(Note: OLPM sections on this page may be cited following the format of, for example, "UNH.II.C.1.1". These policies may be amended at any time, do not constitute an employment contract, and are provided here only for ease of reference and without any warranty of accuracy. See OLPM Main Menu for details.)
1. Introduction and Guiding Principles
1.1 One of the University of New Hampshire's (UNH) primary missions is to support the creation and dissemination of knowledge. The UNH community must hold itself accountable for the conduct of any scholarly activity undertaken in fulfillment of this mission. In particular, all members of the community are expected to conduct themselves and exercise appropriate supervision of those under their direction so as to ensure the integrity of the scholarly process. The UNH community's obligations in this regard should be seen as part of higher education's responsibility to promote and sustain public confidence in the value of scholarly inquiry. Several key principles inform the policy and procedures set forth below.
1.2 First, the reputation of UNH and the reputations of its scholars are equally vital to the scholarly mission of UNH; and actions that might jeopardize this scholarly mission should not be tolerated.
1.3 Second, in the event of an allegation of scholarly misconduct, the confidentiality of all parties involved should be maintained to an extent consistent with UNH's obligations to inform the scholarly community in a timely way and, if such is the case, any sponsoring agency.
1.4 Third, each party involved should have an equal chance to present its case; in particular, the subject of any allegation of scholarly misconduct should have the opportunity to respond to the complainant's allegations during the proceedings.
1.5 Fourth, decisions and actions taken during the proceedings should be based on the best and most accurate information and evidence available, and vigorous effort should be made to obtain such material consistent with the concerns for confidentiality engendered in this policy.
1.6 Fifth, all information and evidence gathered, including oral and/or written testimony, should be subjected to the impartial judgment of individuals possessing the relevant expertise, with the "preponderance of the evidence standard" applied as the measure of proof during an investigation.
2. Definitions
2.1 Allegation: A disclosure of possible scholarly misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of a UNH official.
2.2 Administrative Record: For activities supported by the Public Health Service (PHS), the administrative record is described in 42 CFR 93.202.
2.3 Assessment: A consideration of whether an allegation of scholarly misconduct appears to fall within the definition of scholarly misconduct and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of scholarly misconduct may be identified. The assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation.
2.4 Complainant: An individual who makes an allegation of scholarly misconduct.
2.5 Conflict of interest: The real or apparent interference of one individual's interests with the interests of another individual, where potential bias may occur due to prior or existing personal or professional relationships, including financial connections. Members of an investigation team are not deemed to have a conflict of interest solely because of their role at UNH and the relationship that such role creates with the respondent or the complainant (e.g., a college Dean is not deemed to have a conflict merely because they are the Dean of the college of a respondent who is a faculty member). Examples of problem situations include having:
2.5.1 A family relationship with the respondent or complainant;
2.5.2 A professional relationship with the respondent or complainant, e.g., as a consultant or collaborator on the work in which scholarly misconduct has been alleged;
2.5.3 A known personal relationship with the respondent or complainant, either as close friends or open antagonists; or
2.5.4 Having collaborated recently on a project related to the work in which scholarly misconduct has been alleged.
2.5.5 If there is a question as to whether a conflict of interest exists, the RIO may consult the Deciding Official.
2.6 Deciding Official: The UNH official who makes final determinations on allegations of scholarly misconduct and any responsive institutional actions. This individual is the Vice President for Research and Innovation (VPRI). If the VPRI is considering recusing themself for conflict of interest or other reasons, the Deciding Official will be the UNH Provost & Vice President for Academic Affairs.
2.6.1 If a complainant or a respondent is the VPRI, the UNH Provost & Vice President for Academic Affairs, or the UNH President, the Deciding Official will be the Chancellor of the University System of New Hampshire (USNH) or their designee.
2.7 Evidence: Anything offered or obtained during a scholarly 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.
2.8 Fabrication: Making up data or results and recording or reporting them.1
2.9 Falsification: 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.2
2.10 Good faith:
2.10.1 Good faith as applied to a complainant or a witness, means having a reasonable belief in the truth of one's allegation or testimony based on the information known to the complainant or to a witness at the time. An allegation or cooperation with a scholarly misconduct proceeding is not in good faith if made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for information that would negate the allegation or testimony.
2.10.2 Good faith as applied to an institutional or team member means cooperating with the scholarly 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 team member does not act in good faith if their acts or omissions during the scholarly misconduct proceedings are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the scholarly misconduct proceeding.
2.11 Institutional Record: For PHS-supported activities, the institutional record is described in 42 CFR 93.220.
2.12 Intentionally: To act intentionally means to act with the aim of carrying out the act.
2.13 Knowingly: To act knowingly means to act with awareness of the act.
2.14 Misconduct:
2.14.1 Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing scholarly activities, or in reporting results from scholarly activities; or
2.14.2 Retaliation of any kind against an individual who has brought forth an allegation of scholarly misconduct or who has provided information about a suspected case of scholarly misconduct because of their participation in the processes articulated in this policy.
2.14.3 This definition is consistent with that used by federal funding agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Public Health Service (PHS).
2.14.4 Scholarly misconduct does not include honest error or differences in interpretations or judgments with respect to scholarly issues that are inherent in the scientific and creative process. Furthermore, this definition should not be construed to stifle academic freedom.
2.15 ORI: The Office of Research Integrity, the office within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) that is responsible for addressing scientific misconduct and research integrity issues related to U.S. Public Health Service-supported activities.
2.16 PHS: The Public Health Service of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and any components of the PHS to which the authority involved may be delegated, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In the event any other external sponsor adopts, incorporates or requires compliance with the PHS research misconduct regulations (whether in whole or in part), for purpose of this policy “PHS” will also mean such sponsor to the extent necessary to comply with their requirements.
2.17 Plagiarism: The appropriation of another individual's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.3
2.17.1 Plagiarism includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another’s work that materially misleads the reader regarding the contributions of the author. It does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology.
2.17.2 For activities supported by PHS, plagiarism does not include text-recycling (text recycling is the reuse of textual material from a previous publication by an author in a new document and referred to in the PHS policy as self-plagiarism) or authorship or credit disputes, including disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a research or scholarship project. Text recycling and authorship disputes do not meet the PHS definition of scholarly misconduct.
2.18 PHS regulation: The Public Health Service regulation establishing standards for institutional investigations into allegations of scientific misconduct, which is set forth at 42 C.F.R. Part 93.
2.19 PHS support: PHS grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, subawards or subcontracts, or applications thereof.
2.20 Preponderance of the evidence: The quantity and quality of evidence which, when fairly considered, produces the stronger impression, and has the greater weight, and is more convincing as to its truth than the evidence in opposition. Note: This standard of proof is consistent with that applied by federal funding agencies such as NSF.
