Policy Statement on the Integrity of Scholarship and Procedures for Investigating Allegations - Rackham Graduate School

Quick Links

Home > Policies & Procedures > Rackham Graduate School Academic Policies > Policy Statement on the Integrity of Scholarship and Procedures for Investigating Allegations of Misconduct in the Pursuit of Scholarship & Research

Policy Statement on the Integrity of Scholarship and Procedures for Investigating Allegations of Misconduct in the Pursuit of Scholarship & Research

I. Policy Statement on Integrity of Scholarship

Fabrication of Data: dishonesty in reporting results, ranging from fabrication of data, improper adjustment of results, and gross negligence in collecting or analyzing data to selective reporting or omission of conflicting data for deceptive purposes;
Plagiarism: taking credit for someone else's work and ideas, stealing others' results or methods, copying the writing of others without proper acknowledgment, or otherwise falsely taking credit for the work or ideas of another;
Abuse of Confidentiality: taking or releasing the ideas or data of others which were shared with the legitimate expectation of confidentiality, e.g., stealing ideas from others' grant proposals, award applications, or manuscripts for publication when one is a reviewer for granting agencies or journals;
Falsification in Research: deliberately misrepresenting research, including the progress of research, to a research sponsor;
Dishonesty in Publication: knowingly publishing material that will mislead readers, e.g., misrepresenting data, particularly its originality, misrepresenting research progress, or adding the names of other authors without permission;
Deliberate Violation of Regulations: flagrant and repeated failure to adhere to or to receive the approval required for work under research regulations of Federal, State, local or University agencies, including, but not limited to, guidelines for the:
1. Applicability
  1. These procedures apply to students only when acting in their employment or service capacity, and not as students per se. In cases in which the student or employee status of the accused is unclear, the responsible administrator (herein called the director) shall elect whether to employ these procedures or other procedures available for the investigation and adjudication of alleged academic misconduct by students. Schools and colleges have procedures for handling allegations of academic misconduct by students, such as the "Academic Integrity: Policy and Procedures" of the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies. Questions about applicability may be directed to the Office of the General Counsel.
  2. Staff members subject to the terms and conditions of collective bargaining agreements should consult the specific provisions in their current agreements dealing with misconduct. Any provision in such agreements which differ from the provisions stated herein supersede the affected regulation of this policy. Information concerning staff members covered by collective bargaining agreements may be obtained from the personnel service center.
2. If the accused is no longer employed by the University, these procedures may nonetheless be used, at the discretion of the appropriate director and upon the advice of the Vice President for Research and the Office of the General Counsel, as a means of ascertaining the culpability of the accused.
Reporting and Investigation
1. Reporting suspected academic misconduct is a shared and serious responsibility of all members of the academic community. Allegations should not be made capriciously, but indications or evidence of fraud or misconduct must not be ignored. Confidential advice about University policy and procedures is available at any time from the Office of the Vice President for Research or the Office of the General Counsel.
2. The procedures that follow have five sequential stages:
  1. The National Science Foundation and the Public Health Service have published formal regulations regarding the investigation of allegations of misconduct involving activities funded from those agencies (See Exhibit A). Each of these regulations contains a definition of scientific misconduct, prescribes certain time limits for inquiries and investigations, and requires reporting to the agencies under certain conditions and at specified stages in the process.
  2. The Vice President for Research, in consultation with the General Counsel, will determine the applicability of external regulations in each particular case. The University will comply with the requirements of the Federal regulations.
  3. At any stage in the process of inquiry, investigation, formal finding, and disposition, the University may take interim administrative action to protect Federal funds.
3. Allegations
4. Inquiry
  1. The individual(s) appointed to conduct the inquiry shall prepare a written report. It shall include a statement of the allegation, a description of the evidence reviewed, summaries of the relevant interviews, and the conclusions of the inquiry. It shall contain an assessment of whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a formal investigation.
  2. If the inquiry concludes that an investigation is warranted, the accused shall be provided the opportunity to comment on the report and any such comment will become part of the record. The individual who made the allegation may review and comment on that portion of the report directly related to the testimony or other evidence brought forth by that individual.
  3. The report of the inquiry, along with any formal comments on the report, shall be forwarded to the Vice President for Research. The Vice President for Research shall notify the Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Chancellor, as appropriate, the Office of the General Counsel, and any other appropriate vice president or vice provost.
  4. If the inquiry produces sufficient evidence to warrant a formal investigation, the Vice President for Research, the Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, or the Chancellor as appropriate, will initiate an formal investigation. It is generally appropriate for the Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs (or Chancellor) to initiate a formal investigation if the accused is a tenured or tenured-track faculty member. If there is substantial evidence of serious misconduct and if the accused is a faculty member to whom Regents' Bylaw 5.09 (R 5.09) applies, the Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs (or Chancellor) may, at his or her discretion, initiate the procedures required by the Bylaw as a substitute for the investigation outlined below.
  5. The Vice President for Research, or a designee, in consultation with the General Counsel, shall decide if and when external funding agencies, if any, are to be notified, that any such notification shall include, and to whom it should be directed. Any such notice shall be provided by the Vice President for Research.
  6. The director and the vice president concerned, in consultation with the General Counsel, will determine what additional notification is necessary. Every reasonable effort will continue to be made to protect the identify of the accused and the accuser(s) from all except those who have a legitimate need to know.
  7. If the inquiry does not produce sufficient evidence to warrant a formal investigation, the Vice President for Research, after consultation with the General Counsel, shall so inform any persons involved in the informal inquiry to whom the identity of the accused was disclosed.
  8. Unsupported allegations of academic misconduct not brought in good faith may lead to disciplinary action against the accuser.
5. Investigation
  1. The ad hoc committee shall oversee the preparation of complete summaries of interviews conducted during the course of the investigation. These summaries shall be provided to the interviewed party for comment or revision and included as part of the investigation file.
  2. The ad committee shall prepare a written report on the results of the investigation and its recommendations regarding outcome. The accused shall be provided the opportunity to comment on the report, and such comment will become part of the record. The person(s) who raised the allegation shall be provided with those portions of the report that describe their role and opinions in the investigation.
  3. The ad hoc committee shall submit its report, along with the complete investigatory file, to the Vice President or Chancellor who appointed it. The Vice President or Chancellor shall decide on what actions to take in light of the report. He or she shall so notify the accused, the Vice President for Research, the appropriate dean or director, and any other appropriate vice president or vice provost of the decision. In consultation with the General Counsel and other appropriate vice presidents and vice provosts or chancellors, the Vice President for Research shall then decide if and when external funding agencies, if any, are to be notified, what any such notification shall include, and to whom it should be directed. Any such notice shall be provided by the Vice President for Research.
  4. Investigatory files will be maintained in a secure manner in the Office of the General Counsel.
6. Resolution and Outcome

