Academics

Quick Links

In pursuing its mission, and in the engagement of University employees in sponsored programs, the University attempts to promote and conform to the highest standards of ethical research and scholarly conduct. The Gallaudet University Institutional Integrity Statement appears below. It is also available here as a downloadable PDF document. The Chief Research Officer serves as the university’s Research Integrity Officer.

For more information about the importance of research integrity, please visit the website of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), located within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).


Statement

Research misconduct includes — without limitation — fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research or in reporting research results. All employees or individuals associated with Gallaudet University should report observed, suspected or apparent misconduct in research to the Chief Research Officer.


Reason

In pursuing its mission, and in the engagement of University employees in sponsored programs, the University attempts to promote and conform to the highest standards of ethical research and scholarly conduct.


Procedures

In cases where scholarly misconduct is alleged to have occurred in work by or for Gallaudet University personnel, and for which governmental funding has been received in any form, the following steps shall be taken:

  1. Allegations of scholarly misconduct or dishonesty shall be directed to the Chief Research Officer, who will make an initial, informal inquiry to ensure they are not frivolous and to ascertain whether they do in fact affect or involve governmentally funded personnel or projects.

  2. If governmentally funded activities are involved, upon notification, the Office of Research will contact the appropriate agencies as required in federal or state regulations, and all steps to follow will be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations, superseding the steps outlined here.

  3. The Chief Research Officer will pursue inquiry by forming a committee comprised of at least a Chief Research Officer-designated inquiry chair, two (2) tenured full professors in relevant disciplines from Gallaudet University, and one (1) tenured full professor from another research institution. The composition of the committee may be varied if the Chief Research Officer deems it necessary to ensure appropriate expertise and to avoid apparent or actual conflicts of interest.

  4. Operating confidentially, the inquiry committee may require any records they deem necessary from the investigators accused of misconduct; request that a procedure be repeated or demonstrated; and recommend to the Chief Research Officer other necessary steps, including repetition of a procedure by an outside investigator. The committee’s goals will be first, to determine whether misconduct occurred; second, to recommend further action or investigation to the Chief Research Officer; and third, to issue a written report.

  5. In instances where clarifications of professional credit, repetition of poorly documented work or other steps may be acceptable to all parties as a way of removing the allegation, the inquiry committee may, under the Chief Research Officer’s direction, act in a mediating role.

  6. In the event misconduct in governmentally funded research appears to have occurred, the Chief Research Officer will recommend to the provost and/or the president appropriate action with respect to external sponsors; further investigation that may seem warranted, including steps toward criminal investigation if necessary; and disciplinary actions for the investigator.

  7. Timeline: An inquiry will be completed within 60 days of receipt of an allegation of misconduct in governmentally supported research. If sufficient basis for investigation into possible scientific misconduct exists, that investigation will be initiated within 30 days of the inquiry report, and will be completed within 120 days.

    All steps described herein will comply with guidelines from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) as closely as possible. The University will act to prevent health hazards, to protect individuals and to safeguard federal funds and equipment. It will take steps to notify DHHS’s Office of Research Integrity at each appropriate juncture, and will notify external sponsors within 24 hours of any indication of possible criminal violations.

  8. Additional steps will be taken as necessary to meet procedural requirements of the federal or state funding agency, for it is the intention of Gallaudet University to ensure full compliance with federal and related state regulations as well as to ensure scientific integrity.

  9. Confidentiality statement: Throughout the above steps, the University will seek to protect and preserve the reputation and positions of those who have made allegations of misconduct in good faith, and also the reputations and positions of those who have been the object of allegations found to be false. Accusers and the accused will have appropriate opportunities to respond to findings. A good faith effort will be made to keep the procedures of inquiry and identities of those involved confidential.

Forms/Instructions

None

Related Information

External Resources

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Research Integrity: http://ori.hhs.gov/

 

Definitions

Term Definition and Examples

Misconduct in scientific research

“Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. Misconduct does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretation or judgment of data.” (Public Health Service)

“‘Misconduct’ means (1) fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other serious deviation from accepted practices in proposing, carrying out, or reporting results from research, (2) material failure to comply with Federal requirements for protection of researchers, human subjects, or the public or for ensuring the welfare of laboratory animals, or (3) failure to meet other material legal requirements governing research.” (National Science Foundation)

Allegation

Any written or oral statement or other indication of possible research misconduct made to a University official. 