2.21 Recklessly: To act recklessly means to propose, perform, or review research or scholarship, or report research or scholarship results, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism
2.22 Research Integrity Officer (RIO): The UNH official responsible for administering this written policy and procedures for addressing allegations of scholarly misconduct. The RIO is responsible for assessing allegations of scholarly misconduct, determining when such allegations warrant a stage one investigation, and for overseeing investigations. This individual is the Director of Research Integrity Services or their designee.
2.23 Research record: The record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scholarly inquiry, in either physical or electronic form, including any data, document, computer, or digital file, or any other written or non-written account or object that reasonably may be expected to provide evidence or information regarding the proposed, conducted, or reported research that constitutes the subject of an allegation of scholarly misconduct. A research record includes, but is not limited to, grant or contract applications, whether funded or unfunded; grant or contract progress and other reports; raw data; processed data; clinical research records; laboratory records; study records; laboratory notebooks; progress reports; notes; correspondence; videos; photographs; X-ray film; slides; biological materials; computer files and printouts; manuscripts; publications; abstracts; theses; records of oral presentations; online content; lab meeting reports; equipment use logs; laboratory procurement records; animal facility records; human and animal subject protocols; consent forms; medical charts; physical experimental samples; simulation results; and numerical or analytical models.
2.24 Respondent: The individual against whom an allegation of scholarly misconduct is directed or the individual whose actions are the subject of a stage one or a stage two investigation. There can be more than one respondent in any charge of scholarly misconduct.
2.25 Retaliation: Any action by UNH of an employee that adversely affects the employment or other institutional status of an individual that is taken because the individual has in good faith, made an allegation of scholarly misconduct or of inadequate institutional response thereto or has cooperated in good faith with an investigation of such allegation. Retaliation does not include action taken for reasons other than the impacted individual’s participation in the procedures articulated by this policy.
2.26 Scholarly activity: Includes, but is not limited to, laboratory, clinical, and field research, educational innovation projects, theoretical investigations, observational studies, experimentation, research and scholarship in the humanities and artistic and other forms of creative expression.
2.27 Stage one investigation: Gathering information and initial fact-finding to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of scholarly misconduct warrants a stage two investigation.
2.28 Stage two investigation: The formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if scholarly misconduct has occurred, and, if so, to determine the responsible individual and the seriousness of the scholarly misconduct.
3. Scope and Applicability
3.1 This document sets forth the UNH policy on Misconduct in Scholarly Activity and details the process for dealing with an allegation of such misconduct. The policy applies to all UNH faculty, staff, and graduate students. It also applies to UNH undergraduate students with respect to scholarly activities that are part of federally-funded projects. Furthermore, for UNH faculty, staff, and graduate students, this document does not distinguish between funded and unfunded efforts, except where it reflects specific requirements of a sponsoring agency, for example the notification of an agency that an investigation of an allegation of scholarly misconduct has commenced. This policy may be applied to individuals based on scholarly activities they conducted before joining UNH and may be applied to individuals who have left UNH based on scholarly activities conducted in the course of their employment or studies at UNH. The Office of the Vice President for Research and Innovation (OVPRI) shall be responsible for administration of this policy and its procedures. Changes in the policy must be approved by the UNH President.
3.2 This policy applies only to scholarly misconduct occurring within six years of the date that UNH receives an allegation of scholarly misconduct, except if the activity is funded by PHS.
3.3 If the activity is supported by PHS, this policy applies only to scholarly misconduct occurring within six years of the date that DHHS or UNH received an allegation except in the following situations:
3.3.1 The respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged scholarly misconduct that occurred before the six-year limitation through the use of, republication of, or citation to the portion(s) of the scholarly record (e.g., processed data, journal articles, funding proposals, data repositories) alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized for the potential benefit of the respondent.
3.3.1.1 When the respondent uses, republishes, or cites to the portion(s) of the scholarly record that is alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized, in submitted or published manuscripts, submitted PHS grant applications, progress reports submitted to PHS funding components, posters, presentations, or other scholarly records within six years of when the allegations were received by HHS or an institution, this exception applies.
3.3.1.2 For scholarly misconduct that appears subject to the subsequent use exception, UNH must document their determination that the subsequent use exception does not apply. Such documentation must be retained in accordance with section 11.
3.3.2 Exception for the health or safety of the public. If ORI or UNH, following consultation with ORI, determines that the alleged scholarly misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public, this exception applies.
3.4 Misconduct in scholarly activity (hereinafter referred to as "scholarly misconduct") is a specific instance of impropriety within the broader domain of personal and professional conduct. Allegations of misconduct outside the scope of this policy should be directed to the cognizant chair, dean, director, vice president, or other UNH official. The process of investigation and reporting obligations may differ from those required for cases covered under this policy.
3.4.1 Allegations of plagiarism made against undergraduate or graduate students are not intended to be covered by this policy with respect to their completion of normal course assignments to the extent those assignments do not entail published work. Such cases are subject to the policies of the Office of the Vice President of Student Life with respect to student conduct, as outlined in the "Student Handbook on Rights, Rules, and Responsibilities."
3.4.2 Graduate student research and scholarship, including master’s theses, capstone research projects, and doctoral dissertations, are subject to this policy.
3.4.3 This policy applies to scholarly activities conducted by undergraduate students when the project of which they are a part is federally funded, in whole or in part.
4. Requirements for Findings of Scholarly Misconduct
4.1 A finding of scholarly misconduct requires that:
4.1.1 There must be a significant departure from accepted practices of the research or scholarly community; and
4.1.2 The scholarly misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and,
4.1.3 The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
5. Evidentiary Standards
5.1 The following evidentiary standards apply to findings made under this policy:
5.1.1 A UNH finding of scholarly misconduct must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
5.1.2 UNH has the burden of proof for making a finding of scholarly misconduct. A respondent's destruction of records documenting the questioned scholarship is evidence of scholarly misconduct where UNH establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent intentionally or knowingly destroyed records after being informed of the scholarly misconduct allegations. A respondent’s failure to provide records documenting the questioned scholarship is evidence of scholarly misconduct where the respondent claims to possess the records but refuses to provide them upon request.
5.1.3 The respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, all affirmative defenses raised. In determining whether UNH has carried the burden of proof imposed by this part, the finder of fact shall give due consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the respondent.
5.1.4 The respondent may raise at any procedural stage of a scholarly misconduct proceeding an affirmative defense that failure by UNH or USNH offices to support or cooperate with an investigation (including action or inaction to preserve or assure access to records) compromised the integrity of a stage one or stage two investigation. In determining whether UNH has carried the burden of proof imposed by this part, the finder of fact shall give due consideration to admissible, credible evidence presented by the respondent that such failure compromised the investigation.
5.1.5 The respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, any mitigating factors relevant to a decision to impose administrative actions after a scholarly misconduct proceeding.
