Integrity of the research enterprise is central to the search for new knowledge. All individuals engaged in research at the University of California, San Diego, are responsible for adhering to high standards of intellectual honesty. Faculty and supervisors of research personnel (including graduate students and postdoctoral scholars) have a special obligation to set an example and create an environment that encourages intellectual integrity. Open communication, an emphasis on quality of research and publications, appropriate supervision of personnel, maintenance of accurate and detailed records of research procedures and results, and suitable assignment of credit and responsibility for research and publications are all elements of intellectual honesty.

The most serious forms of research misconduct are fabrication (creating fictitious data or results), falsification (altering data or results including selective omission of data without scientific or scholarly justification), plagiarism (using the words or ideas of others without acknowledgement and passing them off as one's own), or other deliberate misrepresentation in proposing, conducting, or reporting research. In research programs funded by the Public Health Service and the National Science Foundation, research misconduct includes other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. In addition, the National Science Foundation's definition of research misconduct includes retaliation of any kind against a person who reported or provided information about suspected or alleged misconduct and who has not acted in bad faith.

Less serious research misconduct denotes other deviations from good research practices, including but not limited to failure to provide appropriate citations, refusal to give peers reasonable access to unique research materials or data that support published papers, use of inappropriate statistical or other methods of measurement to enhance the significance of research findings, grossly inadequate supervision of research subordinates, and abuse of confidentiality. Misconduct does not include simple negligence, honest error, or honest interpretations or judgments of data that differ from those of others.

This policy addresses only research misconduct and does not address other types of misconduct. It is grounded in other University policies that set forth general expectations for high standards of ethical behavior for faculty and students involved in research and provide procedures for the administration of discipline for such misconduct. Those policies and procedures are set forth in the Bylaws of the Academic Senate, the University Policy on Faculty Code of Conduct and the Administration of Discipline, and University Policies Applying to Campus Activities, Organizations, and Students--Part A, Student Conduct and Discipline. Procedures for administration of discipline also exist for other academic and staff employees in accordance with applicable personnel policies and collective bargaining agreements. (A list of policies that are relevant to integrity of research at UCSD is provided in Supplement I.)

Schools, departments and research units at UCSD are encouraged to develop standards that foster responsible research practices and are designed to fit the distinctive research climate and needs of their individual disciplines. These standards should cover responsibilities of research supervisors, assignment of credit for publications, training of research apprentices, requirements for record keeping of experimental procedures and data storage, and expectations regarding the quality and quantity of research publications.

It is the responsibility of each individual engaged in research (employees, students, postdoctorates, visiting scholars, and contractors) at UCSD and its affiliated institutions to be informed of and adhere to University, campus, and department policies relating to research and of the policies and procedures of the agencies funding his or her research. Copies of relevant policies are available in the office of the department in which the individual is working and will be provided at no cost. The Offices of the Vice Chancellors for Research, Health Sciences, and Marine Sciences will periodically distribute a summary of this policy to all individuals engaged in the research enterprise. Departments are required to give a copy of the summary statement to all new individuals engaged in research.

1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
   
   
   1. In dealing with allegations of research misconduct, UCSD will be guided by the following general principles:
      • Institutional responsibility for self-regulation will be preserved.
      • Appropriate and timely action will be taken to investigate and address allegations of misconduct.
      • The due process rights of the respondent, the interests of those making allegations, and the public interest will be protected.
      • Confidentiality compatible with an effective response and applicable sponsor reporting requirements will be maintained.
      • Funding agency requirements for timely notification will be followed.
      • Efforts will be made to prevent misjudgments caused by conflict of interest.

   2. The Dean of Graduate Studies and Vice Chancellor for Research, Dean for Academic Affairs of the School of Medicine, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, or their designees will be responsible for coordinating the institutional process for handling allegations of research misconduct. The word "dean" in this document is defined to include deans and their designees.

      The dean shall consult with University Counsel as soon as possible but prior to deciding to initiate an inquiry and at appropriate times thereafter.

   3. All participants involved in resolving allegations of research misconduct brought under this policy shall make reasonable efforts to protect the privacy rights of both the complainant and the respondent and the confidentiality of records related to a complaint.

      Any faculty member, student, or staff member with a question or concern about research practices or misconduct may consult confidentially with a dean's designee.

