G. Misconduct in Research and Other Scholarly Activities

Effective January 1, 2026

1. General Policies and Principles

Middlebury College (“Middlebury”) is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientiﬁc rigor in research. Middlebury is committed to fostering an environment that promotes research integrity and the responsible conduct of research, discourages research misconduct, and deals promptly with allegations or evidence of possible research misconduct.

All members of the Middlebury community are expected to conduct research with honesty, rigor, and transparency. Each individual community member is responsible for contributing to an organizational culture that establishes, maintains, and promotes research integrity and the responsible conduct of research.

Middlebury College strives to reduce the risk of research misconduct, support all good-faith eﬀorts to report suspected misconduct, promptly and thoroughly address all allegations of research misconduct, and seek to rectify the scientiﬁc record and/or restore researchers’ reputations, as appropriate.

Research misconduct is contrary to the interests of Middlebury College, the health and safety of the public, the integrity of research, and the conservation of public funds. Both Middlebury and its employees have an aﬃrmative duty to protect those funds from misuse by ensuring the integrity of all research conducted on behalf of Middlebury College. Protection shall be provided to whistleblowers through provisions in this policy and Middlebury’s Whistleblower policy.

Middlebury College ensures that this policy and related procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct meet the requirements of the PHS Policies on Research Misconduct (42 CFR Part 93, “the PHS regulation”), or as amended. Middlebury will establish and maintain these policies and procedures, inform all institutional members about these policies and procedures, and make this policy and related procedures publicly available. Middlebury College is committed to following this policy and related procedures when responding to allegations of research misconduct.

For deﬁnitions of terms used in this section and elsewhere, see the Deﬁnitions section.

2. Scope and Applicability

This policy and related procedures apply to all allegations of research misconduct involving any member of the Middlebury community, including but not limited to issues addressed by the PHS regulation.

This policy and related procedures apply only to research misconduct occurring within six years of the date when Middlebury College (or U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS)) receives an allegation of research misconduct, 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”). For alleged research misconduct that appears subject to this subsequent use exception, but Middlebury College determines is not subject to the exception, Middlebury will document its determination that the subsequent use exception does not apply and will retain this documentation for the later of seven years after completion of the institutional proceeding or the completion of any HHS proceeding.
The six-year time limitation also does not apply if HHS’s Office of Research Integrity (ORI) or Middlebury College, following consultation with ORI, determines that the alleged research misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse eﬀect on the health or safety of the public.
These policies and procedures do not supersede or establish an alternative to the PHS regulation or any existing regulations for handling research misconduct involving non-PHS supported research. They do not replace the PHS regulation, and in case of any conﬂict between this document and 42 CFR Part 93, the PHS regulation will prevail. They are intended to enable Middlebury College to comply with the requirements of the PHS regulation.

3. Deﬁnitions

Accepted practices of the relevant research community. This term means those practices established by 42 CFR Part 93 and by PHS funding components, as well as commonly accepted professional codes or norms within the overarching community of researchers and institutions that apply for and receive PHS awards or other agency awards.

Administrative record. The administrative record comprises: the institutional record; any information provided by the respondent to ORI, including but not limited to the transcript of any virtual or in-person meetings under § 93.403(b) between the respondent and ORI, and correspondence between the respondent and ORI; any additional information provided to ORI while the case is pending before ORI; and any analysis or additional information generated or obtained by ORI. Any analysis or additional information generated or obtained by ORI will also be made available to the respondent.

Allegation. This term is a disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of an institutional or HHS oﬃcial.

Assessment. Assessment means a consideration of whether an allegation of research misconduct appears to fall within the deﬁnition of research misconduct; appears to involve PHS-supported biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or research training; and is suﬃciently credible and speciﬁc so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identiﬁed. The assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation.

Complainant. Complainant means an individual who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct.

Evidence. Evidence means anything oﬀered or obtained during a research misconduct proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact. Evidence includes documents, whether in hard copy or electronic form, information, tangible items, and testimony.

Fabrication. Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

Falsiﬁcation. Falsiﬁcation means 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.

