Research Misconduct Policy

Administrative Policies

Gettysburg College Research Misconduct Policy

Research Misconduct Policy
Policy Owner: Provost’s Office
Contact Information: Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs
Approval Authority: President
Approved By:
Approval Signature:
Approval Date:
Effective Date: January 2026
Date of Last Review: March 2024
Date of Next Review: December 2026
Related Policies:

Purpose of Policy

The College policies, definitions, and procedures regarding research misconduct are required to conform to federal regulation 42 CFR Part 93 which states that the College has an affirmative duty to protect against misuse of research funds and the primary responsibility for responding to and reporting allegations of research misconduct, for fostering an environment that promotes research integrity and the responsible conduct of research, and protect confidentiality related to research and investigations of research misconduct. This policy also addresses the protection of the rights of research subjects and the public and the observance of other legal requirements related to federal research funding.

Scope of Policy

College policies establish standards of ethical behavior for all members of the College community and prescribe procedures for evaluating and responding to allegations of deviation from those standards. The policy and procedures on Research Misconduct deal with violations of a subset of these standards and apply to prohibited conduct in proposing, carrying out, and reporting research. Specifically, Research Misconduct procedures are invoked when the following allegations are made:

Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results;

Failure to comply with requirements for the protection of human or animal subjects.

Policies and procedures for dealing with other violations of ethical standards, such as misappropriation of College or sponsor resources, intentional breach of College rules or sponsor regulations, or failure to follow financial disclosure disqualification regulations can be found in:

Gettysburg College's Employee Handbook

Gettysburg College's Faculty Handbook

Gettysburg College's Student Handbook

Principal Investigators have primary responsibility for the design, execution, and management of research projects they direct, and must be vigilant in seeing that the standards of professional and ethical conduct are maintained in all phases of their projects. In order to protect both the integrity and the autonomy of the College, it is crucial that researchers assume these high standards, and that in the event of allegations of misconduct, the College administer a fair system of review. Suspected violations of ethical standards of research should be reported immediately to the Dean of Academic Advising (involving students), the Provost (involving faculty), or the Human Resources Office (involving administrators or staff), as appropriate. If extramural funds are suspected to be involved, the Director of Foundation, Government, and Faculty Grants must be informed immediately to allow for compliance with sponsor regulations.

In order to comply with Federal sponsor regulations and reassure the public that the College's traditional standards are being upheld, the College must reaffirm its policies, to specify procedures and appropriate safeguards for handling investigations, and to foster an environment that discourages misconduct in all research. The following procedures conform to the Public Health Service regulations issued by the Office for Research Integrity (ORI) of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 42 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 93.

N.B. While 42 CFR Part 93 applies to all individuals who may be involved with a project supported by, or who have submitted a grant application to, the Public Health Service (PHS), this College policy applies to all individuals engaged in College research, whatever the funding source.

Definitions

Research misconduct means 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.

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, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

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

Respondent means the person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding.

PHS or Public Health Service means the following components within the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“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 Heath Service.

PHS Support means PHS funding, or applications or proposal therefor, for biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research of training that may be provided through funding for PHS intramural research, PHS grants, cooperative agreements, or contract or subgrants or subcontracts under those PHS funding instruments, or salary or other payments under PHS grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts.

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

Retaliation means any adverse action taken against an individual in response to a good faith allegation of research misconduct, or good faith cooperation or participation in the procedures outlined in this policy.

Policy Description

Requirements for Findings of Research Misconduct

A finding of research misconduct requires that: (a) the misconduct is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; (b) the misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and, (c) the allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

Delegation of Authority and Responsibility

The President delegates to the Provost responsibility for:

