Misconduct in Scholarship and Research

Policy Considerations:

Boston University is committed to the highest possible standards of integrity in scholarship and research. This commitment is fundamental to the University’s mission in fostering the pursuit of truth and the expansion of knowledge. The administration, faculty, students, and staff of the University share in the responsibility for preserving the integrity of scholarship and research. All members of the University community are responsible for promoting the highest ethical principles in each academic discipline and for holding members of the community accountable to these principles.

Scholarship and research are conducted within a system of academic peer review aimed at promoting truth and knowledge. Working within this system places considerable demands upon both young and established investigators to uphold rigorous principles and methods. A serious failure of discipline or rigor can lead to an incident of misconduct in scholarship or research.

Misconduct in scholarship or research includes such serious ethical violations as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. Misconduct may also include proposing, conducting, or reporting scientific or scholarly research in ways that seriously deviate from practices commonly accepted within the scientific and academic communities. However, it is important that misconduct be distinguished from honest error or honest differences in the interpretation of data.

Creativity in the exploration of new and untried concepts and method is encouraged in the scholarly community. The use of novel procedures and practices in the pursuit of truth raises no issues of concern simply because such procedures or practices are new or different. However, the manner in which a scholar discloses or fails to disclose the use of new methods or assumptions may be relevant in determining whether there has been any misconduct in the reporting of scholarship or research. The University’s statement on Academic Freedom provides:

The rights of the faculty member and the student to academic freedom, however, carry with them duties and responsibilities. The faculty member is entitled to full freedom to engage in research, scholarship, and creative work and to publish or produce the results, subject to responsible performance of these and other academic duties. The faculty member is likewise entitled to freedom in teaching and discussing the subject matter. Yet, as in research, the concomitant of this freedom must be a commitment to accuracy and integrity. (From Policy on Academic Freedom, approved by the University Council, March 24, 1987.)

The consequences of serious misconduct in scholarship and research may include not only damage to individual careers but also the erosion of public confidence in the integrity of scholarship and research both at the University and in the academic community generally. Similarly, false or inaccurate allegations of misconduct in research may also unfairly injure the reputation of scholars, researchers, and the institution. It is important that there be appropriate University procedures by which allegations of misconduct in scholarship or research may be fairly and thoroughly aired, both to expose and correct misconduct and to protect the scholar and researcher against false charges.

University Procedures:

1. Preface
   Boston University adopts the following procedures with the goals of protecting all faculty members and other individuals against false and injurious allegations, protecting from reprisal individuals who in good faith wish to bring forward evidence of improper conduct, ensuring that all allegations of misconduct in research and scholarship will be reviewed fairly and accurately and ensuring that scholarship and research performed under the auspices of Boston University meet the standards of academic integrity and truth expected by the academic community.
2. Applicability
   The following procedures are intended for use by the University in responding to any allegation of misconduct in scholarship or research committed by any individual while engaged in the performance of services or responsibilities at or for the University. If an individual against whom allegations are made has ceased to be engaged in services or responsibilities at or for the University, these procedures may nonetheless be used to determine whether the individual committed misconduct while so engaged. If allegations are made which involve scholarship or research conducted prior to the commencement of an individual’s service at or for the University, these procedures may likewise be used to determine whether the individual against whom the allegations are made has committed misconduct warranting any sanction or alteration in the individual’s status at the University.The following procedures for handling allegations of misconduct are generally not intended to apply to conduct which deviates from institutional or governmental standards to protect the safety and well-being of human subjects, animals, or the laboratory work environment, where there are existing and appropriate institutional review boards and committees established to monitor and implement compliance with such standards. It will generally be appropriate to refer allegations involving such matters to the existing review board or committee such as an Institutional Review Board, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, or standing committee responsible for safety matters. However, if such allegations, additionally, involve fabrication, plagiarism, or other conduct which seriously deviates from standards of truth and integrity in research, the institutional review board or committee should report such allegations to the appropriate Dean for review under the following procedure.