6. Confidentiality
6.1 Disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses while conducting scholarly misconduct proceedings is limited, to the extent possible, to those who need to know, as determined by UNH, consistent with a thorough, competent, objective, and fair scholarly misconduct proceeding, and as allowed by law. Those who need to know may include institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions. This limitation on disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses no longer applies once UNH has made a final determination of scholarly misconduct findings.
6.2 If the activity is supported by PHS, UNH must disclose the identity of respondents and complainants, or other relevant individuals to ORI.
6.3 Except as may otherwise be prescribed by applicable law, confidentiality must be maintained for any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified. Disclosure is limited to those who need to know in order to carry out a research misconduct proceeding.
6.4 This section does not prohibit UNH from managing published data or acknowledging that data may be unreliable.
7. Rights and Responsibilities
7.1 Research Integrity Officer (RIO)
7.1.1 The RIO will have primary responsibility for implementation of the procedures set forth in this policy. The RIO will be a UNH official who is well qualified to handle the procedural requirements involved and is sensitive to the varied demands made on those who conduct research, those who are accused of scholarly misconduct, and those who report apparent scholarly misconduct in good faith.
7.1.2 The RIO will appoint the investigation teams as provided in this policy and ensure that necessary and appropriate expertise is secured to carry out a thorough and authoritative evaluation of the relevant evidence in an investigation. The RIO will attempt to ensure that confidentiality is maintained.
7.1.3 The RIO will assist investigation teams and all UNH personnel in complying with these procedures and with applicable standards imposed by government or external funding sources. The RIO is also responsible for maintaining files of all documents and evidence, and for the confidentiality and the security of the files.
7.1.4 As required by regulation, the RIO will report to external funding sources and keep such funding sources apprised of any developments during the course of the stage one or stage two investigation that may affect current or potential funding for the individual(s) under investigation or that the funding sources needs to know to ensure appropriate use of external funds and otherwise protect the public interest.
7.2 Complainant:
7.2.1 The complainant will have an opportunity to testify before the stage one investigation team, when applicable, and the stage two investigation team, to review portions of the investigation report(s) pertinent to their allegations or testimony, to be informed of the results of the investigations, and to be protected from retaliation. Also, if the RIO has determined that the complainant may be able to provide pertinent information on any portions of the draft report(s), these portions may be given to the complainant for comment.
7.2.2 The complainant is responsible for making allegations in good faith, maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating with an investigation.
7.3 Respondent:
7.3.1 The respondent will be informed of the allegations when a stage one investigation is opened and notified in writing of the final determinations and resulting actions. The respondent will also have the opportunity to be interviewed by and present evidence to the stage one investigation team and the stage two investigation team, to review the draft investigation reports, and to have the advice of counsel (subject to limitations as set forth in this policy).
7.3.2 The respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating with the conduct of an investigation including maintaining the integrity of any records or evidence that may subsequently be used in either a stage one or stage two investigation of an allegation. If the respondent is not found to have committed scholarly misconduct, they have the right to receive institutional assistance in restoring their reputation.
7.3.3 Because the stage one and stage two investigations result only in recommendations and not in final decisions, the respondent does not yet have the right to grieve or appeal the outcome of a stage one or stage two investigation. They may, however, provide rebuttal of an investigation as specifically set forth in this policy.
7.4 Deciding Official
7.4.1 The Deciding Official will receive the investigation report(s) and any written comments made by the respondent or the complainant on the draft report(s). The Deciding Official will consult with the RIO and/or other appropriate officials and will determine whether to conduct a stage two investigation, whether scholarly misconduct occurred, whether to impose sanctions, and/or whether to take other appropriate administrative actions [see section 16].
8. Policy Statement
8.1 UNH does not condone and will not tolerate any act of scholarly misconduct by a member of its community. Violation of this policy is grounds for administrative sanction. UNH strives to ensure that all members of its community understand and uphold this policy.
9. Process
9.1 An allegation of scholarly misconduct shall be handled through several procedural stages: reporting, assessment, stage one investigation, stage two investigation, and determination, and administration of sanctions if warranted, as described below.
9.2 If UNH identifies additional respondents during an investigation, it is not required to conduct a separate investigation for each new respondent. However, each additional respondent must be provided notice of and an opportunity to respond to the allegations as stated in this policy.
9.3 When allegations involve scholarly activity conducted at multiple institutions, one institution must be designated as the lead institution if a joint misconduct proceeding is conducted. In a joint misconduct proceeding, the lead institution should obtain records and other evidence pertinent to the proceeding, including witness testimony, from the other relevant institutions. By mutual agreement, the joint misconduct proceeding may include team members from the institutions involved. The determination of whether further investigation is warranted, whether scholarly misconduct occurred, and the recommendation for institutional actions to be taken may be made by the institutions jointly or tasked to the lead institution. Determinations about whether to impose sanctions and/or whether to take other appropriate administrative actions with respect to individual respondents will be made by the Deciding Official and other appropriate administrators at the respondents’ respective institutions.
9.4 In certain circumstances, UNH may use the services of a consortium, organization, or individual that the institution reasonably determines to be qualified by practice and experience to conduct scholarly misconduct proceedings.
9.4.1 A consortium, organization, or individual acting on behalf of UNH must follow the requirements of this policy in conducting misconduct proceedings.
10. Reporting
10.1 All members of the UNH community, including administrators, faculty, staff, and graduate and undergraduate students have the responsibility to report without delay any suspicion of scholarly misconduct to the RIO or to the VPRI. Causes for suspicion include, but are not limited to, direct observation, inferences based on data or research practices, or specific reports or statements received from knowledgeable individuals and/or organizations within or outside the UNH community.
10.2 UNH encourages community members to consult with the VPRI or the RIO if they are aware of inappropriate conduct but uncertain whether it constitutes scholarly misconduct.
10.3 In addition, the OVPRI should be alerted promptly if any of the following circumstances detailed below are discovered during the reporting stage or any of the subsequent stages (stage one investigation, stage two investigation and determination, or administration of sanctions):
10.3.1 An immediate health or safety hazard;
10.3.2 An immediate need to protect federal, state, local, or UNH funds or equipment;
10.3.3 An immediate need to protect the complainant, the respondent, their associates, or a witness;
10.3.4 Likelihood that an alleged incident of scholarly misconduct will be reported publicly;
10.3.5 The allegation involves a public health sensitive issue (e.g., clinical trial); or
10.3.6 A reasonable indication of possible criminal violation.
10.4 If emergency situations arise in connection with scholarly activity that is externally sponsored, UNH may, and in some cases must, notify other sponsoring agencies directly and immediately (e.g., PHS). UNH may also take interim administrative (not disciplinary) action as necessary to protect funds, equipment, and/or the purposes of the sponsored grant or contract that may be involved. Notifications and any actions taken in this regard will be coordinated by the OVPRI.
