[Major revision–posted 12/10/25 (replaces 3/6/18 edition)]
[PDF Version]

 

Operating Policy and Procedure

OP 74.08: Allegations of Misconduct in Research, Scholarly, or Creative Activity

DATE: December 10, 2025

PURPOSE: The purpose of this Operating Policy/Procedure (OP) is to outline and delineate the procedures that will be followed in the event that allegations of misconduct in research or scholarly or creative activity, or of retaliation because of such allegations, should be made against a member of the faculty, a member of the staff, or a student at Texas Tech University. The intent of this policy is to provide an institutional response to accusations of misconduct in a manner consistent with guidelines issued by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, published as a notice in the Federal Register 65 (235): 76260-76264 (December 6, 2000), and any subsequent federal guidelines relating to research misconduct and, at the same time, to ensure that the individual accused of such misconduct has full opportunity to refute the allegations and present the pertinent facts. Purposeful misconduct in research, scholarship, or creative activity is unethical. All members of the university community are responsible for reporting instances of misconduct in research or scholarly or creative activity or of retaliation.

REVIEW: This OP will be reviewed every two years after publication by the Vice President for Research & Innovation, with substantive revisions forwarded to the Provost and Senior Vice President (PSVP).

SCOPE

This policy applies to all research, scholarly, and creative activity conducted at Texas Tech University. The policy does not apply to coursework and other academic class activities that are covered by other policies (e.g., OP 34.12, Grading Procedures, Including Academic Integrity; Student Handbook; and Code of Student Conduct). This policy applies to any member of the faculty, member of the staff, or student at Texas Tech University.

This policy and the procedures herein will be followed when a university official receives an allegation of misconduct in scientific or other scholarly or creative activity or of retaliation because of such allegations. Circumstances of the reported case may require deviation from the normal procedure in order to meet the best interests of the university and parties involved. Any change in procedures must ensure fair treatment of the individual subject to the allegation, and any substantial changes of the procedure must be approved by the Vice President for Research & Innovation (VPR) in advance of the change.

Difficulties are presented when an allegation of misconduct is brought after a significant passage of time from when the alleged misconduct occurred. As a result, it is common for institutions or other governmental bodies to restrict allegations that may be brought after the passage of a predetermined amount of time. Subject to exceptions established by an external sponsor, this policy and its procedures apply only to misconduct occurring within six years of the date Texas Tech University receives an allegation of misconduct.

DEFINITIONS

1.  Allegation – Any disclosure of possible misconduct brought directly to the attention of a TTU Research Integrity Officer (RIO) by any means of communication.

2.  Assessment – Consideration of whether an allegation falls under this policy and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of misconduct may be identified. Assessment involves only the review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation.

3.  Complainant – A person who in good faith makes an allegation.

4.  Conflict of Interest – A conflict of interest refers to a situation in which an employee’s financial, professional, or other personal considerations may directly or indirectly affect or have the appearance of affecting the employee’s judgment in exercising any duty or responsibility, including the conduct or reporting of research, owed to the institution. For more information regarding TTU policy on conflict of interest, see TTU OP 40.10, Conflict of Interest and Commitment Policy.

5.  Deciding Official – The TTU official who makes final determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any institutional actions. The Vice President for Research & Innovation serves as TTU Deciding Official.

6.  Good Faith Allegation – An allegation made with the honest belief that scientific misconduct may have occurred. An allegation is not in good faith if made with reckless disregard for or willful ignorance of facts that would disprove the allegation.

7.  Inquiry – Preliminary information gathering and fact finding to conclude whether an allegation warrants an investigation. An inquiry must include notification of respondent(s) and identification and sequestration of all research records and other evidence needed to conduct the misconduct proceeding.

8.  Investigation – The formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record to determine if misconduct occurred and, if so, to determine the responsible person(s) and whether the misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.

9.  Misconduct – Misconduct includes fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or scholarly or creative activity or in reporting results of research or scholarly or creative activity. It also includes ordering, advising, or suggesting that subordinates engage in misconduct. The misconduct must depart significantly from accepted practices of the relevant research, scholarly, or creative community and must be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. Misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

a.    Fabrication – Making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

b.    Falsification – Manipulating materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

c.    Plagiarism – The appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

(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.

