Research Misconduct

Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. The activity must represent a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.

1. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
2. Falsification is 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.
3. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or work without giving appropriate credit.

Research misconduct does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data. The action must be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.

Research misconduct does not encompass authorship or collaboration disputes, nor does this policy supersede or establish an alternative to existing University, state or federal regulations or procedures for handling other transgressions, such as financial improprieties, non-compliance in safety practices or the treatment of human or animal subjects, criminal matters, or personnel actions.

The Misconduct in Scholarly Research policy (Faculty Policy II-314) applies to anyone who, at the time of the alleged research misconduct, was employed by, was an agent of, or was affiliated by contract or agreement with the University of Wisconsin–Madison. This includes faculty, staff, employees in training, students, contractors, volunteers and guests.

This policy applies only to allegations of research misconduct that occurred within six years prior to the date the institution received the allegation, subject to the subsequent use, health or safety of the public, and grandfathered exceptions in federal policy (e.g., 42 CFR § 93.105(b)).

To the extent practicable or reasonable, proceedings of a nature different than research misconduct (e.g., academic misconduct, criminal investigation, financial audit or personnel investigation) may proceed simultaneously with research misconduct proceedings provided for in this policy. The Research Integrity Officer (RIO, see Section II.C) is responsible for coordinating with other principals for determining how the multiple processes will be coordinated on a case-by-case basis. (Faculty Policy II-314).

The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) has the responsibility of ensuring confidentiality to those involved in research misconduct proceedings and protecting the reputations of the involved parties, which is mentioned in sections I.1.G and II.2.C (UW-869). They request and direct all those involved (complainant, respondent, interviewees, committee members, designated research officials, etc.) as participants to also maintain confidentiality. This follows a presumption of good faith and professional norms, which are informed by the potential for reputational damage in the event that standards for confidentiality are not met. Individuals are made aware of the confidentiality expectation in their initial interaction with the Research Integrity Officer or the Research Integrity Staff.

Each phase of the research misconduct process (III, IV, and V) increases the number of individuals involved. Regardless of the number, the expectation is that confidentiality will be maintained.

1. Assessment typically only includes the complainant(s), the RIO and their staff, and the Designated Research Official (DRO).
2. At inquiry, the circle expands to include the respondent(s) and any trusted confidants of the respondent or complainant (1 each) along with the inquiry committee members and any interviewees.
3. Should an allegation move to investigation, the circle expands to additional interviewees and the Designated Deciding Official (DDO).

Is this confidentiality enforceable? Even with the potential use of non-disclosure agreements, there are limited tools to enforcing confidentiality. For current UW employees, failure to follow directives can lead to supervisory action and/or discipline pursuant to university personnel policies, particularly when such disclosures result in significant harm to others.  For those no longer associated with the university, there are fewer tools to address inappropriate disclosures (e.g., cease and desist). As a nod to the strength of professional norms at the university, we are not aware of UW-Madison ever needing to do such a thing.

Of greater significance is the risk associated with federally funded research, which might include enforcement activities by the government.

Records of closed research misconduct proceedings are subject to the Wisconsin Public Records Law.