Research and Scholarly Misconduct

I.    Purpose of Procedures

6. Conflict of Interest: If the Provost (DO) or Vice Chancellor for Research & Engagement (RIO) has any actual orpotential conflict of interest, the persons shall recuse themselves from the case. The Chancellor of UMass Amherst shall appoint a designee to act instead.
7. UMass Amherst will respond to each allegation of research or scholarly misconduct in a thorough, competent, objective, and fair manner.
8. UMass Amherst will ensure its deans, directors, chairs, faculty, academic administrators, and graduate advisors are reminded annually of UMass Amherst policies and procedures on Research and Scholarly Misconduct, including this procedure. UMass Amherst will also inform all faculty, students, and staff of:
   1. the need for and importance of research integrity; and
   2. the importance of compliance with applicable policies and procedures.

II.   Definitions

Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community: means those practices established by the federalfunding agency, as well as commonly accepted professional codes or norms within the overarching community of Researchers and institutions that apply for and receive federal awards.

Allegation: means a disclosure of possible Research or Scholarly Misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of an institutional or federal official.

Assessment: means a consideration of whether an Allegation of Misconduct appears to fall within the definition of Research or Scholarly Misconduct; appears to involve Research, or activities related to that Research or Research training; and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential Evidence of Misconduct may be identified. Theassessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the Allegation.

Certifying Official: means the institutional official responsible for assuring on behalf of an institution that the institution has written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct and complies with its own policies and procedures. The certifying official is responsible for certifying the content of the institution's annual report and ensuring the report is submitted to ORI, as required. The Assistant Vice Chancellor for ResearchCompliance and Security (AVCRC) is the certifying official at UMass Amherst.

Complainant: means a person who in good faith makes an allegation of misconduct. There can be more than one complainant in any inquiry or investigation.

Confidentiality: UMass Amherst officials shall, as required by 42 CFR § 93.108: (1) limit disclosure of the identity ofrespondents and complainants (and witnesses when the circumstances indicate that witnesses may be harassed or otherwise need protection) to those who need to know in order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective and fair 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 misconduct proceeding. Written confidentiality agreements or other mechanisms may be used to ensure that recipients do not make any further disclosure of identifying information. This limitation on disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses no longer applies once an institution has made a final determination of misconduct findings

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.

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 (RIO): refers to the institutional official responsible for administering the institution'swritten policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct. The Vice Chancellor for Research and Engagement (VCRE) is the RIO at UMass Amherst.

Research Misconduct: is defined as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, conducting, reporting, or reviewing sponsored or unsponsored research. Research misconduct is more than a simple instance of an honest error in judgment, a misinterpretation of experimental results, an oversight in attribution, difference in opinion, afailure in either inductive or deductive reasoning, an error in planning or carrying out experiments, or a calculation mistake.

Research Misconduct Proceeding: means any actions related to alleged Research Misconduct taken under this procedure, including Allegation Assessments, Inquiries, Investigations, federal agency oversight reviews, and appeals.

Research Records: means the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry. Data orresults may be in physical or electronic form. Examples of items, materials, or information that may be consideredpart 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: means the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or the person whois the subject of the inquiry or investigation. There can be more than one respondent in any inquiry or investigation.

Retaliation: means an adverse action taken against a Complainant, witness, or committee member by an institution or one of its members in response to:

• Good Faith Allegation of Misconduct; or
• Good Faith cooperation with a Misconduct Proceeding.

Scholarly Misconduct: means practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within thescientific community for proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or reporting research results. It does not include honest errors in the recording, selection, or analysis of data or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data.

Scholarly Misconduct Proceeding: means any actions related to alleged Scholarly Misconduct taken under this procedure, including Allegation Assessments, Inquiries, Investigations, and appeals.

