Research Misconduct Policy 

The University of Virginia Research Misconduct Policy sets forth the University’s process for reviewing reports of alleged research misconduct involving research for which the University is the applicant or grantee, or which is proposed or conducted by or under the direction of any employee or agent of the University in connection with his or her institutional responsibilities. The policy ensures prompt and appropriate investigation of alleged or apparent misconduct while protecting the rights of individuals, both those who report misconduct and those about whom allegations are made. The University Policy defines research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.

“All employees or individuals associated with the University of Virginia should report observed, suspected, or apparent misconduct in research. When allegations of research misconduct are made, the University is committed to a thorough investigation into such allegations while protecting the rights of all involved.” 

 

How to Report 

You may report any concern related to research integrity using the online compliance helpline form. As an alternative, if you have questions about whether something constitutes research misconduct or the process you may contact the Research Integrity Officer, Kristen Schwendinger, directly.

Essential Stages of Review

Reporting Diagram -- Assessment: The RIO evaluates the complaint to determine whether it falls within the scope of the UVA Research Misconduct Policy. If it does, the case moves to the inquiry stage. Inquiry: The RIO establishes an inquiry committee who will gather preliminary evidence and may conduct interviews to determine whether an investigation is warranted. Investigation: The RIO-established committee examines research records and related evidence in depth, conducts interviews, and develops a factual record leading to recommended findings on whether research misconduct has been committed, by whom, and to what extent.

 

Roles and Responsibilities

Deciding Official (DO)
  • The Deciding Official is the institutional offical chosen by the University who makes final determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any institutional administrative actions. Here at UVA, the Vice President for Research serves as the Deciding Official.
  • The Deciding Official will receive the inquiry and/or investigation report and any written comments made by the respondent or the whistleblower on the draft report. 
  • The Deciding Official will consult with the Research Integrity Officer or other appropriate officials and will determine whether to conduct an investigation, whether misconduct occurred, whether to impose sanctions, or whether to take other appropriate administrative actions [see Institutional Administrative Actions]. 
  • The Deciding Official will report to ORI as required by regulation and keep ORI apprised of any developments during the course of the inquiry or investigation that may affect current or potential HHS funding for the individual(s) under investigation or that PHS needs to know to ensure appropriate use of Federal funds and otherwise protect the public interest.
Research Integrity Officer (RIO)

The institutional official, designated by the President, who is responsible for: 

  • Assessing allegations of research misconduct to determine if they fall within the definition of research misconduct and warrant an inquiry on the basis that the allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified;
  • Overseeing inquiries and investigations, including the appointment of inquiry and investigation committees; 
  • Providing resources necessary to carry out inquiries and allegations; and 
  • Other responsibilities described in the Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy
Whistleblower
  • A person who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct. 
  • The whistleblower will have an opportunity to testify before the inquiry and investigation committees, to review portions of the inquiry and investigation reports pertinent to his/her allegations or testimony, to be informed of the results of the inquiry and investigation, and to be protected from retaliation. Also, if the Research Integrity Officer has determined that the whistleblower may be able to provide pertinent information on any portions of the draft report, these portions will be given to the whistleblower for comment. 
  • The whistleblower is responsible for making allegations in good faith, maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating with an inquiry or investigation.
Respondent
  • The person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding. 
  • The respondent will be informed of the allegations when an inquiry is opened and notified in writing of the final determinations and resulting actions. The respondent will also have the opportunity to be interviewed by and present evidence to the inquiry and investigation committees, to review the draft inquiry and investigation reports, and to have the advice of counsel. 
  • The respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating with the conduct of an inquiry or investigation. If the respondent is not found guilty of research misconduct, he or she has the right to receive institutional assistance in restoring his or her reputation.
Research Misconduct Definitions
Type of MisconductDefinition
FabricationMaking up data or results and recording or reporting them.
FalsificationManipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
PlagiarismThe appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism excludes: authorship, credit, or collaboration disputes, intellectual property or patent disputes. 
ConfidentialityProceedings concerning Research Misconduct often raise difficult issues for those making the allegations, for those who are the subject of the allegations, and for those responsible for reviewing the allegations. Review of the allegations should therefore be conducted promptly with care and sensitivity. All participants in the review process under this Policy are expected to maintain the confidentiality to protect the privacy of all involved, to the extent possible and as permitted by law. Participants should keep in min the effect that allegations can have on reputations, even if the allegations are not sustained by the proceedings. Thus, only those people with a need to know should be informed of the complaint.
No RetaliationNo one shall be retaliated against for participating in a review of a misconduct allegation in good faith as a Complainant, a witness, a fact finder, or investigator or in any other capacity. 
Duty to CooperateAll members of the UVA community must cooperate with efforts to review allegations of Research Misconduct. While the destruction or absence of, or failure to provide upon request, information relating to allegations of Research Misconduct is not misconduct per se, such failure may be considered to be evidence supporting a finding of Research Misconduct when the evidence shows the Respondent had relevant information and intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly destroyed it; had the opportunity to maintain the information but did not do so; or maintained the information and failed to produce it in a timely manner in connection with a Research Misconduct proceeding, with the result that the Respondent significantly departed from accepted practices of the relevant academic community.