Adopted November 1st, 2006; Update 1/1/2026
I.
Introduction
A.
Preamble
This Policy and Procedure complies with
the
University of California Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct
Policy (the “UC Research Misconduct Policy”), which provides that “Each
Location must implement policies and procedures for responding to allegations of
research misconduct. Such policies and procedures must comply with federal
policies.” The UC Research Misconduct Policy requires campus Chancellors, or
their designees, to implement the policy through “consideration of initial
allegations of research misconduct and, when necessary, initiation of formal
inquiries and, if warranted, investigations.”
To
maintain and promote research integrity, and to comply with federal sponsor
regulations, we reaffirm our commitment to upholding the highest ethical,
professional and legal standards in the conduct of research, and to specifying
the procedures and appropriate safeguards for handling investigations of
research misconduct.
B.
Scope
and Application
1.
University
policies establish standards of ethical behavior for all members of the
University community and prescribe procedures for due process and discipline
for deviation from those standards. UCR Policy and Procedures for Responding to
Allegations of Research Misconduct 529-900 (hereafter referred to as the
“Policy”) deals with violations of a subset of these standards. It governs
conduct in connection with all research, research training, and activities related
to that research or research training, including* proposal preparation and submission, all aspects of conducting research, and publication
of results. When appliable, federal regulations, such as Department of Health
and Human Services (42 CFR, Part 93), National Science Foundation (45 CFR, Part
689), and United States Department of Agriculture (2 CFR, Part 422) apply, and
their procedures may supersede campus policy.
2.
The
Policy defines the three increasingly formal stages of research misconduct
allegation handling– the preliminary assessment, the Inquiry, and the
Investigation – and the adjudication of UCR’s response to allegations of research
misconduct. The goal is to respond to such allegations in a manner that is
expeditious, thorough, competent, objective, and fair; and to maintain
appropriate confidentiality, avoid conflicts of interest, and balance the
interests of all involved, including the Respondent, members of the University
community, relevant government agencies, and the general scientific community.
3.
In accordance with the UC Research
Misconduct Policy, this Policy applies to all research conducted under the
auspices of UCR by a person who, at the time of the alleged research misconduct,
was a UCR affiliate including faculty and other academic appointees (including
postdoctoral scholars and visiting scholars), staff, and students. This policy does
not apply to activities undertaken in fulfillment of course requirements (unless
there is an expectation of publication or dissemination of the results of such
research outside of UCR).
4.
In
cases where an applicable federal policy differs from this Policy, the federal
policy will take precedence.
C.
Research
Misconduct
1.
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.
2.
A finding of Research Misconduct requires
that:
a) There 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.
II.
Definitions
1.
Allegation. Any written or oral statement or other
indication of possible Research Misconduct made to a University or governmental
official.
2.
Assessment. A preliminary evaluation to determine if
the allegation falls within the definition of Research Misconduct and is
sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of Research
Misconduct may be identified.
3.
Complainant. A person who in good faith makes an
allegation of Research Misconduct. There can be more than one Complainant.
4.
Day. Day means a
calendar day unless otherwise specified.
5.
Fabrication. Making up data or results and recording
or reporting them.
6.
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.
7.
Good
Faith. Good faith as applied to a Complainant or Witness, means
having a belief in the truth of one’s allegation or testimony that
a reasonable person in the Complainant’s or Witness’s position could have based
on the information known to the Complainant or Witness at the time. Good faith as applied to a committee member means cooperating with the
research misconduct proceeding by impartially carrying out the duties assigned
for the purpose of helping the institution meet its responsibilities.
8.
Inquiry. A preliminary information-gathering and
fact-finding evaluation of the available evidence to determine whether there is
sufficient evidence of possible Research Misconduct to warrant an
Investigation.
9.
Institutional Deciding Official (IDO). The institutional official who makes final determinations on
allegations of research misconduct and makes recommendations to the appropriate
oversight body for any institutional actions.
UCR’s IDO is the VCR, as described in Section III.A below.
10. Investigation. A formal
evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if Research Misconduct has
occurred and, if so, to determine the responsible person(s) and the seriousness
of the misconduct.