Good faith. (a) Good faith as applied to a complainant or witness means having a reasonable belief in the truth of one’s allegation or testimony, based on the information known to the complainant or witness at the time. An allegation or cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding is not in good faith if made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for information that would negate the allegation or testimony. (b) Good faith as applied to an institutional or committee member means cooperating with the research misconduct proceeding by impartially carrying out the duties assigned for the purpose of helping an institution meet its responsibilities under 42 CFR Part 93. An institutional or committee member does not act in good faith if their acts or omissions during the research misconduct proceedings are dishonest or inﬂuenced by personal, professional, or ﬁnancial conﬂicts of interest with those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.

Inquiry. Inquiry means preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-ﬁnding that meets the criteria and follows the procedures of § 93.307 through § 93.309.

Institution. The President and Fellows of Middlebury College ("Middlebury College" or "Middlebury").

Institutional Deciding Oﬃcial. Institutional Deciding Oﬃcial means the institutional oﬃcial who makes ﬁnal determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any institutional actions. The same individual cannot serve as the Institutional Deciding Oﬃcial and the Research Integrity Oﬃcer. The IDO at Middlebury College is the Executive Vice President and Provost.

Institutional member. Institutional member and members means an individual (or individuals) who is employed by, is an agent of, or is aﬃliated by contract or agreement with an institution. Institutional members may include, but are not limited to, oﬃcials, tenured and untenured faculty, teaching and support staﬀ, researchers, research coordinators, technicians, postdoctoral and other fellows, students, volunteers, subject matter experts, consultants, or attorneys, or employees or agents of contractors, subcontractors, or sub-awardees.

Institutional record. The institutional record comprises: (a) The records that Middlebury compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, except records Middlebury did not consider or rely on. These records include but are not limited to (1) documentation of the assessment as required by

§ 93.306(c); (2) if an inquiry is conducted, the inquiry report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the inquiry, including, but not limited to, research records and the transcripts of any transcribed interviews conducted during the inquiry, information the respondent provided to Middlebury, and the documentation of any decision not to investigate as required by § 93.309(c); (3) if an investigation is conducted, the investigation report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the investigation, including, but not limited to, research records, the transcripts of each interview conducted pursuant to § 93.310(g), and information the respondent provided to Middlebury; (4) decision(s) by the Institutional Deciding Oﬃcial, such as the written decision from the Institutional Deciding Oﬃcial under § 93.314; (5) the complete record of any institutional appeal consistent with § 93.315; (b) a single index listing all the research records and evidence that Middlebury compiled during the research misconduct proceeding, except records Middlebury did not consider or rely on; and (c) a general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.

Intentionally. To act intentionally means to act with the aim of carrying out the act.

Investigation. Investigation means the formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record that meets the criteria and follows the procedures of §§ 93.310 through 93.317.

Knowingly. To act knowingly means to act with awareness of the act.

Plagiarism. Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving appropriate credit. (a) 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. (b) 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. Self-plagiarism and authorship disputes do not meet the deﬁnition of research misconduct.

Preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence means proof by evidence that, compared with evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely true than not.

PHS support. PHS support means PHS funding, or applications or proposals for PHS funding, for biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or training, that may be provided through funding for PHS intramural research; PHS grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts; subawards, contracts, or subcontracts under those PHS funding instruments; or salary or other payments under PHS grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts.

Recklessly. To act recklessly means to propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indiﬀerence to a known risk of fabrication, falsiﬁcation, or plagiarism.

Research Integrity Oﬃcer. The Research Integrity Oﬃcer (RIO) refers to the institutional oﬃcial responsible for administering Middlebury’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct in compliance with 42 CFR Part 93. The RIO at Middlebury College is the Associate Dean of the Sciences.

Research misconduct. Research misconduct includes fabrication, falsiﬁcation, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research misconduct also includes failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements or Middlebury policies governing the type of research being conducted, e.g., research involving animals, human subjects, hazardous materials, etc. Research misconduct does not include honest error or diﬀerences of opinion.

Research misconduct proceeding. Research misconduct proceeding means any actions related to alleged research misconduct taken under 42 CFR Part 93, including allegation assessments, inquiries, investigations, ORI oversight reviews, and appeals under subpart E of 42 CFR Part 93.

