Definitions

Scholarly Activities

Scholarly activities include a broad range of academic activities undertaken by faculty members (including temporary faculty members), students and trainees, fellows, professional and technical staff members, guest researchers, honorific appointees, and research collaborators. Scholarlyactivities may be unfunded, funded by the UMassD, or funded by an external agency or entity. Scholarly activities include but are not limited to:

• Basic, applied, and demonstration research, including: laboratory research, fieldwork, observational studies, survey research, case studies, humanities scholarship, or artistic expression.
• Presentations, performances, publication, or dissemination of results from research, scholarship, or creative work.
• The process of applying for funds to support research, scholarship, and creative activities. Preparation of funding proposals, grant applications, and related materials
• The review of the scholarly or research efforts of others, including students. Peer review and editorial activities for journals, conferences, or student work.
• Development of software, tools, protocols, or digital scholarship platforms.
• Mentorship, supervision, and oversight of student or trainee scholarly projects
• Programmatic or fiscal reporting on the use of sponsored program funds supporting research, scholarship, or creative activity.
• Other academic or professional activities that generate, communicate, curate, or evaluate knowledge or creative work.

Research Misconduct

In accordance with 42 CFR 93.103 and 93.234, research misconduct is limited to:

• Fabrication– Making up data or results and recording or reporting them (in proposing, conducting, performing, reviewing, or reporting research).
• Falsification– Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented;
• Plagiarism– Appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. for proposing, conducting, performing, reviewing or reporting

Research Misconduct does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data. Research misconduct requires that the following three conditions must be all met:

• There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
• The misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
• The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e. it is more likely than not to have occurred).

Scholarly Misconduct

Scholarly misconduct involves all forms of research misconduct, as well as misrepresentation of the procedures and outcomes of research to gain some advantage. Misconduct may often be difficult to separate from error or poor judgment, from which it is distinguished by the intentions of the person(s) involved. Scholarly misconduct refers to unethical practices in the conduct, reporting, review, or funding of scholarly activities, including but not limited to federally defined research misconduct. It encompasses violations of university policies or academic standards, even when those actions fall outside the federal definition of research misconduct.

The following are examples of scholarly misconduct. Although there is no definitive and exhaustive list of examples, those outlined below may serve as guidelines in identifying scholarly misconduct.

• Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented. Example:Selectively excluding data points that contradict a desired outcome.
• Fabrication: Making up data or results and recording or reporting them as if they were real.
  Example:Inventing survey responses that were never collected.
• Plagiarism: Appropriation of another person’s ideas, methods, data, or words without proper attribution. Self‑plagiarism and authorship disputes, while serious, do not meet the federal definition of research misconduct unless they involve intentional deception. Example:Copying paragraphs from a colleague’s manuscript into your own without quotation or citation.
• Abuse of Confidentiality: Unauthorized use or disclosure of information obtained under an expectation of privacy or information given under the understanding of confidentiality, including taking ideas from documents to which access was given under rules of confidentiality, such as when reviewing grant proposals, invention disclosures, applications for scholarly prizes, or manuscripts submitted for publication. Example:Using unpublished grant proposal ideas for your own research before the PI’s work is public.
• Regulatory Violations: Failing to adhere to federal, state, local, or University rules governing research. Example:Conducting human‐subject interviews without IRB approval or deviating from the approved protocol.
• Misrepresentation in Publication: Publishing or distributing material intended to mislead readers about the origin, authenticity, or validity of data. Omitting or failing to acknowledge individuals who made significant contributions to research or manuscript preparation. Publishing or public circulation of material intended to mislead the reader, including misrepresenting data (particularly its origins) deleting the names of other authors without the latter’s consent. Example:Adding a co‑author who made no substantive contribution, or removing/omitting an author from publication.
• Violation of Research‑Related Property: Theft, misuse, or destruction of another’s research property. Example:Destroying a collaborator’s lab notebooks to conceal errors.
• Retaliation: Any adverse action against an individual who, in good faith, reports or participates in an investigation of misconduct. Any actof retaliation directed against any person who, in good faith, suspects reports, or is involved in the investigation of a misconduct allegationshall be treated as an additional allegation of misconduct and subject to the procedures in this document. Example:Denying promotion to a staff member because they filed a complaint.
• Conflict of Interest: Failing to disclose a financial or personal interest that could bias—or appear to bias—the research. Example:Not reporting stock ownership in a company whose product you’re evaluating.
• Duplicate or Redundant Publications: Republishing substantially the same data or results in multiple venues without appropriate cross‑reference. Example:Submitting identical clinical trial findings to two journals as separate studies.
• Manipulation of Peer‑Review: Attempting to influence peer review improperly, such as suggesting fake reviewers or coercing favorable citations. Example:Providing reviewers’ contact information that routes back to the author so they can submit positive reviews.
• Improper Data Management: Violations of research-related property rights, including the deliberate taking or destruction of the research-related property of others, such as data, research papers, notebooks, equipment, tangible research materials, or supplies. Failing to preserve, secure, or accurately document raw data in accordance with institutional or sponsor requirements. Example:Deleting original data files after publication rather than retaining them for the required retention period.
• Financial or Grant Misconduct: Misusing sponsored project funds or fabricating budget justifications. Example:Charging personal travel expenses to a federal grant.
• Unethical Mentoring or Supervision: Exploiting trainees or junior collaborators by withholding credit, data access, or authorship. Example:A supervisor claims sole authorship on work primarily conducted by a graduate student without acknowledgment.

Accepted practices of the relevant research community means those practices established by 42 CFR part 93 and by PHS funding components, as well as commonly accepted professional codes or norms within the overarching community of researchers and institutions that apply for and receive PHS awards.

