Research Misconduct (Policy #733)

University of Wisconsin-Whitewater (UWW) is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific rigor in research. UWW is committed to fostering an environment that promotes research integrity and the responsible conduct of research, discourages research misconduct, and deals promptly with allegations or evidence of possible research misconduct.

All members of the UWW are expected to conduct research with honesty, rigor, and transparency. Each institutional member is responsible for contributing to an organizational culture that establishes, maintains, and promotes research integrity and the responsible conduct of research.

UWW strives to reduce the risk of research misconduct, support all good-faith efforts to report suspected misconduct, promptly and thoroughly address all allegations of research misconduct, and seek to rectify the scientific record and/or restore researchers’ reputations, as appropriate.

Research misconduct is contrary to the interests of UWW, the health and safety of the public, the integrity of research, and the conservation of public funds. Both the institution and its institutional members have an affirmative duty to protect those funds from misuse by ensuring the integrity of all research conducted on behalf of UWW.

UWW is responsible for ensuring that these policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct meet the requirements of the PHS Policies on Research Misconduct (“the PHS regulation”) and other non-PHS sponsors. UWW will establish and maintain this policy and related procedures, inform all institutional members about the policy and related procedures, and make these publicly available. UWW is committed to following this policy and related procedures when responding to allegations of research misconduct.

For definitions of terms used in this section and elsewhere, see the Definitions section.

Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

1. This policy applies to:
   1. All individuals engaged in the design, conduct, or reporting of research conducted under the auspices of UWW, regardless of funding source.
   2. Allegations of research misconduct involving
      1. Applications or proposals for extramural or intramural funding of research, research training or activities related to research, or training, such as the dissemination of research information.
      2. Plagiarism of records produced in the course of research or activities related to that research or training.
      3. Research records produced during PHS and non-PHS -supported research, research training, or activities related to that research or research training.
      4. Research proposed, performed, reviewed, or reported, as well as any research record generated from that research, regardless of whether an application or proposal for PHS and non-PHS funds resulted in an awarded grant, contract, cooperative agreement, subaward, or other form of PHS and non-PHS support.
   3. This policy applies only to research misconduct occurring within six years of the date UWW receives an allegation of research misconduct, subject to the following exceptions:
      1. 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 UWW determines is not subject to the exception, UWW will document its determination that the subsequent use exception does not apply and will retain this documentation for the later of seven years after completion of the institutional proceeding or the completion of any HHS or other extramural-sponsor proceeding.
      2. The six-year time limitation also does not apply if Office of Research Integrity (ORI) or UWW, following consultation with 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.
   4. This policy does not supersede or establish an alternative to the PHS regulation or any existing regulations for handling research misconduct involving non-PHS supported research. They do not replace the PHS regulation, and in case of any conflict between this document and 42 CFR Part 93, the PHS regulation will prevail. They intend to enable UWW to comply with the requirements of the PHS regulation.
   5. This policy addresses only research misconduct as defined herein. Other misconduct such as reckless disregard for accuracy, failure to supervise, and other serious deficiencies-but not within the definition of research misconduct-may constitute breaches of other ethical and professional standards and shall be addressed by the cognizant dean, director, provost, or vice president as provided in other applicable policies.

Accepted practices of the relevant research community: Those practices established by 42 CFR Part 93 and by PHS funding components, as well as commonly accepted professional codes or norms within the overarching community of researchers and institutions that apply for and receive PHS and non-PHS awards.

Administrative record: Comprises: the institutional record; any information provided by the respondent to ORI, including but not limited to the transcript of any virtual or in-person meetings under § 93.403(b) between the respondent and ORI, and correspondence between the respondent and ORI; any additional information provided to ORI while the case is pending before ORI; and any analysis or additional information generated or obtained by ORI. Any analysis or additional information generated or obtained by ORI will also be made available to the respondent.

Allegation: A disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of an institutional or HHS official.

Assessment: A consideration of whether an allegation of research misconduct appears to fall within the definition of research misconduct; appears to involve PHS or non-PHS-supported biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or research training; and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. The assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation.

Complainant: An individual who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct.

Evidence: Anything offered or obtained during a research misconduct proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact. Evidence includes documents, whether in hard copy or electronic form, information, tangible items, and testimony.

Fabrication: Making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

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.

Good faith: (a) Good faith as applied to a complainant or witness means having a reasonable belief in the truth of one’s allegation or testimony, based on the information known to the complainant or witness at the time. An allegation 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. (b) Good faith as applied to an institutional or committee member means cooperating with the research misconduct proceeding by impartially performing 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.