   The following procedures for handling allegations of misconduct are generally not intended for use in the case of scholarship or research performed by a student for academic credit while not working on a project funded by an external research sponsor and not otherwise engaged to perform services for the University. Such allegations should be referred to the student’s academic department, thesis or dissertation committee, or the academic conduct committee (or equivalent body) of the School, College, or program in which the student is enrolled. Review of the allegations should generally be conducted under existing academic conduct procedures of the School, College, or program.

3. Overview of University Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Misconduct in Scientific and Other Research:Subject to the specific procedures set forth in the following sections, the University’s procedures for responding to allegations of possible misconduct in scientific and other research involve three distinct phases:
   1. When allegations of misconduct are received, the Dean of the appropriate school determines whether a formal inquiry should take place.
   2. A formal inquiry is the University procedure under which a determination is made whether the allegations of misconduct provide a sufficient basis to warrant conducting a formal investigation. The purpose of a formal inquiry is to ensure that serious cases are pursued while at the same time protecting the faculty member or investigator against the damage to reputation that can be caused by unsubstantiated allegations. The outcome of an inquiry is not a finding of guilt but is a finding either that the grounds to proceed to a formal investigation are lacking or that they are present.
   3. A formal investigation is a more serious matter: the outcome of that investigation may be a finding by the University that the researcher or faculty member is guilty of misconduct. Sponsors of research and editors of journals and others may have to be notified about the investigation.

   In reviewing the following procedures, it is important that this critical distinction be kept in mind: an inquiry is intended to be a preliminary process leading to a decision that there is or is not sufficient ground to conduct an investigation. An investigation is the formal process in which a finding of misconduct may be the outcome.

4. Reporting Misconduct; Confidentiality:
   Reporting misconduct in scholarship and research is a serious responsibility shared by all members of the University community. Allegations should not be made capriciously, but evidence of misconduct should not be ignored. An individual with information indicating misconduct in scholarship or research should be able to report in good faith such allegations without retribution.Because of the potential jeopardy to the reputation of the individual(s) against whom allegations of misconduct have been made, the reporting of allegations and the following procedures for investigating them should be handled with care to preserve confidentiality to the maximum extent consistent with the obligations of the University to the academic and scientific community and to any sponsors and external institutions that have provided support for the research.

   Any allegation of misconduct in scholarship or research should be transmitted to the Chair of the department in which the scholarly or research activity in question took place or to the Dean of the School or College.

