Faculty Handbook
Return to Table of Contents
VIII. D. RESEARCH MISCONDUCT POLICY
(Source: Approved by the Reed Faculty, April 13, 2015; revised on March 9, 2026)
Research Misconduct Policy
1. Preamble
Reed College’s Mission statement describes the College as committed to “the intrinsic value of intellectual pursuit and governed by the highest standards of scholarly practice, critical thought, and creativity.” Consistent with this commitment, the College holds its faculty, staff and students to the highest ethical standards in the conduct of research. Reed College investigates allegations of research misconduct with due care for the rights of those accused, those making the allegations and the College itself.
This policy is intended to fulfill the responsibilities laid upon the College by Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct, 42 CFR Part 93, which specifies the requirements imposed on institutions receiving PHS funds, as well as the applicable regulations on research misconduct of other federal agencies. This document serves as a companion to Sections F, G, and H of the College’s Faculty Rules of Procedure and is intended to demonstrate how those existing procedures align with the requirements of Part 93, while providing the definitions, designations, timelines, and procedural details necessary for compliance.
Reed College accepts the institutional responsibilities and commits to cooperating fully with ORI/HHS, maintaining research integrity assurances, and ensuring that all research misconduct proceedings meet federal requirements.
False allegations of research misconduct that are capricious or malicious and are made from within the College are subject to the appropriate grievance procedures. When made from outside the College, they will be reported to the relevant institutional authorities.
This policy will be made available to members of the Reed community and the public on the Dean of the Faculty’s website.
2. Scope and Applicability
This policy outlines the procedures to be followed in response to allegations of research misconduct brought against Reed faculty, staff or students. Research is defined as the systematic experiment, study, evaluation, demonstration, or survey designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge or specific knowledge. In the case of students, if the work involved has been produced as part of a course, including senior thesis, the procedures in Chapter VI of the Faculty Code should be followed. For students or staff, the College will adapt these procedures as necessary by including appropriate representation on the Hearing Board (F) or Investigating Committee (H) while preserving due process and meeting requirements of Part 93.
3. Definitions
Research misconduct means (1) fabrication ,falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results, or (2) material failure to comply with federal requirements for the protection of human or animal research subjects.
The following do not constitute research misconduct:
- Honest error.
- Differences of opinion.
- Conduct that does not significantly depart from accepted practices within the relevant research community.
- A material failure to comply with federal requirements for the protection of human or animal research subjects that is not intentional or grossly negligent.
The institution will give due consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the respondent.
4. Institutional Rules
The Institutional Certifying Official (ICO) responsible for assuring that the institution has, follows, and annually reports on written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct is the Dean of the Faculty.
The Institutional Deciding Official (IDO) who makes final determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any institutional actions is the President when the alleged conduct appears to warrant a sanction less than fixed-term suspension or termination (section G of the Faculty Rules and Procedures) or the President and the Board of Trustees when the alleged conduct appears to warrant fixed term suspension or termination of tenure or of fixed-term appointment prior to expiration (section H of the Faculty Rules and Procedures).
The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) responsible for administering the institution's written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct in compliance with part 93 is the Dean of the Faculty or their designee.
5. Structure and Procedure
Formal allegations of research misconduct should be brought to the Dean of the Faculty in accordance with sections F, G and H of the College’s Rules of Procedure, and will be addressed in accordance with those Rules of Procedure, with the following modifications, specifications or additions:
- When allegations involve research conducted at multiple institutions, Reed will coordinate with the Research Integrity Officer at the other institution to determine whether to pursue independent investigations or a joint investigation. In the case of a joint investigation, a lead institution will be designated to ensure evidence sharing and compliance with federal requirements.
- If additional respondents are identified during the inquiry or investigation, each respondent will be provided notice and opportunity to respond.
- The Assessment stage is conducted by the RIO (F-2.a) or RIO in collaboration with the Committee for Advancement and Tenure (F-2.b) to determine whether the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct.
- The Inquiry stage is conducted by the RIO (F-2.a) or RIO in collaboration with the Committee for Advancement and Tenure (F-2.b) to determine whether an investigation is warranted not whether misconduct occurred. Though section F stipulates a shorter timeline, the inquiry stage for research misconduct allegations must complete within 90 calendar days or include documentation for extending.
- The Investigation stage is conducted by a Grievance Hearing Board (section G) appointed by the Grievance Review Panel or an Investigating Committee (section H) appointed by the Committee on Tenure. Though sections G & H stipulate 20 days and 30 days respectively, in the case of research misconduct investigations, these must conclude within 180 calendar days or include documentation for extending.
- Persons who are not Reed College students, staff or faculty may submit a formal signed allegation of research misconduct to the College through the Dean of the Faculty.
- In conjunction with the procedures for investigating research misconduct, the Dean of the Faculty, acting as the Institutional Compliance Officer (ICO), is responsible for complying with applicable federal regulations, including notifying sponsoring agencies and reporting to ORI when required, at the appropriate times.
- If at any time, it appears that there is the possibility that the alleged misconduct violated federal, state or local criminal statute, College Counsel must be consulted immediately to determine further action and ORI will be notified.
- Allegations of research misconduct on the part of the Dean of the Faculty should be submitted to the College through the Chair of the Grievance Review Panel.
- When allegations involve a Reed Student, in order to provide appropriate expertise the Inquiry Stage conducted by the RIO would include consultation with the Vice President of Student Life, and the Investigation Stage would include representation from the Office of Student Life on the Hearing Board.
- When allegations involve a Reed Staff member, the Inquiry Stage conducted by the RIO would include consultation with the Human Resources Director, and the Investigation Stage would include representation for Reed’s Human Resources Department on the Hearing Board or Investigating Committee.
- In the case of allegation of research misconduct, the institutional record will also include Sequester research records.