POLICY OWNERS

The Provost/Executive Vice President and the Vice President for Research jointly own this policy.

PURPOSE OF THIS POLICY

Research Misconduct is contrary to the interests of Colorado State University, the health and safety of the public, the integrity of research, and the conservation of public funds.  This policy supports University efforts to reduce the risk of Research Misconduct by supporting good-faith efforts to report suspected Research Misconduct, promptly and thoroughly addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct, and seeking to rectify the scientific record and/or restore researchers’ reputations, as appropriate.

APPLICATION OF THIS POLICY

This policy applies to all members of the Colorado State University community, both with respect to reporting suspected Research Misconduct and to being named a Respondent to suspected Research Misconduct.  This policy and the CSU Procedures for Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct and all related procedures apply to every individual who, at the time of the alleged Research Misconduct, was employed by, was an agent of, or was affiliated by contract or agreement with the University.

EXEMPTIONS FROM THIS POLICY

None.

DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS POLICY

Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community: Practices established by 42 CFR Part 93, 42 USC 689, PHS funding components, and by other federal funding agencies or components, as well as commonly accepted professional codes or norms within the overarching community of researchers and Institutions that apply for and receive federal awards.

Administrative Record: Compromises the Institutional Record; any information provided by the Respondent to the federal funding agency, including but not limited to the transcript of any virtual or in-person meetings with the Respondent, and correspondence with the Respondent; any additional information developed while the case is pending; and any analysis or additional information generated or obtained by the University or federal funding agency.

Allegation: A disclosure of possible Research Misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of a University official or federal funding agency official.

Assessment: A consideration of whether an Allegation of Research Misconduct appears to fall within the definition of Research Misconduct; appears to involve federally supported research, research training, or activities related to that research or research training; 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.

Committee and Consortium Members: Experts who act in Good Faith to cooperate with the Research Misconduct Proceedings by impartially carrying out their assigned duties for the purpose of helping University meet its responsibilities under 42 CFR Part 93.89 or other applicable federal regulation or policy governing Research Misconduct.

Complainant: An individual who in Good Faith makes an Allegation of Research Misconduct.

Confidentiality: The obligation to refrain from disclosing Allegations, the identities of the parties involved in the process described herein, or communications, records, or information generated as part or learned as a result of the process to others including the existence of the Allegation, except to those as identified and authorized by the Institution Deciding Official (IDO) as having a “need to know.” In addition to Respondents and Complainants, individuals having a “need to know” could include research collaborators, research assistants, government funding or regulatory agencies, etc. Confidentiality will apply while the Investigation is ongoing. At the conclusion of the Investigation and after the close of the final appeals window, the IDO may permit public dissemination of the official findings.

Conflict of Interest: A real or apparent bias, resulting from a familial, financial, or close collegial or other relationship, now or in the past, with any of the parties involved, which would prevent one from being objective if serving on an Inquiry Committee or Investigation Committee.

Evidence: 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: Making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

Falsification: 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.

Funding Support: Federal funding, or applications or proposals for federal funding, research, research training, or activities related to that research or training, that may be provided through funding for federal intramural research; federal grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts; subawards, contracts, or subcontracts under those federal funding instruments; or salary or other payments under federal grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts.

Good Faith:

(a) 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.

(b) 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 including those under 42 CFR Part 93 and 45 CFR Part 689 or other applicable federal regulation or policy governing Research Misconduct. 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: Preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding that meets the criteria and follows the procedures set forth herein.

Institution: Any entity who applies for or receives federal financial support for any activity or program that involves the conduct of any research or training, or activities related to that research or training. This includes, but is not limited to, colleges and universities, research laboratories, research and development centers, national user facilities, industrial laboratories or other research institutes, research Institutions, and independent researchers. For purposes of this policy, the Institution refers to Colorado State University (also referred to as ‘University’).

Institutional Deciding Official: The Institutional 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. The IDO is the Vice President for Research at Colorado State University.

