University Policy 5060
Effective Date
April 1990
Last Revision Date
December 16, 2025
Responsible Party
Office of Research Compliance, (208) 426-5401
Scope and Audience
This policy applies to Research proposed, conducted, reviewed, or reported at Boise State by university-affiliated individuals, including faculty, staff, students, postdoctoral researchers, visiting faculty, volunteers or others using university resources or tied to university-sponsored projects. This policy applies equally to all Research activity regardless of the funding or sources of funding.
Additional Authority
- Applicable policies or regulations concerning Research fraud and unethical conduct issued by federal, state, and private agencies from which Boise State has accepted Research funding.
- Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct – 42 CFR Part 93.
- The National Science Foundation regulations on Misconduct in Science and Engineering
Research 45 CFR Part 689 - University Policy 4000 (Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct)
- University Policy 4720 (Faculty Due Process and Appeal Procedures)
- University Policy 7030 (Reporting Waste and Violations of Law, Regulation, or University Policy)
1. Policy Purpose
To define and provide procedures for addressing Allegations of misconduct in Research. The university requires that intellectual honesty and the highest ethical standards in Research be maintained and relies primarily on the acceptance of responsibility by each member of the university community to adhere to professional standards of conduct in all Research activity. In cases where Allegations of Research Misconduct arise, it is the policy of the university to inquire into and, if necessary, investigate, suspend, report, and resolve promptly and fairly all instances of Research Misconduct.
2. Policy Statement
Boise State University is responsible for the integrity of the Research conducted at the university and strives to achieve exceptional standards for all Research activities. The university follows a structured process to ensure all Allegations are addressed fairly and thoroughly. This includes a preliminary Assessment to evaluate the credibility of the Allegation, an Inquiry to gather more information, and, if necessary, a formal Investigation to determine whether misconduct has occurred. These procedures are designed to protect the rights of all individuals involved and to uphold the integrity of the Research process.
3. Definitions
3.1 Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community
Commonly accepted professional codes, practices, or norms within the overarching community of researchers and institutions as well as those established by the regulations. Examples include, but are not limited to, disclosure omission, data management practices, authorship attribution, and ethical considerations regarding research subjects.
3.2 Allegation
A disclosure of possible Research Misconduct by oral, written, or other evidence, which the Complainant claims sufficient evidence of instances of Research Misconduct. Any oral or written statement or other evidence of one or more apparent instances of Research Misconduct.
3.3 Assessment
Consideration of whether an Allegation of Research Misconduct appears to fall within the definition of Research Misconduct and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified and only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the Allegation.
3.4 Complainant
A person who in Good Faith makes an Allegation of Research Misconduct.
3.5 Fabrication
Making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
3.6 Falsification
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.
3.7 Good Faith
Intention to be open and honest with no deliberate intention to deceive or defraud.
3.8 Inquiry
Preliminary information and fact-finding to determine whether an Allegation meets the criteria to proceed with an Investigation.
3.9 Intentionally
To act with the aim of carrying out the act.
3.10 Knowingly
To act with awareness of the act.
3.11 Plagiarism
The appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving appropriate credit; this includes (a) 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. This does not include limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe commonly used methodology; and (b) does not include self-Plagiarism, authorship, or credit disputes including disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of the Research project.
3.12 Preponderance of the Evidence
Proof based on evidence that leads to the conclusion that the Allegation is more likely true than not.
3.13 Recklessly
To propose, perform, or review Research, or report Research results with an indifference to a known risk of Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism.
3.14 Research
Any systematic Investigation, including Research development, testing, and reporting, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge. Encompasses basic Research, applied Research, and Research training activities in areas such as biomedical, life science, natural sciences, engineering, humanities and arts, and social and behavioral science.
3.15 Research Misconduct
Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism, for proposing, conducting, or reporting Research. It does not include honest errors or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data.
3.16 Respondent
A person against whom an Allegation of Research Misconduct is made or who is the subject of a Research Misconduct proceeding. There can be more than one Respondent in a single case.
4. Required Reporting of Allegations of Research Misconduct
a. All members of the university community are responsible for reporting observed, suspected, or apparent Research Misconduct. Failure to report known Research Misconduct, or Knowingly making false Allegations, may itself be subject to disciplinary action.
b. Reports should be made promptly to the RIO or the ICO. Reporting options can be found on the Office of Research Compliance website.
c. Individuals are expected to act in Good Faith and cooperate with any Assessment, Inquiry, or Investigation.
d. Reports of Research Misconduct generally must involve conduct that occurred within six (6) years of the date the Allegation is received, subject to exceptions established by federal law or policy of a federal sponsor.