Exhibit A

PHS Initial Reporting Expectations

The Public Health Service (PHS) Regulations, effective November 8, 1989, appear in 42 CFR Part 50 Subpart A and implement section 493 of the Public Health Service Act. Copies of the regulation, entitled Responsibilities of Awardee and Applicant Institutions for Dealing with and Reporting Possible Misconduct in Science, are available from the Office of the Vice President for Research, 3-1289.

Notify the Director of the Office of Scientific Integrity when, on the basis of the initial inquiry, the institution determines that an investigation is warranted or prior to the decision to initiate an investigation under the following conditions:

The University of Michigan has formal policies and procedures to assure the rights of human subjects in research. Human research is any systematic investigation in which private identification information is secured by direct interaction or gathered indirectly from living individuals (for example, from medical records or non-public data sets).

Use of human volunteers in research at the University of Michigan is guided by three basic ethical principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, as currently described in "The Belmont Report" (Report of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research). The principle of respect for persons is operationalized in the informed consent process for volunteers in research. The principle of beneficence is operationalized in the risk/benefit analysis done before research is authorized. The principle of justice demands that the burdens and benefits of research be equitably distributed across society.

University policy requires that all investigations using human beings as subjects of research be reviewed and approved by an appropriately constituted committee before such investigations may begin. Projects may be approved for up to one year, at which time a continuation application must be reviewed and approved. No dissertation based on the use of human beings as subjects can be accepted without this prior review and approval. In many instances, the faculty advisor will request the review, but graduate students are advised to verify with their advisors that the necessary review has taken place and approval for the investigation has been granted.

The system of review and approval is local implementation of federal policy to all University research, sponsored or not, and is governed by an agreement with the Department or Health and Human Services Office for Human Research Protection called a Multiple Project Assurance.

The University of Michigan review system consists of five committees, one each at the Flint and Dearborn campuses and three on the Ann Arbor Campus. On the Ann Arbor campus, the Medical School committee, IRB-MED is located in the Medical School dean's office. The second committee, IRB-HLTH, reviews research from the Schools of Nursing, Dentistry, Public Health, Social Work, and other units as determined by the nature of the work. The committee office is in the Office of the Vice President for Research. The third committee, IRB-BehavSci, reviews research from the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts; the College of Architecture; the School of Education; the Institute for Social Research; the Law School; the School of Public Policy; and other units as determined by the nature of the research. The committee office is located in the Office of the Vice President for Research. Decision rules on governing the jurisdictions of the five IRBs are located on the U-M research website. Most IRBs have an internet home page containing background and policy information, rules of committee operation, and application forms. More information is available online.

Policy Statement on Animal Research

The University of Michigan recognizes that scientific and medical knowledge developed through animal research has saved countless lives, has improved human and animal health, and has alleviated pain and suffering. The University supports judicious use of animals in research, education, and testing in the interests of human and animal welfare. The University of Michigan insists on humane and ethical treatment of any animals used in research, education, and testing.

The University recognizes its legal and ethical responsibilities to ensure that animals are not used needlessly and are spared all unnecessary pain and distress. To this end, the University adheres to all applicable federal, state, local, and institutional laws or guidelines governing animal research, and has maintained since 1962 a University-wide Laboratory Animal Medicine Program directed by veterinarians specialized in laboratory animal medicine.

The University's Committee on Use and Care of Animals provides supervision, coordination, and review of every project proposed to include the use of animals. This Committee includes scientists, non-scientists, and public members to encourage representation of diverse viewpoints. This Committee has the responsibility to approve, to require modification of, or to prohibit a project's use of vertebrate animals. Well-established procedures, similar to those used to monitor human subject research, are used for reviewing and monitoring animal research, education, and testing projects conducted under University auspices. Project proposals are scrutinized carefully by the review Committee and by a veterinary staff member specialized in laboratory animal medicine to ensure that humane use guidelines are followed and that animals receive professional veterinary medical care.

The University continues to fulfill its obligation to ensure that professional and technical personnel or students who work with animals are qualified through training and experience to perform these tasks humanely and in a scientifically appropriate manner. The University provides training in humane techniques of animal care and use to accomplish these purposes.

University of Michigan Committee on Use and Care of Animals: Approved, January 1989; Reviewed and Approved, July 1999