10.5 UNH shall use reasonable efforts, consistent with the due process rights of the respondent, to keep confidential the identity of the complainant(s) during the stage one investigation subject to section 6.1 of this policy, unless that individual (or individuals) consents to the disclosure of their identity. UNH will not tolerate any acts of retaliation against the complainant or any individual who participates in the investigation of alleged scholarly misconduct, and disciplinary action may be taken against the individual engaging in such acts, in accordance with appropriate UNH policies. The RIO will monitor the treatment of individuals who bring allegations of scholarly misconduct or of inadequate institutional response thereto, and those who cooperate in investigations. Individuals should immediately report any alleged or apparent retaliation to the RIO.
10.6 Further, UNH will protect to the maximum extent possible subject to section 6.1 of this policy the privacy of those who report scholarly misconduct in good faith. For example, if the complainant requests anonymity, UNH will make an effort to honor the request during the allegation assessment or stage one investigation, subject to any applicable policies and regulations and state and local laws. The complainant will be advised that if the matter is referred to a stage two investigation team and the complainant’s testimony is required, anonymity may no longer be guaranteed. UNH is required to undertake diligent efforts to protect the positions and reputations of those individuals who, in good faith, make allegations.
10.6.1 If the RIO determines that it is necessary to maintain anonymity of the complainant in order to protect that individual or that the identity of the complainant is not necessary to the stage one investigation, UNH will be deemed the complainant. The RIO may also designate UNH as the complainant in circumstances when the identity of the complainant is unknown or they are unwilling to file a complaint, but the evidence of scholarly misconduct is substantial.
10.7 Investigations will be conducted in a manner that will ensure fair treatment to the respondent(s) in the investigation and confidentiality to the extent possible without compromising public health and safety or thoroughly carrying out the investigation.
10.8 Respondents accused of scholarly misconduct may consult with legal counsel or a non-lawyer personal adviser (who is not a principal or witness in the case) to seek advice. Respondents may forward to their personal legal counsel all written communications or documents provided in connection with this policy. Personal legal counsel should communicate any concerns directly to UNH counsel.
10.9 UNH employees and students will cooperate with the RIO and other UNH officials in the review of allegations and the conduct of investigations. UNH employees and students have an obligation to provide relevant evidence to the RIO or other UNH officials on scholarly misconduct allegations.
10.10 Upon receiving an allegation of scholarly misconduct, the RIO will immediately assess the allegation to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a stage one investigation, whether external funds are involved, and whether the allegation falls under the definition of scholarly misconduct.
10.11 If the respondent, without admitting to scholarly misconduct, elects to resign their position at UNH prior to the initiation of a stage one investigation, but after an allegation has been reported, or during an investigation, the investigation will proceed. If the respondent refuses to participate in the process after resignation, the stage one and/or stage two investigation team will use its best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the allegations, noting in its report the respondent's failure to cooperate and its effect on the stage one and/or stage two investigation team's review of all the evidence.
11. Records and Evidence
11.1 UNH has an obligation to ensure that it maintains adequate records for a scholarly misconduct proceeding.
11.2 Either before or when UNH notifies the respondent of the allegation or investigation, UNH will promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the records and other evidence, which may include copies of data or other evidence so long as those copies are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value, needed to conduct the scholarly misconduct proceeding; inventory the records and other evidence; and sequester them in a secure manner. Where the records or other evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by multiple users, UNH may obtain copies of the data or other evidence from such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value to the instruments.
11.2.1 Whenever possible, UNH must obtain the records or other evidence:
11.2.1.1 Before or at the time the institution notifies the respondent of the allegation.
11.2.1.2 Whenever additional items become known or relevant to an investigation.
11.3 Where appropriate, UNH will give the respondent copies of, or reasonable, supervised access to, the records that are sequestered, subject to the need for confidentiality and the due process rights of all parties.
11.4 UNH will maintain the research or scholarship records and evidence as required by this policy.
11.5 In PHS-supported activities, ORI or other authorized DHHS personnel will be given access to records upon request.
12. Completing the Scholarly Misconduct Process in PHS-Supported Activities
12.1 For PHS-supported activities, if UNH plans to close an assessment, stage one or stage two investigation, or appeal on the basis that the respondent has admitted to committing scholarly misconduct or a settlement with the respondent has been made, UNH must notify ORI in advance.
12.2 A respondent's admission of scholarly misconduct must be made in writing and signed by the respondent. An admission must specify the falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism that occurred, and which scholarly records were affected. The admission statement must meet all elements required for a scholarly misconduct finding (see section 4 of this policy) and must be provided to ORI before UNH closes its scholarly misconduct proceeding. UNH must also provide a statement to ORI describing how it determined that the scope of the misconduct was fully addressed by the admission and confirmed the respondent's culpability.
12.2.1 After consulting with UNH on its basis for closing a case, ORI may conduct an oversight review of UNH's handling of the case and take appropriate action including:
12.2.1.1 Approving or conditionally approving closure of the case;
12.2.1.2 Directing the institution to complete its process;
12.2.1.3 Directing the institution to address deficiencies in the institutional record;
12.2.1.4 Referring the matter for further investigation by HHS; or
12.2.1.5 Taking a compliance action.
13. Assessment
13.1 The purpose of an assessment is to determine whether an allegation warrants a stage one investigation.
13.2 Conducting the assessment.
13.2.1 Following receipt in the OVPRI or by the RIO of an allegation of scholarly misconduct, the RIO will within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt assess the allegation to determine whether the allegation:
13.2.1.1 Falls within the definition of scholarly misconduct as defined in this policy; and
13.2.1.2 Is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of scholarly misconduct may be identified.
13.2.2 If the allegation meets both criteria in section 13.2.1 of this policy, a stage one investigation must be conducted, and the RIO must:
13.2.2.1 Document the assessment;
13.2.2.2 Promptly sequester all scholarship records and other evidence, consistent with section 11 of this policy; and
13.2.2.3 Notify the respondent in writing that a report of alleged scholarly misconduct has been made and that it will be referred to a stage one investigation.
13.2.3 If the allegation does not meet the criteria in section 13.2.1 of this policy, is frivolous, or for other reasons does not warrant a more thorough inquiry, the RIO shall:
13.2.3.1 Submit a written finding to the Deciding Official and the assessment will end; and
13.2.3.2 Keep sufficiently detailed documentation of the assessment to permit a later review of the reasons why a stage one investigation was not conducted.
14. Stage One Investigation
14.1 The purpose of a stage one investigation is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine whether an allegation warrants a stage two investigation. A stage one investigation does not require a full review of the evidence related to the allegation.