Institutional Member: An individual (or individuals) who is employed by, is an agent of, or is affiliated by contract or agreement with an Institution. Institutional Members may include, but are not limited to, officials, tenured and untenured faculty, teaching and support staff, researchers, research coordinators, technicians, postdoctoral and other fellows, students, volunteers, subject matter experts, consultants, attorneys, or employees or agents of contractors, subcontractors, or sub-awardees.

Institutional Record: The records that the Institution compiled or generated during the Research Misconduct Proceeding, except records the Institution did not consider or rely on. These records include but are not limited to (1) documentation of the Assessment as required by the funding agency; (2) if an Inquiry is conducted, the Inquiry report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the Inquiry, including, but not limited to, 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 as required by the funding agency; (3) 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, but not limited to, Research Records, the transcripts of each interview, and information the Respondent provided to the Institution; (4) decision(s) by the Institutional Deciding Official, such as the final written decision from the Institutional Deciding Official; (5) the complete record of any Institutional appeal; (6) 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; and (7) a general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.

Intentionally: To act Intentionally means to act with the aim of carrying out the act.

Investigation: The formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record that meets the criteria and follows the procedures of the federal funding agency.

Knowingly: To act with awareness of the act.

Plagiarism: 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 generally 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. For purposes of this Policy, Self-Plagiarism and authorship disputes do not meet the definition of Research Misconduct.

Preponderance of the Evidence: Proof by Evidence that, compared with Evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely true than not.

Recklessly: To propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism.

Research Integrity Officer: The Institutional official responsible for administering Colorado State University’s written policies and procedures for addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct in compliance, including those in compliance with 42 CFR Part 93 or other applicable federal regulation or policy governing Research Misconduct. The IDO appoints the RIO. The same individual will not serve as both the IDO and the RIO.

Research Misconduct: 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.

Research Misconduct Proceeding: Any actions related to alleged Research Misconduct taken under 42 CFR Part 93, 45 CFR Part 689 or other federal funding agency requirements including Allegation Assessments, inquiries, Investigations, oversight reviews, and appeals.

Research Record: 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: The individual against whom an Allegation of Research Misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a Research Misconduct Proceeding.

Retaliation: 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.

Suspension and Debarment Official: The official authorized to impose suspension and debarment, which are the actions that Federal agencies take to disqualify persons deemed not presently responsible from doing business with the Federal Government.

Whistleblower: An employee who, in Good Faith and upon a reasonable belief that misconduct has occurred, reports to the RIO suspected wrongful activity of an employee that is in violation of University policy or applicable law.

Witnesses: People whom the University has reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the Investigation.

POLICY STATEMENT

Colorado State University is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific rigor in research. The University is committed to fostering an environment that promotes research integrity and the responsible conduct of research, discourages Research Misconduct, and deals promptly with Allegations or Evidence of possible Research Misconduct.

All University members are expected to conduct research with honesty, rigor, and transparency. Each University member is responsible for contributing to an organizational culture that establishes, maintains, and promotes research integrity and the responsible conduct of research.

The University strives to reduce the risk of Research Misconduct, support all good-faith efforts to report suspected misconduct, promptly and thoroughly address all Allegations of Research Misconduct, and seek to rectify the scientific record and/or restore researchers’ reputations, as appropriate.

Research Misconduct is contrary to the interests of the University, the health and safety of the public, the integrity of research, and the conservation of public funds. Both the Institution and its Institutional Members have an affirmative duty to protect those funds from misuse by ensuring the integrity of all research conducted on behalf of the University.

The University is responsible for ensuring that these policies and procedures for addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct meet the requirements of the PHS Policies on Research Misconduct (42 CFR Part 93, “the PHS regulation”) as well as Research Misconduct | U.S. National Science Foundation Office of Inspector General OIG (42 CFR Part 689) or other applicable federal regulation or policy governing Research Misconduct. The University will establish and maintain these policies and procedures, inform all Institutional Members about these policies and procedures, and make these policies and procedures publicly available. The University is committed to following these policies and procedures when responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct.