Inquiry: Preliminary information gathering and preliminary fact-finding that meets the criteria and follows the procedures of § 93.307 through § 93.309. It is information gathering and initial fact-finding to determine if the allegation or apparent instance of misconduct warrants an investigation.

Institution: Any person who applies for or receives PHS or non-PHS support for any activity or program that involves the conduct of biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or training. This includes, but is not limited to, colleges and universities, PHS intramural biomedical or behavioral research laboratories, research and development centers, national user facilities, industrial laboratories or other research institutes, research institutions, and independent researchers.

Institutional Deciding Official: The institutional official who makes final determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any institutional actions. The same individual cannot serve as the Institutional Deciding Official and the Research Integrity Officer.

Institutional member(s): An individual (or individuals) who is employed by, is an agent of, or is affiliated by contract or agreement with an institution. Institutional members may include, but are not limited to, officials, tenured and untenured faculty, teaching and support staff, researchers, research coordinators, technicians, postdoctoral and other fellows, students, volunteers, subject matter experts, consultants or attorneys, or employees or agents of contractors, subcontractors, or sub-awardees.

Institutional record: Comprises: (a) The records that the institution compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the institution did not consider or rely on. These records include but are not limited to (1) documentation of the assessment as required by § 93.306(c); (2) if an inquiry is conducted, the inquiry report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the inquiry, including, but not limited to, research records and the transcripts of any transcribed interviews conducted during the inquiry, information the respondent provided to the institution, and the documentation of any decision not to investigate as required by § 93.309(c); (3) if an investigation is conducted, the investigation report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the investigation, including, but not limited to, research records, the transcripts of each interview conducted pursuant to § 93.310(g), and information the respondent provided to the institution; (4) decision(s) by the Institutional Deciding Official, such as the written decision from the Institutional Deciding Official under § 93.314; (5) the complete record of any institutional appeal consistent with § 93.315; (b) a single index listing all the research records and evidence that the institution compiled during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the institution did not consider or rely on; and (c) a general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.

Intentionally: To act with the aim of conducting the act.

Investigation: The formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record that meets the criteria and follows the procedures of §§ 93.310 through 93.317. It is a formal presentation, examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine whether misconduct has occurred, the severity of the alleged misconduct and its impact, and the recommendations for specific actions to be taken to address the misconduct.

Knowingly: To act with awareness of the act.

Office of Research Integrity (ORI): The federal office to which the HHS Secretary has delegated responsibility for addressing research integrity and misconduct issues related to PHS-supported activities.

Plagiarism: 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.

Preponderance of the evidence: Proof by evidence that, compared with evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely true than not.

Public Health Service (PHS) support: PHS funding, or applications or proposals for PHS funding, for biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or training, that may be provided through funding for PHS intramural research; PHS grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts; subawards, contracts, or subcontracts under those PHS funding instruments; or salary or other payments under PHS grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts.

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

Research: A systemic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge including, but not limited to, scientific, applied, behavioral and social-sciences research and/or any such activity for which funding is available from federal agencies.

Research Integrity Officer (RIO): The institutional official responsible for administering the institution’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct in compliance with 42 CFR Part 93.

Research misconduct: 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.

Research misconduct proceeding: Any actions related to alleged research misconduct taken under 42 CFR Part 93, including allegation assessments, inquiries, investigations, ORI oversight reviews, and appeals under subpart E of 42 CFR Part 93.

Research record: The record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry. Data or results may be in physical or electronic form. Examples of items, materials, or information that may be considered part of the research record include, but are not limited to, 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.

Respondent: The individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding.

Retaliation: An adverse action taken against a complainant, witness, or committee member by an institution or one of its members in response to (a) a good faith allegation of research misconduct or (b) good faith cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding.

Small institution: An institution that may be too small to conduct an inquiry or investigation into an allegation of research misconduct as required by 42 CFR Part 93 without actual or apparent conflicts of interest.

Suspension and Debarment Official (SDO): The HHS or, as applicable, a non-PHS official authorized to impose suspension and debarment, which are the actions that Federal agencies take to disqualify persons deemed not presently responsible from doing business with the Federal Government.

