Institutional Policy on Research Misconduct

Home / About Arcadia / Offices, Facilities, and Services / General Counsel / University Policies / Policy Library / Institutional Policy on Research Misconduct
Home / About Arcadia / Offices, Facilities, and Services / The Office of General Counsel and Secretary to the University / University Policies / University Policy Library / Institutional Policy on Research Misconduct
Policy Title Institutional Policy on Research Misconduct
Policy Category Academic Research
Original Policy Approval Date March 26, 2019 (Revised April 2026)
Policies Superseded None
Responsible Office Provost
Related Policies Principal Investigator Eligibility and Assurances Policy
Frequency of Review 5 Years
Date of Next Review April 2031

I. Scope

The Institutional Policy on Research Misconduct (“Policy”) applies to the Research proposed, conducted, or reported at Arcadia University (“University”) by all related individuals, including those with an appointment or official affiliation with the University including faculty members and staff, as well as part­ time and adjunct faculty, visiting scholars, members of the research staff, other teaching or research staff with consulting appointments, postdoctoral scholars, technicians, as well as United States and foreign students, volunteers, contractors, consultants, subcontractors and subawardees, and employees involved in research at the University or elsewhere as a part of the University duties regardless of the funding source. This Policy also applies to the research undertaken in fulfillment of a course requirement if there is an expectation of publication, presentation, or dissemination outside the University. This Policy does not cover authorship disputes unless they involve plagiarism. The definitions of all capitalized terms are set forth in Section IV below.

This Policy does not apply to PHS-supported research. PHS-supported research is governed by Arcadia’s separate Institutional Policy on Research Misconduct in PHS-Supported Research, which is maintained by the Office of Sponsored Research and Programs and may be obtained upon request. Additionally, research supported by non-profit organizations that contractually mandate PHS standards shall also be governed by the Institutional Policy on Research Misconduct in PHS-Supported Research. For the avoidance of doubt, in the event of any inconsistency, ambiguity, or conflict between this Policy and applicable PHS regulations or guidance, the Institutional Policy on Research Misconduct in PHS-Supported Research shall govern and be controlling. For all PHS-supported research, the primary institution assumes assurance responsibility for subrecipients. Arcadia shall ensure that each subrecipient has its own research misconduct policy that meets Sponsor requirements for sponsored research. If a subrecipient lacks such a policy, the University shall agree with the subrecipient on the appropriate action.

II. Policy Statement

Arcadia faculty, staff, and students are expected to conduct Research in accordance with the highest ethical standards and relevant regulations. Research Misconduct is damaging to the reputation of the University and undermines the integrity and credibility of scholars. The University takes all allegations of Research Misconduct seriously and will assess such incidents. The purpose of this Policy is to provide members of the academic community with the framework for resolution of alleged incidents of Research Misconduct in a fair, prompt, and consistent manner.

The University understands the need to protect the Complainant, the Respondent, and Witnesses involved in any misconduct proceedings. Therefore, the procedures for the inquiry, investigation, and resolution of any Research Misconduct are spelled out in this Policy.

This policy was revised in April 2026 to ensure institutional compliance with the updated Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct (42 CFR Part 93), finalized in September 2024.

III. Policy

In adherence with 42 CFR Part 93 (applicable January 1, 2026), Allegations of Research Misconduct for PHS-supported projects must be made in accordance with Arcadia’s Institutional Policy on Research Misconduct in PHS-Supported Research.

For all other Allegations of Research Misconduct:

A. Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Policies

For the purposes of externally funded Research, if the terms of this Policy are inconsistent with a Sponsor’s policy, the Sponsor policy and procedures will apply for the purposes of investigating and resolving an alleged incident of Research Misconduct. The University will comply with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations with respect to Research Misconduct.

B. Standards and Administrative Procedures

 The Provost is responsible for setting and communicating standards with respect to Research Misconduct and overseeing the administrative procedures relating to the review of any Allegation of Research Misconduct.

C. Making an Allegation of Research Misconduct

1. The University encourages reasonable efforts be made to resolve allegations of Research Misconduct prior to the beginning of the formal administrative procedures described in this Policy. If an individual believes that there are grounds for making an Allegation of Research Misconduct, such individual may initially notify the appropriate Dean or the Provost, who will use good faith efforts to resolve an individual’s concerns informally. The administrative procedures described in this Policy (other than the safeguards described in Section H below) shall not be applicable to any such informal process.