14.2 Conducting the stage one investigation
14.2.1 Within fifteen (15) calendar days, following determination by the RIO that an allegation of scholarly misconduct warrants a stage one investigation, the RIO will appoint a stage one investigation team. The team will consist of the RIO and the following individual(s):
14.2.1.1 For respondents who are faculty, lecturers, or undergraduate students, the applicable unit representative on the UNH Responsible Conduct of Research and Scholarly Activity Committee (UNH RCR Committee). If one does not exist, the Faculty Senate representative on the UNH RCR Committee shall serve.
14.2.1.2 For respondents who are postdoctoral scholars, the UNH Postdoctoral Association representative on the UNH RCR Committee. If one does not exist, the UNH Graduate School representative on the UNH RCR Committee shall serve.
14.2.1.3 For respondents who are graduate students, the UNH Graduate School representative.
14.2.1.4 For respondents who are Academic Administrators, PAT or OS staff, the Chair of the UNH RCR Committee shall serve.
14.2.1.5 If a designated RCR Committee representative is not available to serve on the stage one investigation team (e.g., a specific role on the RCR Committee is vacant, the designated representative has a conflict of interest, if the designated representative recuses themself), the RIO will work with the Chair of the UNH RCR Committee or their designee to appoint a stage one investigation team.
14.2.1.6 Under no circumstance may the complainant be a member of the team.
14.2.1.7 The team may utilize one or more subject matter experts to assist them in the stage one investigation.
14.2.2 The RIO will prepare a charge for the stage one investigation team that describes the allegations and any related issues identified during the assessment, and states that the purpose of the stage one investigation is to make a preliminary evaluation of the evidence to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of possible scholarly misconduct to warrant a stage two investigation. The purpose is not to determine whether scholarly misconduct occurred or who was responsible.
14.2.3 The stage one investigation team will engage in preliminary fact-finding and preliminary information gathering to ascertain if there is cause for a stage two investigation into the case. It should be recognized that damage to the reputation of respondents might result from soliciting information from their peers and colleagues, even if confidentiality is requested. Thus, the team should exercise circumspection in conducting its business.
14.2.4 A stage two investigation is warranted if:
14.2.4.1 There is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of scholarly misconduct as defined in this policy; and
14.2.4.2 Preliminary information gathering and fact-finding from the inquiry indicates that the allegation may have substance.
14.3 Communication of findings
14.3.1 Within seventy-five (75) calendar days of the appointment of the stage one investigation team, unless extended for good cause by the RIO on the basis of a written finding that it is infeasible to complete the necessary work within the prescribed time frame, the stage one investigation team shall reach a decision as to whether there is or is not cause to pursue a stage two investigation into the case and send a written draft report that documents this decision to the respondent for comment. The report will include, but is not limited to:
14.3.1.1 Names and titles of stage one investigation team members;
14.3.1.2 The allegations;
14.3.1.3 Any funding;
14.3.1.4 A summary of the stage one investigation process used;
14.3.1.5 A list of the scholarly records reviewed;
14.3.1.6 Summaries of any interviews;
14.3.1.7 A description of the evidence in sufficient detail to demonstrate whether a stage two investigation is warranted;
14.3.1.8 The team’s determination as to whether a stage two investigation is recommended or whether any other actions should be taken if a stage two investigation is not recommended;
14.3.1.9 Notation of any potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion;
14.3.1.10 Any concurring or dissenting opinions
14.3.2 UNH legal counsel will review the draft report for legal sufficiency.
14.3.3 The RIO will provide to the respondent a copy of the draft stage one investigation team report for comment and rebuttal. The RIO may establish reasonable conditions for review to protect the confidentiality of the draft report.
14.3.4 Within ten (10) calendar days of their receipt of the draft report, the respondent will provide their comments, if any, to the RIO. Any comment that the respondent submits on the draft stage one investigation team report will become part of the final stage one investigation team report and record. Based on the comments, the stage one investigation team may revise the report as appropriate.
14.3.5 Within five (5) calendar days of receipt of the respondent's comments, the RIO will transmit the final report to the Deciding Official. The stage one investigation is completed once the RIO has transmitted the report to the Deciding Official. The Deciding Official will make the determination of whether findings from the stage one investigation provide sufficient evidence of possible scholarly misconduct to justify conducting a stage two investigation. The Deciding Official will make this determination within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the report, unless extended for good cause by the RIO on the basis of a written finding that it is infeasible to complete the necessary work within the prescribed time frame. Any extension of this period will be recorded in the stage one investigation file.
14.4 Conclusion of the stage one investigation
14.4.1 If the Deciding Official finds no cause to undertake a stage two investigation into the alleged scholarly misconduct, the RIO will promptly write a letter of exoneration to the respondent and the matter will be considered officially closed. This letter of exoneration shall be included with the final report of the stage one investigation team. The complainant shall also be notified of this decision. Any individuals interviewed during this stage or otherwise involved in the proceedings may also be notified by the RIO that the matter is officially closed. The RIO will provide the final report of the findings of the stage one investigation team to the respondent.
14.4.2 If the Deciding Official finds no cause to undertake a stage two investigation into the alleged scholarly misconduct, after consulting with the respondent the RIO will undertake reasonable efforts to restore the respondent's reputation. Depending on the circumstances, the RIO may consider notifying those individuals aware of or involved in the stage one investigation of the final outcome, publicizing the final outcome in forums in which the allegation of scholarly misconduct was previously publicized, or expunging all reference to the scholarly misconduct allegation from the respondent's personnel file. Any institutional actions to restore the respondent's reputation must first be approved by the Deciding Official.
14.4.3 If the Deciding Official, the RIO, or the stage one investigation team suspects that the allegation of scholarly misconduct was not made in good faith, UNH shall initiate an inquiry. Improper behavior of this type falls under the purview of the more general USNH Administrative Board Personnel Policies (see USY V) and UNH Personnel Policies (see UNH V) policies regarding personal and professional conduct and the relevant procedures will apply.
14.4.4 If the Deciding Official concludes that a stage two investigation into the case is warranted, in consultation with the stage one investigation team the RIO will oversee the formation of a stage two investigation team to undertake an investigation to determine if scholarly misconduct has taken place. (See section 15 of this policy for the composition and selection of the stage two investigation team.)
14.4.4.1 For PHS-supported activities, within thirty (30) calendar days after deciding a stage two investigation is warranted, the RIO will notify ORI of the decision and begin the stage two investigation
14.4.5 The RIO will collect all notes and other documentation compiled during the course of the stage one investigation for retention in a secure and confidential manner for at least seven years past the submission of the stage one investigation team's final report.
15. Stage Two Investigation and Determination
15.1 Conducting the stage two investigation
15.1.1 The purpose of the stage two investigation is to gather, examine, and evaluate the evidence of the case, establish the facts of the activity in question, analyze these facts to determine whether scholarly misconduct has occurred, and recommend sanctions if there is a determination that scholarly misconduct has taken place. The stage two investigation will also determine whether there are additional instances of possible scholarly misconduct that would justify broadening the scope beyond the initial allegations. This is particularly important where the alleged scholarly misconduct involves potential harm to human subjects or the general public, or if it affects research that forms the basis for public policy, clinical practice, or public health practice. The findings of the stage two investigation will be set forth in an investigation report.
