Academic Misconduct

Effective: Moved to Policy Library from P&S Handbook 2.2.7
Contact: Executive Vice President and Provost

Introduction
Policy Statement
Definition
Prevention
Procedures
--Inquiry
--Investigation
Resources

Introduction

Iowa State University is a community of scholars and, as such, is dedicated to the pursuit of truth in all of its endeavors, including teaching, research, and service. Such a pursuit requires integrity on the part of all concerned, in all of their activities. It is not enough for the faculty to develop, transmit, and preserve knowledge. The faculty is also responsible for upholding academic integrity in these pursuits and instilling academic integrity to students. Persons in supervisory and leadership positions have an obligation to create and maintain a climate of academic integrity and to foster this attitude throughout all of their relationships.

Academic freedom and tenure protect the faculty and staff from threats arising from unpopular thought or conclusions, but academic freedom also brings a special responsibility to the university community. Any challenge to the integrity of one member of the community is a challenge to the integrity of the entire community. A challenge to the integrity of the community often comes as a charge of academic misconduct. Prevention of such challenges is essential, and constant care in academic endeavors will forestall most, if not all, of the problems.

[Note: Although policies do not typically include procedures, the "Procedures to be Followed in Cases of Alleged Academic Misconduct in Research and Scholarly Activities" are included within this policy due to their importance in providing due process.]
<back to top>

Policy Statement

Definition of Academic Misconduct

The entire academic community at Iowa State University is responsible for maintaining high standards of academic integrity in research and scholarly activities in an effort to prevent academic misconduct. It is important to recognize that academic misconduct involving deception must carefully be distinguished from honest error and differences in judgment which are intrinsic parts of research and scholarly activities.

Academic misconduct may include any or all of the following:

Falsification of data, ranging from fabrication to deceptively selective reporting, including the purposeful omission of conflicting data with the intent to falsify results.
Plagiarism...representation of another's work as one's own.
Misappropriation of the ideas of others--the unauthorized use of privileged information (such as violation of confidentiality in peer review), however obtained.
Misappropriation of funds or resources for personal gain.
Falsification of one's credentials.
<back to top>

Prevention

Questionable conduct may be forestalled within the Iowa State University community by appropriate attitudes and preventive practices, including:

Instruction in the practices and standards of professional integrity and quality, including those applicable to specific fields and professions, as a normal component of education and training for research.
Careful scrutiny of staff and their previous work for scholarly integrity at times of hiring and advancement. Informed review and qualitative evaluation should be a normal incident of research and scholarship and its recognition.
Wide dissemination within the university of its policies regarding scholarly integrity together with information about consequences of their breach.
<back to top>

Procedures: Cases of Alleged Academic Misconduct in Research and Scholarly Activities

At every stage of the procedure, great care shall be taken to ensure the rights of the individual(s) charged with academic misconduct in research or scholarly activities and of those bringing the charges to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings. The charged individual(s) shall be informed of their right to counsel as soon as they are informed of the formal charges made against them. At every stage of these proceedings, the burden of proof shall rest with the university and shall be by a preponderance of evidence. The procedures shall be carried out in a timely manner and shall be characterized by the avoidance of real or apparent conflict of interest.

The procedures to be followed involve two distinct steps. First comes an inquiry involving information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of misconduct warrants an investigation. An investigation is a formal examination and evaluation of relevant facts to determine whether misconduct has taken place or, if misconduct has already been confirmed, to assess its extent and consequences or determine appropriate action.
<back to top>

Inquiry

The vice president for research and economic development (VPRED) shall appoint from among the tenured faculty an officer for research standards (ORS) and two additional members of the tenured faculty to serve with the officer as the standing members of the Inquiry Committee (IC). The IC shall consist of the ORS, two standing members and two ad hoc members. The ORS shall serve at the discretion of the VPRED, and the standing members shall be appointed for three year terms (initial terms to be 2 years and 3 years to permit staggering of the terms in the interest of continuity). The appointed standing members may be reappointed for an additional term. Two ad hoc members of the committee shall be appointed by the ORS for the investigation of each specific case in accordance with number 3 in this section.

1. Any member of the university community who becomes aware of an apparent instance of academic misconduct in research or scholarly activity has the responsibility of bringing the issue directly to the attention of the ORS. A person may discuss the situation informally with the ORS before bringing a charge. He or she shall be advised of the possible legal consequences of making frivolous, malicious, mischievous or unfounded charges. The ORS and other university officials will protect, to the maximum extent possible, the privacy of those who, in good faith, report apparent misconduct.

If the ORS believes that the issue raised requires further action, the following steps shall be taken:

2. If the person whose conduct is in question is a student, the matter should proceed according to the current Iowa State University Catalog, the current Graduate College Handbook, and ISU academic policies residing in the Policy Library. Students doing research are expected to uphold the same standards of academic integrity as are the faculty and staff.

3. If the person whose conduct is in question is a faculty or a staff member, the ORS shall bring the charges to the attention of the department chair. The ad hoc members may be members of the primary department of the individual whose conduct is in question unless the ORS or a standing member is from the charged individual's department. No more than two persons from that individual's department and/or discipline may serve on the IC. If one or more standing members are from that department, ad hoc members shall be chosen from other departments such that no more than two members of the IC are from that department.