5. Conflicts
Individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the Research Misconduct proceeding must not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest or implicit or explicit bias with the Complainant, Respondent, witnesses, or others involved in the proceedings.
6. Confidentiality
6.1 Respondent and Others
A researcher’s reputation is of paramount importance to a researcher’s career, and serious consideration must be given before any action is taken that has the potential to impair that reputation. Throughout the Research Misconduct proceeding, reasonable efforts will be made to protect the identity and the reputation of the Respondent, and the proceedings will be handled in confidence, to the extent reasonably possible. Knowledge of the existence of a Research Misconduct proceeding and the identity of any participant in such a proceeding will be limited, to the extent reasonably possible, to those who need to know in order to conduct a thorough, competent, objective, and fair Research Misconduct proceeding, or as otherwise required by state or federal law.
6.2 Complainant
To the extent reasonably possible, the University will honor a Complainant’s request that the Complainant’s identity in a Research misconduct proceeding be kept confidential, recognizing that there may be situations where the Research misconduct proceeding cannot go forward if the Complainant is not identified.
6.3 Protection of Research Subjects
To the extent required by state or federal law, the identity of any Research subject and any other protected health information shall be kept confidential, with disclosure being limited to those who have a need to know in order to carry out the Research Misconduct proceeding.
7. Sponsor Requirements
Sponsors, both federal and non-federal, may have unique regulations, policies, or terms and conditions when it comes to Research Misconduct. If an Allegation reaches the Inquiry stage, related funding sources will be determined in order to identify and comply with any sponsor-specific requirements, including reporting. Many sponsors reserve the ability to conduct their own Investigation.
8. Respondent’s Right to an Advisor
The Respondent is entitled to utilize an advisor of the Respondent’s choosing throughout the Research Misconduct proceeding, who may be present during the Respondent’s interview(s). This advisor will 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 any proceeding (e.g., the advisor cannot directly address the Research Misconduct Committee or otherwise speak on behalf of the Respondent), but the Respondent can consult with the advisor throughout the process. The Respondent is required to personally participate fully in the Research Misconduct proceeding.
9. Roles and Responsibilities
The individuals and committee listed below have specific roles and responsibilities related to the Assessment, Inquiry, and Investigation process.
9.1 Complainant
Beyond reporting an Allegation in Good Faith, the Complainant’s role is limited. Once the Allegation is made, the Complainant does not participate in the proceeding other than as a witness or to provide data related to the Allegation. The Complainant is expected to maintain confidentiality and cooperate with the process until it is complete.
9.2 Research Misconduct Committee (RMC)
This committee shall be appointed by the ICO, in consultation with the IDO and Faculty Senate President, and have a minimum of five (5) members of the University faculty or staff who, have the appropriate seniority and knowledge to assess the alleged Misconduct and do not have personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest that would interfere with an objective review.The RMC members should include a representative from the Faculty Senate, a member from the Respondent’s department, school, or college, and a member from outside the Respondent’s college.
9.3 Institutional Certifying Official (ICO)
The Vice President for Research and Economic Development serves as the University’s ICO and is responsible for appointing the RCM convened to conduct an Investigation of Research Misconduct and ensuring that the University’s policies and procedures are followed. The ICO will review the RMC findings and report those findings, along with any recommendations, to the IDO.
9.4 Institutional Deciding Official (IDO)
The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs serves as the university’s IDO and is responsible for making the final determination regarding whether the institution found Research Misconduct, and a description of relevant institutional actions taken or to be taken.
9.5 Research Integrity Officer (RIO)
a. The RIO is appointed by the Vice President for Research and Economic Development, typically a senior level staff member from the Office of Research Compliance.
b. The RIO is responsible for conducting an Assessment and gathering information to determine whether an Allegation of Research Misconduct has substance and warrants further review. The RIO also oversees Inquiries and Investigations and provides administrative support, including providing guidance to the RMC on the procedures for conducting an investigation, during a Research Misconduct proceeding. The RIO is also the point of contact to receive questions about, or suspicions of Allegations of Research Misconduct and serves as the repository for Research Misconduct records.
9.6 Respondent
The Respondent has the burden of proving, by a Preponderance of the Evidence, honest error or differences of opinion, or any other affirmative defense. Due consideration will be given to any admissible, credible evidence presented by the Respondent. During the Research Misconduct process, the Respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating with the process until it is complete.