A. Roles, Rights, and Responsibilities

1. Institution
   1. UW-Whitewater's Responsibilities
      1. To the extent possible, UWW will limit disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses while conducting the research misconduct proceedings to those who need to know, inform all institutional members about these policies and procedures, and make these policies and procedures publicly available. This limitation on disclosure no longer applies once UWW has made a final determination of research misconduct findings.
      2. UWW will respond to each allegation of research misconduct under 42 CFR Part 93 in a thorough, competent, objective, and fair manner.
      3. UWW will take all reasonable and practical steps to ensure the cooperation of respondents and other institutional members with research misconduct proceedings, including, but not limited to, their providing information, research records, and other evidence.
      4. UWW agrees to cooperate with ORI during any research misconduct proceeding or compliance review, including addressing deficiencies or additional allegations in the institutional record if directed by ORI and to assist in administering and enforcing any HHS administrative actions imposed on institutional members.
      5. UWW may also take steps to manage published data or acknowledge that data may be unreliable.
   2. UW-Whitewater's Responsibilities During and After a Research Misconduct Proceeding
      1. Except as may otherwise be prescribed by applicable law, UWW will maintain confidentiality for any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified and will limit disclosure to those who need to know to conduct a research misconduct proceeding.
      2. Before or at the time of notifying the respondent of the allegation(s) and whenever additional items become known or relevant, UWW will promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain all research records and other evidence and sequester them securely.
      3. UWW will ensure that the institutional record contains all required elements, i.e., research records that were compiled and considered during the proceedings, assessment documentation, and inquiry and/or investigation reports. Upon completion of the inquiry, UWW will provide ORI with the complete inquiry report and add it to the institutional record.
      4. UWW will maintain the institutional record and all sequestered research records and other evidence in a secure manner for seven years after completion of UWW and/or HHS proceeding.
      5. UWW will provide information related to the alleged research misconduct and proceedings to ORI upon request and transfer custody or provide copies of the institutional record or any component of it and any sequestered evidence to HHS, regardless of whether the evidence is included in the institutional record. Additionally, UWW will promptly notify ORI of any special circumstances that may arise.
      6. Disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses while UWW is conducting the research misconduct proceedings is limited to those who need to know, which UWW will determine consistent with a thorough, competent, objective, and fair research misconduct proceeding, and as allowed by law. Those who need to know may include institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions.
   3. UW-Whitewater's Responsibilities to the Complainant(s)
      
      1. UWW will provide confidentiality consistent with 42 CFR Part 93 for all complainants in a research misconduct proceeding.
      2. UWW will also take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for conducting any part of the research misconduct proceeding do not have potential, perceived, or actual personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the complainant(s).
      3. UWW agrees to take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of complainants and to protect these individuals from retaliation by respondents and/or other institutional members. If UWW chooses to notify one complainant of the inquiry results in a case, all complainants will be notified by UWW, to the extent possible.
   4. UW-Whitewater's Responsibilities to the Respondent(s)
      
      1. As with complainants, UWW will provide confidentiality consistent with 42 CFR Part 93 to all respondents in a research misconduct proceeding.
      2. UWW will make a good-faith effort to notify the respondent(s) in writing of the allegations being made against them.  
      3. UWW will take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for conducting any part of the research misconduct proceeding do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the respondent.
      4. UWW is responsible for giving the respondent(s) copies of or supervised access to the sequestered research records. The institution will notify the respondent whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted, provide the respondent an opportunity to review and comment on the inquiry report, and attach their comments to the inquiry report.
      5. If an investigation is commenced, UWW must notify the respondent, give written notice of any additional allegations raised against them not previously addressed by the inquiry report, and allow the respondent(s) an opportunity to review the witness transcripts.  
      6. UWW will give the respondent(s) an opportunity to read and comment on the draft investigation report and any information or allegations added to the institutional record.
      7. UWW will give due consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the respondent.
      8. UWW will bear the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, for making a finding of research misconduct.
      9. UWW will make all reasonable, practical efforts, if requested and as appropriate, to protect or restore the reputation of respondents against whom no finding of research misconduct is made.
   5. UW-Whitewater's Responsibilities to Committee Members
      1. UWW will ensure that a committee, consortium, or person acting on UWW’s behalf conducts research misconduct proceedings in compliance with the PHS regulation and the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law.
      2. UWW will take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of good-faith committee members and to protect these individuals from retaliation.
   6. UW-Whitewater's Responsibilities to the Witness[es]
      
