Policies: Research Misconduct Policy and Procedures

Original Issuance Date: 01/02/2026     Last Revision Date: 01/02/2026

I. Policy Purpose

The University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire (UWEC) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific rigor and research integrity. This policy promotes responsible conduct of research and ensures timely, fair handling of allegations related to research misconduct. This policy fulfills federal requirements under 42 CFR §93 and 45 CFR §689. This policy applies to all research—sponsored or not—conducted by individuals affiliated with UWEC at the time of alleged misconduct.

The policy aims to:

• Preserve research integrity at UWEC.
• Protect researchers from false allegations.
• Support those who report misconduct in good faith.
• Ensure accurate, fair, and timely review of allegations.
• Comply with applicable laws and regulations governing ethical research.

II.  Responsible University Officer

Executive Director, Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP)

III.  Policy Statement and Scope

UWEC prohibits research misconduct. “Research misconduct means 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” (42 CFR § 93.234).

This policy applies to anyone who at the time of the alleged research misconduct, was employed by, was an agent of, or was affiliated by contract or agreement with UWEC, including faculty, staff, employees in training, students, contractors, volunteers and guests.

This policy applies to allegations occurring within six years of receipt, with the following exceptions (see 42 CFR §93.104(b)):

• Subsequent Use Exception: The respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct that occurred before the six-year limitation through the use of, republication of, or citation to the portion(s) of the research record (e.g., processed data, journal articles, funding proposals, data repositories) alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized, for the potential benefit of the respondent. For research misconduct that appears subject to the subsequent use exception but that UWEC determines is not, UWEC will document the determination and retain records for seven years.
• Public Health Exception: If the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) or UWEC 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, this exception applies.

If the suspected research misconduct is part of a research project or proposal involving a federal agency, relevant federal agency policies and procedures will be followed.

Reporting and Investigation

All UWEC community members are responsible for reporting observed or suspected misconduct to the campus Research Integrity Officer (RIO), who is also the Executive Director of the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, or another designated administrator. Reports may be made anonymously and by individuals outside UWEC.

If uncertain whether an incident qualifies as misconduct, individuals may consult the RIO informally. Non-qualifying concerns will be redirected appropriately.

Complainants must act in good faith, maintain confidentiality, and cooperate with inquiries and investigations.

Confidentiality and Records

Participants in misconduct proceedings must preserve confidentiality to the extent possible. Necessary disclosures may occur during investigation or resolution. All documents are subject to Wisconsin’s open records law.

Determination of Misconduct

A finding of misconduct requires:

1. A significant departure from accepted research practices of the relevant research community.
2. Intentional, knowing, or reckless behavior in committing the misconduct.
3. Proof by a preponderance of evidence.

IV.  Institutional Responsibilities

General Institutional Responsibilities

• Limit disclosure of the identities of respondents, complainants, and witnesses to those with a need to know, consistent with applicable law and fair proceedings. This limitation ends once a final determination is made.
• Ensure all institutional members are informed of these policies and make them publicly available.
• Respond to all research misconduct allegations in a thorough, objective, and fair manner.
• Take reasonable steps to secure cooperation from institutional members, including providing records and evidence.
• Cooperate fully with ORI or relevant federal agencies/sponsors during proceedings or compliance reviews, including addressing deficiencies or additional allegations as directed, if applicable.
• Manage or acknowledge potentially unreliable published data when appropriate.

Institutional Responsibilities During and After Proceedings

• Maintain confidentiality of records that could identify research subjects, disclosing only to those with a need to know.
• Promptly secure all relevant research records and evidence upon or before notifying the respondent.
• Ensure the institutional record includes all required elements: compiled research records, assessment documentation, and inquiry/investigation reports.
• Determine “need to know” disclosures in accordance with legal standards and procedural fairness. This may include IRBs, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions.

Institutional Responsibilities to Complainants

• Maintain confidentiality for complainants.
• Prevent conflicts of interest among individuals involved in the proceedings.
• Protect complainants from retaliation and safeguard their professional standing.

• If UWEC chooses to notify one complainant of the inquiry results in a case, all complainants will be notified, to the extent possible.