11.
Locally Designated Official (LDO). The LDO is the campus
official responsible for responding to whistleblower reports and complaints.
UCR’s Chief Compliance Officer is UCR's LDO.
12.
Plagiarism. Plagiarism means the appropriation
of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving
appropriate credit. (a) 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. (b) 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.
13. Preponderance of the Evidence. Preponderance of the
evidence means proof by evidence that, compared with evidence opposing it,
leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely true than not
14. Research Misconduct. Defined at Section I.C.1., above.
15. Research Record. Both the physical
and electronic record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from
scientific inquiry. Examples of items, materials, or information
that may be considered part of the research record include 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.
16. Respondent. The person against
whom an allegation of Research Misconduct is directed or the person whose
actions are the subject of the Inquiry or Investigation. There can be more than
one Respondent.
17. Witness. A person who may
have data or knowledge that is relevant to the Inquiry or Investigation. There
can be more than one Witness.
III.
Authority for Oversight and Implementation of
the Policy and Procedures
A.
Vice
Chancellor for Research
The
Chancellor has delegated to the Vice
Chancellor for Research (VCR) administrative authority for the oversight,
implementation, maintenance, and updating of the Policy, in furtherance of the
University’s obligations and responsibilities. The VCR serves as the Institution
Deciding Official (IDO). In the case of a conflict or if the VCR is unavailable,
the Chancellor will designate an ad-hoc IDO for the particular instance.
The
VCR will appoint the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) for the UCR campus.
Typically, this person is an AVC of Research and a member of the Academic
Senate. The RIO will have primary responsibility for the handling of
allegations of Research Misconduct and for implementation of the procedures set
forth in this document, including assessing allegations of Research Misconduct and
determining when such allegations warrant Inquiries. Such a designee will be an
official who is well qualified to handle the procedural requirements involved
and is sensitive to the varied demands made on those who conduct research,
those who are accused of misconduct, and those who report apparent misconduct
in good faith. In the case of a conflict or if the RIO is unavailable, the VCR
will designate an ad-hoc RIO for the particular instance.
Among
other things, the VCR (or delegate) is responsible for:
1.
Fostering
a research environment that discourages misconduct in all research.
2.
If
appropriate or required, notifying concerned parties such as sponsors,
co-authors, collaborators, editors, licensing boards, professional societies,
and criminal authorities of the outcome of Investigations.
3.
To
the maximum extent possible, protecting the positions and reputations of the
good faith Complainants, witnesses and committee members, and restoring the
reputation of Respondents when allegations are not proven.
Among
other things, the RIO is responsible for:
1.
Coordinating
all procedures related to allegations of Research Misconduct by anyone
performing research under the campus’ sponsorship.
2.
Appointing
committees with appropriate expertise to evaluate evidence of, and issues
related to, allegations of Research Misconduct, avoiding real or apparent
conflicts of interest among those involved, and assuring that a full and
complete Inquiry, Investigation, and resolution process is conducted.
3.
Disseminating
policy and maintaining records related to Research Misconduct.
4.
When
allegations involve research with extramural funding (including proposals for funding)
which may be under the purview of external agencies involved, determining
whether law, regulation, or the terms or conditions of the award require
notification of the sponsor, specify time limits, or require other actions to
assure compliance with externally imposed requirements, and, if so,
coordinating the Inquiry and Investigation with all involved individuals and
offices to assure compliance.
5.
Assuring
appropriate confidentiality, fairness, and objectivity of proceedings.
6.
Maintaining
confidentiality of records, in accord with established University policy,
relating to the Inquiry, Investigation, and resolution of allegations of
research misconduct.
B.
The
Academic Senate:
1.
Recognizes
that, in order for the University to fulfill obligations imposed by external
funding agencies, there must be coordination among Administrative, Senate and
legal standards applicable to Research Misconduct proceedings.
2.
Encourages
participation by faculty on Inquiry and Investigation Committees.
3.
Fosters
a research environment that discourages Research Misconduct and creates
educational opportunities and resources to prevent its occurrence.
4.
Conducts
disciplinary proceedings designed to ensure accountability for Academic Senate
members who have engaged in Research Misconduct.