2. Allegations of Research Misconduct should be communicated in writing and directed to the appropriate Dean (or Deans when more than one College/School is involved) who must then notify the Provost. Allegations against a Dean should be submitted directly to the Provost. Allegations against a Provost should be submitted directly to the President.

3. Upon receipt of an Allegation, the Provost and the appropriate Dean(s) will conduct a preliminary assessment of the information presented to determine whether the incident constitutes alleged Research Misconduct and whether the Allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified. If both of these criteria are met, the Provost shall immediately begin an Inquiry as defined below in Section E. If these criteria are not met, then an Allegation is dismissed.

4. An Allegation of Research Misconduct may have profound implications for the Complainant, the Respondent, and any Witness in a Research Misconduct proceeding. Therefore, any individual making an Allegation of Research Misconduct should take great care in documenting the facts.

D. Response to an Allegation of Research Misconduct

A response to an Allegation shall consist of two phases:

1. Inquiry: the gathering of preliminary information to assess whether an Allegation has substance and if so, whether a formal investigation is warranted;

2. Investigation: the formal development of a factual record with respect to an Allegation and evaluation of the collected record leading to dismissal of the case or a recommendation of a finding of Research Misconduct and appropriate corrective actions; and the formal procedure for reviewing and evaluating the evidence and an investigation report to determine whether to agree with the recommended findings and to impose disciplinary actions.

It is expected that the Complainant, the Respondent, and any other persons involved in the administrative procedures described in this Policy will act in good faith.

E. The Inquiry

1. If the preliminary assessment of the Allegation confirms that the Allegation constitutes Research Misconduct (Section C.3), the Provost shall notify the Complainant, the Respondent, the appropriate Dean(s), and other administrators for the need to assess the Allegation. If the Inquiry subsequently identifies additional respondents, the Provost shall also notify them.

2. Upon initiation of an inquiry, the institution shall take immediate steps to sequester all research records and evidence pertinent to the allegation. This process shall include, but is not limited to: Creating forensic images of all relevant electronic media (e.g., computers, external drives, cloud-based storage, and laboratory instruments); Ensuring the preservation of all associated metadata; Maintaining a formal, documented chain of custody for all physical and electronic evidence from the time of sequestration until the case is closed.

3. The Provost shall establish an Inquiry Committee comprised of three members (tenured faculty members and administrators) who will be responsible to assess the Allegation. The Inquiry Committee should be comprised of members who do not have an unresolved conflict of interest with the Complainant, Respondent, or any Witness, and who have the subject matter expertise pertinent to the Allegation. If a Respondent is a staff member, Human Resources will be involved in both stages of a response to an Allegation described in Section D. Any alleged Research Misconduct conducted by students will be subject to the administrative actions and processes governing students and found in the Student Handbook.

4. On or before the date on which a Respondent is notified of the filing of an Allegation, the Inquiry Committee shall promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all of the Research records and evidence needed to conduct the Research Misconduct proceeding, inventory them, and keep them in a secure manner. In cases where the Research record or evidence encompasses scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence of such instruments.

5. The Inquiry Committee shall review the evidence and conduct interviews as may be necessary to assess whether the Allegation has substance and whether an Investigation is warranted. The draft Inquiry Report (defined below), will be provided to the Provost.

6. The safeguards described in Section H shall be provided to the Complainant, the Respondent, any Witness and members of the Inquiry Committee, as applicable, during the Inquiry.

7. Upon completion of the Inquiry, the Inquiry Committee shall provide the Respondent with a draft written report (“Inquiry Report”) of the findings and recommendations. The Inquiry Committee shall also provide the Complainant with portions of the Inquiry Report that address their role and testimony. Both the Respondent and the Complainant may provide written comments on the draft Inquiry Report within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt. These comments will be considered by the Committee, incorporated into the record as appropriate, and attached to the final Inquiry Report, as indicated below.

8. Following the review of the Respondent’s and the Complainant’s comments on the draft Inquiry Report, the Inquiry Committee shall provide the Provost and the appropriate Dean(s) the final Inquiry Report. The Inquiry Report should contain the following: the information reviewed, a summary of the interviews conducted, conclusions reached, indication of whether an Investigation is warranted, and Complainant’s and/or Respondent’s comments.

9. The Provost may accept or reject the recommendation of the Inquiry Committee and shall promptly provide the Complainant, the Respondent, and the appropriate responsible Dean(s) with written notification of the decision, indicating the principal reasons for such decision. A copy of the final Inquiry Report will be provided to all parties except the Complainant. The Complainant will receive relevant portions of the final Inquiry Report.