Coordination of all procedures related to allegations of research misconduct by anyone performing research under the College's aegis.
Fostering a research environment that discourages misconduct in all research and promotes research integrity.
Dissemination of policy and maintenance of records related to misconduct in research.
Appointment of an individual Research Integrity Officer (RIO) who, in turn, may appoint individuals to conduct inquiries and investigations into allegations of research misconduct. If extramural funds are involved, the Provost determines whether the law, regulation, or the terms or conditions of the award: (1) require notification of the sponsor; (2) specify time limits; or (3) require other actions to assure compliance. The Provost coordinates with the RIO, the President's Office, the Development Office, and other concerned parties to assure compliance.
Assurance of appropriate confidentiality or anonymity, fairness, and objectivity of proceedings.
Assurance that no real or apparent conflicts of interest arise in those appointed to pursue this process.
Assurance that they have the appropriate disciplinary expertise and that due regard is given to the prevailing standards of the field.
Maintenance of confidentiality of records, in accord with established College policy, relating to the investigation and resolution of incidents of misconduct in research.
If appropriate or required, notification by Provost to concerned parties such as sponsors, co-authors, collaborators, editors, licensing boards, professional societies, and criminal authorities of the outcome of investigations, taking care to clear the name of anyone falsely charged.
Protecting, to the maximum extent possible, the positions and reputations of those persons who, in good faith, make allegations of research misconduct, and those against whom allegations of misconduct are not confirmed.
Efforts to restore the reputation of persons alleged to have engaged in misconduct when allegations are not confirmed.

N.B. In most cases, Research Integrity Officer (RIO) assesses allegations of research misconduct, determines when such allegations warrant inquiries, and oversees inquiries and investigations. If such personnel are unavailable or have conflicts of interest with regard to the person or persons alleged to have committed the misconduct, the Provost may appoint another appropriate person.

Inquiries and Investigations into Allegations of Misconduct in Research
Principal Investigators have the primary responsibility to maintain ethical standards and direct reporting of research misconduct allegations to the Provost. However, all individuals associated with the College should report observed or suspected research misconduct to the Provost.

An allegation should, in addition to stating the nature of the suspected misconduct, present the evidence that leads the reporting individual to believe that an incident of research misconduct has occurred. The RIO, will immediately respond, as outlined below, to each allegation or other evidence of possible misconduct. For projects that received PHS Support, federal regulations apply to allegations of research misconduct that occurred within six years of the date that ORI or the College received the allegations, subject to certain exceptions as outlined in 42 CFR § 93.104(b). The College, in its discretion, may investigate and address allegations of research misconduct occurring at any time and in any project.

If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of research misconduct, he or she should contact the Office of the Provost (717-337-6820) and ask to speak with either the IRB Administrator--in the case of human subjects research, or the IACUC Administrator-- in the case of animal research, to discuss the suspected misconduct informally. If the circumstances described do not meet the definition of research misconduct, the IRB or IACUC Administrator, serving as the RIO pro tem, will refer the individual or allegation to other offices or officials with responsibility for resolving the problem, as applicable. If the circumstances, in the opinion of the RIO pro tem, do meet the definition of research misconduct, the person will be instructed to contact the RIO directly.

The informal discussion of possible research misconduct, as well as all subsequent stages in this procedure will be, to the extent possible, consistent with appropriate, necessary, and thorough assessment, inquiry, and investigation, treated as confidential.
1. Preliminary Assessment: The RIO, in consultation with the Provost, will promptly assess any allegation of research misconduct to determine if it warrants an inquiry, by evaluating whether (1) the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct; (2) is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified; (3) is the alleged research misconduct within the jurisdictional criteria of 42 CFR § 93.102(b) or otherwise subject to this policy. If it is concluded that an allegation of research misconduct meets these criteria, the misconduct procedure enters its inquiry phase. Ideally, the preliminary assessment should be concluded within a week after the allegation is lodged with the RIO.
  
  In conducting the assessment, the RIO is not required to interview the Complainant, Respondent, or other witnesses, or gather data beyond any that may have been submitted with the allegation, except as necessary to determine whether the allegation warrants in inquiry.
  
  If the RIO determines that the allegation does not meet the criteria for proceeding to an inquiry, the RIO will document that determination and maintain the documentation for seven years. If the allegation involved PHS-supported research, the RIO will report the determination to ORI if requested.
  
  If the RIO determines that the allegations warrant an inquiry, the RIO will: (1) document the assessment; (2) sequester all research records and other evidence before the institution notifies the respondent of the allegation; and, (3) promptly initiate an inquiry.
2. Inquiry: The Provost appoints an Inquiry Committee of two or more persons with appropriate expertise, to conduct the inquiry. The Inquiry Committee will not include any person(s) who have conflicts of interest with the Complainant, Respondent, or witnesses involved in the inquiry. The purpose of the inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine whether an investigation is warranted; it does not require a full review of the evidence related to the allegations. The inquiry must be completed within 90 calendar days of the RIO’s determination that an inquiry is warranted, unless circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If the inquiry phase must be extended beyond ninety days, the reasons for doing so will be documented.
  
