Research Misconduct Policy

Policy Statement

Adelphi University expects and demands the highest ethical standards in the conduct of research by its faculty, students and staff in all its sites and in collaboration with other educational institutions, agencies and organizations. While respecting the right of the researcher to full academic freedom in research, Adelphi is firmly committed to adhering to the basic ethical principles underlying the acceptable conduct of research involving human subjects, as set forth in “The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research.” The university has provided the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) a Federal-wide Assurance of compliance with the ethical principles and regulations governing research with human subjects. This Federal-wide Assurance is written documentation of our commitment to comply with local and federal laws and regulations governing human research.

Research must be conducted under the highest standards of honesty and integrity. All data, primary sources, procedures, and findings must be properly and thoroughly documented. The credibility and long-term reputation of the University and faculty and staff depend on the encouragement, enforcement and reward of superior ethical standards and good stewardship of research funds. Achieving high standards of research integrity should transcend considerations of finance, personal gain and short-term individual and institutional recognition. For purposes of this policy, research also includes contract testing conducted by university units.

Reason for Policy

The university relies on its faculty to maintain the highest principles of ethical conduct in research. The primary responsibility for maintaining integrity in research lies with those who perform it and supervise it. This statement of policy and procedures is intended to carry out Adelphi University’s responsibilities under the Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct, 42 CFR Part 93 and is consistent with the Federal Research Misconduct Policy (OSTP). Although incidents of research misconduct are rare, the university has the responsibility to investigate possible misconduct and to resolve cases fairly and quickly. Research misconduct is a serious breach of the rules of the university and the wider academic and research communities.

Who is Governed by This Policy

Faculty, students and staff

Policy

This policy is applicable to research misconduct occurring within six years of the date that a funding agency or the University receives an allegation of research misconduct, with exceptions for Health and Human Services (HHS) funded research. When research projects have multiple sponsors, all sponsors must be notified of the allegations and a determination will be made as to whether any sponsor will take the lead. The University must cooperate with sponsors and oversight agencies during any research misconduct proceeding, including addressing deficiencies, assisting in administering and enforcing administrative actions, and transferring custody or providing copies of the institutional record or sequestered evidence.

Confidentiality and Protection from Retaliation

Confidentiality is an important component of research misconduct proceedings. Disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, witnesses, and research subjects that may be identifiable from research records during research misconduct proceedings is limited, to the extent possible, to those who need to know. Those who need to know may include: Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and other research compliance committees; journals, editors, publishers and co-authors; other institutions of higher education; and sponsors of research that are part of the proceedings.

Throughout research misconduct proceedings, all reasonable and practical steps must be taken to protect the positions and reputations of complainants, witnesses, and committee members, and to protect those individuals from retaliation by respondents and/or individuals associated with the institution. Individuals responsible for any component of a research misconduct proceeding cannot have unresolved conflicts of interest with the complainant, respondent, or witnesses.

Admission and Settlement

At any point during a research misconduct proceeding, respondents may admit to committing research misconduct, or a settlement with the respondent may be reached. A respondent’s admission of research misconduct must be made in writing and signed by the respondent. The admission must be specific to the falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism that occurred, which research records were affected, and that it constituted a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community. The statement must meet all elements required for a research misconduct finding according to this policy and all relevant federal sponsor requirements. With a respondent’s admission, the institution may decide to terminate an ongoing research misconduct proceeding, or they may continue the proceedings if the admission statement is insufficient.

Definitions

A. Research Misconduct

Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.

• Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
• Falsification is 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.
• Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, or results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. Research misconduct does not include misconduct that occurs in the research setting but does not affect the integrity of the research record, such as misallocation of funds, sexual harassment, and discrimination, which are covered by other University policies.

B. Key Personnel

• Complainant refers to the individual who alleges that research misconduct has occurred.
• Deciding Official (DO) is appointed by the University President. Typically, the Provost serves as the DO and must hold sufficient rank to carry out duties and responsibilities. The DO takes interim administrative actions, makes final determinations on allegations, and appoints the Research Integrity Officer. The DO cannot also serve as the RIO or Deputy RIO.
• Research Integrity Officer (RIO) serves as the primary individual responsible for managing a research misconduct proceeding, conducts assessments, sequesters research data, maintains the institutional record, and manages inquiry and investigation committees.
• Institutional Certifying Official (ICO) ensures the institution has written policies and procedures for addressing allegations and complies with them. The DO appoints the ICO. The DO or RIO may serve as the ICO.
• Research Compliance Officer (RCO) ensures adherence to regulations and policies governing research activities, safeguarding ethical standards and institutional integrity. The DO appoints the RCO.
• Respondent refers to the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct has been made.

C. Inquiry means information gathering and initial fact-finding to determine whether an allegation warrants an investigation.

