Principals

Time is of the essence in responding to an allegation of misconduct. Deadlines cited in these procedures are required by federal statute(s) andregulation(s). They are intended to serve as the outside limits within which actions must occur. All persons responsible for administering these procedures shall meet all deadlines. Failure to meet a deadline does not automatically invalidate proceedings, but the complainant or respondent must demonstrate actual prejudice before any action is stayed or dismissed.

A complainant has 60 calendar days after discovery of the alleged misconduct to submit a written complaint to the RIO and CRO. Underspecific circumstances, the RIO or CRO, may waive or extend the deadlines for good cause. In such cases, administrators shall document in writing the reasoning for any extension; such documentation shall be retained with the relevant record or file.

A complainant may withdraw their complaint only with the respondent’s written consent. However, if federal regulations require continuation to the inquiry or investigation phase, the institution will proceed regardless of withdrawal.

Once submitted, a formal compliant should be assessed within 7 calendar days.

Once qualified, an inquiry report should be completed within 60 calendar days.

For non-DOT/USDA/NASA funded research, applicable federal regulations governing research misconduct shall prevail and the inquiry and report shall be completed within 90 calendar days of initiation.

Once the RMIC determines an alleged misconduct warrants a formal investigation, the CRO shall, within 5 business days, empanel a Hearing Panel to conduct an investigation. 

Unless otherwise agreed upon, a closed hearing will be convened within 10 business days after the Hearing Panel has been empaneled.

The entire investigation—including hearings, report drafting, response period, and submission of the final report to any sponsoring agency—must be completed within 120 calendar days.

For non-DOT/USDA/NASA funded research, applicable federal regulations governing research misconduct shall prevail and the investigation and report shall be completed within 180 calendar days of initiation.

All requested for extensions must be reported, justified, and approved in advance by the CRO.

If a respondent fails to answer charges or appear at a hearing, the Vice Chancellor responsible for their appointment will be notified by the CRO. A respondent’s silence or absence will not prevent this process from proceeding. The process will proceed in absentia—reliance on the complainant’s evidence alone is permitted—and non‑response itself constitutes a breach of institutional employee's or graduate student's responsibilities. Throughout the various components of the procedures described below, if a respondent fails to respond to a request for information or to participate in a process, the CRO shall notify the Provost of that fact and the Provost shall take appropriate action in accordance with the policies of the University of Massachusetts. Furthermore, a respondent shall not prevent the procedures described below from proceeding by his or her silence or absence, or by termination of employment, or by resignation of his or her position. Failure to participate may result in the process proceeding to a conclusion solely based on the complainant’s testimony and evidence.

Justice requires that the legal rights, as well as the right of academic freedom, of both the complainant— the individual alleging misconduct, and the respondent(s)—the person(s) alleged to have engaged in misconduct, and any other parties affected by alleged misconduct, includingresearch subjects, and students, be protected. The UMassD will make every effort to protect these rights and will undertake to prevent any action that threatens or compromises them.

Subject to federal statutory and regulatory disclosure requirements, the disclosure of the identity of respondents and complainants in misconduct proceedings is limited, to the extent possible, to those who need to know. In particular, confidentiality shall be maintained for any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified. All those who are involved in any aspect of the proceedings described in these procedures shall protect the privacy and confidentiality of both the complainant and the respondent(s) to the maximum extent possible.

The UMassD shall xnot penalize any individual—complainant, respondent, witness, administrator, faculty, student, or staff—for their participation in the procedures described below. Throughout the entire misconduct procedure, reasonable and practical efforts are taken to alleviate any diminution of the reputation(s) of the respondent(s) and to alleviate any diminution of the reputation of the complainant who has in good faith made the allegation of misconduct, and to protect against and counter any potential or actual retaliation against the complainant. Retaliation is any adverse action taken against an individual because they reported misconduct, cooperated with an investigation, or otherwise participated in these procedures. Examples include threats, demotion, denial of promotion, or exclusion from professional opportunities. Complaints of retaliation should be addressed to the CRO who may consult with Human Resources (HR) and shall advise the injured party of his or her rights in the matter. Any act of retaliation, once alleged, will be treated as an additional allegation of misconduct and processed through the full inquiry and investigation procedures set forth in this document. Retaliation findings may also trigger disciplinary action under other University policies (e.g., employee or student conduct codes).

If it is determined that allegations of misconduct were made under malicious or dishonest circumstances, or with reckless or willful ignorance offacts that would disprove the allegation, the provost shall bring appropriate action against the persons involved consistent with personnel policies of the University of Massachusetts and with collective bargaining agreements in force at the time.

All members of the UMassD community are expected to give their full and continuing cooperation with Federal authorities during any investigatory reviews or any subsequent hearings or appeals under which the respondent(s) may contest Federal agency findings of research misconduct and proposed administrative actions. This includes providing, as necessary to develop a complete record of relevant evidence, allresearch records and evidence under the campus’ control or custody, or in the possession of, or accessible to, any persons within its authority. Allpersons shall also assist, as necessary, in administering and enforcing any Federal administrative actions imposed on any institutional members.

The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) shall establish and maintain a secure, centralized record for each research-misconduct proceeding. Such records shall be retained for a minimum of seven (7) years following the later of (a) the date of final resolution of the proceeding or (b) the conclusion of any related review by a federal or sponsoring agency. Each case file shall include, at a minimum:

• Final reports and attachments: All inquiry, investigation, and hearing reports, together with any appendices.
• Research records and evidence: All data, materials, and sequestered items reviewed, including a complete chain-of-custody log for collection, transfer, and access.
• Interview and hearing records: Transcripts or recordings of all interviews, committee deliberations, and hearing proceedings.
• Other documentation: All correspondence, notifications, extension requests and approvals, objections, and formal decisions.

Access to these records shall be strictly limited to the RIO, CRO, Provost, and such other individuals as the RIO explicitly authorizes. A detailed audit log shall document all record access and modifications. Physical records shall be stored in locked, access-controlled facilities; electronic records shall be encrypted in transit and at rest, backed up in accordance with the University’s disaster-recovery protocols, and stored off-site or within a secure, enterprise-grade cloud environment. Upon request by a federal or sponsoring agency (e.g., ORI, NSF) or other authorized oversight body, the RIO shall furnish copies of the case file, including any sequestered evidence or physical objects, in compliance with applicable regulations. Records may be released to the agency having custody only upon formal transfer or upon receipt of written notification that retention is no longer required. At the expiration of the seven-year retention period, and absent written instruction from an external agency to the contrary, the RIO shall oversee the secure destruction or archival of all case records in accordance with the University’s records-disposition policy. All recordkeeping activities shall conform to applicable privacy and confidentiality laws (e.g., FERPA, HIPAA) and University confidentiality standards. The RIO shall ensure that any federal or sponsoring agency is provided with such information, documentation, or clarification as may be necessary to conduct its review of a research-misconduct allegation or of the institution’s implementation of these procedures.