-
- Chancellor
- Academic Affairs
- Administration and Finance
- Advancement
- Communications
- Councils & Workgroups
- Internal Audit
- Government Relations
- Procurement
- Legislative Testimony
- Employment
- Directions to the USM System Office
- System Office Staff Directory
- Organizational Chart
- Organizational Chart of Institutions
-
-
-
56.0 III-1.10-POLICY ON MISCONDUCT IN SCHOLARLY WORK
(Approved by the Board of Regents, November 30, 1989)
I. POLICY
The inherent requirement for integrity in the quest for
knowledge and in the creation of scholarly and artistic works is
fundamental to the academic purpose. Deviations from the proper
conduct of scholarly work erode the public's confidence in
science, in scholarship and in institutions of higher education.
The University of Maryland System expects that the highest
ethical standards as well as compliance with public laws and
regulations will prevail in the conduct of its activities. The
University System considers misconduct in scholarly work by any
of its employees a breach of contract. Accordingly:
A. It is the policy of the University of Maryland System to
maintain high ethical standards in science and other
scholarly work, to prevent misconduct where possible,
and promptly and fairly to evaluate and to resolve
instances of alleged or apparent misconduct.
B. It is the policy of the University of Maryland System to
terminate the employment and/or to take other
disciplinary action against any individual found guilty
of misconduct.
C. It is the policy of the University of Maryland System to
award no degree if misconduct in science or other
scholarly work contributed to that degree, and when
warranted, to revoke such a degree if misconduct is
discovered after its award.
II. PURPOSE
This policy is the basis for University of Maryland System
procedures and practices designed to instill and to promote the
principles of professional integrity, to prevent scholarly
misconduct, and to discover and to censure instances of
misconduct when they occur. In accordance with this policy, each
institution in the System must prepare, implement and publicize
policies and procedures appropriate for its unique organization
and administration.
The policy applies primarily to faculty, staff, and student
research, scholarly writing, and the creation of works of art.
It is not intended to address issues, such as the conduct of
students in examinations and in fulfilling course requirements,
which are covered by other policies.
GUIDELINES FOR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES RELATING TO
ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCHOLARLY WORK
I. PURPOSE
It is the purpose of these guidelines to provide
institutions in the University of Maryland System a framework for
policies, procedures, and practices designed to instill and
promote the principles of professional integrity, to prevent
scholarly misconduct, and to discover and censure instances of
misconduct when they occur. Using these guidelines, each
institution in the System must prepare, implement and publicize
policies and procedures appropriate for its unique organization
and administration.
These guidelines apply primarily to faculty, staff, and
student research, scholarly writing, and the creation of works of
art. They are not intended to address issues, such as the
conduct of students in examination and in fulfilling course
requirements, which are covered by other policies. Neither are
they intended to fully address compliance with laws and
regulations. These guidelines address compliance only to the
extent that it relates to academic integrity.
II. POLICY
The inherent requirement for integrity in the quest for
knowledge and in the creation of scholarly and artistic works is
fundamental to the academic purpose. Deviations from the proper
conduct of scholarly work erode the public's confidence in
scholarship and in institutions of higher education. The
University of Maryland System expects that the highest ethical
standards as well as compliance with public laws and regulations
will prevail in the conduct of its activities. The University
System considers misconduct in scholarly work by any of its
employees a breach of contract. Accordingly, institutional
policies should include the following statements:
A. It is the policy of the University of Maryland System to
maintain high ethical standards in scholarly work, to
prevent misconduct where possible, and promptly and
fairly to evaluate and resolve instances of alleged or
apparent misconduct.
B. It is the policy of the University of Maryland System to
terminate the employment and/or to take other
disciplinary action against any individual found guilty
of misconduct.
C. It is the policy of the University of Maryland System to
award no degree if misconduct in scholarly work
contributed to that degree, and to revoke such a degree
if misconduct is discovered after its award.