IV.
General Principles
A.
Maintaining
confidentiality of the proceedings
Except
as otherwise authorized by law or University policy(ies), the Research
Integrity Officer (RIO) will take all reasonable steps to limit disclosure of
the identity of Complainant(s), Respondent(s) and Witness(es), and the
disclosure of any records or evidence collected during the processes described
in this Policy to those with a legitimate need to know., Legitimate need to
know includes, but is not limited to:
1.
Ensuring
a thorough, competent, objective and fair Research Misconduct proceeding,
including by avoiding duplicative or competing inquiries or investigations by
coordination with the Locally Designated Official (LDO) or other appropriate
administrative offices when there are allegations of multiple university or
campus policy violations.
2.
Coordinating
Research Misconduct proceedings involving multiple institutions.
3.
Making
appropriate reports to research sponsors and/or research collaborators.
4.
Correcting
the research record.
5.
Pursuing
adjudication of the case.
6.
Protecting
the public or the research community.
The
Complainant, Respondent,
and Witnesses, shall be encouraged to maintain the confidentiality of the
proceedings to preserve the integrity of the Research Misconduct proceedings.
B.
Experts
Experts
may need to be consulted to provide special expertise in the analysis of
specific evidence. Such experts will serve in an advisory capacity; they do not
vote and generally do not interview witnesses. The experts chosen can, but need
not be, affiliated with UCR.
C.
Interviewing
Individuals
Any
individual identified as having information or evidence relevant to the allegations
may be interviewed by the Inquiry and/or Investigation Committee(s).
If
the interview will be recorded, all participants must consent to be recorded.
If an interviewee refuses to be recorded, the interviewee will be provided with
a written copy of the questions and given an opportunity to provide a written
response that will become part of the official record. If the recording is
transcribed, the interviewee will be provided a copy of transcript or summary
of the interview to review, note any objections for the record, and/or to add
comments or information. Copies of the audio recordings will not be provided to
the interviewees, Respondents, or Complainants.
D.
Immediate
Notifications, including Agencies
If
at any time the RIO or the Committee has reason to believe that any of the
following circumstances exist, they will immediately inform the VCR. The VCR or
RIO will notify the appropriate federal agency or take other action that the
VCR deems warranted:
1.
Public
health or safety is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or
animal subjects.
2.
Agency
resources, reputation or interests are threatened.
3.
Research
activities should be suspended.
4.
There
is a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law.
5.
Federal
action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the Research
Misconduct proceeding.
6.
There
is reason to believe that the Research Misconduct proceeding may be made public
prematurely, so that agency may take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence
and protect the rights of those involved.
Or,
7.
The
scientific community or public should be informed.
E.
Time
limitation
This
policy applies to Research Misconduct occurring within six (6) years of the
date the allegation is received by the RIO. In cases where an applicable
Federal policy time limitation differs, the federal policy will take
precedence. Note that this time
limitation governs the applicability of this Policy, not the jurisdictional boundary
of disciplinary measures. For example, if plagiarism or data falsification is
discovered by the administration a decade or more after the conduct occurred,
this Policy would not preclude appropriate action to address substantiated
misconduct under the Faculty Code of Conduct (APM-015) and Senate-approved
disciplinary procedures (Senate Bylaw 336; UCR Senate Appendix 05).
V.
Reporting Allegations of Research Misconduct;
Prohibition on Retaliation
All
individuals associated with the campus should report observed or suspected Research
Misconduct to the RIO or delegate promptly. Allegations may also be made
anonymously through the University of California’s independent reporting system,
EthicsPoint. 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. Any administrator, faculty or staff who receives
a report of Research Misconduct shall notify the RIO and only take further
action as directed by the RIO. Reports from outside the University should
always be directed to the RIO.
Individuals
unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of Research Misconduct
should contact the RIO or delegate to discuss the suspected misconduct informally.