10. In general, an Inquiry should be completed within ninety (90) days of its initiation. The Provost may approve one or more reasonable extensions as necessary or appropriate. If the Inquiry takes longer than ninety (90) days, then the Inquiry record should include documentation of reasons for exceeding the recommended 90-day period.

F. The Investigation

1. If, at the conclusion of an Inquiry, the Provost determines that an Investigation is warranted, the applicable Sponsor will be notified for sponsored research. The Investigation should begin within thirty (30) days of the completion of the Inquiry and after written notice is provided to the Respondent. The Investigation is to be completed and the final Report sent to the Provost within one hundred and eighty (180) days. In the case of sponsored research, it may be necessary to request a time extension from the Sponsor if an Investigation cannot be completed within one hundred and eighty (180) days.

2. The Provost shall establish an Investigation Committee to conduct the Investigation. In constituting the Investigation Committee the Provost will nominate those persons who have the subject matter expertise pertinent to the Allegation and who will carry out the Investigation thoroughly, fairly, and promptly. The Provost may appoint a person who is not affiliated with the University to the Committee if such person has the necessary expertise. The Committee will have up to five (5) members. An Inquiry Committee member could also serve on the Investigation Committee.

3. The Investigation Committee shall:

  • a. Use diligent efforts to ensure that the Investigation is thorough and properly documented and includes the examination of all Research records and evidence relevant to reaching a decision regarding the Allegation;
  • b. Carry out additional custody of records when new items after the Inquiry stage become known to the Investigation;
  • c. Take reasonable steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased Investigation;
  • d. Interview the Complainant, the Respondent and others identified as having information regarding the Investigation;
  • e. Pursue all significant issues and leads discovered that are relevant to the Investigation; and
  • f. Transcribe all Witness interviews; recording or transcripts should be provided to the Witness for review and correction; and this evidence should be included in the record of the Investigation.

4. The safeguards described in Section H below shall be provided to the Complainant, the Respondent, any Witness, and member of the Committee, as applicable, during an Investigation.

5. Upon completion of the Investigation, the Investigation Committee shall provide the Respondent with (a) a draft Investigation Report which will contain findings and recommendations as to whether a finding of Research Misconduct was made and what corrective actions would be appropriate and (b) a copy of, or supervised access to, the Evidence of the Investigation. The Investigation Committee shall provide the Complainant with copies of those portions of the draft Investigation Report that are relevant to the Complainant. The Respondent and the Complainant may comment on the draft Investigation Report. Such comments must be given to the Investigation Committee within thirty (30) days of receiving the draft. Comments on the draft from the Respondent and the Complainant, if applicable, shall be appended to the final Report. Comments should be considered and addressed before issuing the final Report.

6. The Investigation Committee shall provide the Provost with a final Investigation Report. The Provost may accept, reject, or modify recommendations of the Investigation Committee. If the Provost accepts the Investigation Committee’s recommendation that a finding of Research Misconduct should be made, the Provost shall promptly, after the review of the final Investigation Report, provide the Complainant, the Respondent, the appropriate Dean, and the Sponsor, if applicable, with a written decision and reasons for such a decision.

7. Research records and all documentation developed to investigate the Allegation should be kept for seven (7) years after the completion of the Research Misconduct proceedings for sponsored research unless directed differently by appropriate Sponsor(s). All other documentation on non-sponsored projects will be kept according to the University procedures.