(2)    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 misconduct.

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

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

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

10.  Research Integrity Officer (RIO) – The institutional official(s) responsible for assessing allegations of misconduct to determine if they fall within the definition of misconduct and warrant an inquiry on the basis that the allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of misconduct may be identified.

11.  Respondent – The person(s) against whom an allegation of misconduct is directed or the person whose actions are the subject of the assessment, inquiry, or investigation. There can be more than one respondent in any assessment, inquiry, or investigation.

12.  Retaliation – Any adverse action or credible threat of an adverse action taken against a complainant, witness, or committee member by a covered institution, or member thereof, in response to a good faith allegation of research, scholarly, or creative misconduct or to good faith cooperation with a misconduct procedure.

PROCEDURE

If allegations of misconduct in research or other scholarly or creative activity are made against a member of the Texas Tech University faculty, staff, or student body, and the alleged misconduct involves extramural funding, the RIO, in consultation with the Deciding Official, shall consult with the extramural sponsor for guidance on investigating, reporting, and responding to such allegations. The RIO will provide the sponsor with this operating procedure and seek written guidance about any deviation from the procedure below for responding to the allegations.

If an allegation of misconduct in research or other scholarly or creative activity is made against a member of the Texas Tech University faculty, staff, or student body, the allegation shall be dealt with in the following manner:

1.  Reporting Misconduct or Retaliation

a.    All reports of alleged fraud, misconduct, and retaliation under this policy shall be directed to the RIO. Upon receipt of an allegation of fraud, misconduct, or retaliation, the RIO shall initiate an assessment.

b.    There shall be no retaliation against any complainant who makes a good faith report or complaint under this policy.

2.  Cooperation with Misconduct Proceedings

Institutional members will cooperate with the RIO and other institutional officials in the assessment of allegations and the conduct of inquiries and investigations. Institutional members, including respondents, have an obligation to provide evidence relevant to misconduct allegations to the RIO and other institutional officials.

3.  Assessment

a.    The RIO is to make a prompt assessment of the allegations to determine whether:

(1)    The subject matter and individuals accused in the reported allegation are within the scope of this policy; and

(2)    The allegations are sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of misconduct may be identified.

b.   If both criteria above are met, an inquiry must be conducted.

c.    If an inquiry is not conducted, the RIO will retain sufficient documentation of the assessment to allow later review of the reasons why.

d.    The assessment period should be brief, preferably within a week, but shall be determined by the scope of the allegations.

e.    The RIO will document the assessment, provide a written report to the Deciding Official, and retain documentation of the assessment for seven years after its completion.

4.  Inquiry

a.    An inquiry shall consist of information gathering and initial fact finding to determine whether an allegation of misconduct warrants an investigation. No presumption that misconduct occurred is created if the RIO determines that an investigation is warranted. Inquiry procedures will be determined by the circumstances of the allegations, but shall include notification of the individual against whom the allegation is made. The inquiry shall be completed within 60 days after receipt of the allegation. Any extension of this period will be based on good cause, approved in advance by the Deciding Official, and recorded in the inquiry file.

b.    As a part of the inquiry, the RIO must promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain, inventory, and sequester all records and other evidence needed to conduct the misconduct proceeding. If the records or evidence comprise instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, as long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments. Whenever possible, the RIO must obtain the records and other evidence:

(1)    Before or at the time the respondent is notified of the allegations of misconduct; and

(2)    Whenever additional items become known or relevant to the misconduct proceeding.

c.    If appropriate, the RIO shall take interim administrative actions to protect federal or other sponsor funds and ensure that the purposes of the grant or contract are carried out.

d.    All persons involved in the inquiry shall make diligent efforts to protect the identity of the complainant during the inquiry phase. If the process reaches the investigative phase, the right of the respondent to confront the complainant may require that the identity of the complainant be revealed. There shall be no retaliation against a complainant for his/her good faith allegation of misconduct.

e.    At the time of or before beginning an inquiry, the RIO shall make a good faith effort to notify the respondent in writing. If the inquiry later identifies additional respondents, the RIO shall notify them in writing.

