Revision Date: January 1, 2026
Contents
1. Overview
These procedures support Policy 7002 Yale University Research Integrity Policy. Individuals with concerns related to Research Misconduct should contact the Research Integrity Officer as noted on the Research Integrity and Security Office’s website; email research.integrity@yale.edu; or submit an anonymous report to the University hotline by either using its online form or calling 877-360-YALE. Allegations of Research Misconduct may be made anonymously.
2. Definitions
Assessment
Assessment means a consideration of whether an Allegation of Research Misconduct appears to fall within the definition of Research Misconduct and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified.
Fabrication
Making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
Falsification
Manipulating Research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the Research is not accurately represented in the Research Record.
Inquiry
Preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding that meets the criteria set forth in this Procedure.
Investigation
Investigation means the formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record that meets the criteria and follows this Procedure.
Institutional Deciding Official (“IDO”)
Institutional Deciding Official means the institutional official who makes final determinations on Allegations of Research Misconduct and any institutional actions. The IDO is generally the dean of the school or faculty of the Respondent(s). If there is a current personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest between the IDO and the Respondent or other individuals involved in the Research Misconduct proceeding, the Provost or their designee may determine the appropriate IDO.
Intentionally
To act with the aim of carrying out the act.
Knowingly
To act with awareness of the act.
Plagiarism
The appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving appropriate credit1.
Preponderance of the Evidence
Proof by evidence that, compared with evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely true than not.
Recklessly
To propose, perform, or review Research, or report Research results, with indifference to a known risk of Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism.
Research Integrity Officer (“RIO”)
The Research Integrity Officer (“RIO”) is the institutional official(s) responsible for administering Yale’s written policies and procedures for addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct. The same individual cannot serve as the Institutional Deciding Official as defined above and the Research Integrity Officer. Yale may have two or more RIOs.
Research Integrity and Security Office (“RISO”)
The Research Integrity and Security Office, or RISO, is the office at Yale responsible for providing the RIO with administrative support in administering Yale’s written policies and procedures for addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct.
3. Confidentiality
Disclosure of the identity of Respondents, Complainants, and witnesses during the conduct of Research Misconduct proceedings is limited, to the extent possible, to those who need to know, as determined by the IDO and/or RIO, consistent with a thorough, competent, objective, and fair Research Misconduct proceeding, and as allowed by law. Those who need to know may include, without limitation, institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions. Upon a final determination substantiating an Allegation that Research Misconduct was committed, the identity of the Respondent and the findings may be disclosed by the IDO and/or RIO in accordance with this paragraph. Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the IDO and/or RIO, during the Research Misconduct proceeding and once the proceeding has been completed, from taking steps to manage published data, acknowledge that data may be unreliable, or take other actions that may be warranted to ensure the integrity of the scientific record.
4. Evidentiary Standards
- Yale has the burden of proof for making a finding that Research Misconduct was committed.
- A Respondent’s destruction of Research Records documenting the questioned Research is evidence of Research Misconduct where it can be established by a Preponderance of the Evidence that the Respondent Intentionally or Knowingly destroyed Records after being informed of the Research Misconduct Allegations. This determination will be made at the Investigation stage. A Respondent’s failure to provide Research Records documenting the questioned Research is evidence of Research Misconduct where the Respondent claims to possess the Records but refuses to provide them upon request.
- The Respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a Preponderance of Evidence, affirmative defenses raised (e.g., honest error or differences of opinion).
5. Assessment
In a timely manner following receipt of an Allegation, the RIO will perform an Assessment to determine:
- Whether the Allegation appears to fall within the definition of Research Misconduct; and
- If the Allegation does fall within the definition of Research Misconduct, whether it is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified2.
The purpose of an Assessment of an Allegation of Research Misconduct is to determine whether an Allegation warrants an Inquiry. An Assessment is intended to be a review of readily accessible information relevant to the Allegation. Any Allegation of Research Misconduct, whether lodged from within or outside the University, that is directed against an individual who, at the time of the alleged Misconduct, was a faculty member, staff member, student, or trainee of any school or faculty of Yale University, will be assessed thoroughly by the RIO.
If it is necessary to consult with others (such as subject matter experts) in order to make this decision, the RIO will maintain, to the degree possible, the anonymity of all individuals involved, including those who have made the Allegations, and in any event will require all those consulted to treat the matter as strictly confidential.