D. Investigation means the formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if misconduct has occurred.

E. ORI means the Office of Research Integrity, located in the Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Responsibility to Report Research Misconduct

The University recognizes the need to protect the rights and reputations of all individuals, including those alleged to have engaged in misconduct and those who report allegations. All Adelphi faculty, staff and students have the responsibility to report observed or suspected misconduct to the Research Integrity Officer. All parties to an inquiry have the obligation to maintain confidentiality throughout all phases and to cooperate and provide necessary information and documentation. Making knowingly false accusations of misconduct violates University values and may result in actions against the accuser(s).

If allegations are made against the RIO or DO, or if they have conflicts of interest, another individual may serve in that role on an interim basis upon consultation with the President.

Procedures for Handling Alleged Research Misconduct

A. Assessment of Allegations

Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO must promptly assess the allegation to determine whether it: (1) falls within the definition of research misconduct; and (2) is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence may be identified. If the RIO is unavailable or has a conflict, another appropriately qualified individual (other than the DO) may conduct the assessment.

The assessment must be documented with one of two outcomes: (1) an inquiry must be conducted if requirements are met, or (2) an inquiry does not need to be conducted. If an inquiry is warranted, it must start promptly, all research records must be sequestered, and the RIO must identify specific allegations to be reviewed.

During the assessment, funding sources for the research must be identified. The RIO is responsible for identifying and assessing each allegation when multiple allegations are received.

B. Inquiry Process

Inquiries are conducted as an initial review to determine whether an allegation warrants an investigation. The inquiry committee does not make a finding of research misconduct.

1. Notification and Sequestration: The University must make a good faith effort to provide written notification to respondent(s) prior to or at inquiry initiation. Before or at notification, the University must promptly take all reasonable steps to: obtain all research records and evidence (including from shared scientific instruments), inventory the records, and sequester them securely, including examining devices and cloud storage platforms. The Respondent must be given copies of or supervised access to sequestered records during proceedings.
2. Inquiry Committee: The DO appoints an inquiry committee of no less than three individuals, with at least one having appropriate scientific expertise. Committee members must understand their charge, maintain confidentiality, and conduct business in compliance with regulations.
3. Inquiry Procedures: The committee will: review allegations and available evidence; interview Complainant, witnesses, and respondent(s) separately (Complainant and witnesses must not be interviewed with Respondent present); sequester additional evidence when relevant; and provide notice to newly identified respondents. The University is not required to conduct separate inquiries for each newly identified respondent.
4. Inquiry Outcome: The inquiry determines whether: (1) there is reasonable basis to conclude the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct; and (2) preliminary information indicates the allegation may have substance. The committee does not determine if misconduct occurred or assess intent. If honest error is found, the inquiry may be discontinued early but a report is still required.
5. Timeline: Inquiries must be completed within 90 days unless circumstances warrant longer, which must be documented.
6. Inquiry Report: The University must notify the Respondent whether investigation is warranted, providing a copy of the inquiry report, relevant regulations, and this policy. The Respondent must have an opportunity to review and comment, with comments attached to the report. The final report must include: names and positions of respondents and complainants; allegations reviewed; funding details; committee member names and expertise; inventory of sequestered evidence; interview transcripts; timeline; scientific analyses; basis for investigation recommendation; institutional actions; Respondent comments as appendix; and documentation of potential honest error. If no investigation is warranted, records are retained per the system Records Retention Schedule.

C. Investigation Process

1. Initiation: Investigations must begin within 30 days after deciding investigation is warranted and Respondent has been notified. The DO appoints the investigation committee, which may include inquiry committee members. The committee must consist of no less than three individuals, with multiple members having appropriate scientific expertise. The RIO must notify the Research Compliance Officer and Provost before investigation begins.
2. Notification: Respondent(s) must be notified in writing of allegations and any additional allegations not addressed during inquiry.
3. Investigation Procedures: The investigation must be thoroughly documented and conducted impartially. It must include: examination of all research records and evidence; interviews with each Respondent, Complainant, and available witnesses (separately, with Respondent not present during witness interviews); sequestration of additional evidence; and written notice to newly identified respondents. All significant issues and leads discovered must be pursued, including additional instances of possible misconduct.
4. Timeline: Investigations must be completed within 180 days unless circumstances warrant longer, which must be documented. This includes preparing a draft report within 150 days and providing it to the Respondent for comment.

D. Findings of Research Misconduct: A finding requires that: (1) there was significant departure from accepted practices; (2) misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and (3) allegations were proven by preponderance of evidence. The University has a burden of proof. Destruction of records after being informed of allegations or failure to provide requested records is evidence of misconduct when established by preponderance of evidence.

