10.1 Procedures for Dealing with Misconduct in Research and Scholarship

10.1.1 Unethical Behavior in Research and Scholarship

Unethical behavior in research and scholarship strikes at the heart of the scholarly and educational enterprise. A shared understanding of expectations and responsibilities is, therefore, critical — not only to the quality of the research enterprise but also to the collegial life of this community. The appropriate institutional response to research misconduct will vary with the facts and circumstances of each case. In addition to requiring correction of the research record, MIT has recourse to a variety of disciplinary actions against individuals whose conduct violates this policy, including, in severe cases and following applicable Institute procedures, expulsion of a student, termination of employment or appointment, or revocation of tenure.

Supervisors must enforce the highest ethical standards for conducting research and creating and maintaining records of the research. The risk of misconduct occurring increases in an environment where there is a lack of appropriate supervision. Specifically, laboratory, institute, and center directors, department heads, faculty supervisors, and principal investigators should clearly articulate standards and protocols for research, scholarship, and creative work, through discussion and review of research, and, when possible, with written guidelines that set forth best practices.

10.1.2 Definitions of Research Misconduct

• Research Misconduct is fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in research activities or deliberate interference. It does not include honest error or differences of opinion.
  • Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
  • Falsification is 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.
  • Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. 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. For the purposes of this policy (Sections 10.1 and 10.2), plagiarism does not include self-plagiarism (also known as text recycling), 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.  Further information about academic integrity standards for students can be found in MIT’s Mind and Hand Book, Section II(1).
  • Deliberate Interference is intentionally causing material harm to the research or scholarly work of others and may include damaging or destroying the property of others, such as research equipment or supplies; disrupting active experiments; or altering or deleting products of research, including data.
• Research Misconduct at MIT is Research Misconduct in connection with Research Activities conducted at MIT or by MIT faculty, staff, fellows, students, and others with MIT appointments elsewhere as part of their MIT-related duties or activities.
• Research Activities is proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or reporting the results of research or other scholarly inquiry.
• Research Record is the record of data or results (both physical and electronic) that embody the facts resulting from scientific or other scholarly inquiry and includes, but is not limited to, research proposals, raw data, processed data, clinical research records, laboratory records, progress reports, manuscripts, abstracts, theses, records of oral presentations, lab meeting reports, and journal articles.
• Complainant is an individual who, in good faith, reports an allegation of Research Misconduct at MIT. The Complainant assumes the role of a potential witness in any subsequent inquiry, investigation, or hearing and is not the equivalent of a “party” in a private dispute between an “accuser” and “accused."
• Respondent is a current or former member of the MIT community who is the subject of allegations of Research Misconduct at MIT.
• MIT Advisor is an MIT community member of the Respondent’s choosing, who may participate and provide support to a Respondent in any meeting in connection with a review under this policy. The role of the MIT Advisor is to provide support and guidance to the Respondent, not to be a substitute or advocate for the Respondent, who is the primary participant. The MIT Advisor cannot be involved in the subject research in any capacity, cannot be a current or former member of the laboratory in or for which the subject research was conducted, and cannot be a family member, subordinate, or act in the capacity of a union representative or attorney.
   

10.1.3 Responsibility To Report

Each member of the MIT community has a responsibility to report any conduct that they believe in good faith to be Research Misconduct at MIT. Ordinarily it is appropriate in the first instance for a Complainant to report their concerns to the supervisor of the prospective Respondent. There may be circumstances in which, prior to taking that action, it would be appropriate for the Complainant to discuss their concerns with the prospective Respondent. Consultation and guidance are always available from the Office of the Vice President for Research or senior academic officers (deans, department heads, laboratory and institute directors) or MIT’s Ombuds Office.

All allegations of Research Misconduct at MIT, wherever initially received, must be conveyed promptly to the Vice President for Research (MIT’s Research Integrity Officer or “RIO”) to ensure that proper procedures are followed. Complaints may be submitted either orally or in writing to the Vice President for Research or to the MIT Research Integrity and Compliance team within the Office of the Vice President for Research. Given the technical and diverse nature of most research and scholarly work conducted at MIT, the Vice President for Research may require a verbal complaint to be supplemented by a written submission to ensure that the concerns are accurately specified for review. Alternatively, complaints may be submitted to the MIT Hotline, which includes an option to report anonymously.