These procedures do not apply to alleged Research Misconduct that occurred more than the six years prior to the receipt of an Allegation. This limitation will be subject to the following exceptions:
- The six-year time limitation does not apply if the Respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged Research Misconduct that occurred before the six-year period through the use of, republication of, or citation to the portion(s) of the Research Record alleged to have been Fabricated, Falsified, or Plagiarized, for the potential benefit of the Respondent (“subsequent use exception”).
- The six-year time limitation also does not apply if it is determined that the alleged Research Misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public.
- Any determination regarding the applicability of the subsequent use exception will be documented.
If the Allegation does not appear to fall within the definition of Research Misconduct, or if the Allegation is not sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified, the RIO may dismiss the Allegation altogether or, may engage the appropriate institutional parties to address the Allegation under other applicable University policies and procedures. The results of the Assessment and the reasons for the decision will be set forth in writing.
If the Allegation does appear to fall within the definition of Research Misconduct and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified, the RIO will document the Assessment and promptly move the Allegation to Inquiry.
The RIO may secure materials that are directly relevant to the Allegations and, if additional items become known or relevant at any time, the RIO may secure those materials. The RIO shall keep the IDO informed of the determination.
6. Inquiry
The purpose of an Inquiry is to conduct an initial gathering of relevant information and fact-finding and review the evidence to determine whether an Allegation has substance and warrants an Investigation. An Inquiry does not require a full review of all of the evidence. An Inquiry is warranted if the Allegation meets the following criteria:
- It falls within the definition of Research Misconduct; and
- It is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified.
The RIO shall be responsible for conducting the Inquiry and determining, in consultation with the IDO, whether the matter should move forward to Investigation as noted further below. The RIO may, as needed, utilize one or more subject matter experts to assist in the Inquiry. The RIO shall determine who the potential subject matter experts may be, whether internal or external to Yale, and inform the Respondent. The RIO will consider any objection promptly raised by the Respondent based on a current personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest; however, the RIO’s evaluation of any such objection shall be final.
The RIO shall make a Good Faith effort to notify the Respondent of the Allegation(s) at or before the beginning of the Inquiry process. If the Inquiry subsequently identifies additional Respondents, they will be notified. Only Allegations specific to a particular Respondent are to be included in the notification to that Respondent. If additional Allegations are raised, the Respondent must be notified in writing of the additional Allegations raised against them.
Before, or at the time of notifying the Respondent, the RIO will undertake all reasonable and practical steps to identify the original or substantially equivalent copies of all Research Records and other evidence that are pertinent to the proceedings, inventory these materials, and sequester the materials in a secure manner. The Respondent will have copies of, or supervised access to, the sequestered Research Records made available to them. The Respondent and all other individuals subject to these Procedures must provide immediate assistance in response to any request by the RIO to identify and secure Research Records relevant to the Research Misconduct proceeding.
The RISO will review the Allegations to determine if there are any special circumstances that must be reported in accordance with applicable federal requirements. If reporting is required, the RISO, or a designee, will inform the appropriate officials.
At Inquiry, reasonable efforts will be made to interview the Respondent, if available3. Interviews or requests for information from others within or outside the University, including persons uninvolved in, but knowledgeable about, the matter under Inquiry, may be performed and expert advice may also be sought. All current University faculty, students, trainees, and staff who are requested to participate in the Inquiry or to provide documents are expected to cooperate. Interviews will be recorded and transcribed, and transcripts will be made available to the interviewee for review and/or correction. Every effort will be made to maintain the confidentiality of the materials, deliberations, and to preserve the privacy of the person(s) bringing the Allegations; however, if it is determined that confidential disclosure of the identity of the Complainant to any person (including the Respondent) is necessary to proceed fairly with deliberations, after first informing the Complainant, such a disclosure may be made.
On the basis of the evidence reviewed during the Inquiry, a written report setting forth the conclusions and the evidentiary basis for those conclusions (including transcripts of interviews) will be created. If there is potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion, it will be noted in the Inquiry report. The Inquiry may result in one of two outcomes:
- If the Inquiry concludes that the Allegation(s) does not fall within the definition of Research Misconduct, or that there are not reasonable grounds or enough evidence for believing that said Allegation(s) have substance, then a formal Investigation is not warranted.
- If the Inquiry concludes that the Allegation(s) falls within the definition of Research Misconduct, and the preliminary fact-finding from the Inquiry indicates said Allegation(s) may have substance, then a formal Investigation is warranted.
- In either case, the RIO will provide the IDO with the written Inquiry report with all related documentation relied upon in making their determination.