III.   Procedures

All applicable persons will report observed, suspected, or apparent research or scholarly misconduct in 
accordance with these Procedures. Allegations may be made in writing or orally, and in either case may be 
anonymous, and in all cases; must be sufficiently credible and specific. If an individual is unsure whether a 
suspected incident falls within the definition of research misconduct, they may meet with or contact the 
AVCRE, VCRE, or the Office for Research Compliance to discuss the suspected research misconduct 
informally, which may include discussing it anonymously and/or hypothetically. A copy of these Procedures 
shall be made available to the complainant.

1. Preliminary Institutional Assessment of Allegations

1. An initial report of alleged research or scholarly misconduct shall be treated in a confidential manner and brought to the attention of the Research Integrity Officer (RIO). If someone other than the RIO receives an initial allegation, that person shall, in turn, make an immediate confidential report of the allegations to the RIO.
2. An initial report of alleged research or scholarly misconduct might arise as part of an administrative review. Such an allegation will be acted upon in accordance with this Policy. The allegation should be brought confidentially to the RIO.
3. Upon receiving an allegation of research or scholarly misconduct, the RIO, or designee, shall conduct a preliminary assessment promptly. The purpose of the preliminary assessment is to determine whether the allegation:
   1. is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research or scholarly misconduct may be identified;
   2. falls within the definition of research or scholarly misconduct; and
   3. is within the jurisdictional criteria of these procedures.

An inquiry must be conducted if all three criteria are met. The assessment must be documented, and all research records must be promptly sequestered according to Section 2.2 of this procedure. In conducting the preliminary assessment, the complainant, respondent, or other witnesses need not be interviewed, and data need not be gathered beyond any that may have been submitted with the allegation, except as necessary to determine whether the allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research or scholarly misconduct may be identified.

4. If, after the Institutional Assessment, the RIO or another designated official determines the requirements for an inquiry are not met, they must keep sufficiently detailed documentation of the assessment in accordance with applicable federal regulations.
5. If, after the Institutional Assessment, it is determined that the requirements for an inquiry have not been met but are still relevant to a different policy domain (e.g. “academic integrity”) because of the institutional position of the respondent (e.g. college or graduate student), the RIO or their designate will make a further referral to appropriate university officials (e.g. Dean of Students Office).