These policies and procedures apply to Allegations of Research Misconduct involving:

1. Applications or proposals for federal Funding Support for research, research training, or activities related to that research or research training.
2. Federally supported activities that are related to research or research training, such as, but not limited to, the operation of tissue and data banks or the dissemination of research information.
3. Research Records produced during federally supported research, research training, or activities related to that research or research training.
4. Research proposed, performed, reviewed, or reported, as well as any Research Record generated from that research, regardless of whether an application or proposal for federal funds resulted in an awarded grant, contract, cooperative agreement, subaward, or other form of federal support.

These policies and procedures apply only to Research Misconduct occurring within six years of the receipt of an Allegation of Research Misconduct, either by the federal funding agency or University, subject to the following exceptions:

• The six-year time limitation does not apply if the Respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged Research Misconduct that occurred before the six-year period through the use of, republication of, or citation to the portion(s) of the Research Record alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized, for the potential benefit of the Respondent (“subsequent use exception”). For alleged Research Misconduct that appears subject to this subsequent use exception, but the University determines is not subject to the exception, the University will document its determination that the subsequent use exception does not apply and will retain this documentation for the later of seven years after completion of the Institutional proceeding or the completion of any agency proceeding.
• The six-year time limitation also does not apply if the federal funding agency or University, following consultation with the federal funding agency, determines that the alleged Research Misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public.

In case of any conflict between this document and 42 CFR Part 93, the PHS regulation will prevail in cases of PHS-funded research.

POLICY PROVISIONS

Misconduct Administrative Procedures

The CSU Procedures for Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct set forth the procedures to be followed in evaluating an Allegation of Research Misconduct.

Roles, Rights, and Reponsbilities 

Research Integrity Officer. The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) is the Institutional official responsible for administering University’s written policies and procedures for addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct involving federally funded research. The same individual will not serve as both the Institutional Deciding Official and the RIO. The University may choose to have the RIO or another designated Institutional official conduct the Inquiry in lieu of a committee, and, if needed, this individual may utilize one or more subject matter experts to assist them in the Inquiry. Upon receiving an Allegation of Research Misconduct, the RIO or another designated Institutional official will promptly assess the Allegation to determine whether the Allegation (a) is within the definition of Research Misconduct as defined in this policy, (b) is within the applicability criteria of the regulation at 42 CFR 93.102 or other applicable federal regulation or policy governing Research Misconduct, and (c) is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential Evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified. If the RIO or another designated Institutional official determines that the requirements for an Inquiry are met, they shall document the Assessment, promptly sequester all Research Records and other Evidence per the applicable federal regulation or policy, and promptly initiate the Inquiry. If the RIO or another designated Institutional official determines that requirements for an Inquiry are not met, they will keep sufficiently detailed documentation of the Assessment to permit a later review by a federal funding agency official of the reasons why University did not conduct an Inquiry. The University will keep this documentation and related records in a secure manner for seven years and provide them to the federal funding agency upon request.

Complainant. The Complainant is the person who in Good Faith makes an Allegation of Research Misconduct. The Complainant brings Research Misconduct Allegations directly to the attention of an Institutional or federal official through any means of communication. The Complainant will make Allegations in Good Faith, as defined in this policy, as having a reasonable belief in the truth of one’s Allegation or testimony, based on the information known to the Complainant at the time.

Respondent. The Respondent is the individual against whom an Allegation of Research Misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a Research Misconduct Proceeding. The Respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of Evidence, affirmative defenses raised. 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. The Respondent will not be present during the Witnesses’ interviews but will be provided a transcript of the interview after it takes place. The Respondent will have opportunities to (a) view and comment on the Inquiry report, (b) view and comment on the Investigation report, and (c) submit any comments on the draft Investigation report to University within 30 days of receiving it. If admitting to Research Misconduct, the Respondent will sign a written statement specifying the affected Research Records and confirming the misconduct was Falsification, Fabrication, and/or Plagiarism; committed Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly; and a significant departure from Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community.