III. PROMOTION OF PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY
The policies and procedures for each institution must
provide for periodic evaluations of procedures and practices that
teach and promote integrity in scholarly work, as well as those
practices that may inadvertently provide incentives for
misconduct. Evaluations should include, but need not be limited
to:
A. Policies that fix responsibilities for the conduct of
research and other scholarly work and that assure
adequate supervision or oversight of students and of
academic or research teams.
B. Institutional policies regarding authorship and the
acceptance of full responsibility for the work
published.
C. Institutional practices regarding authorship as a
criterion for promotion.
D. Practices that foster openness and enhance awareness and
recognition of ethical issues and of responsibilities in
the conduct of scholarly work.
E. Practices that assure adequate orientation of students
to ethical issues in academic pursuits and to acceptable
techniques in data gathering, record keeping and
reporting.
F. Institutional practices and requirements in regard to
recording, retention, and storage of data.
IV. MISCONDUCT IN SCHOLARLY WORK
A. It should be emphasized that reporting misconduct in
scholarly work is a responsibility shared by everyone at
the institution. However, frivolous, mischievous or
malicious misrepresentation in alleging misconduct will
not be tolerated.
B. Misconduct in scholarly work may take many forms; these
guidelines apply, but are not limited to, the following
examples of misconduct:
1. Falsification of data. Ranging from fabrication to
deceptively selective reporting, including the
purposeful omission of conflicting data with the
intent to falsify results.
2. Improper experimental manipulation. For example,
manipulating experiments to obtain biased data.
3. Plagiarism. For example, taking credit for an exact
copy or the rewritten or rearranged work of another.
4. Improper assignment of credit. For example,
insufficiently or knowingly not citing the work of
others, including associates and students, or
inadequately identifying the repetition of data or
material that appears in more than one publication.
5. Abuse of confidentiality. For example, improper use
of information gained by privileged access, such as
information obtained through service on peer review
panels and editorial boards.
6. Deliberate violation of regulations. For example,
failure to comply with regulations concerning the
use of human subjects, the care of animals, or
health and safety of individuals and the
environment.
7. Misappropriation of funds or resources. For
example, the misuse of funds for personal gain.
V. HANDLING ALLEGATION OF MISCONDUCT
A. Allegations of misconduct in scholarly work may come
from various sources within and without the institution.
It is important that allegations of misconduct be
handled expeditiously and that no serious allegations go
unheeded. Consequently, each campus must develop
specific procedures that define how allegations will be
evaluated, what levels of administration will be
involved, and what actions will be taken as the result
of evaluating an allegation of misconduct.
B. No decisions regarding the seriousness of an allegation
of misconduct should be made by anyone whose personal or
professional interests may be involved. Thus, although
an allegation may first be reported to a collaborator, a
co-worker, a co-author, a faculty advisor, or a team
leader, such a close associate must report the
allegation to a designated senior official for further
action.
C. The purpose of the evaluation of an allegation is to
determine whether there is or is not substantial basis
to believe that scholarly misconduct has occurred, and
whether formal discharge proceedings or other action
with respect to the individual's employment is
warranted.
D. The evaluation of an allegation should be kept
confidential to the extent possible. Until a conclusion
is reached, (i.e., the fact-finding process results in a
judgment that there is or is not substance to the
allegation) information about the allegation and about
the evaluation should be made available only to those
who need to know. Generally, those who need to know
include the accused, individuals who can provide
pertinent information or expert opinions, those
conducting the evaluation, and appropriate institutional
officials. Thus, institutional procedures should
identify levels of administration that need to know.
The procedures should identify administrative levels at
which evaluations will be conducted, as well as levels
at which actions will be taken at the conclusion of
evaluations.
E. All serious allegations of misconduct must be evaluated
first by an inquiry, and then, if the inquiry so
indicates, by an investigation. The accused must be
notified in writing when an inquiry into an allegation
of misconduct is being initiated and again when an
investigation is being initiated.