The RIO must provide the Respondent with an opportunity to review and comment on the draft Inquiry report. The Respondent will have 30 days to respond; any timely comments provided by the Respondent will be attached to the final Inquiry report.
The Inquiry will not determine if Research Misconduct occurred, nor assess whether the alleged Misconduct was intentional, knowing, or reckless; such a determination is not made unless or until the case proceeds to an Investigation.
The RIO will notify the Respondent whether the Inquiry found that an Investigation is warranted. The notice will include a copy of the Inquiry report and a copy of the Policy and these Procedures. If an Investigation is warranted, the Respondent will be provided with a copy of, or supervised access to, the evidence in support of that determination.
The RIO should seek to complete the Inquiry within 90 days of its initiation unless circumstances warrant a longer period. Any extension of this period must be documented in the Inquiry report.
7. Investigation
If a formal Investigation is warranted, the RIO will initiate the Investigation as soon as practicable, and generally within 30 days after the issuance of the final Inquiry report. The purpose of an Investigation is to formally develop a factual record, pursue leads, examine the record, and recommend finding(s) to the IDO, who will make the final decision on each Allegation and any institutional actions. To constitute Research Misconduct under this policy, the alleged behavior must represent a significant departure from the Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community and must be shown by a Preponderance of the Evidence to have been committed Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly.
The Respondent shall be notified in writing of the Allegation(s) within a reasonable amount of time after it is determined that an Investigation is warranted, but before the Investigation begins. If new Allegations of Misconduct arise during the investigation, the Respondent will be given written notice of any new Allegation(s) of Research Misconduct not addressed during the Inquiry or in the initial notice of Investigation, within a reasonable amount of time. If any additional Respondent(s) are identified during the Investigation, they shall be notified of the Allegation(s) and provided with an opportunity to respond, consistent with these procedures. If any additional Respondents are identified during the Investigation, the RIO may choose to either conduct a separate Inquiry or add the new Respondent(s) to the ongoing Investigation.
The Investigation will be conducted by an ad hoc Investigation Committee consisting of a minimum of three members whom the RIO will appoint, and who may be Yale faculty members with tenure, or continuing appointments, or individuals with relevant expertise from outside the School or University. Any individual who has a current personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest with respect to the matter under review or the individuals involved, will not be eligible for the Investigation Committee. The RIO will inform the Respondent of the membership of the Investigation Committee and will consider any objection promptly raised by the Respondent solely on the basis of a current personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest; however, the RIO’s evaluation of any such objection shall be final.
The RIO may sequester any materials, including laboratory notebooks, data, and other Research materials which it believes are relevant and that have not been sequestered previously. The Investigation Committee will make reasonable efforts to interview the Respondent. It may also seek to interview witnesses who may be any persons within or outside the University who may be knowledgeable about the matters under Investigation (including the Complainant), may seek expert advice, and may review the records of the Inquiry. Interviews will be recorded and transcribed, and transcripts will be made available to the interviewee for review and/or correction. Transcripts of interviews will be included in the Investigation report.
The Investigation will follow the same procedures as described in Section 6. Inquiry to maintain confidentiality and protect the privacy of those involved. The Investigation Committee will also provide the Respondent with the opportunity to submit evidence and suggest witnesses. The Respondent will not be present during the witnesses’ interviews, but will be provided with a transcript of each interview as an enclosure to the draft Investigation report, with redactions as appropriate to maintain confidentiality4.
The Investigation Committee should seek to complete the Investigation within 180 days of its initiation unless circumstances warrant a longer period. Any extension of this period must be documented. The RISO will notify and request any necessary extension of time from any funding, regulatory or other agencies may be required by applicable law.
8. Investigation Report
Upon completion of its Investigation, the Investigation Committee will prepare a written report consisting of its findings. The report of the Investigation Committee will be adopted upon the majority vote of the members of the Committee. The Investigation Committee will provide a detailed rationale for it conclusion regarding each alligation(s). For each Allegation as to which the Investigation Committee finds Research Misconduct occurred, the report will:
- identify the individual(s) who committed the Research Misconduct;
- indicate whether the Misconduct was Falsification, Fabrication, and/or Plagiarism;
- indicate whether the Misconduct was committed Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly;
- identify any significant departure from the Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community and that the Allegation was proven by a Preponderance of the Evidence;
- summarize the facts and analysis supporting the conclusion and consider the merits of any explanation by the Respondent;
- identify the specific federal funding support, if any; and
- state whether any publications need correction or retraction5.