If
the circumstances described do not meet the definition of Research Misconduct,
or allege other forms of misconduct, the RIO will refer the individual or
allegation to the appropriate offices or officials with responsibility for
resolving the non-Research Misconduct allegations. The RIO shall consult with
the LDO or other appropriate administrative offices to coordinate a consistent
and effective review and assessment of allegations of violations of multiple
university or campus policies, or to coordinate interim measures to protect
evidence, and against retaliation or interference with the process.
Individuals
who report Research Misconduct or participate in any process under this Policy
are protected from retaliation under the University’s Whistleblower Policies;
see Section XI.
VI.
Preliminary Assessment of Allegations of
Research Misconduct
A.
Purpose
and Scope
The
purpose of the preliminary assessment of an allegation of Research Misconduct is
to determine whether an Inquiry into the allegation is appropriate. The
preliminary assessment will be limited to determining:
1.
Whether
the allegation describes acts or omissions that fall within the definition of Research
Misconduct.
2.
Whether
the relevant research or research-related activity is covered by the Policy.
And
3.
Whether
the allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence
of Research Misconduct may be identified.
Only
if the RIO answers all of the foregoing queries affirmatively will the matter
proceed to an Inquiry. Otherwise, proceedings under this Policy will terminate and
the decision will be documented.
B.
Time
to Complete
The
RIO will use best efforts to conduct and complete the preliminary assessment
promptly. If the RIO cannot complete the preliminary assessment promptly, the
reasons will be recorded and the assessment completed thereafter as soon as
reasonably and responsibly possible.
C.
Notifications
If
the matter proceeds to Inquiry, the RIO will notify the Respondent as outlined
in Section VII.C.3. The Complainant may be notified. The RIO will notify
external agencies if required by applicable law or regulation.
VII.
Inquiry into Allegations of Research Misconduct
A.
Purpose
B.
The
purpose of the Inquiry is to determine whether there is sufficient substance to
the allegation to warrant a formal Investigation. It is not the purpose of the
Inquiry to reach a final conclusion about whether misconduct occurred or who
was responsible. Time to Complete
The
Inquiry should be completed within ninety (90) days of its initiation unless the
RIO determines that circumstances warrant a longer period. If the Inquiry phase
is extended beyond ninety days, the RIO will record the reasons and notify the
Respondent(s).
C.
Preliminary
Matters
1.
Inquiry Committee. The Inquiry will be
performed by one (1) to three (3) individual(s) appointed by the RIO. Person(s)
conducting the Inquiry may not have unresolved real or apparent personal,
professional or financial conflicts of interest with the Complainant(s),
Respondent(s), or Witness(es), is/are unbiased, and has/have appropriate
expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation, and
may interview the principals and witnesses. Simply knowing and/or have
interacted in some professional way with the Complainant(s), Respondent(s), or
Witness(es), does not constitute a conflict of interest per se.
2.
Charge. The RIO will provide the Inquiry Committee
with the purpose of the Inquiry, a description of the allegations and a description
of any related issues identified during the preliminary assessment.
3.
Notice to the Respondent. At the time of or
before beginning an Inquiry, the RIO will make a good faith effort to notify
the Respondent in writing of the nature of the allegation of research misconduct,
that an Inquiry will be conducted to decide
whether to proceed with an investigation, the membership of the Inquiry Committee,
and the procedures that will be followed. The notice should include a copy of
this Policy.
In
an instance where another proceeding has collected sufficient evidence to meet
the criteria in Section VII.D, the RIO may use that evidence to initiate an
Investigation without Inquiry in the interests of prompt resolution. The RIO will
make a good faith effort to notify the Respondent in writing of the nature of
the allegation of research misconduct (which may be a report) and the
procedures that will be followed. The notice should include a copy of this
Policy.
4.
Objections to the Person(s) Conducting the Inquiry. Within five (5)
days of receipt of notification of the Inquiry Committee member(s), the
Respondent may challenge, in writing, any member based on bias or conflict of
interest. If an Inquiry Committee member is challenged, the RIO will determine
whether to replace the challenged member and inform the Respondent in writing
of the determination within five (5) days of receipt of the challenge.
5.