8. The University may decide to use an external consultant to conduct Research Misconduct proceedings.

9. For sponsored research:

  • a. Within 30 days of finding that an Investigation is warranted, the institution must provide the appropriate Sponsor(s), with the written finding and a copy of the Inquiry Report which must include the following information:
    • i. The name and position of the respondent;
    • ii. A description of the Allegations of Research Misconduct;
    • iii. The basis for recommending that the alleged actions warrant an Investigation;
    • iv. Any comments on the Report by the Respondent or the Complainant.
  • b. At the conclusion of the Investigation, the University must submit the following items to appropriate Sponsor(s): the Investigation Report (with attachments and any appeals if available), final University actions, the University findings, and the University administrative actions.
  • c. The complete timeline of the Investigation must be no more than 180 days. If an institution is unable to complete an Investigation in 180 days, it should submit a written extension request to the appropriate Sponsor(s).
  • d. If the University plans to end an Inquiry or Investigation before its completion for any reason, then appropriate Sponsor(s) must be contacted before closing the case and submitting the final Investigative Report.
  • e. The University must keep sufficiently detailed documentation of inquiries to permit a later assessment by appropriate Sponsor(s) of the reasons why the University decided not to conduct an Investigation. The University must keep these records in a secure manner for at least seven (7) years after the termination of the Inquiry, and upon request, provide them to authorized Sponsor personnel.
  • f. The University must notify the appropriate Sponsor(s), as relevant, of any special circumstances that may exist.
  • g. The University must provide the following information to the appropriate Sponsor(s) on request: the institutional policies and procedures under which the Inquiry was conducted; the charges for the Investigation, the Research records and Evidence reviewed, transcripts or recordings of any interviews, and copies of all other relevant records of the University’s Research Misconduct proceedings.

10. The final Investigation Report to the appropriate Sponsor(s) must be in writing and include:

  • a. Allegations. Describe the nature of the Allegations of Research Misconduct.
  • b. Institutional charge. Describe the specific Allegations of Research Misconduct for consideration in the Investigation.
  • c. Policies and procedures. If not already provided to the appropriate Sponsor(s) with the Inquiry Report, include the University policies and procedures under which the Investigation was conducted.
  • d. Research Records and Evidence. Identify and summarize the Research Records and Evidence reviewed, and identify any Evidence taken into custody but not reviewed.
  • e. Statement of findings. For each separate Allegation of Research Misconduct identified during the Investigation, provide a finding as to whether Research Misconduct did or did not occur, and if so:
    • i. Identify whether the Research Misconduct was falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism, and if it was intentional, whether it was knowing or in reckless disregard;
    • ii. Summarize the facts and the analysis which support the conclusion and consider the merits of any reasonable explanation by the respondent;
    • iii. Identify whether any publications need correction or retraction;
    • iv. Identify the person(s) responsible for the Research Misconduct; and
    • v. List any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the Respondent has pending with Sponsor/s.
  • f. Comments. Include and consider any comments made by the Respondent and Complainant on the draft Investigation Report.

G. Appeal

1. A Respondent shall have the right, within 30 days after his/her receipt of the notification of the Provost’s decision with respect to an adjudication, to file a written appeal with the President as to either the finding of Research Misconduct or the corrective actions imposed. The President may affirm, overturn, or modify the decision of the Provost. The decision of the President shall be final and the Respondent shall have no further right of appeal.

2. The President shall promptly provide the Complainant, the Respondent, the appropriate Dean(s) and, if applicable, the Sponsor with written notification of the decision including reasons for it.

3. In general, an appeal should be completed within 120 days of its filing with the President if it could result in reversal or modification of the finding. An appeal that would not result in a reversal or modification of the findings of research misconduct is excluded from the 120-day limit.

H. Safeguards

1. Confidentiality: Knowledge about the identity of a Complainant, a Respondent, and any Witness shall be limited to those persons identified in this Policy and others who need to know. All written materials and information with respect to Research Misconduct proceedings shall be kept confidential.

2. Conflicts of Interest: The Provost shall take reasonable steps to ensure that all individuals responsible for carrying out administrative procedures described in this Policy do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the Complainant, Respondent, or any Witness.

3. Safeguards for a Complainant: In addition to any other safeguards provided for in this Policy, the following safeguards shall be provided to a Complainant:

  • a. If an Allegation has been made by a Complainant in good faith, the University shall ensure that:
    • i. The Complainant is treated fairly and reasonably;
    • ii. All reasonable efforts are made to protect the Complainant from potential retaliation;
    • iii. Diligent efforts are made to protect or restore the position and reputation of the Complainant.
  • b. However, in the event that the Provost and appointed Committees determine that a Complainant has made an Allegation for malicious reasons, or was otherwise not acting in good faith in making such Allegation, an appropriate action will be taken against a Complainant.
  • c. During an Inquiry, the Complainant shall have the right to meet with the preliminary reviewer(s).
  • d. During an Investigation, the Complainant shall have the right to obtain a copy of a transcript of his/her own testimony, if any, and to correct such transcript, if necessary.