The Respondent will be provided with a copy of the draft Investigation report and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the sequestered records and other evidence that the Investigation committee considered or relied on. The Respondent will submit any comments on the draft report to the Investigation Committee within 30 days of receiving the draft Investigation report. Any comments received will be considered by the Investigation committee in preparing the final version of the Investigation report and will be attached to the final Investigation report.
The RISO will submit a copy of the final Investigation report to the IDO with recommendations on appropriate actions to be taken. The IDO will review the Investigation report and make a final determination as to whether the Investigation found that Research Misconduct was committed and, if so, who committed the Misconduct. In this statement, a description of relevant institutional actions taken or to be taken will be outlined. The IDO will notify the Respondent of their decision in writing.
If a Respondent admits to Misconduct, the admission must be made in writing and signed by the Respondent, state the specific Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism that occurred, which Research Records were affected, and that it constituted a significant departure from Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community. The RISO will inform the relevant oversight agency or funding entity, as required by law or contract, of the full scope of the Research Misconduct identified as part of the admission. A final resolution with the Respondent may be reached only if the relevant oversight agency concurs with terminating the Research Misconduct proceeding.
At the conclusion fo the Investigation, the RISO or the appropriate Office of Research Administration official, will notify any funding, regulatory or other agencies as required by law or regulation of the outcome of the Investigation and the action that will be taken or initiated and will submit such reports as may be required. The IDO and/or Provost, or their designees, may, at their discretion, direct the RISO to notify others determined to have a legitimate interest in the outcome of the proceedings, including, for example and without limitation, the current employer of the Respondent, if the Respondent is not at Yale; co-authors of the Respondent in a manuscript or publication subject to an Allegation of Research Misconduct; the Complainant; the school or faculty at Yale of the Respondent; and the publisher of a manuscript or publication that was subject to an Allegation of Research Misconduct.
In the event that the Investigation concludes that the Allegations are not substantiated, the IDO or appropriate designees will determine what measures, if requested and as appropriate, reasonably can and should be taken to help restore the reputation of the Respondent(s). If the Investigation concludes that the Allegations were made in bad faith, the Complainant may be subject to disciplinary action, in accordance with applicable procedures.
9. Appeal
For Research Misconduct matters adjudicated under these Procedures, a Respondent may appeal in writing to the Provost or their designee if they believe that there were procedural deficiencies in the review and dispensation of their case.
Any appeal shall be delivered to the Provost or their designee within thirty (30) calendar days of the notice to the Respondent of the outcome of a Research Misconduct Investigation. Additional time may be provided at the discretion of the Provost, or their designee, only upon prompt application and for compelling reasons. If a Respondent elects to file an appeal, the RISO or the appropriate Office of Research Administration official will promptly notify any funding, regulatory, or other agencies as required by law or regulation.
In considering such an appeal, the Provost, or their designee, will limit their review to determining whether appropriate procedures and standards were applied to the subject case.
10. Annual Report
Yale files an annual report with the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Research Integrity. The Institutional Certifying Official for the annual report is the Senior Assoc. Provost, Research Compliance and Regulatory Affairs.
11. Record Retention
Records documenting matters performed under the Procedures described above shall be kept for a period of three years, or the time period required by applicable law and/or regulation. Documentation relating to the Assessment, Inquiry, and Investigation shall be considered confidential and kept in a secure location.
Notes
1 Plagiarism includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another’s work that materially misleads the reader regarding the contributions of the author. It does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology. Plagiarism does not include self-plagiarism or authorship or credit disputes, including disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a Research project.
2 Regarding whether the Allegations are sufficiently credible and specific, note that the mere fact that one person cannot replicate someone else’s results does not constitute evidence of Research Misconduct. Nor does a disagreement over interpretation or methodology rise to the level of an Allegation of Research Misconduct. An Allegation of non-replicability may, however, constitute support for a specific Allegation that may warrant Inquiry.
3 When being interviewed for an Inquiry, the Respondent may be accompanied by an adviser, who may be any member of the Yale community, but not by legal counsel.
4 The Respondent may be accompanied before the Investigation Committee by an adviser who may be any member of the Yale University community. If the Respondent has engaged legal counsel, then counsel instead will be permitted to accompany the Respondent to consult as an adviser. However, the Investigation is not a trial-type proceeding and legal counsel will not be permitted to direct questions or answers or offer argument on behalf of the Respondent.
5 The Investigation Committee may recommend corrective actions even if no finding of Research Misconduct has been recommended, including, for example, correction or retraction of published or submitted work that is necessary to ensure the integrity of the scientific Record.