Research record. Research record means the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientiﬁc inquiry. Data or results may be in physical or electronic form. Examples of items, materials, or information that may be considered part of the research record include, but are not limited to, research proposals, raw data, processed data, clinical research records, laboratory records, study records, laboratory notebooks, progress reports, manuscripts, abstracts, theses, records of oral presentations, online content, lab meeting reports, and journal articles.

Respondent. Respondent means the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding.

Retaliation. Retaliation means an adverse action taken against a complainant, witness, or committee member by an institution or one of its members in response to (a) a good faith allegation of research misconduct or (b) good faith cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding.

Small institution. Small institution means an institution that may be too small to conduct an inquiry or investigation into an allegation of research misconduct as required by 42 CFR Part 93 without actual or apparent conﬂicts of interest.

Suspension and Debarment Oﬃcial. Suspension and Debarment Oﬃcial or SDO means the HHS oﬃcial authorized to impose suspension and debarment, which are the actions that Federal agencies take to disqualify persons deemed not presently responsible from doing business with the Federal Government.

4. Roles, Rights, and Responsibilities

a) Institution

i. Middlebury College’s General Responsibilities

To the extent possible, Middlebury will limit disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses while conducting the research misconduct proceedings to those who need to know, inform all institutional members about these policies and procedures, and make these policies and procedures publicly available. This limitation on disclosure no longer applies once Middlebury has made a ﬁnal determination of research misconduct ﬁndings. Middlebury will respond to each allegation of research misconduct under 42 CFR Part 93 in a thorough, competent, objective, and fair manner. Middlebury will take all reasonable and practical steps to ensure the cooperation of respondents and other institutional members with research misconduct proceedings, including, but not limited to, their providing information, research records, and other evidence. Middlebury agrees to cooperate with ORI during any research misconduct proceeding or compliance review, including addressing deﬁciencies or additional allegations in the institutional record if directed by ORI and to assist in administering and enforcing any HHS administrative actions imposed on institutional members. Middlebury may also take steps to manage published data or acknowledge that data may be unreliable.

ii. Middlebury College’s Responsibilities During and After a Research Misconduct Proceeding

Except as may otherwise be prescribed by applicable law, Middlebury will maintain conﬁdentiality for any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identiﬁed and will limit disclosure to those who need to know to carry out a research misconduct proceeding. Before or at the time of notifying the respondent of the allegation(s) and whenever additional items become known or relevant, Middlebury will promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain all research records and other evidence and sequester them securely. Middlebury will ensure that the institutional record contains all required elements, i.e., research records that were compiled and considered during the proceedings, assessment documentation, and inquiry and/or investigation reports. Upon completion of the inquiry, Middlebury will provide ORI with the complete inquiry report and add it to the institutional record. Middlebury will maintain the institutional record and all sequestered research records and other evidence in a secure manner for seven years after completion of the institutional and/or HHS proceeding.

Middlebury will provide information related to the alleged research misconduct and proceedings to ORI upon request and transfer custody or provide copies of the institutional record or any component of it and any sequestered evidence to HHS, regardless of whether the evidence is included in the institutional record. Additionally, Middlebury will promptly notify ORI of any special circumstances that may arise.

Disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses while Middlebury is conducting the research misconduct proceedings is limited to those who need to know, which Middlebury will determine consistent with a thorough, competent, objective, and fair research misconduct proceeding, and as allowed by law. At Middlebury’s discretion, those who need to know may include institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions.

iii. Middlebury College’s Responsibilities to the Complainant(s)

Middlebury will provide conﬁdentiality consistent with 42 CFR Part 93 for all complainants in a research misconduct proceeding. Middlebury will also take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the research misconduct proceeding do not have potential, perceived, or actual personal, professional, or ﬁnancial conﬂicts of interest with the complainant(s). Middlebury agrees to take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of complainants and to protect these individuals from retaliation by respondents and/or other institutional members. If Middlebury College chooses to notify one complainant of the inquiry results in a case, all complainants will be notiﬁed by Middlebury, to the extent possible.