1. Draft Investigation Report: The institution must give the Respondent a copy of the draft investigation report and supervised access to records and evidence considered. Respondent has 30 days to submit comments.
2. Final Investigation Report: The final report must include: specific allegations; research support documentation; committee member names and expertise; inventory of sequestered evidence; interview transcripts; identification of all affected publications and proposals; scientific analyses; committee recommendation for each allegation; copy of this policy; and Respondent/Complainant comments with committee consideration. If a committee recommends findings of misconduct, the report must identify: individual(s) who committed misconduct; type of misconduct; state of mind; significant departure from practices; summary of facts supporting conclusion; specific research support; and whether publications need correction or retraction.

E. Adjudication

The Deciding Official is responsible for making final determination on whether to accept the investigation report, its findings, and recommended institutional actions based on preponderance of evidence. If DO’s determination varies from investigation committee, detailed explanation must be maintained. The DO may return the report to the committee for further fact-finding.

The determination must include: (1) whether the institution found research misconduct and who committed it; (2) description of institutional actions taken or to be taken. In deciding sanctions, the DO should consider seriousness of misconduct, including degree of intent, whether isolated or pattern, and impact on research record, subjects, or public health.

Actions less than termination or expulsion are final unless the University provides for appeal in its procedures. Faculty facing termination may request review under applicable tenure policies; nonfaculty employees may pursue available appeal processes; students may request review under student disciplinary rules.

F. Appeals Process

If Respondent does not agree with decision, written appeal may be made to the President within seven days of receipt. The President reviews the decision and makes a final determination. Appeals are restricted to evidence presented, with grounds limited to failure to follow appropriate procedures or arbitrary and capricious decision-making.

G. Federal Sponsor Requirements

1. Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Research Integrity (ORI) Requirements
   For HHS-funded research, the University must follow 42 CFR Part 93 and maintain an active research integrity assurance with annual renewal. The University must: have written compliant policies; comply with those policies; notify ORI in advance of closing proceedings based on admission or settlement; notify ORI immediately when public health/safety is at risk, research must be suspended, civil/criminal law violations are indicated, immediate reporting is required to HHS, or respondent appeals findings; and transfer custody of institutional record or sequestered evidence to ORI upon request.The six-year time limitation does not apply if: (1) Respondent continues or renews alleged misconduct through republication or citation (subsequent use exception); or (2) ORI or institution determines alleged misconduct would possibly have substantial adverse effect on public health or safety. For subsequent use exceptions not applied, documentation must be retained.When HHS-funded, proceedings cannot close until ORI receives Respondent’s signed admission and institution’s statement confirming culpability and explaining scope determination. Investigations must notify ORI on/before the investigation begins with an inquiry report. Interviews must be recorded and transcribed, exhibits numbered, transcripts provided to interviewees for correction, and Respondent provided witness interview transcripts. Extensions beyond 180 days must be requested in writing from ORI.
2. National Science Foundation (NSF) Requirements
   For NSF-funded research, procedures must follow 45 CFR Part 689. NSF requires: inquiry completion within 90 days when allegation has substance; if inquiry finds at least one allegation warrants investigation, inquiry should conclude and investigation into all allegations started; investigation may be initiated directly if credible evidence from NSF or reputable source; evidence and conclusions must be provided to NSF; and NSF reserves right to conduct its own assessment, inquiry, and investigation.
3. Other Federal Requirements
   The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Federal Research Misconduct Policy (December 2000) is used by several federal sponsors, and this policy is consistent with OSTP Policy.

H. Records Retention and Joint/Interinstitutional Proceedings

The University maintains the institutional record and all sequestered evidence for seven years after completion of research misconduct proceedings or completion of any sponsor proceedings, whichever is later. The University must give Respondent copies of or supervised access to sequestered records during proceedings.

When multiple institutions receive allegations, one will be designated lead through memorandum of understanding. If a respondent is employed by multiple institutions or changes employment, Deciding Officials determine which institution leads through MOU. If institutions cannot determine lead, the Research Compliance Officer makes a determination.

I. Additional Considerations

1. Reputation: The University will be diligent in efforts to protect and restore reputations of persons alleged to have engaged in misconduct when allegations are not confirmed, and those of persons who, in good faith, make allegations.
2. Obligation to Cooperate: All parties to an inquiry or investigation must cooperate and furnish all requested information. Making false accusations violates acceptable norms and will be reported to the Research Integrity Officer.
3. Modifications: This policy is unilaterally created by the University and may be changed at the University’s discretion to better comply with governmental requirements.

Forms

This policy does not have forms associated with it at this time. Upon periodic policy review, this area will be evaluated to determine if additional information is needed to supplement the policy.

Related Information

• Belmont Report
• Institutional Review Board
• Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct, 42 CFR Part 93

Document History

• Policy Origination Date: N/A
• Last Reviewed Date: January 12, 2026
• Policy Reviewed by: Policy Owner and Policy Expert(s)
• Last Approved Date: January 12, 2026