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