Sequestration of Records. If not previously
completed, on or before the date the Respondent is notified or the Inquiry
begins (whichever is earlier), the RIO will take all reasonable and practical
steps to obtain custody of all research records and evidence needed to conduct
the Research Misconduct proceedings. Research records or evidence are to be
sequestered in a secure manner, except where they consist of scientific
instruments shared by numerous users. In such cases, custody may be limited to
copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are
substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments. Where appropriate, the Respondent will be given copies of,
or reasonable, supervised access to, the research records.
6.
Inquiry Notifications. The RIO may notify
others with a need to know that an Inquiry has been initiated. This includes,
but is not limited to, federal agencies, private sponsors, publishers, the
Complainant’s and the Respondent's Department Head and/or Dean, the Executive
Vice Chancellor (for academic appointees), appropriate Vice Chancellor, the
LDO, and/or Graduate/Undergraduate Deans.
D.
Conducting
the Inquiry
1.
The
Inquiry Phase will determine whether there is sufficient evidence of
possible Research Misconduct to warrant an Investigation. An Investigation is
warranted if there is:
a) A reasonable basis
for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of Research Misconduct.
And
b) Preliminary
information-gathering and fact-finding indicate that the allegation may have
substance.
2.
Interviewing Individuals. Any individual identified
as having information or evidence relevant to the Inquiry Committee’s
determinations, including, but not limited to, the Complainant and the
Respondent may be interviewed in accordance with IV.C.
3.
If
the Inquiry subsequently identifies additional Respondents, they must be
notified by the RIO and provided with the information specified in Section VII.C.3.
E.
Inquiry
Report
1.
When
the Inquiry is concluded, the Committee will prepare a written draft Inquiry Report,
which includes:
a) The name and
position of the Respondent and Complainant (if known). In some cases, the
Respondent may have made statements implicating they engaged in potential
misconduct, if so, this should be listed in the report and there is no
complainant in such case.
b) A description of
the research misconduct allegation(s).
c) Name(s) and
title(s) of the Inquiry Committee member(s) and expert(s), if any.
d) A summary of the
Inquiry process used.
e) A description of
the evidence reviewed, including research records reviewed.
f)
List
of any interviews conducted.
g) List of associated
funding, if any.
h) For each
allegation, the basis for recommending that the allegation warrants an investigation
or the basis for recommending that the allegation does not merit an
investigation.
2.
The
RIO or UCR Office of Legal Affairs may review the report to ensure
that the committee has completed its charge, the report provides
sufficient information to justify the committee's findings, the report does not
include information that is inappropriate, and the report is in proper
form.
3.
The
Committee shall provide a copy of the draft Inquiry Report to the Respondent,
who may, within seven (7) days of receipt, submit comments to the Inquiry
Committee. The Committee shall consider any comments provided by the Respondent
and produce a final Inquiry Report.
F.
Concluding
the Inquiry
1.
Concluding the Inquiry with a Determination that an
Investigation Is Warranted. If the Inquiry Committee determines that an
Investigation is warranted, it will prepare the Inquiry Report detailed in VII.E.1
and submit the final Inquiry Report to the RIO.
2.
Concluding the Inquiry with a Determination that an
Investigation is Not Warranted. If the Inquiry Committee determines that
an Investigation is not warranted, it will the Inquiry Report detailed in VII.E.1
to permit a later assessment by the RIO or third
parties of the reasons for not conducting an Investigation.
3.
Terminating Inquiry before its completion. If an Inquiry is
terminated before its completion, a report of the planned termination,
including the reasons for such an action, will be prepared. This report will
made available to the funding agencies that require it, as determined by the
RIO.
G.
Notice
of the results of the Inquiry
1.
Notice to the Respondent. The RIO must
notify the Respondent whether or not the Inquiry found that an Investigation is
warranted and that the process will move to the Investigation phase. The notice
must include a copy of the final Inquiry Report.
2.
Notice to the Complainant. The RIO may notify
the Complainant whether the Inquiry found that an Investigation is warranted.
The RIO may provide relevant portions of the Inquiry Report to the Complainant.
3.
Notice to Agencies. Within thirty (30)
days of finding that an Investigation is warranted, the RIO will inform the
agencies that require it of the decision to move forward to an Investigation
and provide a copy of the Inquiry Report.