2. Inquiry

1. Purpose and Initiation: If the preliminary assessment reveals that the allegation falls within the definition of research or scholarly misconduct and there is sufficient information to allow specific follow-up, the inquiry process shall be initiated by the RIO or designee, as appropriate. The initiating official will clearly identify the original allegation(s) and any related issues that should be evaluated in the inquiry. The purpose of the inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the available evidence to determine whether there is sufficient credible evidence of possible research or scholarly misconduct to warrant conducting an investigation. An inquiry does not require a full review of the evidence related to an allegation. The purpose of the inquiry is not to reach a final conclusion about whether misconduct occurred. The findings of the inquiry shall be set forth in an inquiry report.
2. Securing Research Records: Prompt securing of research records is in the best interest of both the respondent and UMass Amherst. Either before, or at the time the institution notifies the respondent of the allegation, inquiry, or investigation, the RIO, or designee, as appropriate, will take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence and sequester them in a secure manner, except that where the research records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments. Upon ensuring that the research records are secure, the institution must make a good faith effort to notify the respondent in writing that an inquiry is being initiated and the charges and the procedures to be followed. An inventory of the secured records shall be provided to the respondent as soon as reasonable and practicable. The respondent will be provided with copies of, or supervised access to, the research records, if requested. The steps required to obtain custody, inventory, and sequester any additional research records and evidence will be followed throughout the inquiry process in the course of securing records. UMass Amherst will take reasonable measures to minimize the impact of record collection on the ongoing research, so long as such measures do not conflict with UMass Amherst’s obligations to sequester.
3. Inquiry Committee: The inquiry shall be carried out by a committee of five (5) persons appointed by the RIO or designee, in consultation with the Academic Deans. At least three Inquiry Committee members shall be tenured faculty. The RIO shall name one of the tenured faculty members to chair the Committee. Committee members should be selected on the basis of relevant research background and experience. Members of the Committee shall have no actual or potential conflicts of interest in the case, shall be unbiased, and shall, together, possess sufficient expertise to enable the committee to conduct the inquiry.
   If the Committee Chair so requests, the RIO, as appropriate, shall designate an official to assist the Committee in conducting the inquiry. The Committee shall receive a written charge from the RIO, defining the subject matter of its inquiry prior to beginning its work.
4. Inquiry Process: The respondent and complainant may be given an opportunity to interview with the Inquiry Committee. The Committee may interview others and examine relevant research records, as necessary, to determine whether there is sufficient credible evidence of possible research misconduct to warrant conducting an investigation. University legal counsel shall be available to the Committee for consultation. The Committee will diligently pursue all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the inquiry, including any evidence of any additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the inquiry to completion. Findings of research or scholarly misconduct, including the determination of whether the alleged misconduct is intentional, knowing, or reckless, cannot be made at the inquiry stage.
   For allegations involving PHS supported research, the length of the inquiry shall not exceed ninety (90) calendar days unless prior written approval for a longer period is obtained from the RIO. If the period is extended, the record of the inquiry shall include documentation of the reasons for exceeding theninety-day period. When support from other funding agencies is implicated in research subject to the allegation of potential misconduct, the funding agency timelines must be researched and followed.
5. Inquiry Report: The Inquiry Committee shall prepare a report that includes:
   1. The names, professional aliases, and positions of the Respondent and Complainant;
   2. A description of the Allegation(s) of Research or scholarly Misconduct;
   3. Federal support, as applicable, including, for example, grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing federal support;
   4. The composition of Inquiry Committee if used, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise;
   5. Inventory of sequestered Research Records and other Evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted;
   6. Transcripts of any transcribed interviews;
   7. Timeline and procedural history;
   8. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted;
   9. The basis for recommending that the Allegation(s) warrant an Investigation;
   10. The basis on which any Allegation(s) do not merit an Investigation;
   11. Any comments on the Inquiry report by the Respondent; and
   12. Any institutional actions implemented, including communications with journals or funding agencies; and
   13. If there is potential Evidence of honest error or difference of opinion. The respondent shall be given fourteen (14) calendar days to review the report and to add his or her comments, which will become part of the final inquiry report and record. Based upon the respondent's comments, the Inquiry Committee may revise its report.
6. Inquiry Determination: The Inquiry Committee final report will be sent to the RIO, who will determine whether the results of the inquiry provide sufficient evidence of possible research misconduct to warrant conducting an investigation or whether the matter will not be pursued further. The respondent and complainant shall be notified in writing of the decision. For PHS funded research, ORI must be provided a copy of the inquiry report within thirty (30) days of determining whether an investigation is warranted. 
   If an investigation is not warranted, detailed documentation of inquiries must be kept to allow for later assessment by ORI of the reasons why an investigation was not conducted. A copy of the inquiry report will be provided to other agencies as applicable.