15.1.2 The RIO will immediately sequester any additional pertinent scholarly records that were not previously sequestered during the stage one investigation. This sequestration should occur before or at the time the respondent is notified that a stage two investigation has begun. The need for additional sequestration of records may occur for any number of reasons, including UNH's decision to investigate additional allegations not considered during the stage one investigation or the identification of records during the stage one investigation that had not been previously secured. The procedures to be followed for sequestration during the stage two investigation are the same procedures that apply during the stage one investigation.
15.1.3 The stage two investigation shall be conducted by a stage two investigation team comprised of five individuals, appointed, and provided with a formal written charge by the RIO, in consultation with the stage one investigation team. The RIO will appoint and charge the stage two investigation team within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the Deciding Official's decision that a stage two investigation is warranted.
15.1.4 The RIO and the stage one investigation team members will identify a slate of prospective stage two investigation team members, which may include individuals from outside the UNH community. The respondent should also be encouraged to identify one or more individuals for inclusion on this slate. Development of this list of potential stage two investigation team members should be in compliance with UNH and USNH policies on non-discrimination. In addition, a number of factors may also be considered that reflect sensitivity to a range of issues including a candidate's professional background and its relevance to the case in question, reputation for personal integrity, supervisory experience, and/or other relevant professional and personal characteristics.
15.1.5 No member of the stage one investigation team (see section 14.2.1 above) or individual who reviewed the stage one investigation draft report on behalf of UNH (see section 14.3.3 above) may serve as a member of the stage two investigation team. Furthermore, no member of the stage two investigation team may have any significant personal or professional connection with the respondent or the activity in question. Thus, individuals who are approached to serve on the stage two investigation team must also receive a clear statement of disqualifying conditions. Upon recognizing a conflict of interest, the individual must immediately recuse themself from the remainder of the proceedings. This action should be clearly documented in writing and should become part of the final report of the stage two investigation team.
15.1.6 Individuals on this list should first be contacted regarding their willingness and ability to serve, without revealing the identity of the respondent. Those willing to serve will be asked to provide an up-to-date curriculum vitae. At this point the respondent shall have the opportunity to indicate in writing concerns they may have regarding the potential membership of the stage two investigation team. The RIO, in consultation with the stage one investigation team, will then appoint the stage two investigation team, taking into account the concerns raised by the respondent. If the respondent has supplied a list of potential members of the stage two investigation team who are otherwise qualified to serve, one member of the stage two investigation team shall be appointed from among those on the respondent's list who have indicated a willingness to serve and who do not possess a conflict of interest. Since the identity of the respondent will also be revealed at this time to the members of the stage two investigation team, another check for conflicts of interest will be made. If necessary, replacement members of the stage two investigation team will be chosen in the manner described above.
15.1.7 The RIO will consult with the members of the stage two investigation team and designate one to be chair of the team. Upon establishment of the stage two investigation team, the RIO will define the subject matter of the investigation in a written charge to the stage two investigation team that describes the allegations and related issues identified during the stage one investigation, defines scholarly misconduct, and identifies the name of the respondent(s). The charge will state that the stage two investigation team is to evaluate the evidence and testimony of the respondent, complainant, and key witnesses to determine whether, based on a preponderance of the evidence, scholarly misconduct occurred and, if so, to what extent, who was responsible, and its seriousness. The RIO will inform both the respondent and complainant in writing of the formation, purpose, and membership of the stage two investigation team.
15.1.8 Upon formation of the stage two investigation team but before the investigation begins, the RIO will provide to the respondent:
15.1.8.1 Notification in writing of the allegation(s).
15.1.8.2 The identity of the complainant (if known).
15.1.8.3 A copy of the final stage one investigation report, a copy of or reference to the DHHS research misconduct regulations (42 CFR Part 93), and a copy of this policy.
15.1.8.4 The purpose and membership of the stage two investigation team.
15.1.8.5 A reminder of their obligation to cooperate with the investigation
15.1.9 During the stage two investigation, if additional information becomes available that substantially changes the subject matter of the investigation, constitutes new allegations, or suggests additional respondents, the stage two investigation team will notify the RIO.
15.1.9.1 The RIO will give the respondent written notice of any allegation(s) of scholarly misconduct not addressed during the stage one investigation or in the initial notice of investigation within a reasonable amount of time of deciding to pursue such allegation(s).
15.1.9.2 UNH may but is not required to conduct a separate stage one investigation inquiry for any new respondents identified during the stage two investigation. If any additional respondent(s) are identified during the stage two investigation, the RIO will notify them of the allegation(s) and provide them an opportunity to respond.
15.1.10 If a stage two investigation involves multiple respondents, the stage two investigation team must create separate investigation reports and make scholarly misconduct determinations for each respondent.
15.1.11 A representative from the USNH General Counsel's Office shall advise the stage two investigation team on procedural and legal matters, and it is expected that the stage two investigation team will work closely with the RIO to develop a stage two investigation plan which will ensure a fair investigation that is thorough and that can serve to professionalize, depersonalize, and rationalize the process.
15.1.12 The stage two investigation team should be prepared, if necessary, to seek additional expertise to carry out its investigation plan. In its evaluation of the evidence and deliberations, the stage two investigation team shall use a preponderance of the evidence as its standard of proof for a finding of scholarly misconduct. This standard is consistent with that used by federal agencies.
15.1.13 The stage two investigation will normally involve examination of all documentation including, but not limited to, relevant research records, computer and digital files, proposals, manuscripts, publications, and communications.
15.1.13.1 The stage two investigation team will pursue diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible scholarly misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion. If additional allegations are raised, the respondent(s) must be notified in writing of the additional allegations raised against them.
15.1.14 The stage two investigation team must interview each respondent, complainant, and any other available individual who has reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the stage two investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent.
15.1.14.1 Interviews must be recorded and transcribed.
15.1.14.2 Any exhibits shown to an interviewee during an interview must be numbered and referred to by that number in the interview.
15.1.14.3 The transcript of an interview must be made available to the relevant interviewee for correction.
15.1.14.4 The transcript(s) with any corrections and numbered exhibits must be included in the stage two investigation records.
15.1.14.5 The respondent must not be present during witness interviews but must be provided with a transcript of the interview with redactions as appropriate to maintain confidentiality.
15.1.15 When PHS support is involved and an admission of scholarly misconduct is made, the RIO will contact ORI for consultation and advice as required by regulation. Normally, the individual making the admission will be asked to sign a statement attesting to the occurrence and extent of scholarly misconduct. When the case involves PHS support, UNH cannot accept an admission of scholarly misconduct as a basis for closing a case or not undertaking a stage two investigation without prior approval from ORI.