10.1.4 The Review Process

Upon receipt of an allegation of Research Misconduct, the Vice President for Research will promptly conduct an initial Assessment of the allegations. A specific timeframe within which an Assessment must be completed may be required for certain federally funded research. The purpose of an Assessment is to determine whether the alleged misconduct falls within the definition of Research Misconduct, is sufficiently credible and specific enough to identify potential evidence, and is made in good faith. The Vice President for Research may appoint an impartial fact finder with appropriate expertise to conduct this initial Assessment and to make a written recommendation to the Vice President for Research. If the Vice President for Research determines that the allegations do not fall within the scope of this policy, the Vice President for Research will either close the matter or refer it to another office at MIT with authority or responsibility over the matter. If the Vice President for Research determines that the allegations do fall within this policy, the Vice President for Research will initiate a two-stage review process under this policy. The written Assessment of the Vice President for Research whether or not to initiate a review is final.

The first stage of review under this policy consists of an Inquiry, which includes preliminary fact-finding to guide the Vice President for Research’s recommendation to the Provost (MIT’s Deciding Official) as to whether a further, formal review is warranted. If, after the Inquiry, the Provost agrees with the recommendation of the Vice President For Research to initiate a further review, the Institute will proceed to a second stage of review, called an Investigation, which entails a formal investigative process leading to a recommendation as to whether the Institute should make a finding of Research Misconduct in violation of this policy. 

This policy sets forth general guidelines for the two stages of review, recognizing that the specific procedures to govern review of any particular allegation of Research Misconduct will depend on the circumstances of the case. In addition, the Vice President for Research has discretion to deviate from the guidelines expressed in this policy for reasons of fairness, confidentiality, or to maintain the integrity of the process. 

The procedures described in this policy are consistent with requirements that apply to the review and reporting of allegations of scientific misconduct arising in the context of certain federally sponsored research. Additional requirements for such cases are set forth in the applicable federal sponsor’s regulation or policy for addressing allegations of Research Misconduct, available online or upon request from the Office of the Vice President for Research (researchintegrity@mit.edu).

Requirements for a Finding of Research Misconduct at MIT

A finding of Research Misconduct under this policy requires MIT to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

• the Respondent engaged in Research Misconduct;
• the Research Misconduct marked a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant academic or research community; and
• the Respondent engaged in the Research Misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. Intentionally means to act with the aim of carrying out the act. Knowingly means to act with awareness of the act. Recklessly means to act with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or deliberate interference.

A preponderance of the evidence is proof by information that, compared with the information opposing it, leads to a conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not.

Inquiry

The Inquiry consists of preliminary information gathering and fact-finding for the purpose of determining whether an allegation of Research Misconduct warrants further, formal review. The Inquiry should follow promptly, if called for, after the Vice President for Research’s initial assessment of the allegations and should be completed in a reasonable time consistent with thoughtful consideration and analysis of the preliminary information. An applicable federal policy may impose a specific timeframe for completion of the Inquiry (e.g. 60-90 days), with the understanding that extensions may be granted as needed. 

The Vice President for Research will appoint one or more impartial fact finders to conduct the Inquiry. Fact finders are not required to be members of the MIT community. The Vice President for Research will provide written notice to the Respondent that an Inquiry has been initiated. The written notice ordinarily summarizes the allegations under review, identifies the policies and procedures that apply, and advises the Respondent of their right to select an MIT Advisor to support them in the course of the proceedings.

Either before or when the Respondent is notified, the Office of the Vice President for Research will promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the records and other evidence needed to conduct proceedings under this policy and will sequester them in a secure manner and in a manner consistent with the requirements of any applicable federal policy. The Office of the Vice President for Research will provide Respondent with reasonable, supervised access to the records or, when appropriate, copies of the records. The Office of the Vice President for Research may seek additional records or other materials that may be potentially relevant during the review. Oversight for the Inquiry process will be provided by the Office of the Vice President for Research through the Research Integrity Office. 

The Inquiry should, to the extent reasonably possible, be limited to a review of documentary materials. The fact that an Inquiry has been initiated should be made known only to the Complainant (if known), Respondent, and other persons with a need to know, as approved by the Vice President for Research. 

At the conclusion of the Inquiry, the fact finder or fact-finding committee will prepare a draft written report summarizing the process and information reviewed, identifying the preliminary facts, providing an analysis, and recommending whether to proceed with an Investigation. An Investigation is warranted if there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of Research Misconduct in Research Activities at MIT, as defined above, and preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding from the Inquiry indicates that the allegation may have substance. In either case, the Respondent will be given a copy of the draft Inquiry report and an opportunity to respond within a reasonable time set by the Vice President for Research. Such response will be reviewed by the fact finder or fact-finding committee before finalizing the Inquiry report. In addition, any comments provided by the Respondent on the draft will be included as an appendix to the final Inquiry report. The final Inquiry report will be submitted to the Vice President for Research. 