f.    The inquiry shall be conducted by the RIO or by an ad hoc committee appointed by the Deciding Official. The person(s) conducting the inquiry shall conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine if an investigation is needed, may interview witnesses, and may utilize subject matter experts. The respondent(s) shall have the opportunity to be interviewed and to present evidence during the inquiry.

g.    A report of the findings of the inquiry shall be made in writing to the Deciding Official. Reports of inquiries shall be maintained in the office of the Deciding Official for a period of seven years. The respondent shall have the opportunity to review drafts of the inquiry report and to be informed of the results of the inquiry. The inquiry report shall contain the following information:

(1)    Names and positions of respondent(s) and complainant(s);

(2)    A description of the allegations;

(3)    Information about extramural support;

(4)    Names and position of the RIO and any ad hoc committee members;

(5)    Inventory of sequestered materials, with information about how sequestration was conducted;

(6)    Transcripts of any transcribed interviews;

(7)    Timeline and procedural history;

(8)    Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted;

(9)    For each allegation, a recommendation that includes

• The basis on which an allegation warrants investigation, or
• The basis on which an allegation does not merit investigation

(10)     Any comments provided by the respondent; and

(11)     Any institutional actions implemented during the inquiry.

h.    The inquiry report must be completed within 90 days of initiation of the inquiry unless circumstances warrant a longer period. If the inquiry takes longer than 90 days, the inquiry report must document the reasons for extending the 90-day period.

i.    If results of the inquiry indicate that an allegation was made with malicious intent, the Deciding Official shall determine what action should be taken against the complainant.

5.  Investigation

a.    If the finding of the inquiry is that an investigation is warranted, the Deciding Official shall initiate an investigation and notify the respondent within 30 days after receipt of the inquiry report. Prior to initiation of an investigation, the respondent shall be provided written notification of the allegation(s) to be investigated. The purpose of the investigation is to:

• Explore in detail the allegations;
• Obtain and examine all research records and other evidence needed to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation of the merits of the allegations in depth;
• Determine, for each allegation, if misconduct has occurred, by whom, and to what extent; and
• Report in writing to the Deciding Official the committee’s findings as to whether or not the allegations have, in the committee’s opinion, sufficient basis in fact for the university to make a finding of misconduct and consider disciplinary action against the individual.

The investigation should also pursue diligently all issues relevant to the investigation to determine whether additional circumstances exist that warrant the expansion of the scope of the investigation beyond the initial allegations.

b.    The investigation shall be conducted by an ad hoc committee composed of three to five voting members appointed by the Deciding Official, in consultation with the chairperson or other appropriate official having administrative jurisdiction over the academic unit in which the individual holds principal academic appointment, and one or more non-voting ex officio members. Insofar as possible, voting members of the committee will be persons having sufficient acquaintance with research and scholarship in the discipline in question so that they can assess the allegation and effectively review and evaluate all relevant facts and materials. For non-voting ex officio members of the committee, the Deciding Official shall request two or three ranked nominations from the President of the Faculty Senate in all cases. Additional ranked nominations shall be requested from the President of the Staff Senate if a respondent is a member of staff, from the Dean of the Graduate School if a respondent is a graduate student or a postdoctoral researcher, and from the Dean of Students if a respondent is an undergraduate student. The role of ex officio members is to ensure that due process and this OP are followed and to report any concerns to their nominating office, the RIO, and the Deciding Official. Ex officio members shall be selected on the basis of their expertise to assess the process.

In appointing the investigating committee, the Deciding Official shall select impartial scholars and make efforts to avoid real or apparent conflicts of interest. All potential committee members will be required to sign non-disclosure agreements and to recuse themselves immediately upon discovery of real or apparent conflicts of interest.

c.     The Deciding Official shall notify the respondent of the proposed committee membership. If the respondent submits a written objection to an appointed member of the committee based on a bias or conflict of interest within five days after notification, the Deciding Official will determine whether to replace the individual with a qualified substitute

d.    The Deciding Official shall prepare a charge for the ad hoc committee describing the allegations made and any related issues identified prior to the investigation. The charge shall define misconduct and identify the name of the respondent. The charge shall state that the committee is to interview the complainant(s) and respondent(s); evaluate all evidence and testimony of the complainant, respondent, and any witnesses; use diligent efforts to ensure a thorough and documented investigation; and determine whether, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, misconduct occurred, who was responsible, and its seriousness. The charge shall state that the committee is to prepare a written report to the Deciding Official that includes a statement for each separate allegation, including any additional allegations identified during investigation, of whether the committee recommends a finding of misconduct; a detailed rationale for each recommendation against a finding of misconduct; and any additional elements required by external sponsor(s). The charge shall also state that a draft of the report shall be provided to the respondent for comment, and that the committee shall, in the final report, include and consider any comments of the respondent and correct any errors of fact.

