Responsibilities

All members of the UMassD community—faculty, staff, students, trainees, and affiliates—have a shared obligation to report in good faith observed, suspected, or apparent research misconduct, or any activity that may constitute research misconduct. It is not necessary that someone filing a complaint be directly affected negatively by the alleged actions; it is sufficient that the complainant believe in good faith that misconduct has occurred. Formal research misconduct allegation must be reported in writing within 60 days of the date of the complainant discovering the alleged research misconduct. Informal requests for guidance about whether suspected misconduct meets the definition of research misconduct are encouraged and shall be directed to the Research Integrity Officer or other administrators (e.g., Director of the Institutional Compliance and Ethics, Chief Research Officer, Dean of a college or school, Provost, or another senior administrator), and will not, in itself, be construed as an allegation of research misconduct that invokes these procedures. Because an informal request for guidance is notan allegation, it does not stop the 60 day required reporting deadline for allegations of research misconduct. The University is committed to protecting the identity of any person who reports possible or suspected misconduct to the fullest extent consistent with the objective, fair, and expeditious handling of the allegation. Good-faith reporters and those who cooperate in inquiries or investigations are shielded from reprisals. Moreover, all community members are required to cooperate fully with any inquiry or investigation, including providing documents, records, testimony, and other information as requested, and to maintain confidentiality regarding the proceedings.

All individuals participating in research and scholarly activities at UMassD—including faculty, staff, students, trainees, and administrators—must uphold the highest professional, ethical, and legal standards. Although collaborative relationships between investigators are based on trust, joint review of research procedures, data, reports, and publications is a shared responsibility of all members of the research team, even whenlong-distance collaboration necessitates unique review procedures. In particular, principal investigators (PIs) and faculty researchers, bear an increased level of responsibility for members of their research groups:

• Ensure the highest possible professional, ethical, and legal standards in the conduct of research and scholarly activity are communicated to and maintained by all who work under their supervision, directly or indirectly.
• Ensure the accuracy and validity of all information communicated by their research group by overseeing the collection, analysis, and reporting of data to guarantee accuracy, validity, and reproducibility.
• Ensure the correct citation of contributions from those within and outside each research group by citing contributions from colleagues—both within and outside the research group—appropriately. Assign authorship and acknowledgments based on substantial intellectual contribution and accountability for the work reported. Ensure the assignment of co-authorship based upon scientific involvement and responsibility forthe work reported.
• Provide adequate training, supervision, and resources so every team member can conduct research responsibly.
• Maintain complete, accurate, and secure research records (e.g., notebooks, data files, protocols) in accordance with institutional and sponsor requirements.

The complainant is the individual who brings the research misconduct allegation to the attention of the Chief Research Officer (CRO). Typically, this is the individual who was directly affected by or who observed the alleged misconduct and who signs the written complaint. If the allegation is anonymous, or if no identifiable complainant exists (such as in cases involving general institutional risk or where no specific victim is involved), the CRO will prepare and sign the complaint. In either case, the signatory of the written complaint is considered the complainant for the purposes of the research misconduct proceedings. The complainant has the right to participate in the inquiry, investigation, and hearing process. This includes the right to testify, submit relevant evidence, and review—consistent with applicable privacy laws—those portions of reports that pertain directly to their testimony or allegations. During a hearing, the complainant may make a brief opening and closing statement, present evidence first, and question witnesses through the Hearing Panel. After the hearing, the complainant may submit written comments on the draft report within ten (10) business days, provided they notify the Presiding Officer of their intent to do so within two (2) business days. These comments will be appended to the final report and considered by the Hearing Panel and the CRO before the final determination. The complainant may be accompanied by up to two advisors, including legal counsel, during meetings and the hearing, though advisors may not address the Hearing Panel directly. Union-represented individuals may request union representation. If no such request is made, the relevant union will be notified of the hearing and may assign an observer. The complainant may also request a pre-hearing meeting with the Presiding Officer to clarify procedural expectations and narrow the scope of the issues. The complainant is responsible for submitting allegations in good faith, maintaining confidentiality, cooperating fully with all phases of the process, and refraining from any attempts to interfere with or retaliate against others involved in the proceedings.

Witnesses are individuals who provide factual and contextual testimony relevant to the inquiry, investigation, or hearing. Witnesses may be interviewed during the preliminary phases and may be called to testify at the hearing. Witnesses have the right to review their own statements or transcripts for accuracy and to request corrections where necessary. During the hearing, witnesses may be questioned by the complainant, respondent, and Hearing Panel members, though cross-examination occurs through the panel rather than directly. Witnesses may be accompanied by an advisor, including legal counsel, but the advisor may not speak on the witness’s behalf or participate directly in the proceeding. If a witness is represented by a union, they may request union representation. If no request is made, the union may still assign an observer to attend. Witnesses are responsible for cooperating fully with all components of the process, including responding to requests for documents and testimony. They must provide truthful and timely information and must not disclose confidential information learned during the proceedings. Failure to cooperate or to respect confidentiality may result in disciplinary action or referral to other University processes.

