Rationale:
Public trust in the integrity and ethical behavior of scholars is essential if research and other scholarly activities (hereafter, “research”) are to play their proper role in the University and in society. The maintenance of high ethical standards is a central and critical responsibility of faculty and administrators of academic institutions. It is the shared responsibility of all members of our academic community to comply with the processes outlined in this policy in a timely and effective manner.
Syracuse University is committed to fostering a research environment grounded in integrity, accountability, and transparency. The University seeks to minimize the risk of research misconduct by promoting responsible conduct of research, supporting all good-faith efforts to report suspected misconduct, and ensuring that allegations are addressed promptly, thoroughly, and fairly.
This policy formalizes the University’s compliance with Federal regulations, including but not limited to the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Public Health Service (PHS) and the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI) regulations 42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 (PHS Policies on Research Misconduct), the National Science Foundation (NSF) Research Misconduct regulations (45 CFR Part 689), and the Department of Energy’s regulations on research misconduct (2 CFR 910.132). Research misconduct findings are reported to the cognizant Federal agency according to federal regulations. Non-compliance may result in fines from federal agencies and loss of federal funding for research projects.
Policy scope:
This policy applies to all institutional members engaged in research activities at Syracuse University, regardless of funding status or source. Institutional members are defined as all individuals who are employed by, are agents of, or are affiliated by contract or agreement with Syracuse University. Institutional members include faculty, staff, students, and any other persons employed by or affiliated by contract or agreement with the University who conduct, supervise, or contribute to research under the University’s auspices (hereafter, “institutional members”).
This policy only applies to research misconduct, defined as recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally fabricating, falsifying, or plagiarizing in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting research results.
Honest errors in research, differences of opinion about findings or methods, self-plagiarism, and authorship disputes are not covered by this policy, which applies only to questions about the integrity of the research record itself – whether data, results, or ideas have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized. Laboratory safety incidents, student academic integrity, and general misconduct, including harassment, discrimination, and abuse of supervisory authority, are serious violations of University policy and federal regulations, but they are not research misconduct under the definition used in this policy. These issues are addressed through procedures overseen by Syracuse University’s Office of Emergency and Environmental Risk Services, the Office of Equal Opportunity, Inclusion and Resolution Services, Academic Affairs, or other appropriate channels.
To comply with federal requirements and ensure fairness, accuracy, and manageability in investigations, this policy applies only to research misconduct occurring or having occurred within six (6) years of the date Syracuse University receives an allegation of research misconduct, subject to the following exceptions:
- Subsequent Use Exception: The six-year time limitation does not apply if the Respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct that occurred before the six-year period through the use of, republication of, or citation to the portion(s) of the research record alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized, for the potential benefit of the Respondent (“subsequent use exception”). For alleged research misconduct that appears subject to this subsequent use exception, but Syracuse University determines is not subject to the exception, the University will document its determination that the subsequent use exception does not apply and will retain this documentation for seven (7) years after completion of the institutional proceeding.
- Adverse Effect on the Health or Safety of the Public: The six-year time limitation does not apply if HHS ORI or Syracuse University, following consultation with HHS ORI, determines that the alleged research misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public.
Definition of terms:
Accepted practices of the relevant research community, as used in this policy, means those practices established by sponsor requirements, as well as commonly accepted professional codes or norms within the overarching community of researchers.
Good faith, as applied to a complainant or witness, means that the person has a reasonable belief in the truth of their allegation or testimony, based on the information known to them at the time. An allegation, testimony, or cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding is not in good faith if made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for information that would negate the allegation or testimony. Good faith as applied to an institutional or committee member means cooperating with the research misconduct proceeding by impartially carrying out the duties assigned for the purpose of helping an institution meet its responsibilities under this policy. An institutional or committee member does not act in good faith if their acts or omissions during the research misconduct proceedings are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.
Institutional members, means all individuals engaged in research activities at Syracuse University, regardless of funding status or source. Institutional members include all individuals who are employed by, are agents of, or are affiliated by contract or agreement with Syracuse University. Institutional members include faculty, staff, students, and any other persons employed by or affiliated by contract or agreement with the University who conduct, supervise, or contribute to research under the University’s auspices.
