Scholarly Misconduct Policy

An essential element of any fair and effective academic integrity policy is a process that will differentiate instances of genuine and serious scholarly misconduct from insignificant deviations from acceptable practices, technical violations of rules, simple carelessness, and other such minor infractions. The procedures outlined in this document will allow such distinctions to be made in a manner that minimizes disruptiveness and protects the conscientious, honest scholar from false or mistaken accusations.

Date	Version Number	Change Description	Referenced Section
12/13/1989	1.0	New Document	Entire Document
2/19/91	2.0	Major Revisions
10/27/97	2.1	Minor Revisions
c. 2006	3.0	Major Revisions
11/28/16	3.1	Minor Revisions
1/2/17	3.2	Minor Revisions
3/14/17	3.3	Minor Revisions
7/19/18	3.4	Minor Revisions

Please note this policy was renamed from  

Review Process / Approval

Action:	Units	Date
Policy Review	Provost/VP of Academic Affairs Management Services
Policy Approval	Executive Staff	12/13/1989

All SUNY Plattsburgh faculty.

Scholarship: encompasses all four types of scholarship identified by former SUNY Chancellor Ernest L. Boyer in Scholarship Reconsidered (Princeton: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990) and recognized in Performance Reviews of Academic Employees: Policies and Procedures (An Agreement between State University of New York College of Arts and Science at Plattsburgh and United University Professions), Third Edition, July 2005: the scholarship of discovery, the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of application, and the scholarship of teaching.

Scholarly Misconduct: the fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, scholarly, and creative work in any medium (print, electronic, oral or artistic presentation, etc.). It does not include honest error or honest difference in interpretations or judgments of data.

Investigation: an information-gathering and fact-finding process to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of misconduct warrants a disciplinary hearing.

Disciplinary Hearing: a formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if an instance of misconduct has taken place. If misconduct is confirmed, the investigation should determine the seriousness of the offense and the extent of any adverse effects resulting from the misconduct. The hearing shall result in a recommendation for disposition. During this hearing, the policies and procedures for disciplinary hearings as outlined in Section 19.8 of the UUP/NYS Collective Bargaining Agreement shall apply. These included the right to union representation for the accused.

The vice president for academic affairs, after consultation with the president and others as appropriate and necessary, will appoint a qualified administrator to serve as the Scholarly Misconduct Policy Officer. Members of the college community will be notified annually of the identity of this person through the college directory.

Duties and responsibilities of the Scholarly Misconduct Policy Officer include:

1. To work confidentially with a complainant in the development of a specific, formal complaint;
2. To consult as needed and appropriate with SUNY legal counsel and the Research Foundation of SUNY;
3. To maintain records on all complaints and institutional responses;
4. To assist the vice president for academic affairs in the conduct of formal investigations into allegations of misconduct;
5. To inform sponsoring and funding agencies as appropriate through the Office of Sponsored Research and Programs.

Liability Coverage: The involvement of faculty and staff in investigations or disciplinary hearings pursuant to these procedures is considered part of their employment duties and responsibilities within the meaning of Section 17 of the Public Officers Law.

The Investigation

1. As a first step in the process of investigation, an initial report of alleged misconduct will be prepared in writing by the scholarly misconduct policy officer. The scholarly misconduct policy officer will then conduct an immediate, informal, discrete investigation into the allegations of misconduct in order to determine whether there is a substantial basis for initiating a disciplinary hearing concerning the alleged misconduct. The scholarly misconduct policy officer will make every effort to safeguard all individual reputations and the integrity of the research, scholarly, or creative activity. Every effort shall be made to protect the interests and privacy of those who in good faith report apparent misconduct and others who testify. In the conduct of this investigation, the scholarly misconduct policy officer may consult, on an ad hoc basis, with faculty and/or staff members of his/her choice.
2. The faculty or staff member whose work is the subject of the complaint shall be notified that a complaint has been lodged, the nature of the complaint, and the procedures to be followed. The affected individual(s) will be granted confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible, a prompt and thorough investigation, and an opportunity to comment on allegations and findings of the investigation.
3. Any evidence pertinent to the resolution of the issue shall be made secure by the scholarly misconduct policy officer conducting the investigation.
4. The investigation shall be conducted in confidence with the purpose of separating unfounded allegation(s) from those of a substantive nature and shall be completed whenever possible within 60 calendar days of the initial receipt of the allegations. At the completion of the investigation, a written report shall be filed with the vice president for academic affairs with an assessment as to whether or not the allegation(s) is/are warranted, and the reasons attendant thereto. The scholarly misconduct policy officer will maintain sufficiently detailed documentation of investigations to permit a later assessment of the reasons for determining whether or not a disciplinary hearing was warranted. Such records shall be maintained in a secure manner for a period of at least three years after the termination of the investigation and shall, upon request, be provided to authorized representatives of sponsoring and funding agencies.
5. The vice president for academic affairs shall determine on the basis of the written report of the investigation, and any other consultation deemed necessary and appropriate, whether the allegations warrant a formal disciplinary hearing. In either case, the basis for the decision will be fully documented.
6. If the vice president for academic affairs determines that no disciplinary hearing is warranted, he/she will notify all those concerned of this determination. The vice president for academic affairs may also examine the propriety of the initial charge and take further action if appropriate.
7. If the vice president for academic affairs determines that a disciplinary hearing is necessary, it shall be formally undertaken within 30 calendar days of the completion of the investigation.