3. Investigation

1. Purpose and Initiation: The purpose of the investigation is to explore the allegation(s) in detail, examine the evidence in depth, and determine specifically whether research or scholarly misconduct has been committed, by whom, and to what extent. If instances of possible misconduct involving a different respondent are uncovered, the matter should be sent to the RIO, to initiate a preliminary assessment.
   The Investigation Committee will be appointed, and the process initiated within thirty (30) calendar days after the conclusion of the inquiry. If required by sponsoring agency regulations, the RIO shall notify the agency of its decision to commence an investigation on or before the date the investigation begins and provide an inquiry report as required.
2. Securing Research Records: Any additional pertinent research records that were not previously sequestered during the inquiry will be immediately sequestered when the decision is made to conduct an investigation. The RIO or designee will direct this process. This sequestration should occur before or at the time the respondent is notified in writing that an investigation will begin. The need for additional sequestration of records may occur for any number of reasons, including a decision to investigate additional allegations not considered during the inquiry stage or the identification of records during the inquiry process that had not been previously secured. As soon as practicable, a copy of each sequestered record will be provided to the respondent, or to the individual from whom the record is taken if not by the respondent, if requested.
3. Investigation Committee: The investigation shall be conducted by a committee of five (5) persons appointed by the RIO or designee, in consultation with the Academic Deans. All persons appointed shall be tenured faculty. The RIO shall name one of the tenured faculty members to chair the Committee. Committee members should be selected on the basis of relevant research background and experience. Members of the Committee shall have no actual or potential conflicts of interest in the case, shall be unbiased, and shall, together, possess sufficient expertise to enable the Committee to conduct the investigation. Inquiry Committee members may serve on the Investigation Committee.
   The respondent and the complainant shall be notified via email of the proposed Committee membership and may object in writing to any of the proposed appointees on the grounds that the person, or the Committee as a whole, does not meet the criteria stated above. This objection must be made in writing within 14 calendar days of receipt of such notification. The RIO will consider the objection and if it has merit, shall make appropriate substitution(s), in consultation with the Academic Deans. That decision shall be final.
   If the Committee Chair requests, the RIO shall designate an official to assist the Committee in conducting the investigation. The Committee shall receive a written charge from the RIO, defining the subject matter of its investigation prior to beginning its work.
4. Investigation Process: The Investigation Committee must interview each complainant, respondent, and other individuals who might have information regarding aspects of the allegations. The interviews will be recorded on a recording device. A verbatim written record shall be made of all interviews when required by federal regulation. A transcript of their respective interview shall be provided to each interviewee for review and correction of errors, which shall be returned and become part of the institutional record. The respondent must not be present during the witnesses’ interviews but must be provided with a transcript of the interview. University legal counsel shall be available to the Committee for consultation. The Committee will diligently pursue all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of any additional instances of possible research or scholarly misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion. If additional allegations are raised, the respondent(s) must be notified in writing of the additional allegations against them. All aspects of an investigation must be completed within 180 days of beginning it, including transmitting the institutional record including the final investigation report and decision by the Deciding Official to federal agencies.
5. Investigation Report: The Investigation Committee shall prepare a draft of the final report that includes:
   1. the names, titles, and subject matter expertise of the Committee members, and experts consulted, if any;
   2. description of the nature of the allegation(s) of research or scholarly misconduct, including any additional allegation(s) addressed during the misconduct proceeding;
   3. description of the specific allegations for consideration in the investigation;
   4. description of federal support, if any;
   5. any scientific or forensic analyses conducted;
   6. an inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence considered;
   7. transcripts of all interviews conducted as required by federal regulation;
   8. findings and basis for each finding;
   9. conclusion(s) as to whether research or scholarly misconduct occurred; and
   10. recommendations for institutional action.

Copies of all significant documentary evidence that is referenced in the report should be appended to the report. Additional information will be included in the investigation report as required by specific federal agencies. A finding of research or scholarly misconduct requires that four (4) conditions be met:

1. the conduct at issue falls within this Policy’s definition of research or scholarly misconduct;
2. the misconduct was committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly;
3. there is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
4. the allegation has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that the evidence shows that it is more likely than not that the respondent committed research misconduct.

The respondent shall be given a copy of the draft investigation report for comment, and concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to the research records or other evidence on which the report is based. The respondent will be allowed thirty (30) calendar days from the date he/she received the draft report to submit comments. The respondent’s comments must be included and considered in the final report.

6. Institutional Review and Determination: The Investigation Committee final report will be forwarded to the RIO. The RIO will transmit the report to the Provost who is the UMass Amherst Deciding Official (DO) for all research or scholarly misconduct cases. The Deciding Official will make the final determination whether to accept the investigation report, its findings, and the recommended institutional actions.
   The Deciding Official’s decision should be consistent with the definition of research or scholarly misconduct, UMass Amherst’s policies, and the evidence reviewed and analyzed by the Investigation Committee. The Deciding Official may also return the report to the Investigation Committee with a request for further fact-finding or analysis. The Deciding Official is responsible for making a final determination of research misconduct findings. This determination must be provided in a written decision that includes:
   1. Whether the institution found research or scholarly misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct; and
   2. A description of relevant institutional actions taken or to be taken.