1. Inquiry
a. An inquiry into an allegation of misconduct
should be made by a small committee appointed by
the director or president of the institution, or
by the director's or the president's designee.
b. The purpose of an inquiry is to determine
whether there is sufficient basis for the
allegation to warrant a full investigation.
Thus an inquiry need not seek all the relevant
information or documentation.
c. An inquiry may be conducted informally, although
records of its findings should be kept to
justify its recommendations, and, if no
investigation is recommended, to indicate
whether the allegation was mischievous.
d. Institutional procedures should indicate which
official should receive and act upon the report
of the committee of inquiry. If no
investigation is initiated, that official must
take appropriate action as indicated under
Section VI.B, below. If an investigation is to
be initiated, the official shall take or
recommend whatever steps are necessary to
protect the health and safety of research
subjects, students, and colleagues.
e. Any respondent in an inquiry is required to
cooperate in furnishing materials and responding
to questions.
2. Investigation
a. An investigation should be initiated as soon as
possible after an inquiry indicates the need.
It should be conducted by a special committee
appointed by the institutional official
indicated in Section V.E, 1.d. above. Its
membership should be specifically chosen to
evaluate the particular allegations under
consideration. At least one member should be an
individual not primarily associated with the
institution.
b. The committee may hold hearings and should have
the authority, responsibility and resources to
collect and consider all of the evidence
relevant to the allegation. It should be
charged with obtaining expert opinions, if
necessary to reach firm conclusions, and to do
so by seeking the advice of external experts if
that is required to avoid conflicts of interest,
or for other appropriate reasons. An
investigation must be thorough. It must obtain
sufficient evidence to permit the committee to
reach a firm decision about the validity of the
allegation, or to be sure that further
investigation could not alter an inconclusive
result.
c. An investigating committee should also be
charged with recommending specific actions
appropriate for the seriousness of its findings.
These recommendations should address actions to
restore damaged reputations if indicated and
should identify specific retractions,
disclaimers and announcements necessary to set
the record straight. The committee may
recommend sanctions if wrongdoing is confirmed.
d. If the alleged misconduct involves the
performance of research or other scholarly work
supported by an external sponsor, the
institution must inform the sponsor when an
investigation is initiated. The notification
should provide sufficient information to satisfy
the institution's obligations to the sponsor,
but in the interest of protecting reputations
that might be unjustly damaged, a detailed
report should await the final outcome of the
investigation.
e. An investigation, once begun, must result in a
report to the official cited in Section V E.
1.d. above, whether or not the individual
remains at the institution.
VI. INSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS
A. At the conclusion of evaluating an allegation of
misconduct in scholarly work, the official indicated in
Section V.E., 1.d. above, acting on behalf of the
institution must take all actions appropriate for the
findings.
B. If misconduct is not confirmed, the person found
innocent must be notified promptly. The institution
must consider whether a public announcement will be
harmful or beneficial in restoring any reputation(s)
that may have been damaged. Usually, that decision
should rest with the innocently accused. The
institution must take disciplinary action when an
allegation is found to be mischievous. The institution
may find it necessary to reprimand lax supervision,
faulty techniques, or inattention to propriety even when
willful misconduct is not established.
C. If misconduct is established, the institution must take
action appropriate for the seriousness of the
misconduct. If formal termination proceedings are
instituted, such proceedings must be in accordance with
System and institutional termination policies and
procedures. In addition to appropriate sanctions, the
institution must do everything it can to set the record
straight. This may take the form of public
announcements, published retractions and disassociations
with published papers, and full reports to external
sponsors.
Replacement for: BOR VII-9.00 and 9.01
Email this Page to a Colleague
Printer Friendly VersionQuestions? Comments? Contact Us
Copyright © 2008 University System of Maryland
USM is not responsible for content or information derived from links to remote servers.
University System of Maryland
3300 Metzerott Road
Adelphi, MD 20783-1690, USA
301.445.2740
State of Maryland Census 2010