The Disciplinary Hearing

1. If the decision of the vice president for academic affairs is that a disciplinary hearing is necessary, the vice president for academic affairs, or his/her designee shall:
   1. Appoint a Scholarly Misconduct Disciplinary Hearing Committee, which will have the following membership (barring any conflicts of interest):
      1. Director of Human Resources (Chair)
      2. Two Management/Confidential Academic Administrators who are not the supervisor of the accused
      3. Director of Sponsored Research & Programs (or designee) in cases where allegations involve grant-funded activity
   2. This committee will conduct the hearing and prepare a report for SUNY System Administration.
   3. Inform the subject of the investigation that a formal hearing shall be conducted and invite the subject to make a written response to the allegations.
   4. Inform the president who shall, within 30 days of the subject’s notification that a formal hearing will be conducted, notify the Chancellor of the State University of New York (or his/her designee).
   5. Take interim administrative actions, as appropriate, when necessary to protect research or college funds, human subjects, equipment, or the reputation of the college.
2. During the course of the Disciplinary Hearing, the Scholarly Misconduct Disciplinary Hearing Committee shall: 
   1. Receive and review relevant documents, including but not necessarily limited to relevant research data and proposals, publications, correspondence (including email), and memoranda of telephone calls.
   2. Strive to interview all individuals involved either in making the allegation or against whom the allegation is made, as well as other individuals who might have information regarding key aspects of the allegations. Complete summaries of these interviews will be prepared, provided to the interviewed party for comment or revision, and included as part of the hearing file.
   3. Seek additional information as deemed necessary and appropriate.
   4. Consult, when appropriate, with expert(s) from outside the institution.
   5. Record and document all relevant information obtained in the course of the investigation.
   6. Analyze and summarize results of the hearing.
   7. Prepare and submit to the SUNY System Administration a written report, including a summary of the investigation, findings, and recommendations for further action.

The Finding

1. The written report prepared at the conclusion of the hearing by the Hearing Committee and sent to the SUNY System Administration shall include:
   1. A statement of the accusation.
   2. A statement of the findings.
   3. An indication of the evidence or lack of evidence of misconduct.
   4. An evaluation of the seriousness of any misconduct found.
   5. Recommendations for further action

DISPOSITION

If a disciplinary hearing has been launched on the basis of a complaint, and no fraud or misconduct is found, the institution will undertake diligent efforts, as appropriate, to restore the reputation of person(s) alleged to have engaged in misconduct. It will also undertake diligent efforts to protect the positions and reputations of those person(s) who, in good faith, made allegations. If the allegations are found to have been maliciously motivated, however, disciplinary actions may be taken against those responsible.  Responsibility for recommending the nature and severity of disciplinary action will rest with the Disciplinary Hearing Committee.

Consideration will also be given to formal notification of other concerned parties, not previously notified, such as:

• Sponsoring agencies, funding sources
• Co-authors, co-investigators, collaborators
• Editors of journals in which fraudulent scholarship was published
• State professional licensing boards
• Editors of journals or other publications, other institutions, sponsoring agencies, and funding sources with which the individual has been affiliated
• Professional societies

SPONSORING AGENCY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The following reporting requirements apply to any case of suspected scientific, creative, or scholarly misconduct involving work undertaken with the support of an external sponsoring agency:

1. The college’s decision to initiate an investigation must be reported in writing to the appropriate officials of the sponsoring and funding state or federal agencies on or before the date the investigation begins. At a minimum, the notification should include the name of the person(s) against whom the allegations have been made, the general nature of the allegation, and the application or grant number(s) involved.
2. An investigation should ordinarily be completed within 60 calendar days of its initiation. This includes conducting the investigation, preparing the report of findings, and submitting a report (see point 4 below) to the sponsoring agency
3. The college is expected to carry its investigations through to completion. If the college plans to terminate an investigation for any reasons without completing all relevant requirements, a report of such planned termination, including a description of the reasons for such termination, shall be made to the appropriate funding and sponsoring agencies.
4. The final report submitted to the sponsoring agency will describe the policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted, how and from whom information was obtained relevant to the investigation, the findings, and the basis for the findings,
5. If the college determines that it will not be able to complete the investigation in 60 calendar days, it must submit to the sponsoring agencies a written request for an extension and an explanation for the delay that includes an interim report on the progress to date and an estimate for the date of completion of the report and other necessary steps. If the request is granted, the college must file periodic progress reports as requested by the sponsoring agency.
6. The college is responsible for notifying sponsoring agencies if it ascertains at any stage of the investigation that any of the following conditions exist:
   1. There is an immediate health hazard involved.
   2. There is an immediate need to protect federal (or state) funds or equipment.
   3. There is an immediate need to protect the interests of the person(s) making the allegations or of the individual(s) who is/are the subject of the allegations as well as co-investigators and associates, if any.
   4. It is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly.
   5. There is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violation. In that instance, the college must inform the sponsoring agencies within 24 hours of obtaining that information. 
7. If the investigation has found probable cause of academic misconduct, the college will move to a disciplinary hearing on the allegations. Since these hearings are confidential, information from them could be released to a granting agency only by the mutual consent of the college and the individual against whom the allegations were made.

None

Additional Resources

Scholarly Misconduct Guidelines 

Method	Date
Campus Handbook	N/A
Faculty/Staff Digest	N/A
Student Digest	N/A
Other	N/A

There are no specific trainings identified with this policy.