VIII.
Investigation of Allegations of Research
Misconduct
A.
Purpose
The
purpose of the Investigation is to explore in detail the allegations, to
examine the evidence in depth, and to determine specifically whether misconduct
has been committed, by whom, and to what extent. The Investigation will also
determine whether there are additional instances of possible misconduct that
would justify broadening the scope beyond the initial allegation.
B.
Time
1.
The
Investigation will begin within thirty (30) days or within a reasonable time after
the determination has been made that an Investigation is warranted. If an
extension is needed, the reason and length of the extension should be
documented by the RIO. If required by applicable law or regulation, the RIO will
request an extension from the agency.
2.
The
Investigation Committee shall use best efforts to ensure that the Investigation
is completed within 180 days of its commencement, including conducting the
Investigation, preparing the report of findings, providing the draft report for
comment in accordance with Section VIII.E.1 below, and forwarding the final
report to the RIO with adequate time for submission to agencies if required by
applicable law or regulation.
Extension
of Time Limit. If
the Investigation Committee is unable to complete the Investigation in 180 days,
it will request an extension from the RIO. The RIO may at their sole discretion
extend the time for completion of the Investigation for a reasonable period. If
the Investigation is governed by applicable agencies and if required by
applicable law or regulation, the RIO will request an extension from the
agency. Such requests should include documentation of the circumstances or issues warranting
additional time.
C.
Preliminary
Matters
1.
The Investigation Committee. The Investigation
will be performed by an Investigation Committee appointed by the RIO. The
Investigation Committee should consist of one (1) to three (3) individual(s).
Person(s) conducting the Investigation may not have unresolved real or apparent
personal, professional or financial conflicts of interest with the
Complainant(s), Respondent(s), or Witness(es), is/are unbiased, and has/have
appropriate expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the
allegation, and who shall interview the principals and witnesses, and conduct
the Investigation. Simply knowing and/or have interacted in some professional
way with the Complainant(s), Respondent(s), or Witness(es), does not constitute
a conflict of interest per se. The Investigation Committee may include members
of, or have the same composition as, the Inquiry Committee.
2.
Scope. The RIO will provide the Investigation
Committee with the purpose of the Investigation, a description of the
allegations and related issues identified during the Inquiry, and task the
committee with evaluating the evidence and testimony of the Respondent(s), Complainant(s),
and Witnesses to determine whether, based on a Preponderance of the Evidence, Research
Misconduct occurred and, if so, to what extent, who was responsible, and its
seriousness.
3.
Notice of Investigation Committee Composition and Right
to Object.
The
RIO will notify the Respondent(s) in writing of the membership of the
Investigation Committee. If the composition of the Investigation Committee
differs from the Inquiry Committee, the Respondent may challenge, in writing,
any previously unvetted committee member based on bias or conflict of interest
within (5) days of receipt of notification. The RIO will determine whether to
replace the challenged member and inform the Respondent in writing of the
determination within five (5) days of receipt of the challenge.
D.
Conducting
the Investigation
1.
Investigation Committee. An Investigation
Committee is appointed to determine if Research Misconduct has occurred, and,
if so, to determine the responsible person, the seriousness of the misconduct,
and recommendations with respect to the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.
2.
Interviewing Individuals. The Investigation
Committee may interview any individual it identifies as having information or
evidence relevant to the Committee’s determinations in accordance with IV.C,
including the Complainant(s), Respondent(s), and Witness(es).
The Respondent must
not be present during the witnesses’
interviews but may be provided with a redacted transcript of the interview.
3.
Pursue Leads; Expansion of Scope. The Investigation
Committee will pursue diligently all significant issues and leads that are
determined relevant to the Investigation, including any evidence of additional
instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the Investigation to
completion. Whenever possible, the institution must
take custody of the additional records when items become known or
relevant to the investigation. During the Investigation, if additional
information becomes available that substantially changes the scope of the
Investigation or would suggest additional Respondents, the Investigation Committee
will notify the RIO. The RIO will determine whether it is necessary to amend
the scope of the investigation and notify the Respondent. If the Investigation
subsequently identifies additional Respondents, they must be notified by the
RIO and provided with the information specified in Section VII.C.3, and a
separate Inquiry will not be conducted.