15.1.16 If UNH plans to terminate a stage two investigation in PHS-supported activities for any reason without completing all relevant requirements of this policy, the RIO will submit a report of the planned termination to ORI as required by regulation, including a description of the reasons for the proposed termination.
15.2 Communication of findings
15.2.1 Within one hundred and ten (110) calendar days of its first meeting, unless extended for good cause by the RIO on the basis of a written finding that it is infeasible to complete the necessary work within the prescribed time frame, the stage two investigation team shall provide via the RIO a draft report of its investigation to the respondent for comment.
15.2.2 The RIO will provide the respondent with a copy of the draft stage two investigation report for comment and rebuttal and concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the scholarly records and other evidence that the stage two investigation team considered or relied on.
15.2.3 The RIO may provide the complainant, if identifiable, with portions of the draft stage two investigation report that address the complainant’s role and opinions in the investigation.
15.2.4 In distributing the draft report, or portions thereof, to the respondent and complainant, the RIO will inform the recipient of the confidentiality under which the draft report is made available and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure such confidentiality. For example, the RIO may request the recipient to sign a confidentiality statement or to come to their office to review the report. Personal legal counsel for the respondent shall be included within any confidential access that applies to the respondent.
15.2.5 Within thirty (30) calendar days of their receipt of the draft report, the respondent and the complainant will provide their comments, if any, to the RIO. The findings of the final stage two investigation report should take into account the respondent’s comments in addition to all the other evidence, and the report may be modified, as appropriate, based on the complainant’s comments.
15.2.6 The stage two investigation report should contain sufficient detail to enable an assessment of the decision as to whether misconduct occurred. This document should:
15.2.6.1 State the allegation(s) in full, including any additional allegations addressed during the stage two investigation.
15.2.6.2 State the composition of the stage two investigation team, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
15.2.6.3 Describe and document any external support (e.g., PHS), including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing external support.
15.2.6.4 Carefully detail the steps taken to sequester scholarly records and other evidence and provide an inventory of said records and other evidence considered or relied upon in the stage two investigation, including manuscripts and funding proposals.
15.2.6.5 Include transcripts of all interviews conducted.
15.2.6.6 Identify specific published works, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, or other scholarly works or records that allegedly contained the falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material.
15.2.6.7 Include any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
15.2.6.8 Include the institutional policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted.
15.2.6.9 Include any comments made by the respondent and complainant on the draft investigation report and the stage two investigation team's consideration of those comments.
15.2.6.10 Describe the facts of the case as found during the investigation.
15.2.6.11 A statement for each separate allegation of whether the stage two investigation team recommends a finding of scholarly misconduct.
15.2.6.11.1 If the investigation team recommends a finding of scholarly misconduct for an allegation, the stage two investigation report must, for that allegation:
15.2.6.11.1.1 Identify the individual(s) who committed the scholarly misconduct.
15.2.6.11.1.2 Indicate whether the scholarly misconduct was falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism.
15.2.6.11.1.3 Indicate whether the scholarly misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.
15.2.6.11.1.4 State whether the other requirements for a finding of scholarly misconduct have been met.
15.2.6.11.1.5 Summarize the facts and the analysis which support the conclusion and consider the merits of any explanation by the respondent.
15.2.6.11.1.6 Identify the specific external support (where applicable).
15.2.6.11.1.7 Identify whether any publications need correction or retraction.
15.2.6.11.2 If the investigation team does not recommend a finding of scholarly misconduct for an allegation, the stage two investigation report must provide a detailed rationale.
15.2.6.11.3 List of any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with PHS and non-PHS federal agencies
15.2.7 The report should provide sufficient information to permit the appropriate UNH official(s) to determine what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken. If it chooses to do so, the stage two investigation team may include as part of its report a set of recommended sanctions to be applied, but these are not binding.
15.2.8 UNH legal counsel will review the draft stage two investigation report for legal sufficiency.
15.2.9 After comments have been received and the necessary changes have been made to the draft report, the stage two investigation team should transmit to the Deciding Official through the RIO the final investigation report with attachments, including the respondent's and complainant's comments. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the Deciding Official will within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the report make the final determination of scholarly misconduct findings. The Deciding Official will notify the RIO in writing that it is infeasible to complete the necessary work within the prescribed time frame and will request an extension of time. This determination must be provided in a written decision that includes:
15.2.9.1 Whether the institution found scholarly misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct; and
15.2.9.2 A description of recommended institutional actions taken or to be taken.
15.2.10 For PHS-supported activities, if the Deciding Official’s determination varies from that of the stage two investigation team, the Deciding Official will explain in detail the basis for rendering a decision different from that of the stage two investigation team in UNH’s letter transmitting the report to ORI. The Deciding Official's explanation should be consistent with the UNH definition of scholarly misconduct, UNH’s policies and procedures, and the evidence reviewed and analyzed by the stage two investigation team. The Deciding Official may also return the report to the stage two investigation team with a request for further fact-finding or analysis. The Deciding Official's determination, together with the stage two investigation team's report, constitutes the final stage two investigation report for purposes of ORI review (for PHS-supported activities).
15.2.11 When a final decision on the case has been reached, the RIO will notify both the respondent and the complainant in writing. At this point, the stage two investigation will be closed. The stage two investigation from the first meeting of the team to closure must be completed within one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days unless extended for good cause by the RIO on the basis of a written finding that it is infeasible to complete the necessary work within the prescribed time frame. For PHS-supported activities, if the stage two investigation takes longer than 180 days to complete, the stage two investigation report must include the reasons for exceeding the 180-day period.4 In addition, the Deciding Official will determine whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals in which falsified reports may have been published, collaborators of the respondent in the work, or other relevant parties should be notified of the outcome of the case. The RIO is responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification requirements of funding or sponsoring agencies.5
15.3 Conclusion of the stage two investigation
15.3.1 If the Deciding Official determines that no scholarly misconduct occurred, then the RIO will promptly write a letter of exoneration to the respondent and attach the stage two investigation team final report. This letter of exoneration shall be included with the final report of the stage two investigation team. The complainant shall be notified of this decision and provided with a summary of the final report from the stage two investigation team. Any individuals interviewed during the stage two investigation or otherwise involved in the proceedings should also be notified by the RIO that the matter is officially closed. Notification of this decision shall be sent to any sponsoring agencies, as appropriate, along with a copy of the letter of exoneration. In addition, action may be taken by UNH to help maintain or restore the reputation of any parties involved in the case. This process should be coordinated through the OVPRI.
15.3.2 If the Deciding Official determines that no scholarly misconduct occurred but recommendations to address a respondent’s behavior are made, the Deciding Official will work with the respondent’s supervisor to determine an appropriate course of action. They may consult the RIO and chair of the stage two investigation team.
