Faculty Policy Series #41

Policy for Dealing with and Reporting Possible Misconduct in Research

 

  1.  Basic Policy

    1. Governing Regulation
      This policy statement and the rules and regulations it promulgates are intended to comply with the Code of Federal Regulations at 42 CFR Part 93. As required by 42 CFR Part 93, institutions that receive or apply for Public Health Service support must maintain an assurance of compliance and administrative policies and procedures for responding to allegations of research misconduct and must comply with the requirements of 42 CFR Part 93.

      This Policy applies to all research conducted under the auspices of the University, regardless of funding source. All research conducted at Hofstra shall be governed by the procedures and requirements of 42 CFR Part 93. To the extent that there is any conflict between this policy and 42 CFR Part 93, the provisions of the CFR will control.

      This Policy applies to all personnel (faculty, staff, students, contractors, visitors, and collaborators) engaged in research or projects conducted under the auspices of Hofstra University whether the research is conducted on or off campus.

    2. Definition of Misconduct

      A finding of research misconduct requires that:

      1. there be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community;
      2. the misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
      3. the allegation be proven by a preponderance of evidence.

      Research misconduct does not include honest error or honest differences of opinion.

    3. Research Integrity Officer (RIO)
      The University designates a Research Integrity Officer (RIO) who is responsible for the administration of this Policy and for ensuring institutional compliance with 42 CFR Part 93. The Senior Vice Provost for Research and Creative Activities is designated as the RIO.

      The responsibilities of the RIO include receiving and assessing allegations of research misconduct; determining whether allegations fall within the scope of this Policy and applicable federal regulations; securing and sequestering research records and evidence; overseeing inquiries and investigations; ensuring required notifications and communications with the Federal Office of Research Integrity (ORI); and maintaining required records related to research misconduct proceedings.

    4. Institutional Deciding Official (DO)
      The senior institutional official who makes or affirms the institution’s final findings of research misconduct and determines the appropriate institutional administrative actions. The Deciding Official is not the Research Integrity Officer and has no direct involvement in the inquiry or investigation. The Provost is designated as the DO.

  2. Allegations and Procedures

    1. Assessment of Allegations
      A disclosure of possible research misconduct (“allegation”) may be made by any individual and shall be directed to the Research Integrity Officer (RIO). Allegations may be made through any mode of communication. Upon receipt of an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO or another official designated by the RIO shall promptly conduct an assessment to determine whether the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct under this Policy, is within the jurisdiction of the University and applicable federal regulations, and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified.

      The assessment shall be completed promptly and does not require a formal committee process. If the RIO determines that the requirements for an inquiry are met, they shall document the assessment, promptly sequester all research records and other evidence per the PHS regulation, and promptly initiate the Inquiry. If the RIO determines that the requirements for an inquiry are not met, they will keep sufficiently detailed documentation of the assessment to permit a later review by ORI of the reasons why Hofstra University did not conduct an inquiry.

    2. Sequestration of Evidence
      Upon receipt of an allegation that meets the assessment criteria, the RIO shall promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of and sequester all relevant research records and evidence, including electronic records.

    3. Confidentiality
      The University shall take reasonable and practical steps to protect the confidentiality of research misconduct proceedings.

      Disclosure of information related to allegations, assessments, inquiries, or investigations shall be limited to individuals who have a legitimate need to know, consistent with applicable law and federal regulations. Those who need to know may include institutional review boards, funding agencies, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions.

    4. Protection Against Retaliation
      The University prohibits retaliation against any individual who, in good faith, makes an allegation of research misconduct, cooperates with an assessment, inquiry, or investigation, or participates as a witness in proceedings conducted under this Policy. Allegations of retaliation shall be reviewed and addressed promptly and may result in disciplinary action independent of the outcome of the underlying research misconduct allegation.

    5. Inquiry
      The University shall conduct an Inquiry to determine whether an Investigation is warranted. The Inquiry shall be completed within ninety (90) calendar days unless an extension is documented for good cause.

