the lead in accordance with federal regulations. When allegations involve research conducted at the University and at other institutions, one institution must be designated as the lead institution if a joint research misconduct proceeding is conducted. If another institution is designated as the lead institution, the University will cooperate with providing materials pursuant to the case to the lead institution to the extent permissible by law. In a joint research misconduct proceeding, the lead institution should 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 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.

Detrimental Research Practices

In the course of a research misconduct review, it may become evident that the allegation is a detrimental research practice, rather than research misconduct, or that the respondent engaged in detrimental research practices in addition to research misconduct. 

The RIO may, at any point in the review process, determine that the respondent engaged in a detrimental research practice. This may mean that the RIO will close out the research misconduct review. The RIO may recommend corrective actions, disciplinary actions, or refer the matter to be further reviewed under Administrative Policy: For-Cause Investigations Related to Research Compliance Concerns.

Other Research Integrity Issues

During the course of a research misconduct review, other issues of research integrity may arise. The RIO may address these issues or refer to the appropriate University authority.

Reason for Policy

To implement Board of Regents Policy: Academic Misconduct and to comply with federal regulations on research misconduct.

Contacts

SubjectContactPhoneEmail
Primary ContactDanielle Rintala, Interim Research Integrity Officer, Research Integrity and Compliance Director612-625-9057[email protected]
Anonymous/confidential reporting of legal/policy violationsToll Free Outside Reporting Service1-866-294-8680UReport
Responsible Individuals
Responsible Officer Policy Owner Primary Contact
  • Interim Vice President for Research and Innovation
  • Interim Research Integrity Officer, Research Integrity and Compliance Director
  • Danielle Rintala
    Interim Research Integrity Officer, Research Integrity and Compliance Director

Definitions

Accepted practices of the relevant research community

Accepted practices of the relevant research community 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.

Administrative Action

An action taken in response to a research misconduct proceeding to protect the health and safety of the public, to promote the integrity of PHS-supported biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or research training, or to conserve public funds.

Adverse Action

Any action that might deter a reasonable person from engaging in reporting suspected or alleged misconduct, expressing opposition to alleged misconduct, participating in an investigation related to a misconduct allegation, or accessing the Office for Conflict Resolution services. Examples of adverse action include, but are not limited to: impeding the individual’s academic advancement; departing from any customary academic or employment practice regarding the individual; firing, refusing to hire, or refusing to promote the individual; transferring or assigning the individual to a lesser position in terms of wages, hours, job classification, job security, employment or academic status; and threatening or marginalizing an individual. In some situations, retaliatory conduct may also include inappropriate disclosure of the identity of the individual who has made a complaint protected by this policy.

Allegation

A disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of a University or agency official.

Assessment

A consideration of whether an allegation of research misconduct appears to fall within the definition of research misconduct; appears to involve research, training, or activities related to 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.

Complainant

The individual or individuals who in good faith make an allegation of research misconduct.

Detrimental Research Practice

Actions that do not meet the definition of research misconduct but threaten real and perceived integrity of research and the researchers. These may include, but are not limited to: the inappropriate use of human or animal subjects, noncompliance with sponsored projects requirements or misuse of research funding, concerns or issues arising from the actions or activities of regulatory boards or committees or biosafety related activities, authorship disputes, peer review issues, misrepresentation, breach of duty care, improper dealing of allegations, and/ or the neglectful or exploitive supervision in research.

Evidence

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

Fabrication

Making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

Falsification

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

Good Faith Participation

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.

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 University meet its responsibilities under this part. 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.

Honest Error

A mistake without a deliberate or reckless intent. Honest error is not research misconduct, but can still be detrimental to the research enterprise and warrant additional action by the research integrity officer to ensure remediation.

Institutional Certifying Official

The institutional official is responsible for assuring on behalf of the University that the University has written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct in compliance with ORI and complies with its own policies and procedures.

Institutional Deciding Official

The institutional official who makes final determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any institutional actions. The same individual cannot serve as the Institutional Deciding Official and the Research Integrity Officer.

Institutional Record

The records that the University compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the University did not consider or rely on, as detailed in this policy.

Intentionally

To act with the aim of carrying out the act.

Investigation

A formal review of all evidence to determine whether the allegation meets the criteria for a finding of research misconduct and to recommend appropriate corrective actions.

Knowingly

To act with awareness of the act.

Notice

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

Office of Research Integrity (ORI)

The office established by Public Health Service Act section 493 (42 U.S.C. 289b) and to which the HHS Secretary has delegated responsibility for addressing research integrity and misconduct issues related to PHS-supported activities.

Person

Any individual, corporation, partnership, institution, association, unit of government, or other legal entity, however organized.

Plagiarism

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

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. 

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

Preponderance of the evidence

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

Public Health Service or PHS

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.

PHS support

PHS funding, or applications or proposals for PHS funding, for biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or training, that may be provided through: funding for PHS intramural research; PHS grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts; subawards, contracts, or subcontracts under those PHS funding instruments; or salary or other payments under PHS grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts.

Recklessly

Propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.