iv. Middlebury College’s Responsibilities to the Respondent(s)

As with complainants, Middlebury will provide conﬁdentiality consistent with 42 CFR Part 93 to all respondents in a research misconduct proceeding. Middlebury will make a good-faith eﬀort to notify the respondent(s) in writing of the allegations being made against them. Middlebury will take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the research misconduct proceeding do not have unresolved personal, professional, or ﬁnancial conﬂicts of interest with the respondent. Middlebury is responsible for giving the respondent(s) copies of or supervised access to the sequestered research records. Middlebury will notify the respondent whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted, provide the respondent an opportunity to review and comment on the inquiry report, and attach their comments to the inquiry report. If an investigation is commenced, Middlebury must notify the respondent, give written notice of any additional allegations raised against them not previously addressed by the inquiry report, and allow the respondent(s) an opportunity to review the witness transcripts. Middlebury will give the respondent(s) an opportunity to read and comment on the draft investigation report and any information or allegations added to the institutional record. Middlebury will give due consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest error or diﬀerence of opinion presented by the respondent.

Middlebury will bear the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, for making a ﬁnding of research misconduct. Middlebury will make all reasonable, practical eﬀorts, if requested and as appropriate, to protect or restore the reputation of respondents against whom no ﬁnding of research misconduct is made.

v. Middlebury College’s Responsibilities to Committee Members

Middlebury will ensure that a committee, consortium, or person acting on Middlebury’s behalf conducts research misconduct proceedings in compliance with the PHS regulation or other applicable regulations. Middlebury will take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of good-faith committee members and to protect these individuals from retaliation.

vi. Middlebury College’s Responsibilities to the Witness[es]

Middlebury will provide conﬁdentiality consistent with 42 CFR Part 93 for all witnesses. Middlebury will take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the proceedings do not have unresolved personal, professional, or ﬁnancial conﬂicts of interest with the witnesses. Middlebury will also take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of witnesses and to protect these individuals from retaliation.

b) Research Integrity Oﬃcer

The Research Integrity Oﬃcer (RIO) is the institutional oﬃcial responsible for administering Middlebury College’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct in compliance with the PHS regulation. The same individual will not serve as both the Institutional Deciding Oﬃcial and the RIO. Middlebury may choose to have the RIO or another designated institutional oﬃcial conduct the inquiry in lieu of a committee, and, if needed, this individual may utilize one or more subject matter experts to assist them in the inquiry.

Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO or another designated institutional oﬃcial will promptly assess the allegation to determine whether the allegation (a) is within the deﬁnition of research misconduct under the applicable regulation(s), (b) is within the applicability criteria of the relevant regulation(s), and (c) is suﬃciently credible and speciﬁc so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identiﬁed. If the RIO or another designated institutional oﬃcial determines that the requirements for an inquiry are met, they shall document the assessment, promptly sequester all research records and other evidence per the relevant regulation, and promptly initiate the inquiry. If the RIO or another designated institutional oﬃcial determines that requirements for an inquiry are not met, they will keep suﬃciently detailed documentation of the assessment to permit a later review by ORI or cognizant agency of the reasons why Middlebury College did not conduct an inquiry. Middlebury will keep this documentation and related records in a secure manner for seven years and provide them to ORI or cognizant agency upon request.

c) Complainant

The complainant is the person who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct. The complainant brings research misconduct allegations directly to the attention of an institutional or HHS oﬃcial through any means of communication.

The complainant will make allegations in good faith, as it is deﬁned in the applicable regulation(s), as having a reasonable belief in the truth of one’s allegation or testimony, based on the information known to the complainant at the time.

d) Respondent

The respondent is the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding. The respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of evidence, aﬃrmative defenses raised. The respondent’s destruction of research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where a preponderance of evidence establishes that the respondent intentionally or knowingly destroyed records after being informed of the research misconduct allegations. The 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 will not be present during the witnesses’ interviews but will be provided a transcript of the interview after it takes place. The respondent will have opportunities to (a) view and comment on the inquiry report, (b) view and comment on the investigation report, and (c) submit any comments on the draft investigation report to Middlebury College within 30 days of receiving it.