5. Determination Whether to Initiate a Formal Inquiry:
   1. Upon receipt of an allegation of misconduct, the Chair, in consultation with the Dean, or the Dean will take appropriate steps to attempt to obtain promptly a complete statement of the relevant allegations and the basis for them. In doing so, he or she will make reasonable efforts to protect the privacy of those who in good faith report alleged misconduct, to afford confidential treatment to the researcher/scholar and to avoid unwarranted publicity regarding unverified allegations.
   2. The Dean will determine, as promptly as possible and generally within not more than ten (10) working days, whether to recommend to the Provost that a formal inquiry be commenced. In making this determination, the Dean should take into account the specificity and source of the allegations, the response of the faculty member or researcher, if any, and all other attendant facts and circumstances. The Dean will immediately inform the Provost of any recommendation to commence a formal inquiry and will make recommendations for emergency, interim, or other appropriate institutional notifications or actions to be taken.
   3. If the Dean determines that no formal inquiry is warranted, a written summary of the reasons for such determination will be prepared and kept on file in the Dean’s office, so that this summary will be available in the event of any future authorized inquiries concerning the research or researchers or concerning the reasons for dismissing the allegations.
   4. If the Dean recommends that a formal inquiry be commenced the Dean shall notify the individual(s) against whom the allegations have been made of the recommendation including a summary of the nature of the allegations. The individual(s) may write to the Provost to communicate any objections to the decision, but he or she is not required to do so and failure to do so does not constitute an admission or agreement as to the correctness of the Dean’s recommendation.
   5. The Dean will inform the individual who made the allegations of his/her decision, and such individual may appeal to the Provost if he or she is not satisfied with a decision by the Dean not to recommend a formal inquiry. The Provost will notify the individual(s) against whom the allegations have been made of the appeal and the Provost will inform all parties of his/her determination on the appeal.
   6. If the scholarship or research in question involves multiple Schools or Colleges, the Dean will consult with the Provost and the Dean(s) of the other School(s) or College(s) to ensure an appropriate scope of review.
   7. In general, notification to the Office of the General Counsel should be made by the Dean prior to the time that any formal inquiry is recommended or commenced. The Office of the General Counsel will generally be requested to provide legal assistance to the Dean, Provost, and any committee or board that is convened to review allegations of misconduct in scholarship or research.
6. Conduct of a Formal Inquiry:
   1. The Provost will determine whether a formal inquiry will be conducted, and, if so, a committee of inquiry will be appointed by the Provost with the advice of the Dean. The Provost will also specify whether the committee will report to the Dean or the Provost. The function of the committee of inquiry will be to inquire into the facts relevant to the allegations which have been made and to prepare and submit an advisory report to the Dean or Provost. The committee of inquiry will consist of members of the faculty together with such technical, administrative, or other staff as may be deemed appropriate. Faculty members or other individuals who do not hold appointment or employment at the University may be selected to serve. The Dean or Provost may designate a member to serve as chair of the committee. The Dean or Provost may make available to the committee appropriate administrative, legal, and clerical assistance to facilitate a prompt and thorough inquiry and the preparation of an appropriate report. The Dean or the Provost may meet with the committee at any time to review the progress of the inquiry and to assist its focus. In selecting members of the committee, the Dean or the Provost will seek to ensure that the committee as a whole has the necessary and appropriate expertise in relevant disciplines as well as an appropriate understanding of the process and procedures that must be followed. The Dean or Provost, in consultation with the committee, may add or replace members of the committee as needed to ensure the timely completion of the inquiry and the committee’s competence to review the allegations.
   2. Individuals selected to serve on the committee of inquiry or to provide professional assistance to the committee will be expected to disclose to the Dean or Provost any factors which would prevent them from serving fairly, objectively, and without bias, or which reasonably would give the appearance of a lack of fairness, lack of objectivity, or the presence of bias. All persons who participate in the inquiry as committee members, administrative or clerical staff, witnesses, or in any other capacity shall maintain the confidentiality of the inquiry and of all information obtained in the course of the inquiry, except as may be necessary in conjunction with the conduct of the inquiry, including subsequent related reports or proceedings, and reports to Officers of the University.
   3. Upon convening a committee of inquiry, the Dean or the Provost will provide the committee and the individual(s) against whom allegations have been made with a written summary of the allegations and of the required scope of investigation and will invite such individual(s) to provide the committee with all information as will assist in a prompt resolution. If during the course of the inquiry, the committee determines that the scope of the inquiry should be expanded beyond that covered by the initial summary, the committee will so notify the Dean or Provost and, with the approval of the Dean or Provost, will give appropriate notice of the expansion of the inquiry.