      Efforts shall be made to protect the confidentiality, position, and reputation of the complainant. Individuals who report suspicion of misconduct are covered by the University Policy and Procedures for Reporting Improper Governmental Activities and Protection Against Retaliation for Reporting Improper Activities.

      Complainants will be informed that the responsible University official is legally obliged to undertake an inquiry once the official is notified that research misconduct may have occurred if the University determines that there is probable cause to believe that the allegations are true.

      Complainants will be advised that if they publicly disclose the complaint, they may become vulnerable to charges of violation of the respondent's right of privacy under California law. State laws and University policies governing privacy will determine the extent of public comment by University officials.

   4. There may be parties with a valid interest in the case who may need to be informed of the complaint, the investigation, or the outcome. It is the responsibility of the dean to identify these parties and to determine when to provide such information.

   5. The procedures for handling allegations are intended to be conducted within prescribed time frames; however, failure to complete an inquiry, investigation, or other process within these time frames shall not be grounds for dismissal of an allegation of research misconduct.

   6. The resignation of an accused individual will not result in the termination of a research misconduct proceeding.

2. REPORTING MISCONDUCT
   1. Reports of suspected research misconduct should be made to a responsible University official. The complaint may be made to the chair of the department or the director of the organized research unit (ORU). Alternatively, the complaint may be made to the Dean of Graduate Studies and Vice Chancellor for Research, Dean for Academic Affairs of the School of Medicine, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, or their designees. Requests for inquiries or investigations from outside the University should be directed to the appropriate dean.

   2. The person receiving the complaint shall determine whether the complaint is an allegation of research misconduct and therefore falls within the purview of this policy, whether it is covered by another university policy, or whether it is a dispute or disagreement about research practice that does not constitute possible research misconduct. The department chair or ORU director who receives a complaint may consult the dean regarding the appropriate classification and referral of the complaint.

      If the complaint relates only to another university policy (e.g., use of animal or human subjects, sexual harassment, conflict of interest), the complaint shall be referred to the appropriate campus official. If the complaint involves allegations that fall under this Integrity of Research policy and one or more other university policies, the Senior Vice Chancellor-Academic Affairs shall decide if one process will be used to handle all the allegations and which administrative officer will be appointed to coordinate the process.

      If the complaint is a dispute or disagreement about research practice that does not involve research misconduct, the complaint shall be referred to the chair, director, or head of the academic unit in which the dispute has arisen who shall arrange for mediation of the dispute.

   3. If the chair or director believes that research misconduct (as defined in Section I. of this policy) may have occurred, he or she shall inform the dean who shall initiate an inquiry. If the initial complaint of misconduct is oral, the dean shall arrange for it to be put in writing, with supporting documentation if available. If the respondent has an appointment at any other institution, the dean shall notify that institution's senior administrator responsible for handling allegations of research misconduct.

   4. If the chair or director believes the complaint is frivolous or factually incorrect and decides not to inform the dean, or if the dean decides not to undertake an inquiry under this policy, he or she shall prepare and maintain a memorandum to the file separate from the accused's academic personnel file and shall inform the complainant of the decision not to proceed. In such a case, the dean or director is not required to inform the accused of the complaint.

   5. The individual making the complaint may request to keep his or her identity confidential. If the individual has directly observed research misconduct, however, he or she should be informed that, in the absence of sufficient other evidence, it may be necessary for him or her to testify before a faculty committee in the course of an inquiry or investigation.

3. CONDUCTING AN INQUIRY
   
   

   1. The dean, upon determining that an inquiry is required, shall appoint one or more faculty members with appropriate expertise (the inquiry committee) to conduct an inquiry to gather information and carry out preliminary fact-finding to determine whether the complaint has substance and warrants an investigation.

   2. The inquiry should be initiated as soon as possible. The dean shall provide the committee with instructions for carrying out the inquiry. The dean and the members of the inquiry committee shall make efforts to prevent misjudgments caused by conflicts of interest by requiring explicit disclosure of possible conflicts and excusing any members of the committee whose conflicts are serious.

   3. The dean shall instruct the respondent's department chair to take interim administrative actions to protect external agency funds if there is imminent danger of loss or abuse of those funds or equipment purchased with those funds. The appropriate external agency should be notified at this stage only if explicitly required by law or the agency's policy (see Supplement II).

