Integrity and Misconduct in Research and Scholarship

I. Introduction

Central Connecticut State University (Central) is committed to fostering an institutional culture that upholds the highest ethical standards in the proposing, conducting, and reporting of research and creative scholarship. The university recognizes its shared responsibility with federal funding agencies (such as the NIH, HHS, NSF, and NSA) to protect the integrity of the scientific and academic process.

This document establishes uniform, legally compliant administrative procedures to address allegations of research misconduct. It is designed to ensure thoroughness, impartiality, and absolute confidentiality, while fully preserving the due process and collective bargaining rights of all university employees.

II. Definitions

• Research Misconduct: Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. It does not include honest error or differences of opinion.
  • Fabrication: Making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
  • 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.
  • Plagiarism: The appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
• Research Integrity Officer (RIO): The institutional official) responsible for assessing allegations, overseeing inquiries and investigations, and ensuring compliance with federal reporting mandates. At Central this role is filled by the Grants and Funded Research Administrator.
• Deciding Official (DO): The institutional official who makes final determinations on institutional recommendations and administrative actions. At Central this role is filled by the Provost & Vice President for Academic Affairs.
• Inquiry: An initial fact-finding process to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of research misconduct warrants a formal investigation.
• Investigation: A formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if research misconduct has occurred, and if so, to determine the responsible person(s) and the full extent of the violation.
• Preponderance of the Evidence: Proof by information that, compared with that opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not.
• Sequestration: The immediate, physical or digital collection and securing of all relevant research records, instruments, data, and evidence at the time of or before an allegation is disclosed to the respondent.

III. Standards for a Finding of Research Misconduct

A finding of research misconduct requires that all of the following conditions are met:

1. Strict Definition: The conduct falls squarely within the definition of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.
2. Intent Threshold: The Misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.
3. Community Standard: The action represents a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research and scholarly community.
4. Burden of Proof: The allegation must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The university bears the burden of proof unless the respondent asserts an affirmative defense (such as honest error), which the respondent must prove by a preponderance of the evidence.

IV. Administrative Workflow and Procedure

A. Reporting an Allegation

Any individual who suspects research misconduct has a duty to report it. To protect confidentiality, allegations must be submitted directly and in writing to the Research Integrity Officer (RIO).

If an allegation is mistakenly brought to a Department Chair, Dean, or Committee Chair, that official must immediately forward the report to the RIO without conducting any independent review.

B. Immediate Evidence Sequestration

On or before the date the respondent is notified of the allegation, the RIO must take all reasonable, practical, and immediate steps to obtain custody, and secure all research records and evidence. This includes locking physical laboratories, copying hard drives, and securing raw datasets.

C. The Inquiry Phase

1. Purpose: To determine if the allegation has substance and warrants an investigation.
2. Timeline: The inquiry must be completed within 60 calendar days of its initiation. If it exceeds 60 days, the RIO must document the reasons for the delay and, if federal funds are involved, request an extension from the appropriate federal oversight agency (e.g., the HHS Office of Research Integrity [ORI]).
3. Outcome: The RIO will deliver an inquiry report to the Deciding Official (DO). If the DO determines an investigation is warranted, the RIO must notify the respondent and provide a copy of the inquiry report. If required by federal funding terms, the RIO will notify the relevant federal agency within 30 days of the DO's determination.

D. The Investigation Phase

1. The Commission on Research Misconduct: If an investigation is triggered, the RIO will convene an ad hoc Commission. To ensure peer review and prevent conflicts of interest, the Commission shall consist of:
   • Two tenured faculty members from a relevant discipline chosen by the RIO.
   • One tenured faculty member selected by the respondent.
   • The RIO, who serves as an ex-officio, non-voting procedural advisor.
2. Timeline: The investigation must begin within 30 days of the finding that an investigation is warranted and must be completed within 120 calendar days. Extensions must be formally requested from and approved by the federal oversight agency.
3. Rights of the Respondent: The respondent must be given a formal opportunity to comment in writing on the investigation report before it is finalized. The respondent maintains the absolute right to legal counsel and union representation throughout all hearings.

V. Institutional Protections and Record Retention

A. Confidentiality and Whistleblower Protection

To the maximum extent possible, the identity of complainants and respondents will be kept strictly confidential. The university strictly prohibits retaliation of any kind against a complainant acting in good faith. Conversely, submitting a knowingly false, malicious, or wrongful report of misconduct is an actionable violation of university regulations.

B. Reputational Restoration

If the allegations are not confirmed, Central will undertake diligent, coordinated efforts to restore the professional reputation of the respondent and ensure no permanent negative impact on their personnel file.

C. Record Retention Mandate

All documentation, records, and evidence related to research misconduct inquiries and investigations must be securely maintained by the RIO for a minimum period of seven (7) years following the completion of the proceeding or any subsequent federal agency review.

D. Collective Bargaining and Disciplinary Actions

The Commission on Research Misconduct is tasked strictly with fact-finding regarding the occurrence of Fabrication, Falsification, and Plagiarism (FFP). If misconduct is confirmed by the Deciding Official, the formal report will be presented to the President.

Any resulting disciplinary actions or administrative sanctions will be executed strictly in accordance with the procedures, articles, and protections set forth in the CSU-AAUP Collective Bargaining Agreement, the CSU-AFSCME Collective Bargaining Agreement, or the CSU Personnel Policies for Management and Confidential Employees.