Institutional Responsibilities to Respondents

• Maintain confidentiality for respondents.
• Notify respondents in writing of allegations that proceed to the inquiry stage and provide access to sequestered records.
• Prevent conflicts of interest among those involved in the proceedings.
• Inform respondents of inquiry outcomes and allow them to review and comment on the inquiry report; their comments will be attached to the report.
• Notify respondents of any new allegations during an investigation and allow review of witness transcripts.
• Provide respondents with the opportunity to review and comment on the draft investigation report and any added information.
• Consider credible evidence of honest error or differences of opinion.
• Bear the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Take reasonable steps, when appropriate, to protect or restore the reputation of respondents not found to have committed misconduct.

Institutional Responsibilities to Committee Members

• Ensure that proceedings are conducted in compliance with federal regulations and the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law.
• Protect committee members acting in good faith from retaliation and safeguard their professional standing.

Institutional Responsibilities to Witnesses

• Maintain confidentiality for witnesses in accordance with federal regulations and Wisconsin Public Records Law.
• Prevent conflicts of interest among those involved in the proceedings.
• Protect witnesses from retaliation and safeguard their professional standing.

V. Procedures for Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct

    1. Assessment

The purpose of an assessment is to determine whether an allegation warrants an inquiry based on readily accessible information (i.e., no interviews are necessary at this stage). All steps in the assessment will be completed within 30 days.

Upon receiving an allegation, the RIO or designated official, will promptly assess whether the alleged misconduct:

• Falls within the scope of this policy.
• Falls within the definition of research misconduct.
• Is credible and specific enough to identify and sequester potential evidence.

If these criteria are met, the RIO or designated official will:

• Document the assessment.
• Determine if federal or other external funding is involved. If federal funding is involved the RIO or designated official will seek guidance from applicable federal agencies and follow relevant federal policies and procedures.
• Initiate an inquiry and sequester relevant research records and other relevant evidence.

If criteria are not met, the RIO or designated official will document the rationale in sufficient detail for potential outside review.

All assessment records will be securely retained for seven years.

   2. Inquiry

An inquiry is an initial review of the evidence to determine whether an investigation is warranted. It does not require exhaustive evidence analysis. All steps in the inquiry, including producing and sharing the final inquiry report, will be completed within 90 days unless extended for documented reasons.

Evidence Sequestration and Respondent Notification

Before or at the time of notifying the respondent, the institution will:

• Secure original or equivalent copies of all relevant research records and other relevant evidence.
• Inventory and sequester the materials in a secure manner and maintain them for seven years.
• Continue to inventory and securely sequester new evidence at it becomes known.

The RIO or designated official will notify the respondent(s) in writing of the allegation, sequestration, and inquiry initiation. Additional allegations will require similar notification. Additional respondents will be notified in writing. Respondents will be granted access to sequestered materials, as appropriate.

Inquiry Committee and Neutrality

UWEC will ensure committee members understand their responsibilities, maintain confidentiality, and comply with applicable regulations. In lieu of a committee, the RIO or designated official may conduct the inquiry with support from subject matter experts.

Determining Whether an Investigation Is Warranted

The inquiry committee or RIO/designated official will review evidence and may interview respondents or witnesses. An investigation is warranted if:

• There is a reasonable basis for concluding the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct as defined in this policy.
• Preliminary information gathering and fact-finding suggests the allegation may have substance.

The inquiry does not determine whether misconduct occurred nor does it assess intent.

Inquiry Documentation

A complete inquiry report will include:

1. Names and positions of respondent(s) and complainant(s).
2. Description of the allegation(s).
3. Federal/sponsor funding details (e.g., grant numbers, contracts) and publications mentioning federal or other support, if applicable.
4. Inquiry committee composition (i.e., names, positions and expertise), if applicable.
5. Inventory and description of sequestered research records and other evidence.
6. Interview transcripts (if available).
7. Inquiry timeline and procedural history.
8. Scientific or forensic analyses.
9. Basis for recommending the allegation warrants investigation.
10. Basis on which allegation(s) does not merit further investigation.
11. Respondent and complainant comments on the inquiry report, if applicable.
12. Institutional actions taken, including internal communications or external communications with journals or funding agencies.
13. Documentation of potential evidence of honest error or differences of opinion.