Committee and Consortium Members. Committee Members (and Consortium Members where applicable) are experts who act in Good Faith to cooperate with the Research Misconduct Proceedings by impartially carrying out their assigned duties for the purpose of helping University meet its responsibilities under 42 CFR Part 93 or other applicable federal regulation or policy governing Research Misconduct. Committee and Consortium Members will have relevant scientific expertise and be free of real or perceived conflicts of interest with any of the involved parties. Committee or Consortium Members or anyone acting on behalf of the University will conduct Research Misconduct Proceedings consistent with the PHS regulation 93 or other applicable federal regulation or policy governing Research Misconduct. They will determine whether an Investigation is warranted, documenting the decision in an Inquiry report. During an Investigation, committee or Consortium Members participate in recorded interviews of 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(s). They will also determine whether or not the Respondent(s) engaged in Research Misconduct and document the decision in the Investigation report. They consider Respondent and/or Complainant comments on the Inquiry/Investigation report(s) and document that consideration in the Investigation report.  An Investigation into multiple Respondents may convene with the same Investigation committee or Consortium Members or anyone acting on behalf of University, but there will be separate Investigation reports and separate Research Misconduct determinations for each Respondent. Committee or Consortium Members may serve for more than one Investigation, in cases with multiple Respondents. Committee Members may also serve for both the Inquiry and the Investigation.

Witnesses. Witnesses are people whom University has reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the Investigation. Witnesses provide information for review during Research Misconduct Proceedings. Witnesses will cooperate with the Research Misconduct Proceedings in Good Faith and have a reasonable belief in the truth of their testimony, based on the information known to them at the time.

Institutional Deciding Official. The Institutional Deciding Official (IDO) makes the final determination of Research Misconduct findings. The IDO cannot serve as the RIO. The IDO documents their determination in a written decision that includes whether Research Misconduct occurred, and if so, what kind and who committed it, and a description of the relevant actions University has taken or will take. The IDO’s written decision becomes part of the Institutional Record.

Colorado State University’s General Responsibilities

All members of the University academic community have a responsibility to report instances of what they believe in Good Faith to be Research Misconduct. All members of the University are responsible for cooperating with the RIO, and other Institutional officials in the review of Allegations of Research Misconduct and the conduct of inquiries and Investigations.

To the extent possible, the University will limit disclosure of the identity of Respondents, Complainants, and Witnesses while conducting the Research Misconduct Proceedings to those who need to know, inform all University members about these policies and procedures, and make these policies and procedures publicly available. This limitation on disclosure no longer applies once the University has made a final determination of Research Misconduct findings. The University will respond to each Allegation of Research Misconduct under 42 CFR Part 93 (or other applicable federal regulation or policy governing Research Misconduct) in a thorough, competent, objective, and fair manner. The University will take all reasonable and practical steps to ensure the cooperation of Respondents and other University members with Research Misconduct Proceedings, including, but not limited to, their providing information, Research Records, and other Evidence. The University agrees to cooperate with federal funding agencies during any Research Misconduct Proceeding or compliance review, including addressing deficiencies or additional Allegations in the Institutional Record if directed by the federal funding agency and to assist in administering and enforcing any federal administrative actions imposed on Institutional Members. The University may also take steps to manage published data or acknowledge that data may be unreliable.