   4. Any person who appears as a witness before the committee of inquiry or staff of the committee may be accompanied by counsel or a representative of his or her choice; however, the chair of the committee or designated staff interviewer may limit the participation of counsel or such representative to advising the witness.
   5. Whenever possible, interviews will be conducted by the committee of inquiry with the individual(s) against whom allegations have been made.
   6. The committee may examine documents, data, written witness statements, or other evidence or hear testimony and may do so in the absence of the individual(s) against whom allegations have been made if those individual(s) are provided with an opportunity to review the documentary evidence and to receive a written summary of pertinent testimony prior to or as part of the committee’s report.
   7. The committee of inquiry will prepare a written report that includes a description of the procedures under which the inquiry was conducted, a statement of the relevant evidence reviewed by the committee, and a statement of the conclusion of the committee as to whether there are grounds to believe that misconduct has taken place, identifying the nature and incidence of any misconduct which the committee has reason to believe may have occurred and the individual(s) responsible for it. The report may make recommendations for action by the Dean or Provost. The report should be written in a form which, if accepted, may serve as an appropriate institutional statement of reasons for further institutional action upon or dismissal of the allegations.
   8. The individual(s) against whom the allegations have been made will be given a copy of the report and shall have not less than five (5) business days to comment in writing on the report.
   9. The Dean, if he or she has conducted the inquiry, or the Provost will review the report, including any written comment submitted by the individual(s) against whom allegations have been made. If deemed necessary or appropriate, the Dean or Provost may seek additional information or review. The Dean, if he or she has conducted the inquiry, will make a recommendation to the Provost whether to accept, reject, or modify the report of the committee of inquiry. The Dean will make all relevant records and statements, including the response or comments of the person against whom the allegations have been made, available to the Provost. The Provost will decide whether to accept, reject, or modify the report of the committee of inquiry or the recommendations of the Dean. The Provost may dispose of the matter upon terms and conditions he deems appropriate and acceptable. The Provost will provide written notification to the individual(s) against whom allegations have been made of his final decision.
   10. The goal is to complete an inquiry within sixty (60) days after its initiation unless circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If the inquiry takes longer than sixty (60) days to complete, the record of the inquiry should include a statement of the reasons for exceeding the sixty (60)-day period.
   11. A complete record of the inquiry will be kept in the Office of the Provost for a period of at least three years after the conclusion of the inquiry.
7. Conduct of a Formal Investigation:
   1. If the Provost determines that a formal investigation should be conducted, the investigation will generally be commenced within thirty (30) days after completion of the inquiry. The Provost, with the advice of the Dean, will appoint a board of investigation. The Provost may designate a member to serve as chair of the board. The function of the board will be to conduct a formal investigation of the allegations and to prepare an advisory report to the Provost. The board will consist of members of the faculty together with such technical, administrative, or other individuals as may be deemed appropriate. Faculty members or other individuals who do not hold appointment or employment at the University may be selected to serve. The Provost may make available to the board appropriate administrative, legal, and clerical assistance to facilitate the prompt and thorough conduct of the investigation and the preparation of an appropriate report. The Provost may meet with the board at any time to review the progress of the investigation and to assist its focus. In selecting members of the board, the Provost will seek to ensure that the board as a whole has the necessary and appropriate expertise in relevant disciplines as well as an appropriate understanding of the process and procedures that must be followed. The Provost may add or replace members of the board as needed to ensure the timely completion of the investigation and the board’s competence to review the allegations.
   2. Individuals selected to serve on the board of investigation or to provide professional assistance to the board will be expected to disclose to the Provost any factors which would prevent them from serving fairly, objectively, and without bias, or which reasonably would give the appearance of a lack of fairness, lack of objectivity, or the presence of bias. All persons who participate in the investigation as board members, administrative or clerical staff, witnesses or otherwise will be expected to maintain the confidentiality of the investigation and of all information obtained in the course of the investigation, except as may be necessary in conjunction with the conduct of the investigation, including subsequent related reports or proceedings, and reports to Officers of the University.