4. Safeguards for a Respondent: In addition to any other safeguards provided for in this Policy, the following safeguards shall be provided to a Respondent:

  • a. A Respondent is assumed not to have committed Research Misconduct unless a finding of such has been made in accordance with this Policy. A Respondent should be protected from penalty and public knowledge of any accusation until proven guilty. The Respondent in turn shall cooperate with the administrative procedures described in this Policy.
  • b. The University shall not impede the ability of a Respondent to continue to do his/her work, and shall ensure that other disciplinary or adverse actions are not taken, during an Inquiry or Investigation unless the Provost determines that there are compelling reasons to suspend the Respondent’s work during all or a portion of such period.
  • c. During an Inquiry, the Respondent shall have the right:
    • i. To meet with the members of the Inquiry Committee;
    • ii. To have reasonable access to the data and other Evidence supporting the Allegation; and
    • iii. To respond to the Allegation orally and in writing.
  • d. During an Investigation, the Respondent shall have the right:
    • i. To appear before the Investigation Committee to present his/her testimony;
    • ii. To identify persons who have information regarding any aspect of the Investigation in order to be interviewed by the Investigation Committee;
    • iii. To obtain a copy of a transcript of his/her own testimony, and to correct such transcript, if necessary.
  • e. During an appeal, the Respondent shall have the right to review the final Investigation Report.
  • f. The University shall take all reasonable efforts to protect and/or restore the reputation of any Respondent against whom no finding of Research Misconduct is made.
  • g. The Respondent is entitled to utilize an advisor of the Respondent’s choosing throughout the Investigation. This advisor shall be provided at the Respondent’s expense and may, for example, be a member of the University faculty or staff or a personal attorney, if the Respondent so chooses. The advisor is required to abide by and honor the confidentiality requirements and protections set forth in this Policy. The advisor has no right to directly participate in the proceeding (e.g., the advisor cannot directly address the Investigation Committee), but the Respondent can consult with the advisor throughout the process.

5. Safeguards for Witnesses: In addition to any other safeguards provided for in this Policy, the following safeguards shall be provided to Witnesses:

  • a. If a Witness has cooperated with a Research Misconduct proceeding in good faith, the University shall ensure that:
    • i. All reasonable and practical efforts are made to protect the Witness from potential retaliation; and
    • ii. Diligent efforts are made to protect and/or restore the position and reputation of the Witness.

6. Safeguards for Committee Members: The University shall ensure that all reasonable efforts are made to protect Committee members from potential retaliation.

I. Disciplinary Actions

The disciplinary actions with respect to a finding of Research Misconduct shall be based upon the seriousness of the Research Misconduct, the degree to which the Research Misconduct was knowing, intentional, or reckless; was an isolated event or part of a pattern; or had significant impact on the Research record, Research subjects, other researchers, the University, other institutions or the public, and whether the Respondent accepted the responsibility.

If the Research Misconduct is found, the following actions may be considered:

1. Withdrawal, correction of papers/abstracts, and notification of journals and societies to which inaccurate or fraudulent papers or abstracts have been submitted or published;

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. Repayment of funds to the University and/or a Sponsor, as appropriate;

4. Past and present collaborating researchers and institutions may be notified with which the Respondent is or was affiliated; or

5. Any other administrative actions deemed appropriate.

J. Anonymous Complaints

To make anonymous claims about alleged Research Misconduct, follow the procedure described in the Whistleblower Policy of the University.

K. Notifications to a Sponsor

In addition to the notices required by Sponsors, the Provost, or his designee, shall, during the course of any phase of the procedures provided for in this Policy, notify the applicable Sponsor if any of the following events shall occur with respect to the sponsored research:

1. Public health or safety is at risk including an immediate need to protect human and animal subjects;

2. Public resources or interests are threatened;

3. Research activities should be suspended to protect integrity of the research process;

4. There is reasonable indication of possible violations of civil/criminal law;

5. Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the Research Misconduct proceedings;

6. The Provost believes that the administrative processes may be made public prematurely, and appropriate steps must be taken to safeguard Evidence and protect the rights of those involved;

7. The research community or the public should be informed.

IV. Definitions

Allegation means a disclosure of possible Research Misconduct through any means of communication. The disclosure may be by written or oral statement or other communication to an institutional official.

Complainant means a person who in good faith makes an Allegation of Research Misconduct. For the purposes of this Policy, “good faith” means a belief in the truth of the Allegation that is not motivated by personal or malicious reasons.

Evidence means any document, tangible item, or testimony offered or obtained during a Research Misconduct proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact.

Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

Falsification is manipulation of research materials, equipment or processes, or change or omission of data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

Public Health Service (PHS) (42 CFR § 93) is the unit within the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) that includes the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and other health-related agencies. For the purposes of this policy, any research funded by these agencies is governed by the PHS-specific misconduct procedures (42 CFR § 93). PHS’s central mission is to protect the health of the country’s population.

PHS-Support (42 CFR § 93.230) means PHS funding, or applications or proposals for PHS funding for biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or training, that may be provided through funding for PHS intramural research; PHS grants, cooperative agreements, subawards, contracts, or subcontracts under those PHS funding instruments; or salary or other payments under PHS grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts.

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

Research means a systematic experiment, study, evaluation or survey designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge (basic research) or specific knowledge (applied research) relating broadly to public health by establishing, discovering, developing, elucidating or confirming information about, or the underlying mechanism relating to, biological causes, functions or effects, diseases, treatments, or related matters to be studied.

For PHS-sponsored research, “Research” is defined in accordance with 42 CFR § 93.232 as a systematic experiment, study, evaluation, demonstration, or survey designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge (basic research) or specific knowledge (applied research) 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 and is subject to the policies and procedures set forth in Institutional Policy on Research Misconduct in PHS-Supported Research.

Research Misconduct is defined as any fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research or reporting research results. Research Misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. Arcadia University adheres to this definition of Research Misconduct. A finding of Research Misconduct requires that all three of the following be present:

  • there is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community;
  • the Research Misconduct is committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
  • the Allegation is proven by a preponderance of the Evidence.

For PHS-supported research, “Research misconduct” is defined in accordance with 42 CFR § 93.234 and is subject to the policies and procedures set forth in Arcadia’s Institutional Policy on Research Misconduct in PHS-Supported Research.

Research Misconduct Proceeding means the institutional process encompassing preliminary assessment, inquiry, investigation, and resolution of an Allegation of Research Misconduct except that for PHS-supported research, “Research Misconduct Proceeding” is defined in accordance with 42 CFR § 93.235 and means any actions related to alleged research misconduct taken under that CFR part, including allegation assessments, inquiries, investigations, Office of Research Integrity (ORI) oversight reviews, and appeals under subpart E of this part and is subject to the policies and procedures set forth in Arcadia’s Institutional Policy on Research Misconduct in PHS-Supported Research.

Research Record means the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from the research inquiry, including but not limited to, research proposals, laboratory records, both physical and electronic, progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal reports, journal articles, and any documents or materials provided to an institutional official by a respondent in the course of the research misconduct proceeding.

Respondent means the person against whom an Allegation of Research Misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a Research Misconduct Proceeding.

Retaliation / Prohibited Retaliation means adverse actions or threats against any Complainant, Witness, or other individual involved in a Research Misconduct Proceeding because of their participation in good faith in the proceedings.

Sponsor means the organization or funding agency that funds a Sponsored Project.

Sponsored Project means an externally funded activity in which a formal written agreement such as, a grant, award, sub-award agreement, cooperative agreement, contract, or fellowship is executed between the University and the Sponsor.

Witness means any individual who testifies or provides information with regard to an Allegation or whose research record is used as evidence during the research misconduct proceeding.

V. References

The following laws, regulations, and guidance documents inform and support this Policy:

  1. Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct, 42 C.F.R. Part 93, as amended September 17, 2024, effective January 1, 2025, applicable January 1, 2026.
  2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Research Integrity (ORI), Final Rule on Research Misconduct, Federal Register Vol. 89, No. 180 (Sept. 17, 2024)
  3. Office of Research Integrity, Guidance on Research Misconduct Policies and Procedures, including guidance on assessments, inquiries, investigations, and institutional responsibilities.
  4. 42 C.F.R. § 93.300–93.319, Institutional responsibilities and requirements related to inquiries, investigations, records retention, reporting, and notifications.
  5. Arcadia University, Procedures for Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct for Sponsored Projects.
  6. Arcadia University, Principal Investigator Eligibility and Assurances Policy.

VI. Effective Date

This Policy is effective on the date that it is signed by the President.

VII. Date of Original Approval

March 26, 2019.

Revised April 2026 – This Policy was revised to comply with 42 CFR Part 93, as amended September 17, 2024, effective January 1, 2025, applicable January 1, 2026, to reflect that all PHS-supported Research is now managed under the Institutional Policy on Research Misconduct in PHS-Supported Research, which is maintained by the Office of Sponsored Research and is available upon request.

MENU
Arcadia University
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognizing you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.