Research Misconduct

Observed, suspected, or apparent Research Misconduct must be reported to the Research Integrity Officer (RIO). It may also be reported to the Vice Provost for Research, the Office of the General Counsel, a Chair, a Dean or to a Program or Institute Director. Confidential and/or anonymous reports may be made to the Ethics and Compliance Hotline. 

If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of Research Misconduct, he or she may meet with or contact the RIO to discuss the suspected Research Misconduct informally, which may include discussing it anonymously and/or hypothetically.  If the circumstances described by the individual do not meet the definition of Research Misconduct, the RIO will refer the individual or Allegation to other offices or officials with responsibility for addressing the issue.

At any time, an individual may have confidential discussions and consultations about concerns of possible Research Misconduct with the RIO and will be counseled about appropriate procedures for reporting Allegations. In the event that this discussion proceeds to Allegation, the associated confidentiality provisions will apply.

Contact the Research Integrity Officer.

The Deciding Official (typically the VPR - see the Policy for full definition) 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 a case. Complainants may request this or other updates throughout the course of a proceeding.

Lehigh is required to take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of a research misconduct proceeding do not have potential, perceived, or actual personal, professional or financial conflicts of interest with a complainant or respondent. The University is responsible for vetting committee members, and the committee members are expected to be honest and disclose any potential conflict. 

Committee members are experts who act in good faith to cooperate with the research misconduct proceedings by impartially carrying out their assigned duties. “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 the University meet its responsibilities under this policy. 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. Committee members will have relevant scientific expertise and be free of real or perceived conflicts of interest with any of the involved parties.

The procedures described in the Research Misconduct policy are remedial. The corrective actions with respect to any finding of Research Misconduct shall be commensurate with the seriousness of the Research Misconduct, including, without limitation, the degree to which the Research Misconduct: 

• was knowing, intentional or reckless;
• was an isolated event or part of a pattern; or 
• had a significant impact on the Research Record, Research subjects, other researchers, the University, other institutions or the public.

The university may take administrative action if research misconduct is substantiated by the findings. These actions may include, but are not limited to:

1. Withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the research where research misconduct was found
2. Removal of the responsible person from the particular project, letter of reprimand, special monitoring of future work, probation, suspension, salary reduction, or initiation of steps leading to possible rank reduction or termination of employment
3. Restitution of funds to the grantor agency as appropriate

The University may have other policies, requirements, or standards of conduct that are different from the standards for Research Misconduct under this Policy. Findings of Research Misconduct or resolution of Research Misconduct Proceedings per this Policy, or the absence thereof, do not affect University findings or actions taken based on other University policies, requirements, or standards of conduct.  

The Deciding Official (typically the VPR - see the Policy for full definition) shares the final Research Misconduct decision with the Provost, Respondent’s Dean, and the chair of the Faculty Senate. It is the responsibility of these individuals to make any other necessary referrals per all relevant University policies, requirements, and standards of conduct.