  The RIO will prepare a charge for the Inquiry Committee that:
  1. Sets forth the time for completion of the inquiry;
  2. Describes the allegations and any related issues identified during the preliminary assessment;
  3. States that the purpose of the inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the evidence, including the testimony of the Respondent, Complainant, and key witnesses, to determine whether an investigation is warranted, not to determine whether research misconduct definitely occurred or who was responsible;
  4. States that an investigation is warranted if the committee determines: (1) there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct and is within the jurisdictional criteria of 42 CFR § 93.102(b) or this policy; and, (2) preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding indicates that the allegation may have substance;
  5. States that the Inquiry Committee is not permitted to make a determination of whether the alleged misconduct is intentional, knowing, or reckless; and,
  6. Informs the Inquiry Committee that they are responsible for preparing or directing the preparation of a written report of the inquiry that meets the requirements of this policy and any applicable federal regulation or requirements.
  At the Committee's first meeting, the RIO will review the charge with the Committee, discuss the allegations, any related issues, and the appropriate procedures for conducting the inquiry, assist the Committee with organizing plans for the inquiry, and answer any questions raised by the Committee. As a member of the Inquiry Committee, the RIO will be present or available throughout the inquiry to advise the Committee as needed.
  
  At the time of or before the beginning of the inquiry, the RIO must make a good faith effort to notify the Respondent in writing that an inquiry is being undertaken and of the procedure that will be followed; indicates the membership of the Inquiry Committee; and, describes the nature of the misconduct allegation(s). If the inquiry subsequently identifies other Respondents, the RIO will also provide notice to them.
  
  The Respondent then has five days to challenge, in writing, the Inquiry Committee's membership based on bias or conflict of interest. The RIO will determine whether to replace the challenged member with a qualified substitute.
  
  On or before the date on which the Respondent is notified, and in the course of the inquiry, or of any subsequent investigation, the RIO will take reasonable steps to obtain custody of all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester them in a secure manner as is necessary to protect the integrity of the investigation. The exception to such sequestration would be if the research records and/or evidence encompass scientific instruments that are shared by a number of users. In such cases, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as these copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments. The RIO may consult with ORI for advice and assistance in this regard. Where appropriate, the Respondent will be provided copies of, or reasonably supervised access to, the research records.
  
  If the research at issue receives or has received Federal funding and, at any point during an inquiry or subsequent investigation, it is ascertained that any of following conditions pertain, the College will notify ORI, HHS, or any other required agency immediately.
  - 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 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 College believes the research misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely so that HHS may take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved.
  - The research community or public should be informed.
  Matters pertaining to the inquiry will be treated confidentially to the extent possible consistent with activities of the inquiry and required reporting to funding agencies.
  
  An written report of the inquiry shall be prepared that; (a) includes the name and position of the Respondent; (b) describes the evidence that was reviewed; (c) summarizes any interviews that were conducted; (d) identifies any PHS support provided for the research (e.g. grant numbers, applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS support); (e) states the conclusion of the Inquiry Committee as to whether an investigation is warranted; (f) if an investigation is recommended, explains the basis for that recommendation; and, (g) includes documentation of whether the allegation meets the federal regulatory definition of research misconduct under 42 CFR Part 93.
  
  The Respondent shall be given a copy of the written report and shall be invited to comment in writing within ten calendar days. The College may share all or portions of the initial report of inquiry with the complainant and invite the complainant to provide comments in writing within ten calendar days. If comments are provided, the comments will be attached to the written inquiry report. The inquiry report, including any comments attached to it, shall be provided to the RIO.
  
  The RIO will provide the Respondent with a copy of, or supervised access to, the research records and evidence reviewed by the inquiry committee that are within the institution's custody and control.
  
  Upon receipt of the final inquiry report, the RIO will make, in writing, the determination of whether an investigation is warranted to the Provost. If the RIO determines that an investigation is warranted:
  - the RIO will notify the Respondent in writing and the notice will include a reference to any applicable federal regulations and this policy.
  - the RIO will notify the Provost and provide a copy of the inquiry report to the Provost.
  - If the research misconduct alleged is within the scope of ORI's regulations, the RIO shall provide a copy of the inquiry report to ORI within thirty (30) calendar days of the institution making that determination.
  - If ORI or another federal agency requests it, the institution will provide ORI or the federal agency with any other materials from the inquiry that ORI requests. The RIO will cooperate fully with ORI to provide requested documentation.
  - The RIO, with input from the Provost, shall, within 30 calendar days of the completion of the inquiry report, initiate the investigation process.
  If an inquiry is terminated before its completion, a report of the termination, including the reasons for such an action, should be made to those ORI, HHS, or any other required agency within thirty (30) calendar days. The inquiry report and supporting documentation will be provided to relevant authorized federal agencies upon request.
  