e.    The respondent shall be treated fairly and his/her identity shall be kept confidential to the extent possible without compromising public health or safety or the ability to conduct the investigation efficiently and effectively. The respondent shall have the opportunity to review all evidence and to present evidence. The respondent is entitled to employ outside counsel at his/her own expense for the duration of the proceedings. The respondent’s counsel may accompany the respondent in meetings but may not ask questions or offer testimony. The respondent shall be provided a draft copy of the investigation report and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the records and other evidence that the ad hoc committee considered or relied on, if such records have not been previously provided. The respondent must submit any written comments on the draft report within 30 days of receiving the draft report. The respondent shall receive a copy of the report submitted to the Deciding Official.

f.    The investigating committee shall complete the investigation within 180 days. Any extension of this period will be based on good cause and approved in writing in advance by the Deciding Official and, as required, by any external sponsor(s). If the committee judges that disciplinary action is warranted, the committee will also make a recommendation to the Deciding Official concerning what action should be taken. Possible disciplinary actions include, but are not limited to:

• Issuing a formal reprimand;
• Requiring special administrative arrangements to ensure compliance with applicable regulations;
• Restricting particular research, scholarly, and creative activities;
• Removing the individual from the graduate faculty; and
• Filing a formal charge of unfitness for continued employment at Texas Tech University.

6.  Decision by Deciding Official

a.    If the inquiry or investigation involves a project funded by the Public Health Service (PHS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), or other agencies that have mandated notification policies, the Deciding Official shall follow the respective agency’s policies regarding notification.

b.    The Deciding Official is responsible for making a final determination of misconduct findings. Upon receipt of the investigation report, the Deciding Official shall make a determination for each allegation and shall also, in consultation with the PSVP, decide what action(s) should be taken. This determination must be provided in writing to the respondent and, as required, any external sponsors.

c.    Records of the proceedings and the committee’s findings shall be maintained in the office of the Deciding Official for a period of seven years following the close of the investigation and the acceptance of any reports required by federal agencies.

7.  Appeal

a.    Any person who has been found by the preceding procedures to have committed misconduct in research, scholarly, or creative activity may appeal that finding to the President of Texas Tech University if the person alleges the decision is:

• Not based on consideration of all available evidence;
• Not constitutionally permissible; or
• Significantly noncompliant with the university’s established standards or procedures.

This appeal must be filed in writing within 14 days after the respondent is informed of the decision of the Deciding Official. Failure to appeal to the President within the prescribed time limits will make the decision of the Deciding Official final.

b.    Within 14 days of receiving an appeal, the President shall begin a review and investigation of the decision by the Deciding Official and shall issue a decision on the appeal within 45 days of the appeal. In considering the appeal, the President may act alone or involve others, as appropriate. The decision of the appeal shall be final.

OP Categories

• 01 Chancellor
• 02 Development
• 04 Audit Services
• 10 President
• 30 Academic and Student Affairs – General
• 32 Academic Policies – Faculty
• 34 Academic Policies – Students
• 36 Academic Programs
• 40 Institutional Compliance
• 48 Communication Services
• 52 Information Technology
• 60 Environmental Health and Safety
• 61 Facilities Management
• 62 Financial and Accounting
• 63 General Services
• 64 Graduate Programs (Faculty and Students)
• 65 Research Accounting
• 66 Libraries
• 67 Mail Services
• 68 Communications and Marketing
• 69 Payroll and Tax Services
• 70 Human Resources
• 72 Purchasing, Contracting, and Payables
• 73 Data Management
• 74 Research
• 75 Research Security
• 76 Security
• 77 Student Services and Registrar
• 78 Traffic and Parking
• 79 Travel
• 80 Vehicles