If admitting to research misconduct, the respondent will sign a written statement specifying the aﬀected research records and conﬁrming the misconduct was falsiﬁcation, fabrication, and/or plagiarism; committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and a signiﬁcant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.

e) Committee and Consortium Members

Committee members (and consortium members where applicable) are experts who act in good faith to cooperate with the research misconduct proceedings by impartially carrying out their assigned duties for the purpose of helping Middlebury College meet its responsibilities under 42 CFR Part 93 or other applicable regulation(s). Committee and consortium members will have relevant scientiﬁc expertise and be free of real or perceived conﬂicts of interest with any of the involved parties.

Committee or consortium members or anyone acting on behalf of Middlebury College will conduct research misconduct proceedings consistent with the applicable regulation. They will determine whether an investigation is warranted, documenting the decision in an inquiry report. During an investigation, committee or consortium members participate in recorded interviews of each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably identiﬁed as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identiﬁed by the respondent(s). They will also determine whether or not the respondent(s) engaged in research misconduct and document the decision in the investigation report. They consider respondent and/or complainant comments on the inquiry/investigation report(s) and document that consideration in the investigation report.

An investigation into multiple respondents may convene with the same investigation committee or consortium members or anyone acting on behalf of Middlebury College, but there will be separate investigation reports and separate research misconduct determinations for each respondent. Committee or consortium members may serve for more than one investigation, in cases with multiple respondents. Committee members may also serve for both the inquiry and the investigation.

f) Witnesses

Witnesses are people whom Middlebury College has reasonably identiﬁed as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation. Witnesses provide information for review during research misconduct proceedings. Witnesses will cooperate with the research misconduct proceedings in good faith and have a reasonable belief in the truth of their testimony, based on the information known to them at the time.

g) Institutional Deciding Oﬃcial

The Institutional Deciding Oﬃcial (IDO) makes the ﬁnal determination of research misconduct ﬁndings. The IDO cannot serve as the RIO. The IDO documents their determination in a written decision that includes whether research misconduct occurred, and if so, what kind and who committed it, and a description of the relevant actions Middlebury College has taken or will take. The IDO’s written decision becomes part of the institutional record.

5. Procedures for Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct

a) Assessment

An assessment’s purpose 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.

Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO or another designated institutional oﬃcial will promptly determine whether the allegation (a) falls within the deﬁnition of research misconduct, (b) is within the applicability criteria of 42 CFR Part 93 § 93.102, or other relevant regulation(s), and (c) is credible and speciﬁc enough to identify and sequester potential evidence.

If the RIO or another institutional oﬃcial determines that the allegation meets these three criteria, they will promptly: (a) document the assessment and (b) initiate an inquiry and sequester all research records and other evidence. The RIO or other institutional oﬃcial must document the assessment and retain the assessment documentation securely for seven years after completion of the misconduct proceedings. If the RIO or another institutional oﬃcial determines that the alleged misconduct does not meet the criteria to proceed to an inquiry, they will write suﬃciently detailed documentation to permit a later review by ORI of why Middlebury College did not proceed to an inquiry and securely retain this documentation for seven years.

b) Inquiry

An inquiry is warranted if the allegation (a) falls within the deﬁnition of research misconduct under 42 CFR Part 93 or other relevant regulations(s), (b) is within the applicability criteria of § 93.102 or other relevant regulation(s), and (c) is suﬃciently credible and speciﬁc so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identiﬁed. An inquiry’s purpose is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine whether an allegation warrants an investigation. An inquiry does not require a full review of all related evidence. Middlebury College will complete the inquiry within 90 days of initiating it unless circumstances warrant a longer period, in which it will suﬃciently document the reasons for exceeding the time limit in the inquiry report.

i. Sequestering Evidence and Notifying the Respondent

Before or at the time of notifying the respondent(s), Middlebury College will obtain the original or substantially equivalent copies of all research records and other evidence that are pertinent to the proceeding, inventory these materials, sequester the materials in a secure manner, and retain them for seven years. Middlebury has a duty to obtain, inventory, and securely sequester evidence that extends to whenever additional items become known or relevant to the inquiry or investigation.