Completing the Inquiry

The respondent(s) will receive the draft inquiry report with names of complainant(s) redacted for review and comment. The respondent(s) has 10 days to provide comment on the draft report.

The institution may share relevant portions with the complainant(s) with appropriate redactions of names of other complainants. The complainant(s) has 10 days to provide comment on the draft report.

Upon conclusion, the respondent(s) will receive the final inquiry report with names of complainants redacted, applicable regulations, and institutional policies. The institution may choose to share the inquiry report with the complainant(s), and if one complainant is notified of the outcome, all complainants must be notified, to the extent possible.

Outcomes

If an Investigation Is Warranted:
If the inquiry committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official determines that an investigation is warranted, the RIO or designated official will notify the respondent(s) in writing of the decision to conduct an investigation of the alleged misconduct and include any allegations of research misconduct not addressed during the inquiry. The inquiry report will also be submitted to ORI within 30 days, if applicable. The institution may notify the complainant(s) that there will be an investigation of the alleged misconduct. If one complainant is notified, all complainants must be notified, to the extent possible.

If an Investigation Is Not Warranted:
If the inquiry committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official determines that an investigation is not warranted, the institution will retain detailed documentation explaining the decision and provide it to ORI upon request, if applicable.

All inquiry records will be securely retained for seven years.

   3. Investigation

    Purpose

The investigation formally develops a factual record, gathers information, examines evidence, and recommends findings for each allegation of research misconduct to the Institutional Deciding Official (IDO) or designee, who makes the final determination. The institution will pursue all significant issues and relevant leads, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and complete the investigation thoroughly and impartially.

If applicable, ORI will be notified within 30 days of the decision to initiate an investigation.

Respondent Notification and Evidence Sequestration

Within 30 days of determining an investigation is warranted, the RIO or designated official will:

• Notify the respondent(s) in writing before the investigation begins.
• If additional respondents are identified during the investigation, the institution may either conduct a separate inquiry or add the new respondent(s) to the ongoing investigation. If respondents are added to the ongoing investigation, UWEC will notify the additional respondent(s) and allow them an opportunity to respond to the allegation.
• Obtain research records or other evidence, and inventory and sequester the materials in a secure manner.

Investigation Committee

The RIO or designated official in consultation with other institutional administrators will:

• Vet potential committee members for conflicts of interest and scientific expertise.
• Appoint an investigation committee and chair.
• Ensure members understand their responsibilities, this policy, and federal regulations, if applicable.
• The RIO or designated official will provide the investigation committee with a formal written charge that:

• Identifies the respondent(s) and complainant(s).
• Describes the allegation(s) and related issues identified during the inquiry.
• Informs the committee that it must conduct the investigation as prescribed in this policy and by any other applicable regulations.
• Defines research misconduct.
• Informs the committee that it must evaluate the evidence to determine whether, based on a preponderance of the evidence, research misconduct occurred and, if so, the type and extent and who was responsible.
• Informs the committee that in order to determine that the respondent(s) committed research misconduct it must find that a preponderance of the evidence establishes that:

• • • Research misconduct, as defined in this policy occurred [Note that defenses raised by respondent (e.g., honest error or a difference of opinion) must be proven by respondent by a preponderance of the evidence].
    • The research misconduct is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.
    • The respondent committed the research misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.

• Informs the committee that it must prepare a written investigation report that meets the requirements of this policy and other applicable regulations.

• Notify respondents of any new allegations raised during the investigation.
• Ensure the investigation is thorough, impartial, and well-documented.

As part of their work, the investigation committee will conduct interviews, pursue leads, and examine research records and other evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegation(s).

Interviews

Acting on behalf of the institution and with the assistance of the RIO or designated official, the investigation committee will:

• Interview all relevant parties, including respondent(s), complainant(s), 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). Note: The respondent(s) is not to be present during interviews with other parties.
• Number all relevant exhibits and refer to any exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview by that number.
• Record and transcribe interviews and make the transcripts available to the interviewee for correction.
• Include the transcripts with any corrections and exhibits in the institutional record of the investigation.
• Provide the respondent(s) with transcripts of interviews with redactions as appropriate to maintain confidentiality.