The Vice President for Research will review the Inquiry report and may ask the fact finder or fact- finding committee for additional review or explanation. If this additional review by the fact finder(s) results in substantive revisions to the report as determined by the Vice President for Research, the Respondent will have a further opportunity to submit written comments before any supplemental final Inquiry report is resubmitted to the Vice President for Research. 

The Vice President for Research will submit a final Inquiry report to the Provost along with their recommendation whether to proceed with an Investigation. The Provost will then decide whether to proceed with an Investigation. The Vice President for Research will send written notice to the Respondent of the Provost’s decision. The Complainant, if known and cooperating with the institutional review in good faith, may be informed by the Vice President for Research whether an Investigation will or will not be initiated.

Investigation

An Investigation must be initiated and completed in a reasonable time consistent with a complete and thorough Investigation. An applicable federal policy may impose a specific timeframe for completion of the Investigation (e.g. 120-180 days), with the understanding that extensions may be granted as needed. The Vice President for Research initiates an Investigation by appointing an impartial Investigation Committee made up of two or more persons with relevant expertise to conduct the Investigation. The Investigation Committee may include persons from outside the Institute. The Vice President for Research will provide written notice to the Respondent that the Investigation has been initiated. The written notice will describe the allegations and review process, identify the Investigation Committee members, and advise the Respondent of their right to the continued support of an MIT Advisor in the investigation. As the Investigation proceeds, the Office of the Vice President for Research should provide the Respondent with reasonable updates and opportunities to respond to information obtained in the investigation. 

Oversight of the Investigation and specific guidance as it proceeds will be provided by the Office of the Vice President for Research. 

The Investigation consists of a formal examination and evaluation of all relevant information to determine if Research Misconduct occurred. The Investigation Committee will receive a copy of the final Inquiry report and any transcripts and materials from the Inquiry but is not bound by the findings of the Inquiry. The Investigation will typically include an examination of all relevant documentation and interviews of individuals who may have relevant information about the research in question. Interviews will be transcribed, and the transcription will be provided to the interviewee for an opportunity to make corrections or annotations. 

The Respondent will be given a copy of the draft Investigation report and an opportunity to provide comments within a reasonable time set by the Vice President for Research. Those comments will be reviewed by the Investigation Committee before finalizing the Investigation report. In addition, any comments provided by the Respondent on the draft will be included as an appendix to the final Investigation report. The final Investigation report will be submitted to the Vice President for Research. 

The Vice President for Research will review the Investigation report and may ask the Investigation Committee for additional review or explanation. If this results in substantive revisions to the report as determined by the Vice President for Research, the Respondent will have a further opportunity to submit written comments before the final Investigation report is re-submitted to the Vice President for Research. 

The Vice President for Research will submit the final Investigation report to the Provost along with their recommendation whether the Institute should make a finding of Research Misconduct. If the Vice President for Research recommends a finding of Research Misconduct, they will also recommend disciplinary actions to be taken. If the Provost determines that Research Misconduct has occurred, the Provost shall decide on appropriate disciplinary actions, which may include, but are not limited to, formal reprimand, suspension, change in MIT status, and termination of employment. In the case of the revocation of tenure of a faculty member, MIT’s policy for termination of a faculty member applies (see Section 3.4.2). In cases with a student Respondent, if the Provost finds the Respondent responsible for Research Misconduct, the Vice President for Research will provide the Provost’s decision to MIT’s Chair of the Committee on Discipline (COD), along with a copy of the final Investigation report, for a determination of disciplinary action (sanctions) under the COD Rules.

The Vice President for Research will provide written notice of the Provost’s decision to the Respondent. The Complainant, if known and cooperating with the institutional review in good faith, may be informed whether there was a finding of Research Misconduct. However, MIT officials will not notify the Complainant of any disciplinary action taken. 

The Provost has the authority to mitigate the effects of the misconduct, including withdrawing MIT’s name and sponsorship from pending abstracts and papers, notifying individuals known to have relied upon research that was affected by the misconduct, and taking formal steps to correct or retract publications and the Research Record. If there is no finding of Research Misconduct, reasonable efforts should be made to restore and protect the reputation of the Respondent, if requested. The Provost’s decision at any stage of the process within this policy is not subject to appeal.

10.1.5 Provisions Common to Misconduct Review Process

Reporting in Good Faith

Making a report “in good faith” means having a reasonable belief in the truth of one’s allegation or testimony based on the information known to the reporting individual at the time of the report. An allegation, or information provided by a witness during a research misconduct proceeding, is not reported in good faith if made with knowing or reckless disregard of information that would negate the allegation.

A false or unfounded report of misconduct determined by the Institute to have been made in bad faith and dishonesty in the context of an Inquiry or Investigation are serious offenses. Such offenses may themselves be investigated and may lead to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment or other affiliation with MIT.

Fact Finders and Investigation Committee

To the extent reasonably feasible, the Vice President for Research should ensure that fact finders and the Investigation Committee: (1) have sufficient expertise to carry out a thorough evaluation of the relevant information; and (2) have no real or perceived conflicts of interest that could affect their ability to be objective reviewers.

Confidentiality

Proceedings concerning Research Misconduct often raise difficult issues for those making the allegations, for those who are the subject of the allegations, and for those responsible for reviewing the allegations. Review of the allegations should therefore be conducted promptly and with care and sensitivity. 

All participants in the review process under this policy are expected to maintain confidentiality to protect the privacy of all involved and the integrity of the review, to the extent possible and as permitted by law. Participants should keep in mind the effect that allegations can have on reputations, even if the allegations are not sustained by the proceedings. Thus, disclosure of the identity of complainants, respondents, witnesses and other participants, while the research misconduct proceeding is underway is limited, to the extent possible, to only those people with a need to know, as determined and approved by the Vice President for Research. The fact that a complaint was submitted to MIT’s Vice President for Research and that a review is underway likewise should only be disclosed to those with a need to know, as determined and approved by the Vice President for Research.

Examples of persons whom the Vice President for Research may determine have a ‘need to know’ include, but are not limited to: the Dean, Department Head or Director of the Respondent’s MIT School, Department, Laboratory, Center or Institute (DLCI), the Respondent’s MIT supervisor, the Chair of MIT’s Committee on the Use of Humans as Experimental Subjects (COUHES), the Chair of MIT’s Committee on Animal Care, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions. 

Except as may otherwise be prescribed by applicable law, confidentiality must be maintained for any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified. All disclosures are limited to those who need to know to carry out a research misconduct proceeding.

This confidentiality provision does not prohibit MIT from managing published data or acknowledging that data may be unreliable. 

Violation of this confidentiality provision may result in consequences for the offender, including but not limited to: disciplinary action for current members of the MIT community; closure of a case if determined to be submitted in bad faith; and/or cessation of any further communications with offending individuals or entities who are not members of the MIT community.

Interim Institutional Actions

Unless and until a finding of research misconduct is issued, MIT does not presume that the Respondent engaged in an act of research misconduct. However, after an allegation of research misconduct is received and before the completion of an Inquiry or Investigation, the Vice President for Research may take one or more of the following actions that they deem necessary to protect public health, sponsor funds, and/or research integrity:

1. freeze research funds, or otherwise suspend research project(s);
2. temporarily remove a Respondent from participating in the research project at issue and other research projects pending the results of an Inquiry or Investigation;
3. prohibit submission of new applications to COUHES and/or MIT’s Research Administration Services (RAS) or Office of Strategic Alliances, Transactions & Translation (OSATT) pending the results of the Inquiry or Investigation; or
4. other actions that the Vice President for Research deems necessary.

Voluntary Written Statement of Admission

After the Respondent is notified in writing by the Vice President for Research that a review under this policy has been initiated, the Respondent may, at any time during the review, choose to submit a written voluntary statement of admission utilizing a standard format prescribed by the Vice President for Research. The voluntary statement of admission may be accepted by MIT’s Provost as the basis for a decision in lieu of proceeding with the prescribed review process, subject to the requirements and prior approval of the federal funding agency, if applicable.

Interviews and Transcripts

The Inquiry Fact Finder may, and an Investigation Committee will, conduct interviews of the Complainant(s), Respondent(s), and any other individuals identified as having information that may be relevant to the review. The only persons present for an interview include the interviewee, the Fact Finder or Investigation Committee, members of the Office of the Vice President for Research who provide support for the review process, and a professional stenographer. If a respondent chooses to have an MIT Advisor for the review process, the MIT Advisor may attend the interview with the Respondent as an observer. This is an academic review process and attorneys are not permitted to attend interviews conducted in connection with a research misconduct proceeding. Interviews will be transcribed, and the transcription will be provided to the interviewee for an opportunity to make corrections or annotations.   