Administrative action means an HHS action, consistent with § 93.407, taken in response to a research misconduct proceeding to protect the health and safety of the public, to promote the integrity of PHS-supported biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or research training, or to conserve public funds

Administrative record comprises: the institutional record; any information provided by the respondent to ORI, including but not limited to the transcript of any virtual or in-person meetings under § 93.403(b) between the respondent and ORI, and correspondence between the respondent and ORI; any additional information provided to ORI while the case is pending before ORI; and any analysis or additional information generated or obtained by ORI. Any analysis or additional information generated or obtained by ORI will also be made available to the respondent.

 Allegation means a disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of an institutional or HHS official.

Assessment means a consideration of whether an allegation of research misconduct appears to fall within the definition of research misconduct; appears to involve PHS-supported biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or research training; and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. The assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation.

Charge letter means the written notice, as well as any amendments to the notice, sent to the respondent stating the findings of research misconduct and any proposed HHS administrative actions.

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

Conflict of interest (COI) means the real or apparent interference of one person's interests with the interests of another person, where potential bias may occur due to prior or existing personal or professional relationships.

Contract means an acquisition instrument awarded under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 CFR chapter 1.

Credible means that the allegation is made in good faith and supported by some reliable information or evidence, either direct or circumstantial, such that a reasonable person could conclude the allegation merits further review.

Day means calendar day unless otherwise specified. If a deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the deadline will be extended to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday.

Departmental Appeals Board or DAB means the organization, within the HHS Office of the Secretary, established to conduct hearings and provide impartial review of disputed decisions made by HHS operating components.

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

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.

Funding component means any organizational unit of the PHS authorized to award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements for any activity covered by this part involving research or research training; funding components may be agencies, bureaus, centers, institutes, divisions, offices, or other awarding units within the PHS.

• 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.
• 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 this part. 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.

Honest error means a mistake made in good faith.

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

Investigation means the formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if misconduct has occurred, and, if so, to determine the responsible person and the seriousness of the misconduct.

Inquiry means preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding. 

Institution means any person that applies for or receives PHS support for any activity or program that involves the conduct of biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or training. This includes, but is not limited to, colleges and universities, PHS intramural biomedical or behavioral research laboratories, research and development centers, national user facilities, industrial laboratories or other research institutes, research institutions, and independent researchers.

Institutional Certifying Official means the institutional official responsible for assuring on behalf of an institution that the institution has written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct, in compliance with this part; and complies with its own policies and procedures and the requirements of this part. The Institutional Certifying Official is responsible for certifying the content of the institution’s annual report, which contains information specified by ORI on the institution’s compliance with this part, and ensuring the report is submitted to ORI, as required.

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.

Institutional member or members means 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.

The institutional record comprises:

• The records that the institution compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the institution did not consider or rely on. These records include, but are not limited to:
  • Documentation of the assessment as required by § 93.306(c).
  • If an inquiry is conducted, the inquiry report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the inquiry, including, but not limited to, research records and the transcripts of any transcribed interviews conducted during the inquiry, information the respondent provided to the institution, and the documentation of any decision not to investigate as required by § 93.309(c).
  • If an investigation is conducted, the investigation report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the investigation, including, but not limited to, research records, the transcripts of each interview conducted pursuant to § 93.310(g), and information the respondent provided to the institution.
  • Decision(s) by the Institutional Deciding Official, such as the written decision from the Institutional Deciding Official under § 93.314.
  • The complete record of any institutional appeal consistent with § 93.315.
• A single index listing all the research records and evidence that the institution compiled during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the institution did not consider or rely on.
• A general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.

Knowingly means to act with awareness of the act.

Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit.

Recklessly means to act without proper caution despite a known risk for harm.

Research Integrity means the practice of conducting research in a way that promotes trust and confidence in all aspects of science.

Research Integrity Officer is the institutional official responsible for assessing allegations of research misconduct, determining when such allegations warrant further inquiry and for overseeing inquiries and investigations.

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 and include, but are not limited to,  raw data, processed data, clinical research records, grant or contract applications, grant or contract progress and other reports; laboratory notebooks; notes; correspondence; videos; photographs; X-ray film; slides; biological materials; manuscripts and publications; equipment use logs; laboratory procurement records; animal facility records; human and animal subject protocols; consent forms; medical charts; and patient research files.

Respondent means the person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or the person whose actions are the subject of the inquiry or investigation. There can be more than one respondent in any inquiry or investigation.

Retaliation means any action that adversely affects the employment or other institutional status of an individual that is taken by an institution or an employee because the individual has in good faith, made an allegation of research misconduct or of inadequate institutional response thereto or has cooperated in good faith with an investigation of such allegation.

Research Misconduct means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data.

Scholarly Activity is to be broadly construed to include all activities of UMassD performed by any person paid by, under the control of, or affiliated with the institution, such as scientists, trainees, technicians and other staff members, students, fellows, guest researchers, or collaborators performing or contributing to research.

Scholarly Misconduct includes all forms of Research Misconduct as well as misrepresentation and other practice that seriously deviate from practices commonly within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. Scholarly Misconduct may take many forms, including, but not limited to, abuse of confidentiality/Misappropriation of Ideas; Deliberate Misrepresentation of Qualifications; Deliberate Material Failure to Comply with Federal, State, or University Requirements Affecting Research; and Violation of Generally Accepted Research Practices.

Substance means that the allegation includes sufficient detail and factual basis to suggest that the alleged misconduct, if proven, would constitute a significant deviation from accepted research practices. It implies the allegation is not frivolous or trivial.

Workforce Member means faculty, staff, interns, volunteers, contractors, collaborators, and students engaged with all UMass schools, departments, centers and business units.

Whistleblower means a person who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct.