Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct: Policies, Definitions, and Procedures

Effective January 1, 2026

UC Berkeley is committed to the highest standards of research integrity, ethical conduct, and public trust in scholarship. This policy and its accompanying procedures are adopted in response to federal requirements governing the handling of research misconduct by institutions that receive external research funding, including regulations issued by the U.S. Public Health Service, the National Science Foundation, and other federal agencies. They also reflect Berkeley’s longstanding institutional values and obligations under University of California policies, including the UC Policy on Integrity in Research and Regents Policy 1111. Together, these authorities require the campus to take prompt, fair, and effective action to prevent, assess, and address allegations of research misconduct, while protecting the integrity of the research record and the rights of all individuals involved.

This policy describes the framework UC Berkeley uses to receive, assess, and resolve allegations of research misconduct. It outlines clear definitions, roles, responsibilities, and the three procedural stages—assessment, inquiry, and investigation—designed to ensure thorough, objective, and timely review consistent with federal law and University policy.  By setting forth transparent and standardized processes, this policy aims to support a culture of integrity, accountability, and fairness across Berkeley’s research enterprise.

Confidentiality

Confidentiality is a core principle of UC Berkeley’s response to allegations of research misconduct. To the extent permitted by law and University policy, the campus protects the privacy of Complainants, Respondents, witnesses, and committee members by limiting information sharing to those with a need to know. The confidentiality requirements and protections–as outlined in the policy itself–are intended to encourage good faith reporting, prevent retaliation, preserve process integrity, and minimize unnecessary reputational harm, while balancing these priorities with the University’s legal and ethical obligations to research sponsors, regulatory agencies, and others, including required disclosures and corrective actions when misconduct is substantiated.

Policy

I. INTRODUCTION

The University of California, Berkeley is committed to upholding the integrity of research and scholarship, responding to allegations of research misconduct, and fostering an environment conducive to research integrity in accordance with the University of California Regents Policy 1111: Policy on Statement of Ethical Values and Standards of Ethical Conduct.

UC Berkeley adheres to federal regulations set forth by the United States Public Health Service (PHS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and other federal agencies as well as University policies in developing campus procedures and appropriate safeguards for handling allegations of research misconduct in a consistent and transparent manner.  

All members of the UC Berkeley research community are expected to cooperate in reporting suspected research misconduct and in responding to allegations by acting in good faith, providing research records and other relevant information to the Research Integrity Officer and other campus officials in the course of their review of allegations of research misconduct, participating in research misconduct proceedings, and refraining from retaliation or interference with a research misconduct proceeding.
 

I.A GOVERNING POLICIES

UC Berkeley is committed to maintaining the integrity of scholarship and research, and to fostering a climate conducive to research integrity. The University of California Office of the President requires each campus to implement policies and procedures for responding to allegations of research misconduct that comply with federal policies and make its policies and procedures publicly available, satisfying the requirements of the United States Public Health Service (PHS) and National Science Foundation (NSF) regulations relating to research integrity and misconduct.

The United States Public Health Service (PHS) (within the Department of Health and Human Services) regulations under 42 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 93 commits the university, as an institution that “applies for or receives PHS support for biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or research training, to ensure the integrity of all PHS-supported work, and to assume primary responsibility for responding to and reporting allegations of research misconduct.” Further, the Research Misconduct regulations under 45 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 689 require National Science Foundation (NSF) awardee institutions to “bear primary responsibility for prevention and detection of research misconduct and for the inquiry, investigation, and adjudication of alleged research misconduct.” Other federal agencies have similar requirements.

UC Berkeley prohibits retaliation against Complainants, witnesses, and any person who participates in assessing, inquiring, or investigating research misconduct allegations. UC Berkeley community members should immediately report any alleged or apparent retaliation to the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) at the Vice Chancellor for Research Office, who will review the matter and, as necessary, make all reasonable and practical efforts to counter any potential or actual retaliation, as well as protect and restore the position and reputation of the person against whom the retaliation is directed.


I.B. APPLICABILITY AND SCOPE

SCOPE. These policies and procedures apply to all UC Berkeley members engaged in research, broadly defined, regardless of funding source. It includes all allegations of research misconduct (as defined in Section II) by a person who, at the time of the alleged misconduct, was officially affiliated with UC Berkeley, including but not limited to faculty, staff, students, and campus-approved postdoctoral scholars and visiting scholars. The UC Policy, and these implementing procedures, do not apply to research undertaken in fulfillment of a course requirement.  

TIME LIMITATIONS. 42 CFR 93.104 imposes a six year time limit on reporting research misconduct allegations. The university is only required to address allegations of research misconduct that occurred within six years prior to the date UC Berkeley received the allegation, subject to the exceptions in federal regulations including (a) if the Respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct occurring before the six-year limitation through citation, republication, or other use of the portion(s) of the research record alleged to have a research misconduct finding for the potential benefit of the Respondent; or (b) if it is determined that the alleged misconduct would have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public. The six year time limit does not apply if the research sponsor’s policy specifies a different limitation period.
 

1Other federal agencies include the Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USOA), Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),  National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. Department of Education (ED), and  National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).

II. DEFINITIONS

The University of California Policy on Integrity in Research draws its definition of research misconduct from the regulations of the Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services (42 CFR, Part 50, Subpart A), which has since been replaced by Federal regulations at 42 CFR Part 93 Subpart B. The following definitions are current as of August 2025. (In the event of any future inconsistency that may develop between these definitions and updated definitions in the CFR, the latter are assumed to govern, unless otherwise specified.)

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

Other terms used in these procedures, and defined in a manner consistent with 42 CFR Part 93 subpart B, include–but are not limited to– those listed below:

Allegation means a disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of the Research Integrity Officer or at the federal agency that has oversight responsibility for the questioned research.

Assessment means a consideration of whether an allegation of research misconduct appears to fall within the definition of research misconduct; was made against a person to whom this Policy applies; and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. The Assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the Allegation(s).

Complainant means an individual who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct.

Evidence means anything offered or obtained during a research 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.

Fabrication means making up results and recording or reporting them.

Falsification means 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.

Good Faith, as applied to a Complainant or witness, means having a reasonable belief in the truth of one's allegation or testimony, based on the information known to the Complainant or witness at the time. An allegation or cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding is not in good faith if made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for information that would negate the allegation or testimony. Good faith as applied to an institutional or committee member means cooperating with the research 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 committee member does not act in good faith if their acts or omissions during the research misconduct proceedings are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.

Inquiry refers to preliminary information gathering and preliminary fact-finding to determine whether an allegation of research misconduct warrants an Investigation. An inquiry does not require a full review of the evidence related to the allegation(s).

Institutional Certifying Official is the official responsible for assuring that the University of California, Berkeley has written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct and complies with those policies and procedures. At UCB, the Vice Chancellor for Research (VCR) serves as the Institutional Certifying Official.

Institutional Deciding Official is the official who makes final determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any institutional actions. The same individual cannot serve as the Institutional Deciding Official and the Research Integrity Officer. At UCB, the Vice Chancellor for Research serves as the Institutional Deciding Official (IDO). If, in a particular research misconduct proceeding, the VCR has a conflict of interest or is unavailable, the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost (EVCP) or Vice Provost designated by the EVCP will serve instead.

Institutional Record comprises

  • records that the institution compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the institution did not consider or rely on. Institutional records include, but are not limited to

    • documentation of the Assessment; 

    • if any inquiry is conducted, the inquiry report and all records considered or relied on during the inquiry (other than drafts of the report), including research records and the transcripts of any transcribed interviews conducted during the inquiry, information the Respondent provided to the institution, and the documentation of any decision not to investigate; 

    • if an investigation is conducted, the investigation report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the investigation, including research records, the transcripts of each interview conducted, and information the Respondent provided to the institution;

    • decisions by the Institutional Deciding Official;

    • the complete record of any institutional appeal;

  • a single index listing all the research records and evidence that the institution compiled during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the institution did not consider or rely on; 
  • a general description of the records that were sequestered by not considered or relied on.

Intentionally means acting with the aim of carrying out the act.

Investigation means the formal development of a factual record and the examination and evaluation of that record; it includes determining, by a preponderance of the evidence standard, whether or not the Respondent(s) in the investigation engaged in research misconduct.

Knowingly means acting with awareness of the act.

Notice means a written or electronic communication served in person or sent by mail or its equivalent to the last known street address, facsimile number, or email address of the addressee.

Office of Research Integrity (ORI) means the office established by Public Health Service Act section 493 (42 U.S.C. 289b) and to which the HHS Secretary has delegated responsibility for addressing research integrity and misconduct issues related to PHS-supported activities.

Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving appropriate credit.

(a) 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.

(b) Plagiarism does not include self-plagiarism or authorship or credit disputes, including disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a research project. Self-plagiarism and authorship disputes do not meet the definition of research misconduct.

Preponderance of the evidence means proof by evidence that, compared with evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely true than not. This is the standard used in determining whether Research Misconduct occurred.

Recklessly means proposing, performing, reviewing research, or reporting research results with indifference to known risks of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.

Research means a systematic experiment, study, evaluation, demonstration, or survey designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge or specific knowledge by establishing, discovering, developing, elucidating, or confirming information or underlying mechanisms related to biological causes, functions, or effects; diseases; treatments; or related matters to be studied.

Research Integrity Officer (RIO) refers to the institutional official responsible for administering the institution's written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct. At UC Berkeley, the Vice Chancellor for Research appoints the RIO.

Research Misconduct Proceeding means any University actions related to alleged research misconduct as defined in these procedures, including allegation assessments, inquiries, investigations, ORI oversight reviews, and appeals.

Research record means the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry. Data or results may be in physical or electronic form. Examples of items, materials, or information that may be considered part of the research record include, but are not limited to, research proposals, raw data, processed data, clinical research records, laboratory records, study records, laboratory notebooks, progress reports, manuscripts, abstracts, theses, records of oral presentations, online content, lab meeting reports, and journal articles.

Respondent refers to the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding.

Retaliation means an adverse action taken against a Complainant, witness, or committee member by an institution or one of its members in response to: (a) A good faith allegation of research misconduct; or (b) Good faith cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding.

 

III. REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT (§ 93.103).

Finding of research misconduct requires:

  1. There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
  2. The misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
  3. The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence standard.
     
IV. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

A. All persons engaged in research at UC Berkeley are responsible for adhering to the highest standards of intellectual honesty and integrity. Those who supervise research have a responsibility to create an environment that encourages those high standards through open publication and discussion, emphasis on research quality, appropriate supervision, maintenance of accurate and detailed research procedures and results, and suitable assignment of credit and responsibility for research.

B. All members of the UC Berkeley community are expected to cooperate in reporting suspected research misconduct and in responding to allegations by acting in good faith, providing research records and other relevant information, participating in research misconduct proceedings, and refraining from retaliation or interference with a research misconduct proceeding.

C. The Chancellor delegates to the Vice Chancellor for Research (VCR) the responsibility to oversee the policy and procedures for responding to allegations of research misconduct, including:

  • Ensuring compliance with applicable federal regulations regarding responding to alleged research misconduct;
  • Disseminating the policy;
  • Appointing the Research Integrity Officer (RIO);
  • Appointing individual(s) or a committee to conduct inquiries and investigations into allegations of research misconduct, and assuring that no real or apparent conflicts of interest arise in those appointed to pursue this process; that they have the appropriate disciplinary expertise; and that due regard is given to the prevailing standards of the field;
  • Ensuring appropriate confidentiality and fairness of proceedings;
  • Ensuring a full and complete inquiry, investigation, and resolution process;
  • Ensuring all reports, research records, transcriptions, and other evidence collected in research misconduct proceedings are sequestered in a secured manner; 
  • Maintaining confidentiality of records, in accord with established university policy, relating to the investigation and resolution of incidents of research misconduct;
  • Taking all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of good faith complainants, witnesses, and committee members and to protect these individuals from retaliation by respondents and/or other institutional members;
  • Provide for all reasonable and practical efforts, if requested and as appropriate, to protect or restore the reputation of persons alleged to have engaged in research misconduct but against whom no finding of research misconduct is made.

D. The Vice Chancellor for Research serves as the Institutional Deciding Officer (IDO), who 1) makes final determinations on allegations of research misconduct, and 2) takes appropriate institutional actions, including referring findings of research misconduct to other UCB officials for sanction and discipline. The IDO also appoints the Research Integrity Officer (RIO).

E. The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) has the following primary responsibilities: 

  • Coordinate all procedures related to allegations of research misconduct by anyone performing research under the campus' aegis;
  • Assess allegations; 
  • Conduct inquiries and investigations leading to determinations of whether research misconduct occurred; 
  • Take reasonable steps to ensure the cooperation of Respondents and others at UC Berkeley with research misconduct proceedings;
  • Report the results of inquiries and investigations to the IDO and research sponsors as required;
  • If extramural funds are involved, determine whether law, regulation, or the terms or conditions of the award: (1) require notification of the sponsor; (2) specify time limits; or (3) require other actions to assure compliance. The RIO coordinates with the appointees, the VCRO, the Sponsored Projects Office, and other concerned parties to ensure compliance.
  • If appropriate or required, notify concerned parties such as sponsors, co-authors, collaborators, editors, licensing boards, professional societies, and criminal authorities of the outcome of investigations, taking care to clear the name of anyone falsely charged.
  • Cooperate with research sponsors, such as ORI, during research misconduct proceedings, and assisting in administering and enforcing any federal administrative actions imposed upon UC Berkeley or persons at UC Berkeley;
  • File annual reports with ORI. 
V. CONFIDENTIALITY, INFORMATION SHARING, AND RECORDS RETENTION

To the extent possible and as the law allows, all matters related to an ongoing research misconduct process should be kept confidential. UCB and all participants in a research misconduct proceeding should limit disclosure of the identity of Respondents and Complainants to those who need to know, provided that this limit is consistent with a thorough, competent, objective, and fair research misconduct proceeding and consistent with University policy and the law. Those who need to know may include institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions. Except as may otherwise be prescribed by applicable law and University policy, and as necessary to conduct a Research Misconduct Proceeding, confidentiality must be maintained (e.g., through the use of redaction) for any records or evidence from which research subjects may be identified. For findings of research misconduct, UCB will determine the appropriate level of disclosure.

A. Under some conditions, UCB must report aspects of research misconduct proceedings and findings to external institutions during the research misconduct proceedings:

1)  As required by federal regulations and research sponsor policy prior to closing a case if the Respondent has admitted wrongdoing, a settlement has been tentatively reached with the Respondent, or for any other reason (but not when a case is closed at the assessment or inquiry stage on the basis that an investigation is not warranted);
2) Of a need for an extension of time to complete an Investigation, upon determining that an investigation cannot be completed within one hundred eighty (180) days of its initiation, unless the research sponsor specifies an alternate time period within its policies;
3) Immediately, if at any time there is reason to believe that as a result of a research misconduct proceeding: the health or safety of the public is at risk; there is an immediate need to protect human subjects or animals; federal resources or interests are threatened; research activities should be suspended; there is reasonable indication of a possible violation of civil or criminal law; federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding; UCB believes that, because the research misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely, notice would afford the federal government the opportunity to take appropriate steps to safeguard the evidence and protect the rights of those involved; or the research community or public should be informed;
4) Other information as a research sponsor may lawfully request.

B. Any potential, perceived, or actual personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest between members of the committee or consortium, or other person, and the Complainant, Respondent, or witnesses must be considered. The committee, consortium, or person conducting research misconduct proceedings must comply with the requirements of this policy.

C. All collected data and evidence, as well as the records and reports of the assessment, inquiry, and investigation, will be securely maintained for seven (7) years after the completion of a UCB research misconduct proceeding, unless custody of the records has been transferred to a research sponsor or ORI has notified UCB that the records are no longer needed.

D. UC Berkeley is responsible for determining and implementing sanctions and discipline where appropriate.  

VI. PROCEDURES

A. Reporting Allegations of Research Misconduct

  1. Any individual may report suspected research misconduct involving one or more persons, either verbally or in writing. The allegation should not only describe the nature of the suspected misconduct but also include the evidence that led the reporting party to believe that research misconduct has occurred.  
     
  2. For the procedures to apply, allegations must be received by the RIO or ORI within six (6) years after the alleged research misconduct occurred, except under the following circumstances: 
    • the Respondent has continued or renewed the alleged misconduct by citing, re-publishing, or otherwise using the portion of the Research Record in which alleged misconduct occurred for potential benefit; 
    • the research sponsor, or UC Berkeley in consultation with the research sponsor, determines that the alleged misconduct could have a significant adverse impact on public health or safety; or
    • the research sponsor’s policy specifies a different limitation period.
       
  3. Individuals who are uncertain whether a situation qualifies as research misconduct should contact the Vice Chancellor for Research Office (VCRO) and request to speak with the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) informally regarding a suspected misconduct. If the reported circumstances do not fall within the definition of Research Misconduct, the RIO will refer the individual or allegation to other offices or officials with responsibility for addressing the issue.
     
  4. Allegations should be reported directly to the RIO, whose contact information is posted on the VCRO Research Misconduct webpage. If an allegation is received by another University official or administrator, it must be forwarded promptly to the RIO. If an allegation arises during another University process (e.g., an audit), it must be immediately reported to the RIO, who will promptly initiate a research misconduct proceeding regardless of the nature or outcome of the other process.
     
  5. The informal discussion of possible research misconduct, as well as all subsequent stages in this procedure will be treated as strictly confidential, as discussed in Section V.
     
  6. For allegations that involve other institutions, the RIO will coordinate UCB’s research misconduct proceeding with that of any other institution that has a duty to investigate the same or related allegation of research misconduct. Such coordination may include a joint research misconduct proceeding, which requires one institution to serve as the lead institution to obtain from all relevant institutions research records and other evidence pertinent to the proceeding, including witness testimony.  By mutual agreement, the joint research misconduct proceeding may include committee members from the institutions involved. The determination of whether further inquiry and/or investigation is warranted, whether research misconduct occurred, and the institutional actions to be taken may be made by the institutions jointly or tasked to the lead institution. However, UCB must follow its own procedures for making a final determination of research misconduct and taking appropriate actions based thereon.

B. Termination

  1. Research misconduct proceedings can be terminated at the assessment, inquiry, investigation, or appeal stage if the Respondent admits to committing research misconduct or a settlement with the Respondent has been reached. The Respondent must submit a written admission that states the specific fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism that occurred, which research records were affected, and that it constituted a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community. UC Berkeley will close the case only after receiving the Respondent’s written admission and submitting to research sponsors a written statement confirming the Respondent’s culpability and explaining how the institution determined that the Respondent’s admission fully addresses the scope of the misconduct (§ 93.317).

C. Initial Assessment

  1. Upon receiving an allegation, the RIO will promptly conduct an initial assessment within thirty (30) calendar days, with extensions for good cause, to decide whether an inquiry is justified. An inquiry is considered warranted if there is a reasonable basis to conclude that:
    • the allegation meets the definition of research misconduct; 
    • the allegation is sufficiently serious, credible, and specific to allow for the identification of potential evidence of research misconduct or witnesses; 
    • the allegation is directed at an individual subject to this policy; and
    • the alleged misconduct occurred within the applicable limitation period.
       
  2. Assessments must be documented. If an inquiry is not warranted, documentation of the reasons for that determination must be sufficiently detailed to permit a later review by the research sponsor. If the alleged falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism occurred outside the limitation period, the documentation must include the determination that the subsequent use exception did not apply. Such documentation should be retained in accordance with Section III.I of this policy. If appropriate, the RIO may also refer the matter to other appropriate campus officials.
     
  3. If it is determined that an inquiry is warranted, the RIO must document the assessment, sequester all research records and other evidence, and promptly initiate the inquiry.

D. Inquiry

  1. Purpose. The goal of an inquiry is to determine whether there is sufficient substance to the allegation and sufficient evidence of possible research misconduct to warrant a formal investigation. The inquiry is not intended to reach a final conclusion about whether misconduct occurred or who was responsible. The findings of the inquiry should be set forth in the inquiry report. This inquiry phase of information-gathering and fact-finding must be completed within ninety (90) calendar days of initiation (when individuals were appointed to serve in the inquiry), unless circumstances warrant a longer period. If the inquiry takes longer than ninety (90) calendar days to complete, the inquiry report must document the reasons for exceeding this period.
     
  2. Sequestration of Evidence. Before or at the time the institution notifies the Respondent of the allegation(s); and whenever additional items become known or relevant to the inquiry or investigation, the RIO must take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain all research records and other evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding. This evidence may include copies of the data or other evidence so long as those copies are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value. The RIO must also inventory the research records and other evidence; and sequester them in a secure manner. Where the research records or other evidence are located on or encompass scientific instruments shared by multiple users, institutions 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. Research data generated during the course of UC research is owned by The Regents regardless of its form and where it resides.
     
  3. Access to Research Records. Where appropriate, the Respondent will be provided copies of, or reasonably supervised access to, the research records.
     
  4. Convening the Committee. Following the decision to initiate an inquiry, the RIO may convene a committee of experts to conduct a review to determine whether an investigation is warranted. In lieu of a committee, the inquiry review may be done by a RIO or another designated institutional official appointed by the VCR, with the caveat that if needed, these individuals may utilize one or more subject matter experts to assist them in gathering preliminary information to determine whether an allegation warrants an investigation.
     
  5. Notice to the Respondent(s). At the time of or before beginning an inquiry, the RIO must make a good faith effort to notify the Respondent(s) with written notice of the decision to initiate the inquiry and the allegation(s) of research misconduct. If the inquiry subsequently identifies additional Respondents, the RIO must notify them. Only allegations specific to a particular Respondent are to be included in the notification to that Respondent. If additional allegations are raised, the Respondent(s) must be notified in writing of the additional allegations raised against them.

    The notice will include a copy of or link to this policy, identify the individual(s) conducting the inquiry, and state that, to the RIO’s knowledge, the individual(s) do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the Respondent. Respondents who disagree have five (5) calendar days from the receipt of notice to submit a written description of bias or conflict of interest. The RIO or the VCR has the final authority to determine who will conduct the inquiry.
     
  6. Interviews. Institutions may interview witnesses or Respondents to provide additional information for the institution's review. Transcription is not required.
     
  7. Inquiry Report. The individual(s) appointed to conduct the inquiry must submit a final report to the RIO within ninety (90) calendar days of their appointment, unless a different timeframe is specified by the research sponsor’s policies or the RIO approves a written request for an extension. The inquiry report must include:
    • The names, positions, and institutional affiliation of the Respondent and Complainant;
    • A description of the allegation(s) of research misconduct;
    • The name(s) of the individual or committee members, their position(s), and subject matter expertise;
    • A list of extramural funding that supported the research at issue, including grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications citing such support;
    • Inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted and a list of research records reviewed;
    • Transcripts of any transcribed interviews;
    • Timeline and procedural history;
    • Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted;
    • The basis for recommending that the allegation(s) warrant an investigation or the basis on which any allegation(s) do not merit an investigation;
    • If there is potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion, it must be noted in the inquiry report.
    • If appropriate, documentation of reasons for exceeding the 90-day inquiry period.
       
  8. Review by the Respondent(s). The Respondent will be provided with a copy of the Inquiry Report and may submit a written response to the RIO within fourteen (14) calendar days of its receipt. If a response is provided, it shall be included in the record. The RIO may provide a copy of the response to the Inquiry Committee for consideration; any amendment to the Report or rebuttal to the response by the Inquiry committee shall be included in the Final Report.
     
  9. Determination and Notification of the Inquiry Results. Upon receipt of the inquiry report, the IDO will determine whether an investigation is warranted.
    • If an investigation is not warranted, the RIO will close the proceeding and document a sufficiently detailed explanation of why an investigation is not warranted.
    • If there is sufficient evidence to warrant a formal investigation, the RIO must, within thirty (30) calendar days of the decision and before the investigation begins:
      • Notify the research sponsor about the decision to begin an investigation and provide a copy of the inquiry report, any comments from the Respondent, and a description of any institutional actions implemented, including communications with journals or funding agencies. 
      • Notify the Respondent of the IDO’s decision to initiate a formal investigation. The Respondent must be provided with a copy of the inquiry report and a copy or link to this policy.  

The institution is not required to notify the Complainant of the inquiry results.

E. Investigation

  1. Purpose. An investigation formally develops a factual record, pursues leads, and examines the record to find if research misconduct has occurred and, if so, to determine the responsible person(s) as well as to make recommendations with respect to the imposition of disciplinary sanctions. The investigation phase should be completed within 180 calendar days from the appointment of the investigative committee, unless circumstances warrant a longer period. If the need for an extension is expected, the RIO must seek approval from research sponsors before the conclusion of 180 calendar days. If the investigation stage is extended beyond 180 calendar days the reasons for doing so should be documented.
     
  2. Convening an Investigation Committee. After vetting investigation committee members for conflicts of interest and appropriate scientific expertise, the RIO will convene the committee and ensure that the members understand their responsibility to conduct the research misconduct proceedings in compliance with this policy. Members of the Inquiry Committee may serve on the Investigation Committee.
     
    • In the case of a faculty member, the investigative committee is appointed by the RIO in consultation with the Vice Chancellor for Research (VCR). It will be constituted from members of the Academic Senate, and contain one to three members. A larger committee may be appointed if, in the opinion of the VCR, it would facilitate the investigation.
    • In the case of academic researchers (visiting scholars, post-doctoral fellows, professional researchers, non-faculty academics, etc.) or staff members, the RIO in consultation with the VCR appoints an investigative committee that, typically, will include a member of the relevant peer group plus one or two members of the Academic Senate.
    • In the case of a student, the RIO in consultation with the VCR appoints an investigative committee of one to three members of the Academic Senate.  
       
  3. Charge of the Investigation Committee. The investigation committee will take reasonable steps to ensure an impartial, unbiased, and thorough investigation–including sequestering all research records and other evidence, sufficiently documenting the investigation, diligently pursue all significant and relevant issues and leads, and examining all relevant research records and evidence, including evidence of additional allegations–to reach a decision on the merits of the allegation(s). The committee should complete its work and submit a final investigation report within one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of its appointment unless the research sponsor specifies an alternate time period within its policies. The time period may be extended, provided that a research sponsor has assented in writing.
     
  4. Notice to the Respondent(s). The RIO will notify the Respondent(s) in writing that an investigation is being undertaken, will inform them of the allegations that are under investigation, as well as of the composition of the investigative committee and the procedures that will be followed in the course of the investigation. The Respondent has five (5) calendar days to challenge, in writing, the committee's membership based on bias or conflict of interest. The VCR has the final authority to determine who will conduct the investigation.

    In the event that new allegations arise in the course of the investigation, the Respondent will be notified in writing. If any additional Respondent(s) are identified during the investigation, the RIO will notify them of the allegation(s) and provide them an opportunity to respond. The RIO may choose to either conduct a separate inquiry or add the new Respondent(s) to the ongoing investigation. 
     
  5. Documentation. The Investigation Committee should use diligent efforts to ensure that the Investigation is thoroughly and sufficiently documented and includes examination or all research records and other evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the Allegation(s).
     
  6. Sequestration of records. The investigation committee must obtain, inventory, and sequester all research records and other evidence needed to conduct the investigation, consistent with § 93.305(a). Where the research records or other evidence are located on or encompass scientific instruments shared by multiple users, the RIO should obtain copies of the data or other evidence from such instruments. Additional items can be obtained throughout the research misconduct proceedings. Research data generated during the course of UC research is owned by The Regents regardless of its form and where it resides.
     
  7. Burden of Proof. The Respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of evidence, affirmative defenses raised, including credible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion (§ 93.105(b)).
     
  8. Destruction of and Failure to Provide Research Records. The Respondent’s destruction of research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where a preponderance of evidence establishes that the Respondent intentionally or knowingly destroyed records after being informed of the research misconduct allegations. The Respondent’s failure to provide research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where the Respondent claims to possess the records but refuses to provide them upon request (§ 93.105(b)).
     
  9. Advisor/Representative. Complainants, Respondents, and witnesses may be accompanied by an advisor – including a legal or employment representative – during any interview, for the purposes of observation and advice.  Throughout the process of handling an Allegation, the RIO, the Inquiry Officer or Committee, and the Investigation committee may consult with Campus or University Counsel, as needed, for advice and to ensure compliance with these Procedures.
     
  10. Interviews. During the investigation, an institution must interview each Respondent, Complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the Respondent.
    • Interviews during the investigation must be recorded and transcribed.
    • Any exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview must be numbered and referred to by that number in the interview.
    • The transcript of the interview must be made available to the relevant interviewee for correction.
    • The transcript(s) with any corrections and numbered exhibits must be included in the institutional record of the investigation.
    • The Respondent must not be present during the witnesses' interviews but must be provided a transcript of the interview.
    • The RIO must, to the extent possible, provide confidentiality to Respondents, Complainants, and witnesses and protect Complainants, witnesses, and committee members from retaliation, following relevant campus guidelines.
       
  11. Research Misconduct Finding. A finding of Research Misconduct requires finding that the alleged Research Misconduct: a) represents a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant Research community; b) was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and c) was proven by a Preponderance of the Evidence standard.
     
  12. Investigation report. An investigation report for each Respondent must be in writing and include:
    • Description of the nature of the allegation(s) of research misconduct, including any additional allegation(s) addressed during the research misconduct proceeding;
    • Description and documentation of extramural funding support, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing the funding support. This documentation includes known applications or proposals for support that the Respondent has pending with PHS and non-PHS Federal agencies;
    • Description of the specific allegation(s) of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation of the Respondent;
    • Composition of the investigation committee, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise;
    • Inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence, except records the institution did not consider or rely on. This inventory will include manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied on during the investigation. The inventory will also include a description of how any sequestration was conducted during the investigation;
    • Transcripts of all interviews conducted;
    • Identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, or other research records that contain the allegedly falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material;
    • Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted;
    • A copy of these policies and procedures;
    • Any comments made by the Respondent and Complainant(s) on the draft investigation report and the committee’s consideration of those comments;
    • A statement for each separate allegation of whether the committee recommends a finding of research misconduct.

If the committee recommends a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the investigation report will present a finding for each allegation. These findings will:

(a) identify the individual(s) who committed the research misconduct; 
(b) indicate whether the misconduct was falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism; 
(c) indicate whether the misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; 
(d) identify any significant departure from the accepted practices of the relevant research community and that the allegation was proven by a preponderance of the evidence; 
(e) summarize the facts and analysis supporting the conclusion and consider the merits of any explanation by the Respondent; 
(f) identify specific extramural funding support; and 
(g) state whether any publications need correction or retraction.

If the investigation committee does not recommend a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the investigation report will provide a detailed rationale for its conclusion.

The investigation committee should also provide a list of any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the Respondent has pending with PHS and non-PHS Federal agencies.

In a separate communication to the RIO, who will confer with the IDO,  the investigative committee shall offer its recommendations with respect to disciplinary sanctions, if any.

  1. Opportunity to comment on the draft investigation report. The RIO must give the Respondent a copy of the investigation report and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the research records and other evidence that the investigation committee considered or relied on. The Respondent must submit any comments on the draft report to the institution within 30 calendar days of receiving the investigation report. Upon receipt, the RIO shall forward the response to the Investigation Committee, which may revise the report. The response shall become part of the Investigation record. The RIO may do the same for the Complainant.


F. Final Determination of Research Misconduct

  1. The IDO will review the investigation report and make a final written determination of whether research misconduct had occurred and, if so, who committed the misconduct. In this statement, the IDO will include a description of relevant institutional actions taken and/ or proposed actions to be taken.
     