  All records of the inquiry, including all sequestered evidence, will be retained for seven years after the inquiry's conclusion or as otherwise required by law, whichever is longer.
3. Investigation: An Investigative Committee will determine whether research misconduct has occurred, and, if so, will make recommendations with respect to the imposition of disciplinary sanctions. The Investigative Committee will not include any person(s) who have conflicts of interest with the Complainant, Respondent, or witnesses involved in the inquiry. The investigation will be completed within 180 calendar days from the initiation of the investigation, unless circumstances warrant a longer period. If the investigation is extended beyond 180 days, the reasons for doing so will be documented and reported to ORI if PHS funding is involved, along with a request for an extension and an estimated completion date.
  
  In the case of a faculty member, the Investigative Committee is appointed by the Provost. It will be constituted from members of the faculty, or others with appropriate scientific experience, in consultation with the members of College's Institutional Review Board or Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and typically contain from one to three members. A larger committee may be appointed if, in the opinion of the Provost, the allegations warrant it. The committee must include individuals with appropriate expertise and no conflicts of interest.
  
  In the case of academic researchers (visiting scholars, professional researchers, nonfaculty academics, etc.), the Provost appoints an Investigative Committee that, typically, will include a member of the researcher's relevant peer group plus one or two members of the faculty. The committee must include individuals with appropriate expertise and no conflicts of interest.
  
  In the case of a student, the Provost refers the matter to the Head of the Student Honor Commission, under the supervision of one of the Deans of Academic Advising. The commission, with modifications or additions necessary to provide appropriate expertise and no conflicts of interest, will serve as the Investigative Committee.
  
  The RIO will notify the Respondent(s) in writing before the investigation begins that an investigation is being undertaken and of the allegations that will be investigated, as well as of the composition of the Investigative Committee and the procedures that will be followed in the course of the investigation. In the event that new allegations arise in the course of the investigation, the Respondent will be so notified in writing promptly. If the investigation subsequently identifies other Respondents, the RIO will also provide notice to them.
  
  The Respondent has five days to challenge, in writing, the Investigative Committee's membership based on bias or conflict of interest. The RIO will determine whether to replace a challenged member with a qualified substitute.
  
  The Investigation Committee will pursue diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including other potential instances of possible research misconduct and shall pursue the investigation until is it completed. The investigation will normally include examination of pertinent documents, including but not necessarily limited to relevant research data and proposals, publications, correspondence, and memoranda. The Investigative Committee will conduct interviews as part of its fact-finding process, including interviews with the Complainant, Respondent, and witnesses identified by the Respondent. All interviews must be recorded and transcribed, and the transcript provided to the interviewee for correction. Any exhibits used during an interview must be numbered and referred to by that number during the interview. The Respondent is not permitted to attend the interview of witnesses but will be provided with a transcript of each witness interview.
  
  The RIO shall, as required by 42 CFR § 93.108,: (1) limit disclosure of the identity of Respondents and Complainants to those who need to know in order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective, and fair research misconduct proceeding; and (2) except as otherwise prescribed by law, limit the disclosure of any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified to those who need to know in order to carry out a research misconduct proceeding. The RIO should use written confidentiality agreements or other mechanisms to ensure that the recipient does not make any further disclosure of identifying information. "If an investigation is terminated before its completion, a report of the planned termination, including the reasons for such an action, will be made, when required, to ORI, HHS or any other required agency within thirty (30) calendar days, including a description of the allegations, the PHS support involved, and the basis for the termination.
  
  The College will notify relevant Federal funding agencies immediately if, during the course of the investigation, facts are disclosed that may affect current or potential Federal funding for individual(s) under investigation or that the Federal agency needs to know to ensure appropriate use of Federal funds and otherwise protect the public interest.
  