Investigation Timeline and Reporting

All steps in the investigation, including the final determination, must be completed within 180 days. If extended, the institution will document the reason in the final report and request an extension from ORI, if applicable.

The investigation report will include:

1. Description of the allegation(s), including any allegations added during the investigation.
2. Documentation of federal agency/sponsor support details (e.g., grant numbers, contracts), publications mentioning federal/sponsor support, and pending federal agency applications, if applicable.
3. Specific allegations of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation of the respondent(s).
4. Investigation committee members’ names, positions, and expertise.
5. Inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence (except records the institution did not consider or rely on) and description of sequestration.
6. Interview transcripts.
7. Identification of research records (e.g., specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication, funding applications, progress reports), containing alleged research misconduct.
8. Scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
9. Institutional policy and procedures on research misconduct.
10. Comments from respondent(s) and complainant(s) on the draft investigation report and committee’s consideration of those comments.
11. Committee’s recommendation regarding a finding of research misconduct for each allegation.

1. 1. If the committee recommends a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the report will:

• • • Identify the individual(s) responsible.
    • Specify the type of misconduct: fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.
    • Indicate whether the misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.
    • Identify significant departure(s) from the accepted practices of the relevant research community and that the allegation was proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
    • Summarize supporting facts and analysis supporting the conclusion and consider the merits of any explanation by the respondent(s).
    • Identify relevant federal agency/sponsor support, if applicable.
    • State whether any publications need correction or retraction.

1. 2. If the investigation committee does not recommend a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the investigation report will provide a detailed rationale for its conclusion.

Respondent and Complainant Comments

The respondent(s) will receive the draft investigation report with names of complainants redacted, if necessary, and copies of or access to the research records and evidence considered. They may submit comments within 30 days of receiving the report. If the institution chooses to share the draft investigation report or relevant portions of it with the complainant(s) for comment, the complainant’s comments will be submitted within 30 days of receiving the report. All comments will be added to the final report.

IDO Review and Final Determination

The IDO or designee makes the final determination on whether research misconduct occurred on each allegation, based on a preponderance of evidence. The IDO or designee will:

• Review the investigation report.
• Issue a final written determination of whether the institution found research misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct.
• Describe institutional actions taken or planned.
• The IDO or designee will not make a determination as to sanctions for all employees or students, and will follow procedures outlined below:

• For faculty respondents: Treat as a complaint under UWS chs. 4 or 6, as appropriate.
• For non-faculty employee respondents: Refer to Human Resources for further action to determine the appropriate response.
• For student respondents: Refer to the Dean of Students for appropriate action under UWS ch. 14

VI.  Institutional Record

After the IDO’s or designee’s final determination:

• The decision is added to the investigation report.
• The institutional record is organized and includes:

• • Assessment documentation.
  • Indexed list of all research records and evidence.
  • Inquiry and investigation reports.
  • Records relied upon during the investigation.
  • IDO’s or designee’s final decision.
  • Respondent’s submissions.
  • Description of sequestered but unused records.
  • The appeal record, if an appeal is filed.

VII.  Appeal (optional)

Initiating an Appeal

The request for appeal of the determination of research misconduct by the IDO shall be addressed in writing to the Chancellor or designee. The request for appeal must set forth the substantive or procedural reasons the respondent believes the decision is erroneous.

In an appeal from the institutional decision under this section, the institution bears the burden of proof for all issues related to the allegations of misconduct. The respondent bears the burden of proof for any claims asserted in opposition to the institutional decision.

Timeline

The respondent may submit a request for appeal within 10 days after receiving the notice of the institutional decision. If an appeal is not requested by the deadline, the respondent is deemed to have waived the right to such review.

The appeal procedure should be completed within 45 days of its initiation.