Research

Includes any:

  1. individual employed by the University, as defined by Board of Regents Policy: Employee Group Definitions, with responsibility for the design, performance, or reporting of University research;
  2. student when working on federally sponsored University research or acting as an agent of the University to perform University research; and
  3. other individuals with a role in the design, performance, or reporting of University research or acting as an agent of the University to perform University research.

Research Integrity Officer (RIO)

The institutional official responsible for administering the University’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct.

Research Misconduct

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

Research misconduct proceeding

Any actions related to alleged research misconduct, including allegation assessments, inquiries, investigations, ORI oversight reviews, and appeals.

Research Record

The record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry. Data or results may be in physical or electronic form. Examples of items, materials, or information that may be considered part of the research record include, but are not limited to, research proposals, raw data, processed data, clinical research records, laboratory records, study records, laboratory notebooks, progress reports, manuscripts, abstracts, theses, records of oral presentations, online content, lab meeting reports, and journal articles.

Respondent

The individual or individuals against whom the report or complaint of research misconduct has been submitted.

Retaliation

An adverse action against a complainant, witness, or committee member by the University or one of its members in response to a good faith allegation of research misconduct, or a good faith cooperation with a research misconduct hearing.

Sponsor

Any external entity, including, but not limited to, a company, agencies of the U.S. federal and state governments, foundations, industry associations, and others, that supports the scholarly work upon which the allegation is based.

Responsibilities

Complainant

File good faith complaint or report of research misconduct.

Inquiry/Investigative Panel

Evaluate the evidence, formulate conclusions, and prepare reports of inquiry or investigation.

Institutional Certifying Official

Certifies the content of the University’s annual report, which contains information specified by ORI on the University’s compliance, and ensures the report is submitted to ORI, as required.

Institutional Deciding Official (IDO)

Approves recommendation from the inquiry report. Makes final determination of research misconduct findings and provides written documentation of whether the University found research misconduct, and if so, who committed the act, and a description of the relevant institutional actions to be taken.

Office of the General Counsel

Provides ongoing advice to the RIO, DO, and inquiry/ investigation panel members to ensure compliance with University policies, procedures, and applicable laws.

Research Integrity Officer (RIO)

Assess allegations to determine if they proceed to inquiry, and submit a report to the DO. Sequester physical and digital evidence. Initiate and oversee inquiries and investigations.  Initiate and oversee inquiries and investigations. Notify respondents as required by policy. Keep DO and others with a need to know apprised of progress of case. Submit inquiry and investigation reports to DO and sponsor/regulatory agencies as applicable. Secure records.

Respondent

Cooperate with university officials and provide research records and other relevant information.

Related Information

History

Amended:

September 2025 - Comprehensive Review. Federal regulatory compliance with the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) policy on research misconduct, 42 CFR 93, requires institutions who receive PHS funding to revise policies to comply with updated regulation by January 1, 2026. The major revision of the policy, procedure, and appendix align with the federal requirement from ORI and ensure our ability to maintain federal assurances as part of eligibility as an institution for federal research funds.

Key changes include addition of new sections and definitions, revision of definitions, clarification of the procedure for reviewing allegations of research misconduct, and deletion of old appendices no longer used.

Amended:

September 2018 - Comprehensive Review, Minor Revision. 1. Incorporates the new standardized language for retaliation. 2. Promotes language about time limitations from a procedure into the policy statement. 3. Clarifies the role of the panel and its selection process, the correction of the scientific record, and process for challenging possible disciplinary actions.

Amended:

March 2018 - Comprehensive Review, Minor Revision.  Policy itself includes wording changes, incorporates the new standardized language for retaliation which will be included in all policies containing a retaliation section, and moves language about time limitations from a procedure into the policy.

  • Handling reports procedure deletes the time limitations section (moved to policy) and false accusations section (subsumed into new standard retaliation language in policy).
  • Inquiry procedure has wording clarifications to highlight anonymous reporting, role of the Research Integrity Officer and the correction of the scientific record.
  • Investigation procedure clarifies the role of the panel and its selection process, the correction of the scientific record and process for challenging possible disciplinary actions.

Amended:

July 2017 - Minor Revision. The section on Retaliation has been updated to be consistent with core language in Administrative Policy: Retaliation.

Amended:

April 2012 - Comprehensive Review. Minor edits for clarity. Title changed from Academic Misconduct to Research Misconduct.

Amended:

January 2008 - Added the ability to allow anonymous reports and to include an initial screening process for reviewing allegations. Added an appendix about securing physical evidence, an area of concern for federal regulators. Other changes were made to make the process more streamlined and efficient. New roles for Deciding Officer (DO) and Research Integrity Officer (RIO) amd Faculty Research Committee. Previously the VPR acted as the deciding officer and a Senior Administrator (SA), usually a dean, conducted the inquiry personally and/or coordinated the panel reviews. This process was time-consuming for most deans. Renaming the DO position is consistent with federal regulations and allows for another University official to act in this role if the VPR has a conflict of interest. Shifting the SA responsibilities from deans to the RIO or Associate Vice President for Research is intended to improve timeliness and accountability for the process.

Effective:

September 1995

Supercedes:

Administrative Procedures for the Board of Regents Policy: Academic Misconduct