   4. The dean shall, immediately after appointing the inquiry committee, inform the respondent (the individual against whom the complaint is made) in writing of the nature of the complaint, the membership of the inquiry committee, and the process to be followed, and shall provide the respondent with a copy of this policy. The dean shall also inform the respondent's department chair of the complaint at this time.

   5. If access to the respondent's original research records or data is necessary for the inquiry, the dean shall make arrangements for obtaining and securing the research records.

   6. In conducting the inquiry, the inquiry committee should be extremely circumspect, contacting only those likely to have critical information and apprising them of the need for confidentiality.

      The inquiry committee will provide an opportunity for the respondent to respond to the complaint both in writing and during an interview. During the interviews neither the committee's nor the respondent's attorneys shall be present.

      Extra-University inquiries should be avoided and should be made only after consultation with the dean.

   7. The dean, in consultation with the inquiry committee, shall identify all relevant research grants and funding agencies.

   8. The inquiry committee shall submit to the dean a report of its findings including a description of the evidence to support the findings. This stage of the inquiry should normally be completed within sixty (60) calendar days of the date of the appointment of the inquiry committee referred to in II.C.1. above. If an extension of time is required, the inquiry committee shall request it of the dean, the dean shall notify the respondent, and the record of the inquiry shall include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the 60-day period.

   9. If the inquiry committee determines that the complaint is without substance or that there is not sufficient evidence to indicate that research misconduct may have occurred, the dean shall send a copy of the report to the respondent and Senior Vice Chancellor-Academic Affairs and shall inform in writing the complainant, other witnesses, and the respondent's department chair of the results of the inquiry and the reason for the decision. The dean shall invite written responses to the decision from the complainant and respondent. Such responses will be placed in the permanent record but shall not constitute an appeal of the decision.

   10. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome described in II.C.9 above, he or she may appeal to the appropriate Vice Chancellor within 60 days of the date of the dean's letter referred to in II.C.9. above. The Vice Chancellor shall review the report of the inquiry and the evidence, which could include new evidence, submitted by the complainant in support of the appeal. The Vice Chancellor shall determine whether the inquiry should be pursued further, the inquiry should remain closed, or a formal investigation should be conducted, and shall inform the respondent and complainant in writing of the decision.

       If the decision is made to pursue the inquiry further, the Vice Chancellor shall remand the case to the appropriate dean. The Vice Chancellor may recommend or specify to the dean procedures for handling the reopening of the inquiry, issues to be addressed, persons to be interviewed, or the appointment of a new inquiry committee if appropriate.

       If the decision is made to conduct an investigation, the Vice Chancellor shall refer the complaint to the dean to initiate the investigation.

   11. If the inquiry concludes that one of the most serious research misconduct as defined in Section I, second paragraph may have occurred, the dean shall initiate a formal investigation. The dean shall inform the respondent and the complainant of the outcome of the inquiry and the decision to proceed to an investigation.

   12. The dean may decide that the inquiry will serve in the place of the formal investigation if all the following conditions are satisfied:
       1. The inquiry has concluded by clear and convincing evidence that research misconduct did occur.

       2. The inquiry has been sufficiently broad and thorough that it is unlikely that an investigation would uncover significant new information.
       3. The relevant documentation has been examined.
       4. Interviews have been conducted of the complainant, the respondent, and other individuals with key information.
       5. Appropriate expertise has been secured to evaluate the evidence.
       6. The findings have been documented.
       7. The respondent agrees that the inquiry will serve in place of the formal investigation.
       8. University Counsel and the appropriate external agency concurs that the inquiry may serve in place of the formal investigation.

       If the dean decides that the inquiry will serve in place of the formal investigation, the dean shall then comply with agency notification requirements and proceed directly to disciplinary action (E below).

   13. If the inquiry has found only less serious research misconduct as defined in Section I, third paragraph, then the dean will decide, after consulting with the inquiry committee, whether to proceed to a formal investigation or to seek an appropriate resolution or discipline. The decision shall take into consideration the seriousness of the violation of commonly accepted standards as well as University policies. If the dean and the respondent reach a resolution on appropriate corrective measures or discipline, then the resolution shall be committed to writing, signed by both parties, and maintained by the dean. Those with a need to know should be informed of the outcome. NOTE: In cases involving faculty covered by Academic Senate Bylaw 230, the dean's disciplinary authority is limited to the imposition of Written Censure which has been delegated to deans by the Chancellor.