Process

The Chancellor or designee will consider the grounds for appealing the IDO’s misconduct decision presented by the respondent and shall issue a decision and rationale for affirming or reversing the finding.

The Chancellor or designee will inform the respondent in writing of the decision of the appeal and will copy the IDO and RIO or designated official.

The RIO or designated official must notify ORI of any institutional appeal, including appeals of institutional decisions and sanctions, if applicable. The institution will delay transmission to ORI, if applicable, and any disciplinary action until the appeal is resolved.

VIII.  Notice to Applicable Federal Agencies and/or Other Parties

When allegations of research misconduct involve research funded or proposed under federal agencies or other sponsors, the RIO or designated official must provide information to applicable federal agencies or other sponsors. If the research misconduct occurred in relation to federal agency funding (e.g., federally funded project, proposal, etc.), the RIO or designated official will consult the relevant federal agency’s guidelines at the inquiry-to-investigation stage to ensure compliance in documenting and sharing information about the alleged misconduct. Following a finding of research misconduct, the RIO or designated official shall ensure that other affected parties are notified, such as research collaborators, funding sponsors, professional licensing boards, and professional societies.

PHS Related Research: Special Circumstances Requiring Immediate ORI Notification

UWEC will immediately notify ORI if any of the following arise during proceedings:

• Risk to public health or safety, including threats to human or animal subjects.
• Threats to HHS resources or interests
• Suspension of research activities is warranted.
• Indications of possible civil or criminal law violations
• Federal action is needed to protect involved parties.
• HHS intervention is required to safeguard evidence or rights.

IX.  Special Circumstances

Multiple Institutions and Respondents

If research misconduct involves more than one institution, the institutions may coordinate to conduct a joint proceeding. A lead institution will be designated to manage evidence collection, including research records and witness testimony. Committee membership and decision-making may be shared or delegated to the lead institution by mutual agreement.

Multiple Institutions and Respondents

When multiple respondents are involved, UWEC may include additional respondents in ongoing proceedings or may initiate separate inquiries. In either case, respondent will receive written notice and an opportunity to respond.

Respondent Admissions

If a respondent admits to misconduct or reaches a settlement at any stage in the process, the RIO or designated official will obtain a signed, written admission detailing the specific misconduct, affected records, and confirmation of deviation from accepted research practices.

If the misconduct is related to federally funded or other sponsored research, UWEC will notify ORI or other federal agencies/sponsors and:

• Provide the respondent’s written admission.
• Submit a written statement confirming the respondent’s culpability and explaining how the admission addresses the full scope of misconduct.
• Close the case only after ORI or other federal agencies or sponsors receive and review the documentation.

X.  Records Retention

UWEC will maintain the institutional record and all sequestered evidence, including physical objects, in a secure manner for seven years after the completion of the proceeding or the completion of any federal agency proceeding, whichever is later, unless custody has been transferred to the applicable federal agency. In addition, UWEC will comply with all relevant records retention schedules under the Wisconsin Public Records Law.

XI.  Definitions

Allegation. This term is a disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of an institutional or federal agency/sponsor official.

Committee members (and consortium members where applicable). 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 UWEC 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.

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

Evidence. Evidence means 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. Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

Falsification. Falsification means 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 carrying out the duties assigned for the purpose of helping an institution meet its responsibilities under 42 CFR Part 93. An institutional or committee member does not act in good faith if their acts or omissions during the research misconduct proceedings are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.

Institutional Deciding Official (IDO). Institutional Deciding Official means 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. At UWEC, the IDO is the Provost or designee.

Institutional member. Institutional member and members mean 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.

Intentionally. To act intentionally means to act with the aim of carrying out the act.

Knowingly. To act knowingly means to act with awareness of the act.

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

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

Research Integrity Officer (RIO). The Research Integrity Officer refers to the institutional official responsible for administering the institution’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct in compliance with federal guidelines. At UWEC, the RIO is the Executive Director of the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, or designee.

Research misconduct. Research misconduct means 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 record. Research record means 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. Respondent means the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding.

Retaliation. Retaliation means 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.

Witnesses. People whom UWEC has reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation. Witnesses provide information for review during research misconduct proceedings. 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.