At the time of or before beginning the inquiry, Middlebury College will make a good-faith eﬀort to notify the presumed respondent(s), in writing, that an allegation(s) of research misconduct has been raised against them, the relevant research records have been sequestered, and an inquiry will be conducted to decide whether to proceed with an investigation. If additional allegations are raised, Middlebury will notify the respondent(s) in writing. When appropriate, Middlebury will give the respondent(s) copies of, or reasonable supervised access to, the sequestered materials.

If additional respondents are identiﬁed, Middlebury College will provide written notiﬁcation to the new respondent(s). All additional respondents will be given the same rights and opportunities as the initial respondent from this point forward and throughout the process. Only allegations speciﬁc to a particular respondent will be included in the notiﬁcation to that respondent.

ii. Convening the Committee and Ensuring Neutrality

Middlebury College will ensure that all inquiry committee members understand their commission, keep the identities of respondents, complainants, and witnesses conﬁdential, and conduct the research misconduct proceedings in compliance with the PHS regulation or other relevant regulation(s). In lieu of a committee, Middlebury may task the RIO or another designated institutional oﬃcial to conduct the inquiry, provided this person utilizes subject matter experts as needed to assist in the inquiry.

iii. Determining Whether an Investigation Is Warranted

The inquiry committee, RIO, or other designated institutional oﬃcial will conduct a preliminary review of the evidence. In the process of fact-ﬁnding, the inquiry committee may interview the respondent and/or witnesses. An investigation is warranted if (a) there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the deﬁnition of research misconduct under 42 CFR Part 93 or other relevant regulation(s) and involves all research conducted by a Middlebury employee within the scope of their employment; and (b) preliminary information-gathering and fact-ﬁnding from the inquiry indicates that the allegation may have substance.

The inquiry committee, RIO, or other designated institutional oﬃcial will not determine if research misconduct occurred, nor assess whether the alleged misconduct was intentional, knowing, or reckless; such a determination is not made until the case proceeds to an investigation.

iv. Documenting the Inquiry

At the conclusion of the inquiry, regardless of whether an investigation is warranted, the inquiry committee, RIO, or other designated institutional oﬃcial will prepare a written inquiry report. The contents of a complete inquiry report will include:

The names, professional aliases, and positions of the respondent and complainant(s).
A description of the allegation(s) of research misconduct.
Details about the funding, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS support, if applicable.
The composition of the inquiry committee, if used, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
An inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted.
Transcripts of interviews, if transcribed.
Inquiry timeline and procedural history.
Any scientiﬁc or forensic analyses conducted.
The basis for recommending that the allegation(s) warrant an investigation.
The basis on which any allegation(s) do not merit further investigation.
Any comments on the inquiry report by the respondent or the complainant(s).
Any institutional actions implemented, including internal communications or external communications with journals or funding agencies.
Documentation of potential evidence of honest error or diﬀerence of opinion.

v. Completing the Inquiry

Middlebury College will give the respondent a copy of the draft inquiry report for review and comment. Middlebury may, but is not required to, provide relevant portions of the report to a complainant for comment.

Middlebury College will notify the respondent of the inquiry’s ﬁnal outcome and provide the respondent with copies of the ﬁnal inquiry report, the applicable regulation(s), and these policies and procedures. Middlebury may, but is not required to, notify a complainant whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted. If Middlebury provides notice to one complainant in a case, it must provide notice, to the extent possible, to all complainants in the case.

vi. If an Investigation Is Not Warranted:

If the inquiry committee, RIO, or other designated institutional oﬃcial determines that an investigation is not warranted, Middlebury College will keep suﬃciently detailed documentation to permit a later review by ORI of why Middlebury did not proceed to an investigation, store these records in a secure manner for at least seven years after the termination of the inquiry, and provide them to ORI upon request.

vii. If an Investigation is Warranted:

If the inquiry committee, RIO, or other designated institutional oﬃcial determines that an investigation is warranted, Middlebury College must: (a) within a reasonable amount of time after this decision, provide written notice to the respondent(s) of the decision to conduct an investigation of the alleged misconduct, including any allegations of research misconduct not addressed during the inquiry; and (b) within 30 days of determining that an investigation is warranted, provide ORI with a copy of the inquiry report.