      1. UWW will provide confidentiality consistent with 42 CFR Part 93 and the Wisconsin Public Records Law for all witnesses.
      2. UWW will take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for conducting any part of the proceedings do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the witnesses.
      3. UWW will also take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of witnesses and to protect these individuals from retaliation.
2. Research Integrity Officer
   1. The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) is the institutional official responsible for administering UWW’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct in compliance with the PHS regulation. The same individual will not serve as both the Institutional Deciding Official and the RIO.
   2. UWW may choose to have the RIO or another designated institutional official conduct the inquiry in lieu of a committee, and, if needed, this individual may utilize one or more subject matter experts to assist them in the inquiry.
   3. Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO or another designated institutional official will promptly assess the allegation to determine whether the allegation
      1. is within the definition of research misconduct under the PHS regulation,
      2. is within the applicability criteria of the regulation at § 93.102, and
      3. is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. If the RIO or another designated institutional official determines that the requirements for an inquiry are met, they shall document the assessment, promptly sequester all research records and other evidence per the PHS regulation, and promptly initiate the inquiry.
   4. If the RIO or another designated institutional official determines that requirements for an inquiry are not met, they will keep sufficiently detailed documentation of the assessment to permit a later review by ORI of the reasons why UWW did not conduct an inquiry.
   5. UWW will keep this documentation and related records in a secure manner for seven years and provide them to ORI upon request.
3. Complainant
   1. The complainant is the person who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct. The complainant brings research misconduct allegations directly to the attention of an institutional or HHS or, as applicable, a non-PHS official through any means of communication.
   2. The complainant will make allegations in good faith, as it is defined in the PHS regulation, as having a reasonable belief in the truth of one’s allegation or testimony, based on the information known to the complainant at the time.
4. Respondent
   1. The respondent is the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding. The respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of evidence, affirmative defenses raised.
   2. The respondent’s destruction of research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where a preponderance of evidence establishes that the respondent intentionally or knowingly destroyed records after being informed of the research misconduct allegations.
   3. The respondent’s failure to provide research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where the respondent claims to possess the records but refuses to provide them upon request.
   4. The respondent will not be present during the witnesses’ interviews but will be provided with a transcript of the interview after it takes place.
   5. The respondent will have opportunities to (a) view and comment on the inquiry report, (b) view and comment on the investigation report, and (c) submit any comments on the draft investigation report to UWW within 30 days of receiving it.
   6. If admitting to research misconduct, the respondent will sign a written statement specifying the affected research records and confirming the misconduct was falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism; committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.
5. Committee and Consortium Members
   1. Committee members (and consortium members where applicable) are experts who act in good faith to cooperate with the research misconduct proceedings by impartially carrying out their assigned duties for the purpose of helping UWW meet its responsibilities under 42 CFR Part 93. Committee and consortium members will have relevant scientific expertise and be free of real or perceived conflicts of interest with any of the involved parties.
   2. Committee or consortium members or anyone acting on behalf of UWW will conduct research misconduct proceedings consistent with the PHS regulation. They will determine whether an investigation is warranted, documenting the decision in an inquiry report. During an investigation, committee or consortium members participate in recorded interviews of each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent(s). They will also determine whether or not the respondent(s) engaged in research misconduct and document the decision in the investigation report. They consider respondent and/or complainant comments on the inquiry/investigation report(s) and document that consideration in the investigation report.
   3. An investigation into multiple respondents may convene with the same investigation committee or consortium members or anyone acting on behalf of UWW, but there will be separate investigation reports and separate research misconduct determinations for each respondent.
   4. Committee or consortium members may serve for more than one investigation, in cases with multiple respondents.
   5. Committee members may also serve for both the inquiry and the investigation.
6. Witnesses
   1. Witnesses are people whom UWW has reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation.
   2. Witnesses provide information for review during research misconduct proceedings.
   3. Witnesses will cooperate with the research misconduct proceedings in good faith and have a reasonable belief in the truth of their testimony, based on the information known to them at the time.
7. Institutional Deciding Official
   1. The Institutional Deciding Official (IDO) makes the final determination of research misconduct findings. The IDO cannot serve as the RIO.
   2. The IDO documents their determination in a written decision that includes whether research misconduct occurred, and if so, what kind and who committed it, and a description of the relevant actions UWW has taken or will take.
   3. The IDO’s written decision becomes part of the institutional record.

B. Procedures

The UWW Procedures for Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct are provided in UWW Procedure 733.A.

• Research Misconduct Procedure (Procedure #733.A)
• Research Integrity - OSRP Website

First Approved: April 16, 2026

February 2030

Questions regarding the interpretation of this procedure should be directed to:

Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP)
800 West Main Street; Whitewater, WI 53190-1791
orsp@uww.edu
p 262-472-5212 | f 262-472-5214

For complaints or concerns regarding research misconduct, please contact:

Office of Compliance and Risk Management (OCRM)
p. 262-472-1772 | ocrm@uww.edu