10. Sequestration and Documentation
a. The RIO must take necessary steps to secure and preserve Research records and evidence, ensuring that no information is lost or tampered with during the process. The RIO has the authority and responsibility to sequester and inventory original or substantially equivalent copies of all Research records and other evidence relevant to the Allegation, before or at the time the institution notifies the Respondent of the Allegation(s) and whenever additional items become known or relevant to the Inquiry or Investigation. The Respondent will have access to Research records, where appropriate, copies or reasonable supervised access to sequestered Research records.
b. The university will maintain sequestered Research records, evidence, and process documentation for a minimum of seven (7) years following the conclusion of the proceedings.
11. Standards for Determining a Finding of Research Misconduct
A finding of Research Misconduct requires a conclusion that Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing Research, or in reporting that Research Misconduct has occurred, and in addition that:
- There was a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant Research community; and
- The misconduct was committed Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly; and
- The Allegation was proved by a Preponderance of the Evidence.
12. Preliminary Assessment of Complaint
a. The Assessment is the initial stage following the receipt of an Allegation of Research Misconduct to determine whether the Allegation meets the criteria for an Allegation to move to the Inquiry stage.
b. The RIO (or their designee) must promptly review the Allegation(s) to assess whether it falls under the scope of this policy, meets the definition of Research Misconduct, and is credible and specific enough to identify and sequester potential evidence. The RIO may consult with relevant subject matter experts and gather initial information necessary for the Assessment, including sequestration of evidence to preserve its integrity.
c. If the RIO determines the Allegation does not meet the criteria for Research Misconduct, the RIO sufficiently documents the decision and closes the matter under this policy. If the RIO determines the Allegation does meet the criteria, the RIO initiates an Inquiry to gather more information and determine whether a formal Investigation is warranted.
d. The RIO may notify the Respondent and/or Complainant at the completion of the Assessment determination.
13. Inquiry Process
An Inquiry is conducted to determine if an Allegation of Research Misconduct warrants a full Investigation. The purpose of the Inquiry is not to determine a finding of Research Misconduct.
13.1 Notification to Respondent
The RIO will notify the Respondent(s) in writing at the time of or before beginning an Inquiry of the Allegations specific to the Respondent. If additional Allegations are raised, the Respondent(s) must be notified in writing of the additional Allegations raised against them.
13.2 Interviews and Review of Relevant Evidence
The RIO (or their designee) conducts the Inquiry, which may include interviews of the Respondent or witnesses, and a review of relevant evidence. The RIO may involve relevant subject matter experts, as needed. The Inquiry must be completed within 90 calendar days after the Respondent(s) receive notice of the Allegation. If additional time is needed, the RIO must submit a request to the ICO with sufficient justification for review by the ICO or applicable oversight agency or sponsor.
13.3 Inquiry Report
a. The RIO will prepare a written Inquiry report that indicates whether an investigation is warranted. The report must comply with the requirements of any applicable funding agency and generally will include the name and position of the Respondent, the specific Allegations of Research Misconduct that were considered, the identity of any federal support for the Research at issue, any federal or University policies and procedures under which the Inquiry was conducted, and a determination of whether the alleged Research Misconduct warrants an investigation, and the basis for any such determination. If there is potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion, the RIO must note this in the Inquiry report.
b. The RIO will provide the Respondent with a copy of the Inquiry report and will be given ten (10) University business days to submit written comments on it to the RIO. These comments must be attached to the final Inquiry report.
c. The RIO may, at their discretion, provide relevant portions of the Inquiry report to the Complainant for comment. The Complainant will have ten (10) University business days to submit their comments to the RIO. These comments must be attached to the final Inquiry report.
13.4 Inquiry Decision
a. The RIO will notify the Respondent, the ICO, and the IDO of their decision and provide the Respondent with a copy of the final Inquiry report, a copy of this policy, and any other required documents or references required by the funding agency. The RIO may, at their discretion, inform the Complainant or others of the Inquiry results.
b. If the RIO determines the Inquiry did not yield a sufficient basis for an Investigation, the RIO sufficiently documents the determination and closes the matter under this policy.
c. If the RIO determines there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the Allegation(s) may have substance, the RIO will initiate an Investigation and notify the Chief Compliance Officer.
d. The RIO’s decision as to whether an investigation is warranted is final and is not subject to review or appeal.
14. Investigation Process
The investigation is a formal examination of all relevant facts by the Research Misconduct Committee to determine, based on a Preponderance of the Evidence, whether Research Misconduct has occurred. The purpose of the Investigation is to evaluate the evidence in-depth and if Research Misconduct has occurred, determine who is responsible, and the nature and seriousness of the conduct.