Research, as used in this policy, means a systematic experiment, study, evaluation, demonstration, survey, or creative activity designed to develop or make an original contribution to general knowledge (basic research) or specific knowledge (applied research) by establishing, discovering, developing, elucidating, or confirming information. This definition applies to all fields of scholarly study, including but not limited to all fields of science, mathematics, engineering, arts, social science, and the humanities.
Research misconduct, in the context of this policy, is defined as recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally fabricating, falsifying, or plagiarizing in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting research results. Research misconduct does not include honest errors or differences of opinion.
Types of Research Misconduct:
Fabrication is defined as making up data or results and recording or reporting them as factual.
Falsification is defined as 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 defined as the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words through any means without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another’s work that materially misleads the reader regarding the author’s contributions. Researchers are responsible for verifying and giving appropriate credit for another person’s ideas, processes, results, or works.
Plagiarism does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology. It also 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.
Levels of Intent in Research Misconduct:
Intentionally means “to act with the aim of carrying out the act.”
Knowingly means “to act with awareness of the act.”
Recklessly means “to propose, perform, or review research, or report research results with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.”
Research Misconduct Process:
Allegation is defined as a disclosure of possible research misconduct that is made through any means of communication and that is brought to the attention of the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) or any potential research misconduct that the RIO discovers.
Assessment is defined as reviewing an allegation of research misconduct to determine whether to move forward to an Inquiry, defined below. The Assessment phase seeks to determine if the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct, as laid out in this policy, and whether it is sufficiently credible and specific such that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. Assessment does not involve formal interviews or document gathering beyond those documents that are readily available (i.e., those that are easy to find, obtain, or access with little effort or delay).
Inquiry is defined as information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding to determine whether an Allegation or apparent instance of research misconduct warrants an Investigation, defined below.
Investigation is defined as a formal examination and evaluation of relevant facts to determine whether research misconduct has taken place or, if research misconduct has already been confirmed, to assess its extent and consequences and determine appropriate action.
Research Misconduct Process Roles:
Complainant is defined as the person who makes a good-faith allegation of research misconduct.
Respondent is defined as the person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed and/or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding.
Deciding Official (DO) is the University official (Vice President for Research [VPR] or, if the VPR has a personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest, another senior University official appointed by the Provost) who makes the final determination regarding allegations of research misconduct and University recommendations and/or corrective actions at the Inquiry and Investigation stages. For research misconduct cases, the DO appoints the Research Integrity Officer, defined below. The DO appoints the Inquiry Official or Inquiry Committee and the Investigation Committee, defined in the procedures that accompany this policy, with the relevant expertise after receiving nominations from: (1) the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom, Tenure and Professional Ethics Committee for cases involving faculty; (2) the relevant Dean for cases involving graduate or undergraduate students; or (3) the Chief Human Resources Officer for cases involving staff. The DO makes the final Inquiry Official or Inquiry Committee appointment decision.
Research Integrity Officer (RIO) is the faculty appointed by the DO to assume the responsibilities assigned to the RIO under this policy and applicable regulations. The RIO also oversees the implementation of this policy and corresponding federal regulations. Upon receiving an Allegation, the RIO assesses and conducts an Inquiry into whether the Allegation meets the definition of research misconduct and whether it is sufficiently credible and specific to warrant further review. The RIO manages Allegations, Inquiries, and Investigations by the Investigation Committee and ensures record retention in the approved University document management system.
Committee on Academic Freedom, Tenure and Professional Ethics (AFTPE Committee) provides qualified nominations to the DO on the appointment of the Inquiry Official or Inquiry Committee and the Investigation Committee in research misconduct cases involving faculty (including postdoctoral scholars).
Dean of the Respondent’s School/College provides qualified nominations to the DO on the appointment of the Inquiry Official or Inquiry Committee and the Investigation Committee in research misconduct cases involving students or visiting scholars. For graduate students, the Dean of the Graduate School will serve in this role. For undergraduate students, the Dean of the student’s home school or college will serve in this role.
Chief Human Resources Officer provides qualified nominations to the DO on the appointment of the Inquiry Official or Inquiry Committee and the Investigation Committee in research misconduct cases involving staff.