    6. Investigation
      If the Inquiry determines that an Investigation is warranted, the University shall initiate an Investigation. The Investigation shall be completed within one hundred eighty (180) calendar days, including the opportunity for the respondent to review and comment on the draft Investigation Report.

      The respondent shall have the right to obtain transcripts or verbatim records of Investigation interviews.

    7. Standard of Proof
      Findings of research misconduct shall be made using a preponderance of the evidence standard.

  3. Disciplinary Proceedings

    Upon completion of the Investigation and issuance of an institutional finding by the RIO and affirmation of that finding by the DO, matters in which research misconduct is found shall proceed to the Senate Grievance Committee.

    1. Disciplinary action shall be governed by the procedures established in this Faculty Policy.

    2. Proceedings for disciplinary action shall be initiated by a statement in writing from the Institutional Deciding Official, which shall state:

      1. the information, facts or allegations in the possession of the Institutional Deciding Official, which, if true, could constitute possible misconduct in research;
      2. which facts and allegations on which the Institutional Deciding Official relies are grounds for disciplinary action;
      3. that the University proposes to refer the matter to a committee pursuant to this Faculty Policy.

    3. Except as otherwise provided, the statement described in III-B, and all other information relating to the charge of misconduct, shall be held confidential by the Institutional Deciding Official’s office. Nothing herein shall prohibit the communication of its contents to a person consulted for legal advice by the parties involved.

    4. The statement required by III-B shall be sent to the person who is the subject of possible disciplinary action for misconduct in research, together with a copy of this Faculty Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, and any other notices or information required to be sent to the person charged.

    5. The Institutional Deciding Official shall discuss the matter of potential disciplinary action with the person charged in a personal conference.

      The Institutional Deciding Official may, and upon the request of the person charged shall, provide the person with information concerning the charges contained in the III-B letter, including sources of information, so as to enable the person to respond to the charges and to make an informed decision as to the person’s course of action. The Institutional Deciding Official and the person charged may each select an additional person to be present at the conference. The matter may be terminated by mutual consent of the Institutional Deciding Official and the person charged at this stage (or at any stage of the proceeding) subject to the conditions agreed to by the person charged and the University. At the faculty member’s request, notice of such termination will be transmitted to the Board of Trustees.

    6. In the event there is no agreement to conclude the matter and the University believes that further proceedings are warranted, the Institutional Deciding Official shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of III-G.

    7. The Institutional Deciding Official will forward to the Speaker of the Faculty, to the Chair of the University Senate Executive Committee, to the Chair of the Senate Grievance Committee, and to the Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee and to the person charged:

      1. a copy of the statement required by III-B; and
      2. any additional statement or information which modifies the content of the III-B statement.

  4. The Senate Grievance Committee

    1. The first duty of the Senate Grievance Committee will be to seek informally a resolution of the matter agreeable to the person charged and the University. If this cannot be accomplished expeditiously, the committee will so advise the Institutional Deciding Official.

    2. Upon being so advised, the Institutional Deciding Official shall, within five (5) business days after receiving the notice from the Senate Grievance Committee under IV-A, provide both the person charged and the Committee with a written specification of the charges, together with copies of all evidentiary documents, including witnesses’ statements and summaries of statements in the Institutional Deciding Official’s possession. Reference will be made to appropriate statutes, policies, bylaws, laws, ordinances, or other rules or regulations and standards which the Institutional Deciding Official alleges were violated. The Institutional Deciding Official also will provide, in writing, a statement of the action the Institutional Deciding Official contemplates taking, subject to modification upon receipt of the Committee’s report.