4.
Immediate Notification of Agencies. If at any time the
Investigation Committee has reason to believe that any of the circumstances
listed in Section IV.D exist, it will immediately inform the RIO, who will
notify the appropriate agency.
5.
Standard of Proof
a) The standard of
proof for finding research misconduct occurred is preponderance of the evidence.
b) The destruction,
absence of, or Respondent’s failure to provide research records adequately
documenting the questioned research is considered evidence of research misconduct,
provided there is a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly destroyed research records, failed to
maintain the records, or maintained the records and failed to produce them in a
timely manner, and that the Respondent’s conduct constitutes a significant
departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.
c) In determining
whether the evidence satisfies the standard of proof, the Investigation
Committee will give appropriate consideration to credible evidence of honest
error or difference of opinion presented by the Respondent.
6.
Finding of Research Misconduct. A finding of
Research Misconduct will be made if the criteria defined in I.C are met.
E.
Concluding
the Investigation
1.
Upon
the conclusion of the Investigation, the Investigation Committee will prepare a
draft Investigation Report that will:
a) Describe the allegation(s)
of Research Misconduct investigated.
b) Identify and
summarize the research records and other evidence reviewed, including, if
applicable, transcripts of interviews conducted and scientific or forensic
analyses.
c) Describe the
sequestration process, if applicable.
d) Describe and
document any current or pending funding support related to the Research
Misconduct allegations, e.g., awarded grant numbers, grant applications
(including pending and past federal applications), contracts, and/or
publications listing such support.
e) Name(s) and
title(s) of the Investigation Committee member(s) and expert(s), if applicable.
f)
For
each separate allegation of Research Misconduct identified during the
Investigation,
(i) Identify the
person(s) responsible for the misconduct.
(ii) Identify whether
the Research Misconduct was falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism, and if
it was Research Misconduct as defined in I.C.
(iii)
Provide
a finding as to whether Research Misconduct did or did not occur.
(iv)Summarize the facts and analysis which support the
conclusion and consider the merits of any reasonable explanation by the
Respondent.
(v) Identify the specific research
records that allegedly contain the falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized
material, e.g., published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for
publication (including online publication), funding applications, progress
reports, presentations, posters, or other research records.
g) Identify whether
any publications need correction or retraction.
2.
The
Respondent will have thirty (30) days to review the draft Investigation Report
and provide written comments to be included in the final Investigation Report. The
Respondent may have access to copies of, or supervised access to, the research
records and evidence that the Committee relied on, redacted, if appropriate.
3.
The
Committee will consider any comments provided and produce a final Investigation
Report. The findings of the final Investigation Report should take into account
the Respondent’s relevant comments in addition to all the other evidence.
4.
The
Investigation Committee will submit the final Investigation Report to the IDO.
If the investigation concludes that research misconduct occurred, in a separate
communication to the IDO the Investigation Committee must offer its
recommendations with respect to disciplinary sanctions or explain why sanctions
should not be imposed.
F.
Notice
of the Results of the Investigation
1.
Notice to the Respondent. The IDO will make
the final determination of research misconduct findings. The IDO’s decision is
final. The IDO will notify the Respondent of the decision in writing and
provide the Respondent with a copy of the final Investigation Report.
2.
Notice to the Complainant. The IDO may
provide the Complainant with relevant portions of the final Investigation
Report.
3.
Notice to Agencies. At the completion
of the Investigation, agencies that require it will be provided with a copy of
the final Investigation Report, the supporting research files and evidence, and
the recommended institutional actions to be taken.
4.
Notification to Publishers. The IDO or RIO
will notify publishers if a retraction or correction of research records is
recommended by the Investigation Committee and agreed upon by the IDO. This
does not constitute a disciplinary action.
IX.
Maintenance of Investigation records
At the completion
of the Research Misconduct process, all records including all documentary
evidence, interview notes, and reports related to the Assessment, Inquiry and
Investigation, will be maintained in a secure manner in the UCR Office of
Research and Economic Development for seven (7) years, or longer if required by
applicable federal agencies.
