POLICY STATEMENT

Nevada State University neither condones nor tolerates Research Misconduct by its employees. Scholars and researchers bear the primary responsibility for the monitoring and rigorous evaluation of procedures and results of research and other scholarly activities under their supervision. All members of the University community must adhere to the University’s strict standards of integrity in academic scholarship and research and are ethically obligated to report any fraudulent acts when they are known or suspected to have occurred.

DEFINITIONS

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Misconduct: Using artificial intelligence (e.g., ChatGPT, Bard) for scholarly works or publications without giving proper credit, or using it (even with credit) in situations in which its use has been banned.

Fabrication: Making up data or results and recording or reporting them as authentic.

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.

Plagiarism: Appropriation of another person’s or entity’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. This includes using artificial intelligence (e.g., ChatGPT) for scholarly works or publications without giving proper credit, or using it (even with credit) in situations in which its use has been banned.

Research Misconduct: Dishonesty in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting results. Includes Fabrication, Falsification, Plagiarism, AI Misconduct, or other practices which seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. Does not include honest error.

PROCEDURES

I. Ethical Standards for Research and Other Scholarly Activity

Federal regulations require each institution of higher education receiving federal grants and contracts to have a policy for handling allegations of Research Misconduct. Moreover, NSHE Code (Chapter 6, Sections 6.2.1(y)) prohibits faculty from conducting “acts of academic dishonesty, including but not limited to cheating, plagiarism, falsifying research data or results, or assisting others to do the same.” This policy applies to all research, whether funded or not.

Faculty and staff at Nevada State University shall uphold the following ethical standards in the performance of their activities:

A. Project Directors (PDs) and Principal Investigators (PIs) must comply with all internal and external requirements for protecting human subjects, project personnel, and the public, and for ensuring the welfare of laboratory animals.

B. Scholars and researchers must not fall below accepted professional standards in proposing their activities, carrying them out, and reporting their results. Primary data must be scrupulously collected and retained.

C. All participants in scholarly/research activity must avoid both intentional and negligent behavior which may result in violation of the law; dishonesty or fraud; Fabrication; Falsification; Plagiarism; or Artificial Intelligence Misconduct.

D. Cooperative efforts require mutual attention to the integrity of the scholarly processes involved. Joint authorship entails joint responsibility; each author claiming shared credit must be aware of the risk of shared discredit.

E. Senior scholars and researchers must avoid exploitation of junior colleagues and students. Claims of credit, co-authorship, and intellectual property should reflect actual involvement, responsibility, and effort.

F. PDs and PIs performing sponsored scholarly/research activity (e.g., supported through a grant, contract, or gift) must be knowledgeable of and responsive to internal and external requirements of financial responsibility and accountability to avoid misallocation, misappropriation, or misuse of sponsor/donor funds.

G. Present or proposed activities or financial or professional relationships that present a conflict of interest (e.g., affect the objectivity of research or scholarship, give the appearance of being motivated by private financial gain, and/or involve unacceptable commitments for a scholar/researcher) must be disclosed and approved by the employee’s supervisor and the Provost prior to committing to such activities or relationships.

II. Procedures for Dealing with Allegations of Research or Scholarly Misconduct

Allegations of misconduct shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Title 2, Chapter 6 of the NSHE Handbook.

A. All allegations of misconduct should be reported in writing to the Executive Vice Provost (EVP) or designee. Allegations must be signed by the submitter. Wherever possible, the allegation must specify details including the date, time, place, persons involved, witnesses, and circumstances of the alleged misconduct.

B. The EVP will conduct an inquiry in accordance with NSHE Code, Section 6.8.2, and, based on this inquiry, will make a determination regarding whether a valid allegation of misconduct exists. The EVP will make a recommendation to the Provost to dismiss the allegation, accept an informal resolution (as described in NSHE Code, Section 6.8.2(c)), or conduct a hearing (NSHE Code, Section 6.8.2(d)). If the Provost determines that a hearing is warranted, a hearing will be conducted in accordance with NSHE Code, Sections 6.8.2, 6.8.3, and 6.9. The Provost may instead dismiss the complaint, accept an informal resolution, or determine that a reprimand or warning is appropriate, as set forth in NSHE Code Chapter 6, Section 6.6.

C. Appeals of the Provost’s decision must be filed in writing to the EVP by the respondent within seven (7) calendar days of receiving the decision. Appeals will be conducted according to the requirements and processes set forth in NSHE Code Chapter 6, Section 6.13.

D. The maintenance of confidentiality is the guiding principle for this process, to protect both those who make the allegations and those against whom the allegations are made. As few people as are necessary shall be involved in the process, and all records dealing with an allegation, its review, and its disposition shall be treated in accordance with NSHE Code Chapter 6, Sections 6.14 and 6.15. As required by federal law, the EVP shall (1) limit disclosure of the identity of respondents and complainants to those who need to know in order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective and fair research misconduct proceeding; and (2) except as otherwise prescribed by law, limit the disclosure of any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified to those who need to know in order to carry out a research misconduct proceeding. The EVP should use written confidentiality agreements or other mechanisms to ensure that the recipient of any documentation does not make any further disclosure of identifying information.

E. As required, the EVP will issue a final report to the federal Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and/or any external funding agency. Federal ORI jurisdiction only extends to projects for which Public Health Service funds are requested or provided. If reporting to the ORI is required, documentation to substantiate the investigation’s findings will be made available to the federal Director of ORI, as well as a description of any pending or completed administrative actions against the respondent. The EVP will also determine whether law enforcement agencies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals in which falsified reports/data may have been published, or collaborators on the work in question should be notified.

F. Records of research misconduct proceedings must be maintained in a secure manner for seven (7) years after completion of the proceedings.

G. If an allegation of Research Misconduct is made regarding a research project involving human subjects, the EVP must inform the Institutional Review Board (IRB), which may conduct an audit or other oversight activities according to IRB policy.

FORMS/INSTRUCTIONS

N/A

RELATED INFORMATION

• NSHE Handbook Title 2, Chapter 6
• NSC Institutional Review Board Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (RE 1)
• NS Conflict of Interest and Compensated Outside Services (HR 1)
• U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI), https://ori.hhs.gov/handling-misconduct

HISTORY

• Replaces AA 19: Scholarly Misconduct Policy. Updated to include AI Misconduct and to change policy name to align with common federal and higher education definitions.

APPROVALS

Approved by Dr. Molly Appel, Faculty Senate Chair, March 19, 2024.
Approved by Dr. Sarah Frey, Provost, April 16, 2024.
Approved by Dr. DeRionne Pollard, President, August 20, 2024.