Colorado State University’s Responsibilities During and After a Research Misconduct Proceeding

Except as may otherwise be prescribed by applicable law, the University will maintain Confidentiality for any records or Evidence from which research subjects might be identified and will limit disclosure to those who need to know to carry out a Research Misconduct Proceeding. Before or at the time of notifying the Respondent of the Allegation(s) and whenever additional items become known or relevant, the Institution will promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain all Research Records and other Evidence and sequester them securely. The Institution will ensure that the Institutional Record contains all required elements, i.e., Research Records that were compiled and considered during the proceedings, Assessment documentation, and Inquiry and/or Investigation reports. Upon completion of the Inquiry, the Institution will provide the federal funding agency with the complete Inquiry report and add it to the Institutional Record. The Institution will maintain the Institutional Record and all sequestered Research Records and other Evidence in a secure manner for seven years after completion of the Institutional and/or federal funding agency proceeding. The University will provide information related to the alleged Research Misconduct and proceedings to the federal funding agency upon request and transfer custody or provide copies of the Institutional Record or any component of it and any sequestered Evidence to the federal funding agency, regardless of whether the Evidence is included in the Institutional Record. Additionally, the Institution will promptly notify the federal funding agency of any special circumstances that may arise. Disclosure of the identity of Respondents, Complainants, and Witnesses while the University is conducting the Research Misconduct Proceedings is limited to those who need to know, which the University will determine consistent with a thorough, competent, objective, and fair Research Misconduct Proceeding, and as allowed by law. Those who need to know may include Institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating Institutions.

Colorado State University’s Responsibilities to the Complainant(s)

The University will provide Confidentiality consistent with 42 CFR Part 93 or other applicable federal regulation or policy governing Research Misconduct for all Complainants in a Research Misconduct Proceeding. The University will also take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the Research Misconduct Proceeding do not have potential, perceived, or actual personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the Complainant(s). The University agrees to take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of Complainants and to protect these individuals from Retaliation by Respondents and/or other Institutional Members. If the University chooses to notify one Complainant of the Inquiry results in a case, all Complainants will be notified by the University, to the extent possible.

Colorado State University’s Responsibilities to the Respondent(s)

As with Complainants, the University will provide Confidentiality consistent with 42 CFR Part 93 or other applicable federal regulation or policy governing Research Misconduct to all Respondents in a Research Misconduct Proceeding. The University will make a good-faith effort to notify the Respondent(s) in writing of the Allegations being made against them. The University will take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the Research Misconduct Proceeding do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the Respondent. The University is responsible for giving the Respondent(s) copies of or supervised access to the sequestered Research Records. The University will notify the Respondent whether the Inquiry found that an Investigation is warranted, provide the Respondent an opportunity to review and comment on the Inquiry report, and attach their comments to the Inquiry report. If an Investigation is commenced, the University must notify the Respondent, give written notice of any additional Allegations raised against them not previously addressed by the Inquiry report, and allow the Respondent(s) an opportunity to review the witness transcripts. The University will give the Respondent(s) an opportunity to read and comment on the draft Investigation report and any information or Allegations added to the Institutional Record. The University will give due consideration to admissible, credible Evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the Respondent. The University will bear the burden of proof, by a Preponderance of the Evidence, for making a finding of Research Misconduct. The University will make all reasonable, practical efforts, if requested and as appropriate, to protect or restore the reputation of Respondents against whom no finding of Research Misconduct is made.

Colorado State University’s Responsibilities to Committee Members

The University will ensure that a committee, consortium, or person acting on the University’s behalf conducts Research Misconduct Proceedings in compliance with the PHS regulation, or other applicable federal regulation or policy governing Research Misconduct. The University will take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of good-faith Committee Members and to protect these individuals from Retaliation.

Colorado State University’s Responsibilities to the Witness[es]

The University will provide Confidentiality consistent with 42 CFR Part 93 or other applicable federal regulation or policy governing Research Misconduct for all Witnesses. The University will take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the proceedings do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the Witnesses. The University will also take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of Witnesses and to protect these individuals from Retaliation.

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS POLICY

Compliance with this policy is required. For assistance with interpretation or application of this policy, contact the Office of Research Integrity, Security & Compliance.

REFERENCES

CSU Research Misconduct Administrative Procedures – Coming soon

CSU Policy: Retaliation and Whistleblower Protection

CSU Policy: Financial Conflicts of Interest in Federally Funded Programs

APPROVALS

Effective November 11, 2025