X.
Post-Investigation Proceedings (Adjudication)
A.
Investigation
Concludes no Research Misconduct Occurred
UCR
will make all reasonable and practical efforts, if requested and as the IDO
deems appropriate, to protect or restore the reputation of any Respondent whom
an Investigation Committee has concluded has not engaged in Research Misconduct.
UCR shall also take appropriate measures to protect any Complainant, Witness or
Committee member involved in the process from any retaliation.
B.
Investigation
Concludes Research Misconduct Occurred
There
is no appeal process for the IDO’s final determination of research misconduct
findings. Following the conclusion of an Investigation, the matter will proceed
under the applicable disciplinary process listed below:
1.
Respondent is a Member of the Academic Senate. The IDO will
submit their research misconduct findings and recommend disciplinary actions to
the Vice
Provost for Administrative Resolution (VPAR) with an Academic Complaint form in
accordance with the provisions of the Bylaws of the Riverside Division of the
Academic Senate, Appendix 5. Consistent
with federal rules, it is the IDO’s determination about whether or not research
misconduct occurred, applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, that
represents the University’s “final” determination about research misconduct. Post-investigation disciplinary procedures
(UCR Senate Appendix 5 and UC Senate Bylaw 336, which may involve a higher
“clear and convincing” standard of proof) serve a different purpose and do not unsettle
the finality of the IDO’s earlier determination of a finding of research
misconduct.
2.
Respondent is a Non-Senate Academic Appointee (Visiting
Scholars, Post-Doctoral Fellows, Professional Researchers, Non-Faculty
Academics, etc.). The IDO will refer the recommended disciplinary actions to, and
share the investigation report with, the Academic Personnel Office (APO). The
APO will notify the researcher in writing prior to disciplinary sanctions and provide
the researcher the opportunity to respond to the proposed disciplinary
sanctions. If discipline is imposed without the agreement of the Non-Senate
academic appointee, the appeal process described in the Academic Personnel
Manual Section 140 “Non-Senate Academic Appointees/Grievances” shall be
invoked.
3.
Respondent is a Staff Employee. The IDO will refer
the recommended disciplinary actions to, and share the investigation report
with, the Associate Vice Chancellor and Chief Human Resources Officer (AVC-CHRO),
to determine appropriate next steps for imposition of discipline in accordance
with PPSM 62 and 64, and, if applicable, the appropriate collective bargaining
agreement. The AVC-CHRO may refer the imposition of discipline or other
appropriate measures to the unit head of the staff employee’s department.
4.
Respondent is a Graduate or Undergraduate Student. The IDO will forward
the disciplinary recommendations and the investigation report to the Vice
Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies (graduate students) or Dean of Students
(undergraduate students) to determine appropriate next steps for the imposition
of discipline in accordance with the applicable University policy.
XI.
OTHER RELATED UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA POLICIES
1.
University
Policy on Integrity in Research (https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/2500496).
2.
UC Regents Policy 1111, 2005 revised
2017, https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/governance/policies/1111.html
3.
UC
Policies Applying to Campus Activities, Organizations, and Students, Part A,
Section 100.00, Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline, and Section 110.00,
Policy on Student Grievance Procedures (https://www.ucop.edu/student-equity-affairs/policies/pacaos.html).
4.
UC
Policy on Reporting and Investigating Allegations of Suspected Improper
Governmental Activities (Whistleblower Policy) (https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/1100171) and Policy for
Protection of Whistleblowers from Retaliation and Guidelines for Reviewing
Retaliation Complaints (Whistleblower Protection Policy) (https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/1100563).
5.
The
University of California Electronic Communications Policy (http://policy.ucop.edu/doc/7000470) establishes
principles, rules, and procedures applying to all members of the University
community to specifically address issues particular to the use of electronic
communications.
History
of Revisions:
This
Interim Policy was amended effective January 1, 2026. It supersedes and replaces the 11/1/2006
version of UCR Policy 529-900, Title: Policy and Procedures for Responding to
Allegations of Research Misconduct.
The 2006 amendments made revisions and clarifications, updating broken links.