The Deciding Official’s final determination will be transmitted to the respondent and complainant. If the Deciding Official’s decision varies from that of the Investigation Committee, the basis for rendering a different decision will be explained in the report to ORI and other agencies as appropriate.

Respondents may appeal the final determination to the UMass Amherst Chancellor. An appeal must be made within 14 days of the institutional determination and is limited to:

1. a claim of procedural error; and/or
2. a claim that the sanction imposed as a result of a finding of research or scholarly misconduct is inappropriate.

The investigation shall be completed within one hundred eighty (180) calendar days of the first meeting 
of the Investigation Committee, unless otherwise required by a federal agency. Federal agencies will be 
notified and provided documentation according to specific agency requirements.

4. Actions Following Investigation

1. Finding of Research or Scholarly Misconduct: If the final determination is that research or scholarly misconduct occurred, UMass Amherst shall take appropriate institutional action, which may include but is not limited to:
   1. notification of the sponsoring agency;
   2. requesting withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the research;
   3. removal of the responsible person from the particular project, letter of reprimand, special monitoring of future work, probation, suspension, salary reduction, rank reduction or termination of employment in accordance with UMass Amherst policies and procedures;
   4. determination of whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, collaborators of the respondent, or other relevant parties should be notified; and
   5. any other steps deemed appropriate to accomplish justice and preserve the integrity of UMass Amherst and the credibility of the sponsor’s program.
   6. For Research Misconduct findings only: A respondent's admission of research misconduct must be made in writing and signed by the respondent. An admission must specify the falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism that occurred and which research records were affected. The admission statement must meet all elements required for a research misconduct finding under §93.103 and must be provided to ORI before the institution closes its research misconduct proceeding. The institution must also provide a statement to ORI describing how it determined that the scope of the misconduct was fully addressed by the admission and confirmed the respondent's culpability.
   7. If determination involves a student: a referral will also be made to the appropriate student conduct body within the university (e.g. Dean of Students Office).
2. Restoration of Respondent’s Reputation: If the final determination is that no research or scholarly misconduct occurred, efforts shall be undertaken to the extent possible and appropriate to fully protect, restore, or maintain the credibility of the research project, research results, and the reputation of the respondent, the sponsor and others who were involved in the investigation or deleteriously affected thereby. Depending on the circumstances, consideration should be given to notifying those individuals aware of or involved in the investigation of the final outcome, publicizing the final outcome in forums in which the allegation of misconduct was previously publicized, expunging all reference to the misconduct allegation from the respondent’s personnel files, or reviewing negative decisions related to tenure or advancement to candidacy that occurred during the investigation. Any institutional actions to restore the respondent’s reputation must first be approved by the Deciding Official.
3. Protection of the Complainant and Others: Regardless of whether UMass Amherst determines that research or scholarly misconduct occurred, reasonable efforts will be undertaken to protect complainants who made allegations of misconduct in good faith and others who cooperate in good faith with inquiries and investigations of such allegations. The RIO, or designee, will also take appropriate steps during the inquiry and investigation to prevent retaliation against the complainant. Any act of retaliation directed against a Complainant, witness, committee member, or a Respondent is subject to the UMass Amherst Whistleblowing policy.
4. Allegations Made in Bad Faith: If relevant, the RIO will determine whether the complainant’s allegation of research or scholarly misconduct was made in good faith. If an allegation was made in bad faith, appropriate disciplinary action will be taken in accordance with UMass Amherst policies and procedures. If the complainant is not associated with UMass Amherst, appropriate organizations or authorities may be notified and administrative or legal action considered.