Policy:
All institutional members engaged in research activities at Syracuse University, regardless of funding status or source, are expected to conduct research with honesty, rigor, and transparency and are responsible for contributing to an organizational culture that establishes, maintains, and promotes research integrity and the responsible conduct of research.
Syracuse University strives to reduce the risk of research misconduct, to support all good-faith efforts to report suspected misconduct, to promptly and thoroughly address all allegations of research misconduct, and to seek to rectify the scientific record and/or restore researchers’ reputation, as appropriate. The University will establish and maintain procedures (HYPERLINK) that implement this policy, inform all institutional members about this policy and its procedures, and make this policy and its procedures publicly available.
All institutional members engaged in research activities at Syracuse University, regardless of funding status or source, are required to comply with this policy and applicable regulations. Individuals in violation of this policy may be subject to imposition of corrective actions commensurate with the seriousness of the misconduct and the need to protect the health and safety of the public, promote research integrity, and conserve sponsor funds including, but not limited to, dismissal from employment or enrollment (see Section VII of the Procedures for Responding to Reports of Violations of Misconduct in Research, Scholarship, or Creative Activity Policy).
- Responsibility to Report Possible Research Misconduct
- Responsibility to Cooperate
- Confidentiality of the Research Misconduct Investigation
- Conflicts of Interest
- If any prospective committee member at any point presents a conflict of interest, that committee member shall be excused and a qualified replacement appointed by the DO.
- If the RIO has a conflict of interest, the DO shall name a replacement to carry out the functions of the RIO for the particular matter.
- If the DO has a conflict of interest, the Provost shall name a replacement to carry out the functions of the DO for the particular matter.
- Conflicts of interest on the part of the deans, department chairs, or school directors shall be managed by the DO.
- Interim Administrative Actions and Notifying Federal Agencies of Special Circumstances
- Education and Training
- Non-Retaliation
Anyone affiliated with the University having reason to believe that an institutional member has engaged in research misconduct has a responsibility to report pertinent facts in accordance with this policy. Individuals who become aware of alleged research misconduct should report these allegations even if the information is based on hearsay. The person may discuss the situation with the VPR or the RIO or may report the facts through other established reporting procedures, such as the University’s ethics reporting hotline (Navex Ethics Point-Research). If the circumstances described do not meet the definition of research misconduct, the VPR or RIO may refer the individual or allegation to other offices or officials with responsibility for resolving the problem. All allegations and final resolutions will be reported to the Chief Compliance Officer through the ethics reporting platform.
All faculty for whom research, scholarship, or creative activity is one of their core responsibilities must sign, upon accepting a faculty position at Syracuse University, a statement acknowledging that they are not currently under investigation for and have never been found responsible for research misconduct.
All individuals subject to this policy shall cooperate with the RIO and other institutional officials in the review of allegations and the conduct of Inquiries and Investigations, defined above. All individuals subject to this policy, including Respondents, have an obligation to provide evidence relevant to research misconduct allegations to the RIO or other University official(s) upon request. Failure to cooperate or to provide relevant evidence will not prevent the process defined in this policy from proceeding, and uncooperative individuals may be subject to other disciplinary actions.
To the maximum extent possible, the RIO and all participants in the process will endeavor to protect the confidentiality of those involved in the process and any individual identifiable from the evidence or research records by limiting disclosure of information related to the research misconduct proceedings to those who need to know in order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective, and fair proceeding and implement any corrective actions, or as otherwise required by law. At the RIO’s discretion, written confidentiality agreements or other mechanisms may be used to maintain the confidentiality required by this policy and by any applicable federal, state, and/or local regulations and/or any other funder-specific requirements. The goal of maintaining confidentiality shall not prohibit University officials from consulting, on a confidential basis and to the extent necessary, with other offices or individuals at the University and/or persons outside the University community with relevant experience or expertise to thoroughly investigate the allegations. Those who “need to know” may include, but are not limited to, the University institutional review board; appropriate individuals in leadership at impacted journals or funding agencies; and editors, publishers, co-authors, and appropriate research leaders at collaborating institutions.