At the time of the appointment of the ad hoc members, the person being charged with misconduct shall be informed in writing of (1) the nature of the allegations made against him or her, and (2) the names of the ad hoc committee members. The person charged shall have the right to two peremptory challenges to the ad hoc appointments of the ORS. The IC, including its ad hoc members, shall conduct a preliminary inquiry of the allegations to (1) determine whether sufficient evidence exists to warrant a formal investigation, or (2) if the IC finds the allegations are unfounded, to determine whether they may be frivolous, mischievous, or malicious.

The IC shall report its findings in writing to the VPRED within 60 calendar days of the beginning of the inquiry.
<back to top>

4. Within 30 calendar days of the completion of the inquiry, the VPRED , in consultation with the IC, shall decide whether the matter shall be pursued. If the matter is dropped, nothing shall be placed in the personnel file of the person who was charged with misconduct. All written records shall be sealed and deposited in the office of the VPRED where they will be maintained for a period of three years. Both the person making the charges and the person charged shall be notified in writing of this decision. Diligent efforts shall be undertaken, as appropriate, to restore the reputations of persons alleged to have engaged in misconduct when allegations are not confirmed and to protect the positions and reputations of those persons who, in good faith, made the allegations. If the charges were found by the IC to be not only unfounded, but also frivolous, and the VPRED concurs, this, too, shall be noted in writing to both parties. The university may take disciplinary action in such a case.

If the inquiry has found sufficient evidence of a serious breach of accepted standards of integrity to warrant further investigation, the person charged, along with his or her collaborators on the work in question, shall be informed of the charges, requested to cooperate with investigators, and reminded of their right to counsel. The ORS is empowered to secure laboratories, offices, materials, and other relevant evidence. Appropriate university administrators, including the president, should be notified that an investigation is underway. The ORS acts as liaison between outside agencies and the university in matters related to the inquiry and is responsible for assuring appropriate notification of the impending investigation to these agencies.
<back to top>

Investigation

1. Within 30 calendar days of the completion of the inquiry, the VPRED shall appoint an Ad Hoc Investigating Committee consisting of (1) one person (as chair) from the tenured faculty of the university within the primary category of representation on the Graduate Council for the charged individual, (2) one person from the charged individual's primary department, and (3) one person from the charged individual's discipline from outside the university. No one from the IC may serve on the ad hoc committee except that the ORS shall serve as consultant to the committee.

The ad hoc committee shall conduct a thorough investigation of the charges and report the results to the VPRED in writing within 120 calendar days of the beginning of the investigation. The charged individual will receive a copy of the report. The person charged will be informed in writing of the composition of the committee and will be invited to provide the committee with pertinent information. Once an investigation has begun, it must continue until a determination has been made regarding the alleged misconduct, even if the person charged is no longer employed by the university.

2. Before the committee makes its report, the person whose conduct is being investigated shall be provided with the opportunity to discuss the case with the committee, with or without counsel. A summary of such discussions will be made a part of the committee's report. The committee shall then report to the VPRED and advanced studies. If the committee concludes that there has been no academic misconduct in research or scholarly activities, the matter shall be considered closed, all parties notified and records kept as in the paragraph numbered 4 under "Inquiry."

If the academic misconduct is established, the university shall take action appropriate to the seriousness of the misconduct. If the committee finds sufficient evidence that academic misconduct occurred it shall recommend appropriate sanctions which may include, but are not necessarily limited to, a letter of reprimand being placed in the personnel file, loss of rights to conduct research and scholarly inquiry, removal from the graduate faculty, suspension by the university, in cases for which the charges were not deemed serious enough to warrant dismissal under paragraph 5 below. The question of the frivolousness of the charges shall not be considered here.

3. Based on the findings of the Ad Hoc Investigating Committee, the VPRED may administer such sanctions as are within the power of that office to administer, including (but not necessarily limited to) reprimand and removal from the graduate faculty.

4. If the committee finds substantial evidence of misconduct in research or scholarly activities, the VPRED shall report the findings to the executive vice president and provost for such further action as is warranted under the procedures of the university, including a full report to the president. Faculty members who believe they have been treated unfairly may follow grievance procedures described herein.
<back to top>

5. If the president finds that the misconduct is serious enough to warrant dismissal, a hearing committee shall be appointed to hear the case as prescribed in the Faculty Handbook, Chapter 7.

6. Up to this point, all stages of the investigation are to be regarded as confidential. The disclosure of information to parties not directly involved is regarded as a serious breach of conduct. At this time, the president shall inform additional parties as is deemed appropriate. The university shall do everything feasible to clarify the public record. This action may take the form of public announcements, published retractions, and disassociations with published papers or abstracts. In particular, funding agencies shall be fully informed unless this has been done earlier to comply with applicable laws and contractual agreements.

7. All pending abstracts and papers emanating from research in which misconduct has occurred shall be withdrawn and editors of journals in which reports, papers or abstracts of such work have appeared shall be notified in sufficient detail to establish correct public record. This notification shall be done by the resident with information supplied by the faculty member in charge of the research and the chair of the Ad Hoc Investigative Committee of item 1 of this section.

8. If academic misconduct in research or scholarly activities is not confirmed, the university shall consider whether a public announcement would be harmful or beneficial in restoring any reputations that may have been affected. That decision should rest with the exonerated individual(s). <back to top>

Policy Library