   3. Upon convening a board of investigation the Provost will provide the board and the individual(s) against whom charges have been made with a written summary of the allegations and the initial scope of the investigation. If during the course of the investigation, the board determines that the scope of the investigation should be expanded beyond that covered by the initial summary, the board will so notify the Provost and, with the approval of the Provost, will give such notice of expansion of the investigation as may be appropriate.
   4. Any person who appears as a witness before the board of investigation or staff of the board may be accompanied by counsel or a representative of his or her choice; however, the chair of the board or designated staff interviewer may limit the participation of counsel or representative to advising the witness.
   5. Whenever possible, interviews will be conducted by the board with all individuals involved either in making the allegations or against whom the allegations have been made, as well as other appropriate individuals.
   6. The investigation normally will include examination by members of the board, or staff assisting the board, of all relevant documentation, including but not necessarily limited to relevant research data and proposals, publications, correspondence, and memoranda of telephone calls.
   7. The individual(s) against whom allegations have been made will be entitled to attend all meetings of the board at which evidence or testimony is received into the record of the investigation and will have the right, within reasonable limits as determined in the discretion of the chair of the board, to question witnesses who testify orally. Under circumstances determined by the board to be appropriate, written statements may be received in lieu of testimony. The individual(s) against whom allegations have been made will be permitted to examine all documents or records received into evidence by the board, and will be given a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, testify, and present other witnesses with relevant information to the board. The board may provide for a verbatim transcript or recording of testimony it receives; however, the failure to maintain a verbatim record shall not invalidate the proceedings. If no verbatim record or transcript is made of the testimony of individuals who have information regarding key aspects of the allegations, then, in lieu thereof, summaries of such testimony should be prepared, provided to the interviewed party for comment or suggested revision, included in the record of the investigation and made available to the individual(s) against whom the allegations have been made.
   8. The board of investigation will prepare a written report that includes a description of the procedures under which the investigation was conducted, a statement of the relevant evidence, and a statement of the conclusions of the board as to whether misconduct has taken place, the nature and incidence of any misconduct and the individual(s) responsible for it. The report will generally make recommendations for action by the Provost.
   9. The individual(s) against whom the allegations have been made will be given a copy of the report and an opportunity to comment in writing on the report within not less than fifteen (15) days.
   10. The Provost will review the report, including any written comment submitted by the individual(s) against whom allegations have been made. If deemed necessary or appropriate, the Provost may seek additional information or review. The Provost will decide whether to accept, reject, or modify the conclusions of the board and will inform the individual(s) against whom allegation(s) have been made of his final decision.
   11. Upon completion of an investigation, the Provost will be responsible for determining the nature and severity of any sanction based upon the outcome of the investigation or for referring the findings to any appropriate internal or external body for initiating applicable proceedings, and for taking such other action, including notification to sponsors and others, as he may deem may be necessary or appropriate.
   12. The goal is to complete an investigation within 120 days after its initiation unless circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If the investigation takes longer than 120 days to complete, the record of the investigation should include a statement of the reasons for exceeding the 120-day period. Federal regulations, if applicable, may require that a written request for an extension and an explanation of the reasons for the extension be submitted to the sponsoring federal agency.
   13. A complete record of the investigation will be kept in the Office of the Provost for a period of at least three years after the conclusion of the investigation.
8. Notification to Funding Agencies or Other Affected Persons or Bodies; Disposition:
   1. To protect against immediate and serious risks to the health or welfare of subjects of research or members of the public, to the welfare and reputation of the scientific and scholarly community, or to the welfare of sponsors of the research or other affected parties, the University may at any time give any notification that may be deemed appropriate and necessary to agencies sponsoring the research, professional licensing boards, criminal justice agencies, co-authors or collaborators, editors of journals, prospective employers, or other affected parties.
   2. Federal regulations, if applicable, may specifically require that the University notify any federal agency sponsoring the project if it ascertains at any stage of an inquiry or investigation that any of the following conditions exist:
      1. There is an immediate health hazard involved;
      2. There is an immediate need to protect federal funds or equipment;
      3. There is an immediate need to protect the interests of the person(s) making the allegations or of the individual(s) against whom the allegations have been made or his or her co-investigators or associates;