  2. If the IDO determines that no research misconduct had occurred, the RIO will: 
    a. distribute that determination and a copy of the investigation report to relevant parties with the need to know (i.e., research sponsors, journals, publishers, Graduate Division, Center for Student Conduct), and 
    b. upon the Respondent’s request, will take reasonable steps to restore the Respondent’s position and reputation, including informing appropriate individuals and organizations of the outcome.  
     
  3. The RIO will organize the institutional record in a logical manner.
    a. The institutional record consists of the records that were compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the institution did not rely on. These records include documentation of the assessment, a single index listing all research records and evidence, the inquiry report and investigation report, and all records considered or relied on during the investigation. The institutional record also includes the IDO’s final decision and any information the Respondent provided to the institution. The institutional record must also include a general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.
    b. If the Respondent filed an appeal, the complete record of the appeal also becomes part of the institutional record. 
     
  4. Once the institutional record is finalized (with any necessary redactions), the RIO will transmit it to the Respondent and the research sponsors.

G. Disciplinary Procedures and Notifications

If the IDO determines that research misconduct has occurred and intends to  recommend the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, the IDO will:

a. For a Respondent who is a member of the Academic Senate, notify the Vice Provost for Faculty who will follow the Berkeley Faculty Conduct Procedures. 
b. For a Respondent who has a policy-covered academic appointment but is not a member of the Academic Senate, notify the Assistant Vice Provost for Academic Personnel (Academic Personnel Office) who will follow the procedures set forth in APM 150. 
c. For a Respondent who has an appointment covered by the Academic Researchers contract (Professional Researchers, Project Scientists, Specialists, and Coordinators of Public Programs), notify the Assistant Vice Provost for Academic Personnel (Academic Personnel Office) who will follow the procedures set forth in Article 6 of the UC-UAW Academic Researchers contract.
d. For a Respondent who is a postdoctoral scholar, notify the Assistant Vice Provost for Academic Personnel (Academic Personnel Office) who will follow the procedures set forth in APM 390 and Article 5 of the UAW post-doctoral scholar contract. 
e. For a Respondent who is a graduate student, notify the Vice Provost & Dean of Graduate Division for appropriate action.
f. For a Respondent who is an undergraduate student, notify the Center of Student Conduct for appropriate action.
g. For a Respondent who is a Visiting Scholar or Visiting Student Researcher, notify the Academic Personnel Office for appropriate action.
h. For a Respondent who holds a staff position, notify the Chief People & Culture Officer for appropriate action. 
i. For a Respondent who has some other affiliation with UC Berkeley, notify the appropriate campus administrator.
j. For a Respondent that is no longer affiliated with UC Berkeley, notify the Respondent in writing of the intention to include the institutional record in the Respondent’s personnel or student file action and that the Respondent has the right to submit, within thirty (30) days, a written response for inclusion in the file.

For academic appointees, formal corrective action/discipline is governed by the Academic Personnel Manual (APM), including APM-015 (The Faculty Code of Conduct), APM-016 (University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline), APM-150 (Non-Senate Academic Appointees/Corrective Action and Dismissal), APM - 390 (Appointment and Promotion of Postdoctoral Scholars) and, as applicable, other policies and procedures. For represented employees, formal corrective action/discipline is governed by collective bargaining agreements.


H. Closing a Research Misconduct Proceeding 

  1. The RIO ensures that each Research Misconduct Proceeding is concluded in accordance with this Policy. A proceeding is considered closed after one of the following:
  • Initial assessment that an allegation does not warrant an Inquiry;
  • Acceptance of an inquiry report concluding that there is insufficient evidence to justify an investigation or that the alleged conduct falls outside the scope of this Policy;
  • A final determination that research misconduct occurred or did not occur, following an Investigation;
  • Acceptance of a written and signed admission by the Respondent that specifies the falsified, fabricated, and/or plagiarized data and acknowledges that such conduct constitutes research misconduct, provided the RIO has consulted with the research sponsor if required; or
  1. The RIO shall report any disciplinary actions taken by the campus to the ORI and to any external funding agency that requires it.
     
  2. The RIO shall take steps to ensure that retractions and corrections of any publications are completed, if appropriate.

I. Continuing Responsibilities of the RIO

  1. After a proceeding is closed, the RIO or their designee has a continuing responsibility to:
    • Maintain and preserve the record and evidence of the proceeding in a secure manner for seven (7) years;
    • Protect all participants involved in the proceedings;
    • Communicate and cooperate with research sponsors, including reopening the proceeding if requested;
    • Coordinate with university officials to implement any imposed sanctions or disciplinary actions.

 

 

 

At a glance