Protect the evidence. Reach findings through fair process.

Scope

This policy is intended to apply to research, scholarship, data, software, publications, proposals, reports, peer review, repositories, presentations, and other activities conducted by or through the Institute.

Research Misconduct and Related Concerns

Research misconduct ordinarily includes fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research.

• Fabrication: making up data, results, sources, records, or events
• Falsification: manipulating materials, processes, images, data, code, or records so the research is misrepresented
• Plagiarism: appropriating another person’s ideas, words, methods, data, or work without appropriate credit

Honest error, good-faith disagreement, or differences in interpretation are not misconduct by themselves.

Reporting Allegations and Concerns

Reports may be made by people who experienced, observed, discovered, or received credible information about possible misconduct.

Reports should identify the work, people involved, conduct at issue, relevant dates, available evidence, and any immediate risk to participants, records, funding, or public safety.

Evidence Preservation and Custody

Relevant evidence should be identified, secured, copied or imaged where appropriate, inventoried, and protected from deletion, alteration, concealment, or unauthorized access.

Evidence may include notebooks, raw data, instruments, samples, files, code repositories, models, devices, email, messages, drafts, images, reviews, and access logs.

Initial Assessment

An initial assessment should determine whether the allegation is sufficiently specific, falls within institutional authority, could constitute misconduct if true, and requires evidence preservation or immediate safeguards.

Matters outside this policy may be referred to another process involving authorship, employment, privacy, safety, conflict of interest, or ordinary scientific disagreement.

Formal Inquiry

An inquiry should determine whether the allegation and preliminary evidence warrant a full investigation.

It is not ordinarily intended to reach a final misconduct finding. The inquiry should be documented and reviewed by qualified, unconflicted persons.

Investigation

A formal investigation should examine the relevant evidence, interview witnesses, evaluate explanations, assess the research record, and determine whether misconduct occurred under the applicable standard.

Investigation panels should have appropriate scientific, technical, legal, ethical, and procedural competence.

Respondent, Complainant, and Witness Safeguards

Respondents should receive fair notice, meaningful opportunity to respond, access to material allegations and evidence, and review of draft findings where appropriate.

Complainants and witnesses should be protected from retaliation, coercion, intimidation, and misuse of confidential information.

Good-faith reports that are not substantiated should not be treated as knowingly false.

Findings, Corrective Action, and Notifications

Findings should identify the allegations, evidence, standard applied, credibility determinations, conclusions, and basis for each conclusion.

Corrective action may include training, supervision, access restrictions, funding action, employment action, publication correction, withdrawal, retraction, sponsor notification, restitution, or referral to outside authorities.

Appeals, Restoration, and Correction of the Record

Appeals may be allowed for significant procedural error, new evidence, unmanaged conflict, or findings unsupported by the record.

When allegations are not substantiated, the Institute should take reasonable steps to restore affected reputations and correct misleading statements.

When misconduct is found, the Institute should correct affected publications, datasets, repositories, reports, grant records, public statements, and institutional files.

Framework date: July 2026