The Respondent cannot be present during witness interviews, but supervised access to the transcripts from witness interviews may be made available to the Respondent at the discretion of the Vice President for Research, or as required by an applicable federal policy for addressing allegations of possible research misconduct, along with a draft of the Investigation report for an opportunity to comment. If a witness’s name needs to be protected from disclosure to comply with applicable laws or MIT policies, or for another reasonable basis as determined by the Vice President for Research in consultation with MIT’s Office of General Counsel, the witness’s name and identifying information will be redacted, to the extent possible, from the draft Investigation report and transcripts prior to the Respondent’s receipt of same. MIT will make reasonable efforts to maintain confidentiality throughout the review process, but anonymity of participants cannot be guaranteed.

No Retaliation

No one shall be retaliated against for participating in a review of a misconduct allegation in good faith as a Complainant, witness, factfinder, or investigator or in any other capacity. Section 9.7 defines retaliation as any adverse action, harassment, threats, or other conduct that would discourage a reasonable person from making a report or participating in a complaint review process. Retaliation is a serious offense. A complaint of retaliation may be investigated and may lead to disciplinary action, up to and including terminating the individual’s relationship with the Institute.

Duty to Cooperate and Preserve and Produce Information

All members of the MIT community must cooperate with efforts to review allegations of Research Misconduct. As required by federal funding agencies, and under the authority of Section 13.2.4, the research record, regardless of the form or the location, shall be sequestered (collected and preserved in a secure manner) by the Office of the Vice President for Research prior to or simultaneous with notification to the respondent. While the destruction or absence of, or failure to provide upon request, information relating to allegations of Research Misconduct is not misconduct per se, such failure may be considered to be evidence supporting a finding of Research Misconduct when the evidence shows the Respondent had relevant information and intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly destroyed it; or maintained the information and failed to produce it in a timely manner in connection with a Research Misconduct proceeding, with the result that the Respondent significantly departed from accepted practices of the relevant academic community. 

Time Limitations

Certain federal agencies impose a six-year time limitation for reporting alleged occurrences of Research Misconduct in connection with federally sponsored research. Allegations of Research Misconduct occurring beyond the six-year limitation are not subject to the applicable federal policy, with defined exceptions for “subsequent use” and “health or safety of the public”. MIT does not impose a time limitation on allegations of possible Research Misconduct in Research Activities at MIT and will review all such allegations, to the extent possible.

Notice to Sponsors

To the extent a sponsor requires notification from MIT that research it funded has become the subject of proceedings under this policy, the Vice President for Research will supply that notification. In addition, the Vice President for Research will give applicable sponsors written notice of any decision of the Provost entering a finding of Research Misconduct at MIT.

Federally Sponsored Research: Additional Institutional Obligations

If the research or scholarship in question is supported by federal funds, the applicable federal agency’s policy for addressing allegations of possible Research Misconduct applies in conjunction with this MIT policy. The policy of the applicable federal agency, full copies of which are accessible on the Office of the Vice President for Research’s website or upon request from the Research Integrity Office (researchintegrity@mit.edu), may have additional requirements with which MIT must comply, including but not limited to: 

• Prescribed timelines for completing the Assessment, Inquiry, and Investigation
• MIT’s submission of the decision and final Inquiry Report to the funding agency
• MIT’s notification to the funding agency before initiating an Investigation
• MIT’s submission of the decision, final Investigation Report, and supporting evidence to the funding agency.

The applicable federal agency may accept MIT’s determination, request additional information, and/or conduct an independent investigation before issuing its own decision and any accompanying actions on the matter. The decision and any actions imposed by the federal funding agency are independent of MIT’s final decision.

Students

Allegations that a student Falsified, Fabricated, or Plagiarized the Research Record, or Deliberately Interfered in the work of others, in connection with Research Activities at MIT (as those terms are defined in Section 10.1.2) are subject to review under this policy regardless of the funding source. For allegations involving federally funded research, the student is also subject to the federal sponsor’s policy for addressing allegations of Research Misconduct, which will apply in conjunction with this policy. 

If MIT finds that a student is responsible for engaging in Research Misconduct, the Vice President for Research will provide the decision and final report to MIT’s Chair of the Committee on Discipline (COD) for a determination of sanctions under the COD Rules.