14.1. Appointment of Research Misconduct Committee
a. Upon issuance of the final Inquiry report, the ICO, in consultation with the IDO and Faculty Senate President, appoints members of the RMC in alignment with Section 9.2.
b. After appointing the RMC and consulting with the RIO about the content of the RMC’s charge, the RIO will charge the RMC in writing of the Research Misconduct Allegation(s) and the RMC’s responsibilities during the investigation. The RMC must begin the Investigation within 30 calendar days after notifying the Respondent that an Investigation is warranted.
14.2 Interviews and Review of Evidence
a. The RMC is charged with conducting a comprehensive review of all available evidence, conducting interviews with the Respondent and any witnesses, and reviewing any other relevant information to determine any findings of Research Misconduct. Interviews will be transcribed or recorded, and the transcript or recording will be provided to the Witnesses for correction and included in the record of the investigation.
14.3 RMC Procedural Matters
The RMC will operate in closed session. The RIO will provide assistance, as appropriate, to the RMC and will act as a liaison between the RMC and the Respondent, Complainant, and Witnesses. The RMC may request the assistance of the RIO, who, at their discretion, may work with the Office of Compliance and Ethics for guidance on the investigation process during the RMC’s deliberations and its preparation of the investigation report. Neither the RIO nor any staff from the Office of Compliance and Ethics may vote on whether Research Misconduct has occurred.
14.4 Investigation Report
a. The RMC will draft the Investigation Report, which will include the RMC’s recommendation to the IDO concerning whether Research Misconduct should be found. A recommendation must be made for each Allegation of Research Misconduct. The RMC should complete the Investigation and submit the final investigation report to the IDO within 180 calendar days of the initiation of the investigation. If additional time is needed, the RMC must submit a request to the ICO with sufficient justification for review by the ICO or applicable oversight agency or sponsor.
b. Both the draft and final investigation report must comply with the requirements of any applicable funding agency, but must at a minimum include a recommendation on whether Research Misconduct occurred based on a Preponderance of the Evidence for each Allegation, the evidence supporting the recommendation(s), and any recommended corrective actions or sanctions.
c. The RIO will provide a draft of the Investigation Report, along with copies or supervised access to any evidence and interview transcripts on which the report is based that have not already been provided to the Respondent. The Respondent will be given thirty (30) University business days from receipt to review the draft report and provide written comments to the RIO, who will immediately forward the comments to the RMC. The RMC will consider the comments and address them in its final investigation report.
d. The RMC, through the RIO, may also provide the draft investigation report in full, or relevant portions of the draft investigation report, to the Complainant for comment. The Complainant will be given thirty (30) University business days from receipt to review the draft investigation report, or relevant portions of the draft report, and provide written comments to the RIO, who will immediately forward the comments to the RMC. The RMC will consider the comments and address them in its final investigation report.
14.5 Final Decision by IDO
a. The IDO reviews the final investigation report from the RMC and provides a written decision on the findings for each Allegation and the institutional actions. In making the final decision on the findings and institutional actions, the IDO shall consider the RMC’s final investigation report, the Respondent’s comments, and any other material the IDO believes is relevant. The IDO may also meet with the RMC before making a final decision. If the IDO is considering departing from the RMC’s recommendation on whether Research Misconduct should be found, the IDO will meet with the RMC and explain the reasons for the contemplated departure and obtain the Committee’s feedback.
b. If the IDO does not find that the Respondent engaged in Research Misconduct, the Research Misconduct proceeding is closed.
c. If the IDO finds that the Respondent engaged in Research Misconduct, the IDO will determine appropriate institutional actions, including corrective and/or disciplinary action, in consultation with Human Resources and Workforce Strategy. The IDO’s decision is the final decision of the University with respect to whether Research Misconduct occurred.
14.6 Notifications
The ICO will inform the Respondent in writing of the final decision and any institutional actions, including corrective and/or disciplinary action. The ICO may inform the Complainant of the final outcome and any actions taken. A Faculty member who is notified in the final determination that the institutional action will result in disciplinary action will receive a notice of contemplated action. The Faculty Member is not entitled to additional due process but may appeal the severity of the sanctions (see University Policy 4720 – Faculty Due Process and Appeal Procedures).
14.7 Appeal
a. The Respondent has thirty (30) calendar days following the receipt of the written final determination to file a written appeal with the ICO. The appeal process must be completed within 90 calendar days following the ICO’s receipt of the appeal. An appeal must be based on one or more of the following grounds:
- Procedural irregularity that affected the outcome of the matter.