15.3.3 If the Deciding Official determines that no scholarly misconduct occurred, and for PHS-supported activities ORI concurs, after consulting with the respondent, the RIO will undertake reasonable efforts to restore the respondent's reputation. Depending on the circumstances, the RIO should consider notifying those individuals aware of or involved in the stage one investigation of the final outcome, publicizing the final outcome in forums in which the allegation of scholarly misconduct was previously publicized, or expunging all reference to the scholarly misconduct allegation from the respondent's personnel file. Any institutional actions to restore the respondent's reputation must first be approved by the Deciding Official.
15.3.4 If the Deciding Official, the RIO, and/or the stage two investigation team suspect that the allegation of scholarly misconduct was not made in good faith, inquiry shall be initiated by UNH. Improper behavior of this type falls under the purview of the more general USNH Administrative Board Personnel Policies (see USY V) and UNH Personnel Policies (see UNH V) policies regarding personal and professional conduct, and the relevant procedures will apply.
15.3.5 The RIO will collect all notes from interviews and meetings, as well as all documentary evidence compiled during the course of the stage two investigation and retain them along with the final stage two investigation report from the stage two investigation team, in a secure and confidential manner in the OVPRI for at least seven (7) years past the submission of the stage two investigation team's final report. The records may be kept in an appropriate electronic format. If the scholarly activity in question is a funded effort, the records shall be retained for seven (7) years past the submission of the principal investigator's final project report to the sponsoring agency (or seven years past the submission of the stage two investigation team’s final report, whichever is greater). In the event that legal action arises from the allegation, the records shall be retained until the matter is resolved (or seven years past the submission of the principal investigator's final project report to the sponsoring agency, or seven years past the submission of the stage two investigation team's final report to the OVPRI, whichever is greater). In addition, a copy of the final stage two investigation report shall be sent to sponsoring agencies if relevant.
15.3.6 Regardless of whether the Deciding Official, or for PHS-supported activities ORI, determines that scholarly misconduct occurred, the RIO will undertake reasonable efforts to protect complainants who made allegations of scholarly misconduct in good faith and others who cooperate in good faith with investigations of such allegations. Upon completion of a stage two investigation, the Deciding Official will determine, after consulting with the complainant, what steps, if any, are needed to restore their position or reputation. The RIO is responsible for implementing any steps the Deciding Official approves. The RIO will also take appropriate steps during the stage one and stage two investigations to prevent any retaliation against the complainant.
16. Administration of Sanction(s)
16.1 If the Deciding Official determines that scholarly misconduct has occurred, sanctions may be administered as appropriate and consistent with USNH and UNH policies on disciplinary action and any applicable collective bargaining agreement as may apply to the respondent. These sanctions range from oral warning, to the issuance of official letters of reprimand, withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the activity where scholarly misconduct was found, up to and including restitution of funds as appropriate, suspension without pay, termination of employment or dismissal from UNH. The final report of the stage two investigation team shall be forwarded to the appropriate staff, faculty, and/or UNH official(s)6 who will determine what disciplinary action is to be taken. In determining disciplinary action, the appropriate staff, faculty, and/or UNH official(s) should consult with the chair of the stage two investigation team, the RIO, and the Deciding Official. Any action with regards to suspension without pay or dismissal from UNH must respect the relevant terms and conditions as set forth in any applicable collective bargaining agreement. Cases involving either graduate or undergraduate students will also be subject to the policies covering the student judicial process.
16.1.1 This policy should not be construed to limit the rights of any member of the UNH community, including those outlined in the University System of New Hampshire (USNH) Policy Manual (for employees), documents on student rules, rights and responsibilities (for students), and any applicable collective bargaining agreements or handbook. The collective bargaining agreement will control in any conflict with this policy.
16.2 The UNH officials charged above with determining disciplinary action may decide in consultation with the chair of the stage two investigation team and the Deciding Official that, in order to ensure the integrity of UNH as a seat of higher learning and scholarly inquiry, additional measures must be taken beyond the application of internal UNH disciplinary action. Such measures may include public disclosure that scholarly misconduct has taken place, retraction of articles or other publications pertaining to the activity in which scholarly misconduct occurred, and notification to the relevant scholarly community and any sponsoring agencies that results obtained as a result of the activity in which scholarly misconduct occurred may be of questionable validity.
16.3 Information about all sanctions that are eventually applied should be appended to the final stage two investigation team report.
16.4 Finally, sponsoring agencies, such as PHS and NSF, retain the right under their policies to administer additional sanctions beyond those invoked by UNH, if the agency finds it necessary.
17. Grievance/Appeal Procedures
17.1 If the respondent believes that they have been judged improperly, grievance/appeal procedures may be initiated in accordance with USNH and UNH policies, collective bargaining agreements, and/or "Student Rights, Rules, and Responsibilities" document should be consulted, as applicable.
17.2 For PHS-supported activities, if a respondent appeals UNH’s finding(s) of scholarly misconduct or institutional actions, UNH will promptly notify ORI.
17.2.1 If UNH has not transmitted its stage two investigation report to ORI prior to the appeal, UNH will wait until the appeal is concluded to do so.
17.2.2 If UNH has transmitted the stage two investigation report to ORI prior to the appeal, UNH will notify ORI of the appeal and provide ORI a complete record of the appeal once the appeal is concluded.
Policy Effective Date: January 1, 2026
Endnotes
1 Office of Science and Technology Policy. Federal Policy on Research Misconduct. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-12-06/html/00-30852.htm.
2 Office of Science and Technology Policy. Federal Policy on Research Misconduct. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-12-06/html/00-30852.htm.
3 Office of Science and Technology Policy. Federal Policy on Research Misconduct. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-12-06/html/00-30852.htm.
4 For PHS-supported activities, if UNH determines that it will not be able to complete the investigation in 180 days, the RIO will submit to ORI a written request for an extension that explains the delay, reports on the progress to date, estimates the date of completion of the report, and describes other necessary steps to be taken. If the request is granted, the RIO will file periodic progress reports as requested by ORI.
5 For PHS-supported activities, after the Deciding Official has made a final determination of scholarly misconduct findings, UNH must transmit the institutional record to ORI.
6 For cases involving the UNH President or Provost & Vice President for Academic Affairs, the appropriate official is the Chair of the USNH Board of Trustees. For cases involving UNH administrators, the appropriate UNH official is the Provost. In the case of a faculty member, the Provost and the Chair of the Faculty Senate Professional Standards Committee will determine disciplinary action. For a staff member, the Chief Financial Officer and the relevant Chair of the PAT, OS, or EE Council will determine disciplinary action. If a graduate student is involved, the appropriate UNH and faculty officials are the Dean of the Graduate School and the Department Chair of the respondent. For a case involving an undergraduate student, the Vice President for Student Life and the student's Department Chair will determine disciplinary action (if the student is an undeclared major, the student's College Dean will serve).