   14. A complete file of the case, including the complaint, the report of the inquiry committee, correspondence and other records related to the inquiry, shall be maintained by the dean in a secure manner for a period of at least three years after the termination of the inquiry.

4. INVESTIGATION
   
   

   1. If under section II.C.10., 11., or 13. a decision is made to conduct an investigation, the dean, after consultation with the department chair or ORU director, the Academic Senate, and University Counsel, and within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the report, shall appoint an investigative committee which shall be charged to conduct a thorough examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if misconduct has occurred, who bears responsibility for the misconduct, and if the charges were brought in good faith. The dean shall provide the committee with instructions for carrying out the investigation.

   2. The investigative committee shall be comprised of three or more faculty members including at least one with expertise in the disciplinary area under investigation and normally will not include a faculty member from the same academic unit as the respondent. The dean may request faculty from other campuses in the UC system to serve on the committee. If the respondent holds an academic appointment but is not a faculty member or a student, then the investigative committee shall include at least one member with an appointment in the same title series as the respondent.

   3. The dean and the members of the investigative committee shall make efforts to prevent misjudgments caused by conflicts of interest by requiring explicit disclosure of possible conflicts and excusing any members of the committee whose conflicts are serious.

   4. The dean shall inform the appropriate external agency at times consistent with law and agency requirements that an investigation is being undertaken and of the results of the investigation. (See Supplement II.)

   5. The dean shall inform the respondent and his or her department chair in writing of the nature of the alleged research misconduct and of the appointment of the investigative committee and its membership. The dean shall inform the complainant in writing of the appointment of the investigative committee and its membership.

   6. The investigative committee shall act as promptly as possible, ensure fairness, and secure necessary and appropriate expertise (which may include experts from off- campus) to carry out a thorough and authoritative investigation. University Counsel shall assist in the investigation.

   7. The respondent shall be informed of his or her right to be advised by counsel when being interviewed by the investigative committee. Neither the respondent nor his or her counsel may attend sessions of the committee except when the respondent is testifying.

   8. The investigative committee shall provide the respondent the opportunity to respond to the original allegations or any subsequent charges. The respondent and his or her counsel may review the evidence and pertinent facts derived from testimony.

   9. The dean and the investigative committee shall direct the participants, including the respondent, not to take any retaliatory action against the complainant or other persons providing information in the investigation either during or after the investigation.

   10. The investigative committee with staff support shall prepare a written report of its findings. The report should contain a clear description of the allegation(s), the individual(s) named, the procedures followed by the committee, how and from whom relevant information was obtained, a summary of records compiled, and objective findings of the facts with specific citations to the evidence relied upon. To the greatest extent possible, the investigative committee's decision should be supported by documentary evidence. If documentary evidence is not available, the testimony and reasoning that led the committee to its conclusion should be presented in detail.

   11. Before the investigative committee's report is finalized, a draft shall be forwarded to the respondent, who shall be given fourteen (14) calendar days in which to propose any corrections to statements of fact in the report.

   12. The investigative committee shall submit its report, signed by each of its members, along with the documentary evidence, within ninety (90) calendar days of its appointment. Extension of time for good cause may be granted by the dean. If the respondent has funding from the Public Health Service or National Science Foundation, the dean shall request an extension of time from the funding agency.

   13. The dean, after consultation with University Counsel, shall decide whether to accept the report. If the dean does not accept the report, then the dean may either ask the investigative committee to undertake additional work or appoint a new investigative committee. The dean may accept the report's findings without accepting all of the report's recommendations.

   14. After accepting the report, the dean shall provide the respondent with a copy of the final investigative committee's findings and recommendations and give the respondent fourteen (14) calendar days to respond in writing. The dean shall provide the complainant with those portions of the report that address the complainant's role and opinions in the investigation, inform the complainant in writing of the outcome of the investigation and invite a response. Such responses will become part of the permanent record but will not constitute appeals.

   15. If the investigative committee determines that the allegation of serious research misconduct is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the dean, after accepting the report, shall notify the appropriate external agency and make diligent efforts to make known the outcome of the investigation to appropriate individuals and organizations identified by the dean and the respondent with the intention of restoring the respondent's reputation.