- New evidence that was not reasonably available at the time the investigation was conducted that could affect the outcome of the matter. A summary of new evidence must be included in the request for appeal.
- A member of the RMC or the IDO had a conflict of interest or demonstrated bias that affected the outcome of the matter.
b. If the appeal does not include at least one of the appealable grounds under this section or was not submitted within thirty (30) calendar days following the receipt of the written final determination, the appeal will be denied, and the ICO will notify the Respondent in writing.
c. If the request for appeal meets any of the appealable grounds in this section as determined by the ICO, the ICO will forward the appeal to the IDO. The IDO, in consultation with the RIO and ICO, will be given ten (10) University business days to submit an emailed written response to the appeal from the date the appeal was received. Appeal considerations are limited to the following:
- Appeals are generally not intended to provide for a full, complete (de novo) re-investigation. Appeal considerations are confined to a review of the approved grounds for appeal, the submitted supporting evidence, the final investigation report, and the final written decision.
- Appeal decisions are limited to: 1.) upholding the original final decision and institutional actions, including corrective and/or disciplinary action, 2.) modifying the institutional actions, including corrective and/or disciplinary action, or 3.) remanding the case for further investigation.
d. The ICO will send the written appeal decision to the Respondent. Once an appeal is decided, the outcome is final, and any further appeal of that decision will not be permitted.
15. Notifications and Reporting External Entities
The ICO or their designee is responsible for notifying appropriate external entities, including sponsors, in accordance with sponsor-specific regulations and federal requirements throughout the Research Misconduct process. Examples include: commencement of processes, outcomes and any disciplinary actions, time extension requests, early termination reports, and emergency/safety notifications if immediate risk to public health or safety or potential violation of civil or criminal law.
16. Admission or Settlement
The ICO and the IDO can agree to close a Research Misconduct proceeding at the Inquiry or Investigation stage if the Respondent admits to having engaged in Research Misconduct, a settlement has been reached between the University and the Respondent, or for other good reason as determined by the ICO and the IDO, in consultation with the Chief Compliance Officer and any other department as necessary. Prior to agreeing to such a closure of the Research Misconduct proceeding, the ICO will provide any applicable funding agency with notice, if required by the agency, and comply with any other applicable funding agency requirement.
17. Protection Against Retaliation
a. The University will not tolerate retaliation against Complainants, witnesses, RMC members, or others for their involvement in a Research Misconduct proceeding. The University will take all reasonable steps to prevent Retaliation or to remedy the effects if it does occur. An employee who retaliates against any party to a Research Misconduct investigation conducted pursuant to this policy will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment.
b. Complaints of retaliation should be promptly reported to the RIO.
c. Individuals may choose to utilize the process and protections under the Idaho Protection of Public Employees Act (see Idaho Code Title 6, Chapter 21) and the University’s supporting policy, University Policy 7030 (Reporting Waste, Violations of law, Rule, Regulation, or University Policy).
Revision History
July 1995; October 2012; December 16, 2025
Timeline
| Stage | Responsible Party | Timeframe / Deadline |
|---|---|---|
| Allegation Submitted | Any university-affiliated individual | As soon as possible after discovery |
| Preliminary Assessment by RIO | Research Integrity Officer (RIO) | Promptly upon receiving Allegation |
| Decision on Whether to Proceed to Inquiry | RIO | Immediately after Assessment (~few days) |
| Sequestration of Records (if applicable) | RIO | Prior to or at notification of Respondent |
| Initiation of Inquiry | RIO or designee | Upon determination that Inquiry is warranted |
| Inquiry Completion Deadline | RIO | Within 90 days of Inquiry start |
| Decision on Whether to Proceed to Investigation | RIO | Immediately after Inquiry conclusion |
| Initiation of Investigation | Research Misconduct Committee (RMC) | Within 30 days of decision to proceed to investigation |
| Investigation Completion Deadline | RMC | Within 180 days of investigation start |
| Draft Report Review by Respondent | Respondent (and possibly Complainant) | Respondent: 30 days to review and comment |
| Final Determination by IDO | Institutional Deciding Official (IDO) | After review of final investigation report |
| Notification of Parties | Institutional Certifying Official (ICO) | Immediately after final determination |
| Respondent’s Appeal Window | Respondent | Within 30 calendar days from receipt of final decision |
| Appeal Decision Deadline | ICO | Within 90 days of appeal submission |
| Final Notifications to External Entities | ICO or designee | As required by sponsor or federal agency |