  When the investigation is completed, the Chair of the Investigative Committee shall prepare, and submit to the Provost, a written, draft investigation report. The draft investigation report shall include:
  1. a description of the nature of the allegations of research misconduct;
  2. a description and documentation of the PHS Support (if any) provided (e.g. grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS Support;
  3. the specific allegations of research misconduct considered in the investigation;
  4. the composition of the Investigation Committee, including name, position, and subject matter expertise;
  5. an inventory of all sequestered research records and other evidence that was relied on, and a description of how any sequestration was conducted;
  6. transcripts of all interview conducted;
  7. the policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted;
  8. identification of any funding applications, manuscripts, papers, presentations or other materials published or submitted that allegedly contained material that was falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized;
  9. any scientific or forensic analysis conducted;
  10. for each separate allegation of research misconduct identified during the investigation, a recommended finding as to whether research misconduct did or did not occur;
  11. for each recommended finding of research misconduct:
    1. an explanation of whether each instance of research misconduct constitutes falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism;
    2. a statement of whether each instance of research misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly;
    3. a summary of the facts and analysis which support the conclusion and address any reasonable explanation offered by the Respondent;
    4. the specific PHS Support (if any) involved;
    5. a determination of whether any publications need correction or retraction;
    6. the person responsible for any research misconduct; and,
    7. any current PHS Support or known applications/proposals for support that the person has pending with any federal agencies.
    8. a detailed rationale if the Investigation Committee does not recommend a finding of research misconduct.
  In a separate communication to the Provost, the investigative committee shall offer its recommendations with respect to disciplinary sanctions, if any.
  
  The Provost shall make the draft investigation report and access to the evidence on which the draft report is based available to the Respondent. The Respondent will have the opportunity to submit written comments on the draft investigation report within thirty (30) calendar days. The Provost may provide the draft investigation report or portions of it to the Complainant within thirty (30) calendar days. The Respondent and Complainant (if applicable) shall have 30 days to provide comments on the draft investigation report. The draft investigation report, together with any comments submitted, shall constitute the Final Investigation Report.
  
  The RIO will provide the Respondent with a copy of, or supervised access to, the research records and evidence reviewed by the investigation committee that are within the institution's custody and control.
  
  The institution will ensure that the Respondent's comments are included and considered in the final investigation report. The final report will include documentation of the RIO's consideration of the Respondent's comments, in additional to all of the content areas required to be included in the draft investigation report.
  
  Based upon a reading of the Final Investigation Report, the Provost will make a determination of whether or not research misconduct has been committed. The Provost will, if appropriate and/or required by law, provide the Final Investigation Report to ORI, HHS, or other relevant agencies within 180 calendar days of the beginning of the investigation along with notice of the Provost's determination and any disciplinary action that will be taken. Documentation to substantiate an investigation's findings will also be made available to the Director of ORI upon request.
  
  The institution will notify ORI of the final outcome of the investigation within 30 calendar days of completing the investigation, whether or not the investigation finds research misconduct. If the investigation finds research misconduct, the report to ORI must include the institution's plan for institutional action in response to the finding and any recommendations for further action, including the need for ORI oversight.
  
  The RIO will provide ORI with a copy of the evidentiary record for the investigation, or at ORI's request, all relevant research records and evidence. The institution will cooperate with ORI during any subsequent proceeding, including providing additional information and documentation as requested.
4. Disciplinary Action
  After considering the Final Investigation Report, the Provost will determine what, if any, disciplinary action should be taken; such action may include a reprimand or other alteration of status of the faculty member in question. In a case where the Provost believes that the appropriate sanction is the termination of a faculty member, the Provost shall make that recommendation to the President and the President shall decide whether termination is appropriate. As to all sanctions other than termination, the Provost determines the sanction. In addition, the Provost has the authority to mitigate the effects of the misconduct by withdrawing Gettysburg College's name and sponsorship from pending abstracts and papers and by notifying persons known to have relied upon any work affected by the misconduct.
  
  The institution will take appropriate corrective actions, including but not limited to: (1) withdrawal or correction of affected publications; (2) notification to collaborators, editors, and others who may have relied on the research; (3) removal of the Respondent from PHS-supported research, either temporarily or permanently; (4) supervision of future PHS-supported research; (5) monitoring of Respondent's research; and (6) other disciplinary actions.
  