    3. Within five (5) business days of receiving the charges and specifications under IV-B, the Committee shall set a date and time for a formal hearing. The Committee shall serve written notice of the time and place of the formal hearing simultaneously on the person charged and on the University at least twenty (20) days prior to the scheduled hearing date unless a lesser time is agreed to in writing by the Institutional Deciding Official and person charged. In setting the date for the hearing, the committee shall afford the person charged sufficient and reasonable time to prepare a defense. Prior to the formal hearings and insofar as it is possible, the Committee will determine the schedule, agenda and rules (consistent with the provisions of this Faculty Policy) which will govern its proceedings.

    4. The person charged also will be advised by the Committee in writing, accompanying the notice of hearing, of the following rights: to address the Committee; to present evidence; to examine and cross-examine witnesses; and to be represented by legal counsel, at their own expense, or an academic adviser or consultant. The Committee also will inform the person charged and the Institutional Deciding Official in writing of the schedule, agenda and rules. The faculty member shall inform the committee in writing within ten (10) business days of receiving the notice of hearing whether they wish to appear and address the Committee. Appearance before the Committee is the person’s unqualified right, and they also have the right to respond in writing to the Institutional Deciding Official’s allegations prior to the date of the formal hearing. The Institutional Deciding Official may designate a representative to present the evidence concerning the charges to the Committee.

    5. The decision whether all or part of the hearings will be private and confidential or whether they will be open to other members of the University community will be made by the Committee after consultation with the person charged and with the Institutional Deciding Official. In making its determination as to whether or not the proceedings shall be open, in the absence of good cause, the Committee ordinarily should honor the preference of the individual who is the subject of the proceeding. Nothing herein shall preclude the Committee from limiting attendance or closing the hearing in the interest of maintaining good order.

    6. The Committee shall have full access to all information in the University’s possession or control pertaining to the case under consideration. In an expeditious manner, the Committee will attempt to augment and refine its understanding of the factual basis of the case. The Committee may question witnesses and will, if necessary, secure relevant evidence.

      The person charged shall have the procedural rights set forth in the 1940 Statement of Principles of Academic Freedom and Tenure, as amended, and shall have the aid of the Committee, when needed, in securing the attendance of witnesses and obtaining evidence.

      The person charged or their representative and the Institutional Deciding Official or their representative shall have the right, within reasonable limits as determined by the Committee, to question all witnesses who testify orally. The person charged ordinarily shall have the opportunity to confront personally all witnesses, but where the Committee determines there are unusual and compelling reasons to withhold this right or in cases in which the witness(es) cannot appear, the Committee may receive written statements from witnesses, but the identity of the witnesses and their statements shall be disclosed to the person charged. They or their representative has the right to present their position orally or in writing. The Committee is not bound by the rules of evidence but may receive and consider any probative evidence and shall be the sole judge of the weight to be given the evidence.

    7. Every person shall be presumed innocent of the charges against them and shall be presumed capable of fulfilling their professional obligations properly unless and until the contrary is established by a preponderance of evidence based on the record as a whole.

    8. Upon their request, the person charged shall be provided with a recording or other verbatim record of the proceedings (exclusive of deliberations) at the end of each day and a copy of every document received or offered in evidence at the time it is offered in evidence.

