University of Minnesota  Procedure

Handling Reports of Research Misconduct


Expand all


Table of Contents

TOC placeholder

Governing Policy


Please use the contact section in the governing policy.

Seeking advice on research misconduct or investigation process

A potential complainant may meet privately with the Research Integrity Officer (RIO), an academic administrator (dean or other academic officer) from the unit in which the incident occurred, or the chair of the faculty Senate Research Committee (SRC). All issues related to the complaint or report are kept private and confidential at this stage. The purpose of this meeting is to provide advice to the complainant.

Submitting a Complaint or Report of Research Misconduct

There are several ways allegations may be submitted.

  1. The complainant can file a written allegation with the Vice President for Research and Innovation. If the complainant has previously consulted with the RIO, dean or SRC chair, the allegation should be filed within 10 working days of having sought the advice.
  2. If the complainant does not file a complaint in a timely manner, the RIO, dean, or academic administrator who meets with a complainant has the responsibility of submitting the allegation if they believe there is sufficient cause and evidence to warrant an inquiry and the complainant chooses not to make a formal allegation. In such a case, there is no complainant for the purposes of these procedures and the identity of the person who raised the concern remains confidential. Instead, the academic administrator (the party the complainant consulted) drafts a written allegation to be submitted to the Vice President for Research and Innovation.
  3. An allegation may be submitted anonymously through the University's third-party reporting service, UReport. These reports are directed to the Research and Innovation Office for resolution and investigation.

Reviewing the allegation

The RIO is responsible for reviewing all allegations. The Vice President for Research and Innovation will verify that the RIO does not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the complainant, respondent, or other key individuals in the process. If the RIO has a conflict of interest with a case, the Vice President for Research and Innovation refers the case to a dean from outside the unit in which the case originated or another individual. A conflict of interest could mean:

  • coauthoring a book, paper, or grant proposal with any of the individuals directly involved with the misconduct case (complainant or respondent) within the past seven years;
  • professional or personal relationship with any of these individuals, e.g., current or former students or mentor, direct supervisory or subordinate relationship, direct collaborator within the past seven years;
  • professional differences of opinion with any of the involved individuals that might reasonably be expected to affect objectivity in considering the case;
  • financial ties to the involved individuals; or
  • other reasons that might affect the ability of the individuals to make fair and impartial judgments.

Conducting an allegation review

Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO will assess it to determine whether:

  • it is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of misconduct may be identified,
  • whether federal regulations are applicable, and
  • whether the misconduct falls within the definition of research misconduct or should be resolved by other deliberative or mediation procedures, or by other specialized committees, such as the Student Behavior Committee, the Human Subjects Committee, the Animal Care and Use Committee, or by labor agreements between the Regents and the employee group. In those instances in which it is not clear whether this policy should apply to an individual, the RIO, in consultation with the SRC will adjudicate the question.

This review should be brief and will be handled with confidentiality.

What happens if the respondent is no longer affiliated with the University (i.e., no longer a student or employee):

Even if the respondent has left the University, the RIO, when possible, will continue the allegation review. The University will also cooperate with the process of another institution to resolve questions to the extent permissible under confidentiality laws.

Outcome of Allegation Review

If an allegation is sufficiently credible and specific, and the alleged conduct falls within the definition of research misconduct, the RIO initiates an inquiry.  An allegation review that does not meet these criteria and is not referred for resolution by another University unit or body is closed with no finding of research misconduct and no further review.