Procedure for Reviewing Allegations of Research Misconduct (Summary)

Procedure for Reviewing Allegations of Research Misconduct  (Summary)

Allegations of potential Research Misconduct move through six potential stages, which are described in detail in the Procedures for Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct.

on Research Misconduct:

1. Initial Assessment: The Research Integrity Officer determines answers to the following questions:
   • Would or might the allegation, if taken as true, fall within Purdue’s policy definition of research misconduct?
   • Is the allegation sufficiently specific and credible so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified and gathered? If these two questions are answered in the affirmative, the proceedings move to the Inquiry phase.
2. Inquiry: An Inquiry Committee is formed from the Standing Committee on Research Integrity. This committee determines answers to the following questions:
   • Is there a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within Purdue’s policy definition of research misconduct?
   • Based on the inquiry committee's review of the evidence and records that it considered, may the allegation have substance? If these two questions are answered in the affirmative, the proceedings move to the Investigation phase.

3. Investigation: A specially appointed expert faculty Investigation Committee determines if, based on a preponderance of the evidence, research misconduct has occurred with respect to the specific allegation(s) of research misconduct under review.

4. Appeal of Finding(s): The respondent has an opportunity to request review of any findings of research misconduct determined by the investigation committee.

5. Discipline: The Provost determines what disciplinary sanctions, if any, should be imposed on the respondent by the university.

6. Appeal of Sanction(s): The respondent has an opportunity to request review of any sanctions decided upon by the Provost.