On a case-by-case basis, Middlebury College may choose to notify the complainant that there will be an investigation of the alleged misconduct but is required to take the same notiﬁcation action for all complainants in cases where there is more than one complainant.

c) Investigation

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, based on a preponderance of evidence, on each allegation and any institutional actions. As part of its investigation, Middlebury will pursue diligently all signiﬁcant issues and relevant leads, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion. Within 30 days after deciding an investigation is warranted, the RIO will notify ORI of the decision to investigate and begin the investigation.

i. Notifying the Respondent and Sequestering Evidence

The RIO will notify the respondent(s) of the allegation(s) within 30 days of determining that an investigation is warranted and before the investigation begins. If any additional respondent(s) are identiﬁed during the investigation, the RIO will notify them of the allegation(s) and provide them an opportunity to respond consistent with the PHS regulation, applicable. If Middlebury identiﬁes additional respondents during the investigation, it may choose to either conduct a separate inquiry or add the new respondent(s) to the ongoing investigation. Middlebury will obtain the original or substantially equivalent copies of all research records and other evidence, inventory these materials, sequester them in a secure manner, and retain them for seven years after its proceeding or any agency proceeding, whichever is later.

ii. Convening an Investigation Committee

After vetting investigation committee members for conﬂicts of interest and appropriate scientiﬁc expertise, the RIO will convene the committee and ensure that the members understand their responsibility to conduct the research misconduct proceedings in compliance with applicable regulation(s). The investigation committee will conduct interviews, pursue leads, and examine all research records and other evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegation(s). The RIO will use diligent eﬀorts to ensure that the investigation is thorough, suﬃciently documented, and impartial and unbiased to the maximum extent practicable. The RIO will notify the respondent in writing of any additional allegations raised against them during the investigation.

iii. Conducting Interviews

Middlebury College will interview each respondent, complainant(s), and any other available person who has been reasonably identiﬁed as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identiﬁed by the respondent. Middlebury will number all relevant exhibits and refer to any exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview by that number. Middlebury will record and transcribe interviews during the investigation and make the transcripts available to the interviewee for correction. Middlebury will include the transcript(s) with any corrections and exhibits in the institutional record of the investigation. The respondent will not be present during the witnesses’ interviews, but Middlebury will provide the respondent with a transcript of each interview, with redactions as appropriate.

iv. Documenting the Investigation

Middlebury College will complete all aspects of the investigation within 180 days. Middlebury will conduct the investigation, prepare the draft investigation report for each respondent, and provide the opportunity for respondents to comment. Middlebury will document the IDO’s ﬁnal decision and transmit the institutional record (including the ﬁnal investigation report and IDO’s decision) to ORI. If the investigation takes more than 180 days to complete, Middlebury will ask ORI or other relevant agency in writing for an extension and document the reasons for exceeding the 180-day period in the investigation report.

The investigation report for each respondent will include:

Description of the nature of the allegation(s) of research misconduct, including any additional allegation(s) addressed during the research misconduct proceeding.
Description and documentation of any support, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing the support. This documentation includes known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with any Federal agencies.
Description of the speciﬁc allegation(s) of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation of the respondent.
Composition of investigation committee, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
Inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence, except records Middlebury did not consider or rely on. This inventory will include manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied on during the investigation. The inventory will also include a description of how any sequestration was conducted during the investigation.
Transcripts of all interviews conducted.
Identiﬁcation of the speciﬁc published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), PHS funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, or other research records that contain the allegedly falsiﬁed, fabricated, or plagiarized material.
Any scientiﬁc or forensic analyses conducted.
A copy of these policies and procedures.
Any comments made by the respondent and complainant(s) on the draft investigation report and the committee’s consideration of those comments.
A statement for each separate allegation of whether the committee recommends a ﬁnding of research misconduct.