   16. If the conclusion of the investigative committee is that the respondent has engaged in one of the most serious forms of research misconduct as defined in Section I., second paragraph, the dean, after accepting the report, shall initiate disciplinary action in accordance with Section E below and notify the appropriate external agency.

   17. The dean will take appropriate action regarding any allegation judged to have been made in bad faith; i.e., without reasonable basis in fact and with malicious intent.

   18. The investigation shall be completed within one hundred and twenty (120) days of its initiation. This includes conducting the investigation, preparing the report of findings, making the report available for comment by the subjects of the investigation, and submitting the report to the appropriate external agency. If UCSD is unable to complete the investigation within the time period required by the appropriate external agency, the dean shall submit a written request to the external agency requesting an extension to comply with agency regulations.

   19. The dean shall maintain documentation of investigations in a secure manner for a period of at least five years after the conclusion of the investigation.

5. DISCIPLINE
   
   Within thirty (30) days of receiving the report of the investigating committee, the dean shall initiate disciplinary action as described below. The University official responsible for discipline shall inform the dean in writing of the discipline imposed on the respondent. The dean shall notify the appropriate funding agency of the final outcome.
   
   

   1. Academic Appointees Covered by Bylaw 230. If the respondent is an academic covered by Bylaw 230 of the San Diego Division of the Academic Senate, the dean may, with the consent of the respondent, impose Written Censure, if appropriate to the nature and seriousness of the misconduct. Consistent with the Faculty Code of Conduct, the Chancellor has delegated this authority to the deans. If the respondent rejects the discipline of Written Censure or if the dean deems that the seriousness of the misconduct requires discipline more severe than Written Censure, the dean shall forward the report of the investigative committee to the Senior Vice Chancellor- Academic Affairs, with a letter endorsing or modifying the investigative committee's findings and specifying charges to be filed with the Committee on Privilege and Tenure. In these instances, the report of the investigative committee will stand in lieu of the inquiry of an administrative officer called for in Bylaw 230.

   2. Non-senate Academic Appointees. In the case of an Academic Appointee not covered by Bylaw 230 of the San Diego Division of the Academic Senate or a Memorandum of Understanding, the dean shall propose a disciplinary action. If the respondent voluntarily accepts the proposed disciplinary action, the dean shall take appropriate steps to implement it. If the respondent rejects the proposed disciplinary action, the dean, in consultation with the respondent's supervisor, shall implement discipline in accordance with the requirements of PPM 230-5, Exhibit A.

   3. Academic Appointees Covered by Memoranda of Understanding. If the respondent is covered by a Memorandum of Understanding, the dean shall refer the report of the investigative committee to the appropriate authority to initiate disciplinary action as prescribed by the Discipline and Dismissal Article of the MOU.

   4. Staff Appointees. If the respondent is a staff appointee, the dean shall refer the report of the investigative committee to the Director of the Office of Labor Relations with the recommendation that disciplinary action be taken. Discipline would be imposed in accordance with staff personnel policies or, in the case of an appointee covered by a Memorandum of Understanding, in accordance with the Discipline and Dismissal Article of the applicable MOU.

   5. Student Appointees. Requests for disciplinary action involving an undergraduate student shall be referred to the Vice Chancellor-Student Affairs. Requests for disciplinary action involving a graduate student, a postdoctoral scholar, trainee, fellow, or visiting scholar shall be referred to the Dean of Graduate Studies and Vice Chancellor for Research. Requests for disciplinary action involving a medical student shall be referred to the Dean for Student Affairs of the School of Medicine.

   6. House Staff. Requests for disciplinary action involving house staff shall be referred to the Dean of the School of Medicine. Procedures for discipline of house staff are contained in Section J, Personnel Records, Discipline, Dismissal, and Due Process of "The House Officer Policy and Procedure" Document.

6. APPEALS

   Respondents will be notified of their right to appeal disciplinary actions imposed in accordance with the procedures referred to in Section E. In cases where the appeal procedure is incorporated in the disciplinary procedures, which are provided to the respondent at the beginning of the disciplinary process, this will constitute notice of the respondent's right to appeal. In cases where the appeal procedure is described in a separate document, a copy will be included in the letter imposing discipline on the respondent.