  If, in the case of an academic researcher (visiting scholars, professional researchers, non-faculty academics, etc.), the Provost intends to impose disciplinary sanctions, the researcher is notified in writing of such intention, and is invited to respond to the allegations and proposed discipline in a personal conference with the Provost or RIO. The researcher and the Provost or RIO, shall each be entitled to bring a representative of their choice to such a conference. If the Provost and the researcher arrive at a mutually agreeable settlement, the matter is disposed of in accordance therewith.
  
  If discipline is to be imposed upon the researcher pursuant to the settlement, or if there is no settlement, but the researcher has informed the Provost that he/she does not intend to contest the proposed discipline, the Provost may thereupon impose such discipline.
  
  If, in the case of students, the Honor Commission makes a finding of research misconduct and sanctions are levied, the appeal process described in the Gettysburg College Honor Code book may be invoked.
  
  As required by law, the Provost shall report any disciplinary actions taken by the College to ORI, HHS, or any other external funding agency that requires it within thirty (30) calendar days of taking such action.
5. Appeal Process
  
  If discipline other than dismissal is imposed without the agreement of the faculty researcher, an appeal of the sanction (not the Provost's substantive decision as to whether misconduct has occurred) may be made to the President in writing by Respondent within 15 calendar days of the receipt of the decision from the Provost. The President will respond in writing to the faculty researcher within 30 calendar days of receipt of the appeal request. The President's decision regarding the sanction to be imposed is final. The appeal and other processes set forth above are the only processes available to a Respondent accused of research misconduct. The Faculty Grievance Policy is not applicable to these cases. If an appeal relates to research misconduct that is within the scope of ORI's regulations, the RIO will notify the ORI of any appeal and provide complete record of the appeal to ORI once the appeal is concluded.
6. Restoration of Reputation and Prohibition Against Retaliation
  If the College finds no research misconduct, after consulting with the Respondent as needed, the RIO will undertake reasonable efforts to restore the Respondent's reputation. Depending on the circumstances, the RIO may consider notifying individuals aware of or involved in the investigation of the final outcome, publicizing the final outcome in forums in which the allegation of research misconduct was previously publicized, or expunging references to the alleged research misconduct from the Respondent's personnel file(s). If the Complainant is found not to have made the allegation in good faith, the institution will assess whether the Complainant engaged in malicious conduct and will take appropriate disciplinary action if warranted.
  
  Regardless of whether the College determines that research misconduct occurred, the RIO will make reasonable efforts to protect Complainants who made allegations of research misconduct in good faith and the reputations of any individuals who cooperated or participated in proceedings pursuant to this policy. Upon the completion of the investigation and appeal (if any), the RIO will determine, in consultation with the affected personnel as needed, what steps, if any, are need to restore their positions or reputation and the RIO shall coordinate the implementation of any such steps.
  
  The College prohibits Retaliation against any Complainant, witness, committee member, or other person who cooperates or participates in any proceedings undertaken pursuant to this policy. The College shall make reasonable and practical efforts to counter potential or actual Retaliation and will review instances of alleged Retaliation. College personnel should immediately report any alleged or apparent Retaliation to the RIO. The institution will protect the Complainant, witnesses, and committee members from retaliation, and take diligent efforts to protect the positions and reputations of all involved parties, including the Respondent when allegations are not confirmed.
7. ORI Oversight and Review
  The institution acknowledges ORI's authority to review any research misconduct proceeding involving PHS-supported research. The institution will cooperate fully with ORI reviews, including:
  - Complying with applicable federal regulations;
  - Providing all requested documentation and information;
  - Allowing ORI to conduct its own investigation if ORI determines that the institutional investigation was inadequate;
  - Implementing any corrective actions recommended by ORI;
  - Accepting ORI's findings if ORI concludes that the institutional finding was incorrect;
  - Providing periodic reports to ORI on the status of any institutional actions taken in response to a finding of research misconduct.
  Upon completion of an investigation and any institutional appeals, if ORI determines that research misconduct has been committed, ORI may publicly disclose certain information about the case, including the Respondent's name, the nature of the misconduct, and any administrative actions taken. The institution will cooperate with any such disclosure and will provide information to ORI as requested.

Research Misconduct Policy

Gettysburg College Research Misconduct Policy

On this page:

Purpose of Policy

Scope of Policy

Definitions

Policy Description

Policy Management

Research Misconduct Policy

Gettysburg College Research Misconduct Policy

On this page:

Purpose of Policy

Scope of Policy

Definitions

Policy Description

Policy Management

Related Materials