If the committee recommends a ﬁnding of research misconduct for an allegation, the investigation report will present a ﬁnding for each allegation. These ﬁndings will (a) identify the individual(s) who committed the research misconduct; (b) indicate whether the misconduct was falsiﬁcation, fabrication, and/or plagiarism; (c) indicate whether the misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; (d) 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; (e) summarize the facts and analysis supporting the conclusion and consider the merits of any explanation by the respondent; (f) identify the speciﬁc agency support; and (g) state whether any publications need correction or retraction.

If the investigation committee does not recommend a ﬁnding of research misconduct for an allegation, the investigation report will provide a detailed rationale for its conclusion.

The investigation committee should also provide a list of any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with PHS and non-PHS Federal agencies.

v. Completing the Investigation

The RIO will give the respondent a copy of the draft investigation report and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the research records and other evidence that the investigation committee considered or relied on. Middlebury retains authority to make redactions or anonymize information as appropriate. The respondent will submit any comments on the draft report to Middlebury within 30 days of receiving the draft investigation report. If Middlebury College chooses to share a copy of the draft investigation report or relevant portions of it with the complainant(s) for comment, the complainant’s comments will be submitted within 30 days of the date on which they received the report. Middlebury will add any comments received to the investigation report.

vi. IDO Review of the Investigation Report

The IDO will review the investigation report and make a ﬁnal written determination of whether Middlebury found research misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct. In this statement, the IDO will include a description of relevant institutional actions taken or to be taken.

No further action is required from a federal agency or through another internal procedure for Middlebury to impose disciplinary consequences.

vii. Creating and Transmitting the Institutional Record

After the IDO has made a ﬁnal determination of research misconduct ﬁndings, Middlebury College will add the IDO’s written decision to the investigation report and organize the institutional record in a logical manner.

The institutional record consists of the records that were compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, except records Middlebury did not rely on. These records include documentation of the assessment, a single index listing all research records and evidence, the inquiry report and investigation report, and all records considered or relied on during the investigation. The institutional record also includes the IDO’s ﬁnal decision and any information the respondent provided to Middlebury. The institutional record must also include a general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.

4. Other Procedures and Special Circumstances

i. Multiple Institutions and Multiple Respondents

If the alleged research misconduct involves multiple institutions, Middlebury College may work closely with the other aﬀected institutions to determine whether a joint research misconduct proceeding will be conducted. If so, the cooperating institutions will choose an institution to serve as the lead institution. In a joint research misconduct proceeding, the lead institution will obtain research records and other evidence pertinent to the proceeding, including witness testimony, from the other relevant institutions. By mutual agreement, the joint research misconduct proceeding may include committee members from the institutions involved. The determination of whether further inquiry and/or investigation is warranted, whether research misconduct occurred, and the institutional actions to be taken may be made by the institutions jointly or tasked to the lead institution.

If the alleged research misconduct involves multiple respondents, Middlebury College may either conduct a separate inquiry for each new respondent or add them to the ongoing proceedings. Middlebury must give additional respondent(s) notice of and an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

ii. Respondent Admissions

Middlebury College will promptly notify the relevant agency in advance if at any point during the proceedings (including the assessment, inquiry, investigation, or appeal stage) it plans to close a research misconduct case because the respondent has admitted to committing research misconduct or a settlement with the respondent has been reached. If the respondent admits to research misconduct, Middlebury will not close the case until providing the relevant agency with the respondent’s signed, written admission. The admission must 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. Middlebury must not close the case until giving the relevant agency a written statement conﬁrming the respondent’s culpability and explaining how Middlebury determined that the respondent’s admission fully addresses the scope of the misconduct.

iii. Other Special Circumstances

At any time during the misconduct proceedings, Middlebury College will immediately notify the relevant agency if any of the following circumstances arise:

Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects.
HHS resources or interests are threatened.
Research activities should be suspended.
There is reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law.
Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.
HHS may need to take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved.

5. Records Retention

Middlebury College will maintain the institutional record and all sequestered evidence, including physical objects (regardless of whether the evidence is part of the institutional record), in a secure manner for seven years after the completion of the proceeding or the completion of any relevant agency proceeding, whichever is later, unless custody has been transferred to the relevant agency.