The RIO, in consultation with other University officials and offices as appropriate, shall conclude when a release of information is necessary or appropriate, what party is responsible for releasing that information, and to whom. Once the DO has made a final determination, the limitation on disclosure of the identity of Respondents, Complainants, and witnesses is at the discretion of University officials.
The University shall make all reasonable and practical efforts, if requested and as appropriate, to protect or restore the reputation of persons who are alleged to have engaged in research misconduct but against whom no finding of research misconduct is made.
At all stages of research misconduct proceedings, all persons involved shall identify and disclose to the RIO, DO, or Provost, as appropriate, any real or perceived conflict of interest, as defined in the Conflict of Interest and Commitment for Faculty and Staff Policy (https://policies.syr.edu/policies/faculty-teaching-and-research/conflict-of-interest-and-commitment-for-faculty-and-staff/). If such conflicts are present and unresolved, the individual shall recuse themselves from any investigative or decisional role in the case. The DO is responsible for resolving disagreements over what constitutes a personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest, except in the case of alleged conflicts involving the DO, in which case the Provost is responsible.
Throughout the research misconduct proceeding, the RIO will recommend to the DO whether interim actions should be taken to protect public health, sponsor funds and equipment, and/or the integrity of the research process and to ensure that the purposes of the research activity are carried out. Such actions may include, for example, additional monitoring of the research process and/or the handling of sponsor funds and equipment, reassignment of personnel or of responsibility for handling sponsor funds and equipment, additional review of research data and results, and/or delay in publication. Interim actions will remain in place until the DO has rendered a decision on whether research misconduct has occurred and, if so, what actions should be taken or are recommended to be taken in response.
To the extent required by regulation or by the sponsor, the RIO shall, at any time during a research misconduct proceeding, notify appropriate federal or other officials of facts that may be relevant to protect public health, sponsor funds and equipment, and the integrity of the sponsor-supported research process and shall make other interim reports as required by research sponsors.[i]
All individuals engaged in active research must complete training in the responsible conduct of research as required by the sponsor. The University will provide ongoing education to promote awareness of research integrity standards.
Any individual under the purview of this policy may not retaliate in any way against any individual making a good-faith report of research misconduct or participating in the research misconduct process. Individuals subject to this policy should immediately report any alleged or apparent retaliation to the RIO.
Records Retention
Records associated with the policy and its implementation shall be maintained by the Syracuse University Office of Research and retained or disposed of in accordance with University Records Policy and University Record Retention Schedule, with a minimum retention period of seven (7) years after completion of the University proceeding or the completion of any federal agency proceeding involving the research misconduct allegation, whichever is later.
Compliance
The Syracuse University Office of Research annually reviews this policy and its procedures and updates them as necessary to remain consistent with federal regulations and best practices. The Office of Research also establishes and maintains transparent procedures for research misconduct investigations.
The Office of Internal Audit, Office of Compliance, Office of Research, and others may audit, investigate, and assess compliance with this policy. Non-compliance with University policies is subject to progressive disciplinary action up to and including termination per University policies.
Related University Policies and Resources
| Description | Web Link |
| Office of Research | https://research.syracuse.edu/ |
| Office of Research | https://researchintegrity.syr.edu/
Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct-Policy and procedures |
Policy Administration and Responsible Office
Office of Research (315) 443-3013 research@syr.edu
Originally approved: March 1990
Revisions approved by Provost: April 2026
[i]Regulations applicable to research misconduct allegations under US Public Health Service (PHS) jurisdiction require immediate notification of the PHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI) if the University has reason to believe that any of the following conditions exist: (1) health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects; (2) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) resources 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) the University 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); or (7) the research community or public should be informed. 42 C.F.R. 93.318. Regulations applicable to research misconduct allegations under NSF jurisdiction require prompt notification of the NSF Office of Inspector General (NSF OIG) should the University become aware during an Inquiry or Investigation that one of the following circumstance is at play: (1) Public health or safety is at risk; (2) NSF’s resources, reputation, or other interests need protecting; (3) There is reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law; (4) Research activities should be suspended; (5) Federal action may be needed to protect the interests of a subject of the Investigation or of others potentially affected; or (6) The scientific community or the public should be informed. 45 C.F.R. 689.4(c).