The Rutgers University Research Misconduct Policy (90.2.2) was created to establish policy and procedures for the University’s response to allegations, reports and apparent occurrences of research misconduct involving research for which the University is the applicant or grantee, or which is proposed or conducted by or under the direction of any employee or agent of the University in connection with his or her institutional responsibilities. The objective of this policy is to ensure the prompt and appropriate investigation of alleged or apparent misconduct while protecting the rights of individuals, both those who report misconduct and those about whom allegations are made.
Research misconduct is fabrication, falsification or plagiarism, committed intentionally, knowingly or recklessly, in proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research misconduct does not include honest error, conflicting data, differences of opinion, or differences in interpretations or judgments about data or experimental design.
- 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. Authorship or credit disputes, and “self-plagiarism” of an author’s work from one paper to another or from a paper to a grant application are not ordinarily considered plagiarism.
How Allegations of Research Misconduct are Handled:
Should an individual become aware of or suspect research misconduct, the details of the misconduct should be reported, in writing if possible, to the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) or to the chair of the RBHS Campus Committee for Research Integrity (CCRI). The RIO or CCRI chair may be contacted informally at any time.
Allegations of research misconduct are handled in a multi-stage process. In the first stage, the Research Integrity Officer or CCRI chair performs a preliminary assessment to determine whether the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct as set forth in the federal regulations and in the University policy (90.2.2), and whether the allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified to proceed with an inquiry. The second stage is an inquiry, conducted by an Inquiry Committee. This is an information-gathering and fact-finding activity to determine if an allegation of research misconduct has substance and warrants further investigation. If the Inquiry Committee finds after the inquiry that sufficient credible evidence of research misconduct exists, the Inquiry Committee makes a recommendation to the Vice President for Research and Economic Development that a formal investigation be conducted according to procedures outlined in the University policy. The person making the allegation and the respondent are informed of the outcome of the inquiry. If the Vice President for Research and Economic Development decides to conduct an investigation, he/she appoints a special panel for this purpose. The investigation is a formal, thorough and documented examination and evaluation of all relevant facts, research records and other evidence to determine if a recommendation should be made that research misconduct has occurred. The investigative panel sends its recommendation to the Vice President for Research and Economic Development who makes the final decision and takes appropriate action.
S. David Kimball, Ph.D.
Senior Vice President for Research and Economic Development
Vice President, Innovation & Research Commercialization
Research Integrity Officer (RIO)
Glenn Krell, MPA
Director of Research Integrity
Office of Research Regulatory Affairs
Liberty Plaza / 3rd Floor / Suite 3100
335 George Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901
Office Phone: 732-235-7004