Complainant

A person who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct.

Conflict of interest

The real or apparent interference of one person’s outside interests with the interests of another person where potential bias may occur due to prior or existing personal or professional relationships.

Good faith allegation

An allegation made with the honest belief that research misconduct may have occurred. An allegation is not in good faith if it is made with reckless disregard for, or willful ignorance of, facts that would disprove the allegation.

Inquiry

Gathering information and initial fact-finding to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of research misconduct has substance and warrants an investigation.

Investigation

The formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record leading to one of two decisions: (a) to confirm the allegation of research misconduct and to recommend appropriate remedies, including administrative actions or (b) to dismiss the allegation of research misconduct.

Investigators

Any person paid by, under the control of, or affiliated with the University, such as faculty, scientists, trainees, technicians, other staff members, students, fellows, guest researchers or collaborators at or with the University.

Office of Research Integrity (ORI)

The office within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) that is responsible for the research misconduct and research integrity activities of the U.S. Public Health Service.

Public Health Service (PHS) regulation

The PHS regulation that establishes standards for University inquiries and investigations into allegations of research misconduct. It is set forth in “Responsibility of PHS Awardee and Applicant Institutions for Dealing With and Reporting Possible Misconduct in Science,” or as amended (42 C.F.R. §50, Subpart A).

Research record

Any data or results that embody the facts resulting from scholarly inquiry including, but not limited to: grant or contract applications, whether funded or unfunded; grant or contract progress and other reports; laboratory notebooks; notes; correspondence; videos; photographs; X-ray film; slides; biological materials; computer files and printouts; manuscripts and publications; equipment use logs; laboratory procurement records; animal facility records; human and animal subject protocols; consent forms; medical charts; and patient research files. “Data or results” shall be interpreted broadly to encompass all forms of scholarly information about the research at issue without regard to the type of recording or storage media, including, but not limited to, raw numbers, field notes, interviews, notebooks and folders, laboratory observations, computers and other research equipment, CD-ROMs, hard drives, floppy disks, Zip disks, back-up tapes, machine counter tapes, research interpretations and analyses, tables, slides, photographs, charts, gels, individual facts, statistics, tissue samples, reagents and documented oral representations of research results.

Respondent

The person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or the person whose actions are the subject of the inquiry or investigation. There can be more than one respondent in any inquiry or investigation, and, if there are multiple respondents, all references in this document to “respondent” shall also be read in the plural as appropriate.

Retaliation

Any action that adversely affects the employment or other University or professional status of an individual that is taken by an institution or another individual (e.g., respondent) because the first individual has in good faith made an allegation of research misconduct or of inadequate University response thereto or has cooperated in good faith with an investigation of such allegation.

Responsibilities

Role Responsibility

Principal Investigator or Project Director

Report any allegation of misconduct via the proper channels as described in this document.

Grant employee

Report any allegation of misconduct first to your Principal Investigator or Project Director.  If allegation is about your PI or PD, report via the proper channels as described in this document.

Office of Research

Upon notification, provide notification to the Research Integrity Officer (Chief Research Officer) and potentially the external funding agency associated with that funded project.

Department head

Communicate these practices to all responsible employees within the department.

Chief Research Officer

Communicate these practices to all responsible employees within the departments.

 

Institutional Integrity

Back to Office of Research

Contact Us

Office of Research

Hall Memorial Building S242

(202) 651-5085

Monday
9:00 am-4:00 pm
Tuesday
9:00 am-4:00 pm
Wednesday
9:00 am-4:00 pm
Thursday
9:00 am-4:00 pm
Friday
9:00 am-4:00 pm

Select what best describes your relationship to Gallaudet University so we can effectively route your email.
By submitting this form, I opt in to receive select information and deaf resources from Gallaudet University via email.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.