      4. It is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly;
      5. There is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violation, in which event appropriate notice may have to be given within 24 hours of obtaining the information;
      6. There are any developments in the course of an investigation which disclose facts that may affect current or potential federal funding for the individual(s) under investigation or that the agency needs to know to ensure appropriate use of federal funds and otherwise protect the public interest.
   3. In accordance with federal regulations, if applicable, the Provost will notify the federal agency sponsoring a research project when it is decided to initiate a formal investigation into allegations of misconduct in that research project. Other sponsoring agencies will generally also be notified of the initiation of a formal investigation. Federal sponsoring agencies, and other sponsoring agencies as determined to be appropriate, will be provided with a final report of the investigation which will include a description of the policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted, an explanation of how and from whom information was obtained, a report of the findings and the basis for the findings, the written comment of any individual(s) found to have engaged in misconduct, and a report concerning sanctions imposed by the University; on request of that agency or when required by federal regulations, the documentation that substantiates the investigation’s findings will be made available to the federal agency. In accordance with federal regulations, if applicable, the Provost will notify the federal agency sponsoring a research project if an inquiry or investigation is to be terminated prior to completion of all required procedures.
   4. At any time, the Provost may require notification by the researcher/scholar or by the University to sponsors, journals, publishers, or other groups or bodies as may be appropriate to ensure the integrity and accuracy of research and scholarship done under the auspices of the University or by those who work as members of the University community.
   5. If misconduct has not been found, diligent efforts, as appropriate, will be made to restore the reputations of individual(s) alleged to have engaged in misconduct and to protect the positions and reputations of those persons who, in good faith, made allegations. Such efforts will include, but not necessarily be limited to, providing a written reply to the individual(s) against whom the allegations have been made and to the individual(s) who brought the allegations.
   6. The University reserves the right, at all times, to take interim administrative actions, as appropriate, to protect its funds or funds provided by third parties or the Federal government and to ensure that the purposes of any such funding are carried out.
   7. Note: As used in this document, the term “federal agency” does not distinguish between the funding branch of the department and, where applicable, the investigative branch, e.g., the Public Health Service’s Office of Research Integrity. Reports required to be made to the federal agency are made to the branch of that agency designated by the federal regulations to receive the information. E.g., reports regarding investigations involving Public Health Service grants or applications are generally required to be sent to the PHS’s Office of Research Integrity, those involving the National Science Foundation are required to be sent to the NSF’s Office of Inspector General.
9. Multiple Institutions
   If an individual against whom allegations have been made has been conducting the scholarship or research that has come under question at or on behalf of multiple institutions, including Boston University, it will be necessary to clarify the interests of each institution in investigating the allegations. It may be appropriate to implement these procedures in consultation with any other affected institution and to establish a coordinated or joint process which will avoid duplication of fact-finding and review, while protecting the interests of the University and its faculty in achieving the goals of this misconduct policy.
10. Indemnification
    Individuals who serve as members of an inquiry committee or investigation board and staff assigned to assist a committee or board, Dean or the Provost in the conduct of matters under this policy shall be indemnified by the University against any claims arising from such service and the opinions, conclusions, and recommendations reached by them, provided that such acts were within the scope of their assigned duties and are made in good faith and not based on malice, bias or for personal profit or advantage.
11. Computation of Time
    All time periods in these procedures are based on calendar days, except where explicit reference to calculation by business days is utilized.
12. Questions Concerning this Policy; Advice to Participants
    Questions concerning this policy, its application, or implementation may be addressed to the Dean of any School or College of the University, the Provost, or the University’s Office of General Counsel. Questions concerning the release of information about any specific allegations of misconduct, or inquiry or investigation concerning such allegations should also be referred to the Dean of the School or College involved, the Provost or the Office of the General Counsel.In addition, it shall be the responsibility of the chair of a committee of inquiry or an investigation board and of the Office of the General Counsel to provide information and advice to all participants as to their rights under these procedures and to ensure their understanding of the procedures.

* Adopted December 4, 1990, by the University Council; Amended October 15, 1998 by the University Council.