5. Other Considerations

1. Requirements for Reporting Research Misconduct to ORI When Funding from PHS Is Involved
   1. The decision to initiate an investigation must be reported in writing to the Director of the ORI, within thirty (30) calendar days of finding that an investigation is warranted. The notification must include at a minimum the name of the person(s) against whom the allegations have been made, the general nature of the allegation, and the PHS application or grant number(s) involved.
   2. If UMass Amherst plans to terminate an inquiry or investigation without completing all relevant requirements of the PHS regulation, a report of such planned termination shall be made to ORI, including a description of the reasons for the proposed termination.
   3. If UMass Amherst determines that it will not be able to complete the investigation within one hundred eighty (180) calendar days, a written request for an extension shall be submitted to ORI that explains the delay, reports on the progress to date, estimates the date of completion and describes other necessary steps to be taken. If the request is granted, UMass Amherst must file periodic progress reports as requested by ORI.
   4. UMass Amherst will keep ORI apprised of any developments during the course of an investigation that may affect current or potential Department of Health and Human Services funding for the individual(s) under investigation or that the PHS needs to know to ensure appropriate use of federal funds and otherwise protect the public interest.
   5. ORI shall be notified immediately, at any time during a research misconduct proceeding, if there is any reason to believe that any of the following conditions exist:
      1. Health or safety of the public is a risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects;
      2. HHS resources or interests are threatened;
      3. Research activities should be suspended;
      4. There is a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law;
      5. Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding;
      6. The research misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely and HHS action may be necessary to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved; or
      7. The research community or public should be informed.
2. Funding Agency Requirements for Reporting: When support from other funding agencies is implicated in research subject to the allegation of potential misconduct, the funding agency policies must be researched and followed.
3. Administrative Action: UMass Amherst officials will take administrative actions, as appropriate, to protect federal funds and ensure that the purposes of the federal financial assistance are carried out. UMass Amherst officials shall ensure that administrative actions taken by the institution and ORI are enforced and shall take appropriate action to notify other involved parties such as sponsors, law enforcement agencies, professional societies, and licensing boards, of those actions.
4. Termination of UMass Amherst Employment: The termination of the respondent’s UMass Amherst employment, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation of possible research or scholarly misconduct has been reported, will not preclude or terminate the misconduct procedures. If the respondent refuses to participate in the process after termination of employment, the Committee will use its best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the allegations, noting in its report the respondent’s failure to cooperate and its effect on the Committee’s review of all the evidence.
5. Students that end their affiliation with UMass Amherst: If a respondent student withdraws from the university, or otherwise ends their affiliation with UMass Amherst, before or after an allegation of possible research or scholarly misconduct has been reported, that will not preclude or terminate the misconduct procedures. If the student respondent refuses to participate in the process after ending their affiliation with the university, the Committee will use its best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the allegations, noting in its report the student respondent’s failure to cooperate and its effect on the Committee’s review of all the evidence.
6. Record Retention: Records of the research or scholarly misconduct proceeding will be maintained in a secure manner for seven (7) years after completion of any proceeding by UMass Amherst involving misconduct allegations, or the completion of any ORI proceeding involving the allegation of misconduct, whichever is later, unless custody of the records has been transferred to ORI or ORI has advised that the records no longer need to be retained. When it is determined that an investigation is not warranted, detailed documentation of the inquiry must be retained for at least seven (7) years after termination of the inquiry, so that ORI may assess the reasons why UMass Amherst decided not to conduct an investigation.
7. Federal Regulatory Changes: If PHS, ORI, NSF or any other federal agency amends its requirements on research misconduct, those amendments shall govern where applicable and shall be incorporated into this Policy by reference herein. Such changes in federal requirements shall supersede all relevant portions of this Policy.

Sources:  T08-010; Sen Doc. No. 90-038; Sen. Doc. No. 91-009; Sen. Doc. No. 24-031; Sen. Doc. No. 26-033