The Director of Institutional Ethics and Compliance at UMass Dartmouth serves as the Research Integrity Officer (RIO).  As the central administrator for all allegations of research or scholarly misconduct, the RIO serves as the Institutional Certifying Official responsible for ensuring the University has appropriate written policies and procedures for addressing allegations, complies with these policies and applicable regulatory requirements, and certifies the institution’s annual report on research misconduct compliance as required by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and other sponsors. The RIO’s primary duties include:

• Accept all formal and informal reports of suspected misconduct. Conduct an initial assessment within 7 calendar days of receipt to determine whether the allegation falls within the scope of this policy and whether it merits an inquiry.
• Notify the respondent in writing of the allegation and provide a copy of these procedures once an inquiry is authorized. Fully safeguarding the confidentiality of all parties consistent with a fair and thorough proceeding.
• Upon an inquiry finding that an investigation is warranted, notify the respondent and relevant institutional officials. Keeping complainants and respondents reasonably informed of inquiry and investigation status, while preserving confidentiality.
• Appointing impartial inquiry and investigation committees, ensuring participants disclose conflicts of interest, share appropriate expertise to conduct a thorough and authoritative evaluation of the relevant evidence, and that reports are completed within required timeframes.
• Coordinating timely interviews, evidence review, and preparation of materials to assist the Deciding Official, ensuring compliance with institutional and federal policies.
• Consulting with the Chief Research Officer (CRO) and legal counsel as necessary to determine if notification to external funding agencies or regulatory bodies (such as ORI for PHS-supported research) is required and submitting all required reports within mandated deadlines.
• Preparing and submitting an institutional summary of misconduct cases (while preserving confidentiality) to the Chief Research Officer for inclusion in compliance reports to federal sponsors.
• Maintaining secure, centralized case files—including evidence, correspondence, minutes, and extension justifications—with retention for a minimum of seven (7) years or longer as required.
• Managing procedural aspects of any appeals or reconsideration requests in accordance with University policy.
• Facilitating education and training on Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) and these procedures for faculty, staff, and students; serving as a confidential resource for informal inquiries on ethical research practices.
• Coordinating with Human Resources, Legal Counsel, Student Affairs, and other offices to address employment, disciplinary, or academic matters arising separately from research misconduct findings.
• Reviewing completed cases to identify institutional trends, improve procedures, and address training needs to strengthen research integrity culture.
• Ensuring compliance with all applicable reporting requirements to external agencies, including state and private sponsors as appropriate.

The Chief Research Officer (CRO) at UMass Dartmouth serves as the Institutional Official with ultimate authority and accountability for the University’s research enterprise. As Institutional Official, the CRO endorses and promulgates the Board of Trustees Policy on Responsible Conduct of Research and Scholarly Activities, ensures that adequate resources and personnel (including the Director of Institutional Ethics and Compliance as RIO) are in place to administer misconduct procedures, and provides high-level oversight of all inquiries and investigations.  Upon receipt of a formal allegation of research misconduct, the CRO shall, within seven (7) days, refer the matter to the Research Misconduct Investigatory Committee (RMIC) to conduct an inquiry. If an investigation is warranted, the CRO shall, within five (5) business days, empanel a Hearing Panel to conduct the investigation. The CRO reviews objections raised by complainants or respondents regarding potential bias of any Hearing Panel member and decides whether to replace members accordingly. Prior to the hearing, the CRO facilitates meetings between the complainant, respondent(s), and the Presiding Officer to clarify allegations, identify areas of agreement or dispute, and determine whether the respondent admits or challenges the allegations, with the goal of streamlining the hearing process. Throughout the process, the CRO collaborates with the RIO and other institutional leaders, including Deans and the Provost, to ensure fairness, impartiality, and respect, and to minimize reputational harm to all parties involved. The CRO and RIO jointly ensure compliance with all applicable federal and state laws, reporting requirements, and institutional policies. When research misconduct allegations involve federally funded projects, the CRO takes all necessary steps to notify appropriate oversight agencies (e.g., ORI, NSF, NIH) in a timely manner to safeguard public interests. The CRO communicates with senior University leadership regarding patterns of research misconduct, training needs, policy updates, and related issues, and promotes a campus-wide culture of research integrity. The CRO reviews and approves any extensions of federal deadlines recommended by the RIO, signs off on final investigation reports and the University’s response to external agencies, and certifies institutional compliance to sponsors (e.g., ORI, NSF).

The Deciding Official is typically the Provost (or their designee) and holds ultimate institutional authority for determining whether research or scholarly misconduct has occurred and for deciding what corrective or administrative actions, if any, are warranted. The individual designated as Deciding Official must be organizationally separate from the RIO to preserve objectivity and avoid conflicts of interest. The Deciding Official receives the final inquiry and/or investigation report, along with any written comments submitted by the complainant or respondent on the draft investigation report. The Deciding Official will consult with the RIO and the CRO as needed to evaluate the factual findings and procedural sufficiency of the process. Based on the evidence and findings, the Deciding Official will determine:

• Whether to accept the investigation report as final;
• Whether to initiate additional investigation or clarification;
• Whether misconduct occurred under applicable definitions;
• What institutional sanctions or corrective actions, if any, should be imposed.

In reaching a decision, the Deciding Official is responsible for ensuring that the institutional response is fair, consistent with University policy and applicable federal regulations, and protective of the integrity of the research enterprise. The decision and any actions taken will be communicated in writing to all relevant parties, including the respondent, the complainant (as appropriate under confidentiality rules), and any applicable oversight bodies.