  5. Recommendations and Findings: Action

    1. Before commencing its deliberations after the hearing, the Committee shall afford both the person charged or their counsel and the Institutional Deciding Official or their representative an opportunity to present oral argument. The parties may submit written argument in lieu of, or in addition to, oral argument and the Committee may request the submission of written argument.
    2. The Committee shall deliberate in closed session and make its findings and recommendations solely on the evidence adduced at the hearing.
    3. If additional material, facts or expert opinions become available after the conclusion of the hearing and prior to the time the Committee has sent its written findings and recommendation, the Committee chair shall be advised of the availability of such evidence and the chair shall so advise the Committee. The Committee may determine to proceed with its deliberations without receiving or considering the additional evidence or to reconvene the hearing to receive and consider the additional evidence subject to the same conditions and requirements applicable to the hearing when originally convened.
    4. On each of the written specifications required by IV-B the Committee shall make specific written findings and recommendations which the Institutional Deciding Official will transmit to the Board of Trustees. A statement of reasons also will be provided. The Committee will hold in confidence its deliberations, the recommendation and the statement of reasons.
    5. The Committee will make its recommendation in a timely manner, allowing the Institutional Deciding Official and the Board to fulfill their responsibilities to all members of the University community, including the individual under consideration. The committee shall make a full report and recommendation which the Institutional Deciding Official will transmit to the Board and to the person charged.
    6. If the Committee concludes that the burden for establishing adequate cause for disciplinary action has not been sustained, it will recommend that no disciplinary action be taken. The Institutional Deciding Official will transmit the recommendations to the Board and to the person charged.
    7. If the Committee finds that the burden for establishing adequate cause for disciplinary action has been sustained, it shall recommend to the Board with notice to the Institutional Deciding Official:
      1. That the person charged be dismissed from University service;
        or
      2. that the person charged be suspended from University service without compensation, but subject to future review, modification, or rescission as future circumstances warrant;
        or
      3. that the person charged be suspended from University service with compensation, but subject to review, modification, or rescission, as future circumstances warrant;
        or
      4. that the person charged be assigned to other professional duties;
        or
      5. that some lesser action specified by Committee is warranted;
        or
      6. that a decision on disciplinary action be delayed until additional factual material or expert opinion is received, specifying the nature of the additional material;
        or
      7. that no disciplinary action be taken.
    8. Acceptance of the faculty hearing Committee’s decision would normally be expected. If the Board chooses to review the case, its review should be based on the record of the previous hearing, accompanied by opportunity for arguments, oral or written or both, by the principals at the hearing or their representatives. The decision of the Committee should either be sustained or the proceeding be returned to the Committee with objections specified. In such a case the Committee should reconsider, taking account of the stated objections and receiving new evidence if necessary. It should frame its decision and communicate it in a timely manner to the Board, the Institutional Deciding Official and the person charged. Only after study of the Committee’s reconsideration should the Board of Trustees make a final decision overruling the Committee. In no event shall action taken against the person charged involve a penalty greater than the Institutional Deciding Official contemplated imposing as stated in the specifications required by IV.B.

  6. Resignation by Person Charged

    After the commencement of disciplinary proceedings pursuant to III of this Faculty Policy, an individual’s resignation of their position shall not preclude the prosecution of the proceeding to its conclusion unless the University and the individual agree in writing that no further action shall be taken by the University. An agreement that no further action be taken by the University may include additional terms and conditions agreeable to both parties, including, but not limited to, an acknowledgement by the individual that they engaged in misconduct which may, or may not, be specified in the written agreement of resignation

  7. Claims Against the Senate Grievance Committee or Its Members

    With respect to any claims against the Committee or members of the Committee arising from action by the Committee or actions by members of the Committee as members of the Committee, the Committee and its members will be covered by the University in the same manner as the Institutional Deciding Official under University policies concerning the defense of any lawsuits or any other claims arising from their acts as agents and representatives of the University.

  8. ORI Cooperation and Record Retention

    The Research Integrity Officer shall notify the Federal Office of Research Integrity (ORI) at all stages required by federal regulation, including initiation and completion of Investigations and final institutional findings. The University shall cooperate with ORI during any research misconduct proceeding or compliance review, including addressing deficiencies or additional allegations in the institutional record if directed by ORI and to assist in administering and enforcing any HHS administrative actions imposed on institutional members.

    The Research Integrity Officer shall notify ORI immediately if, at any time during an Assessment, Inquiry, or Investigation, the University has reason to believe that there is an immediate threat to public health or safety, federal resources are at risk, research activities should be suspended, there is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violations, or immediate action is required to protect human subjects or animal welfare.

    The University shall maintain the institutional record and all records related to research misconduct proceedings for at least seven (7) years following final resolution.

DOWNLOAD PRINTABLE PDF

FPS #41
(rev. 2026)