|
|
Policies and Procedures for Dealing With Allegations of Academic Fraud
At Yale University
"The Scholar works within an environment that has been developed for
conducting, supporting, and evaluating scholarly research in theingle-minded
pursuit of truth. Academic fraud ....is more than error; it may take the
form of falsification or fabrication of data, plagiarism, or grossly negligent
data collection or analysis. It is hardly possible to exaggerate the damage
that can result from such a breach of the academic commitment to truth.
Academic fraud . . . not only shatters individual careers, but besmirches
the entire cause of objective research, undermines the credibility of
scholarship and rends the fragile tissues of confidence between scholar
and scholar, teacher and student, the university and the public. . .
All forms of academic fraud must be condemned in the strongest possible
terms. All scholars have an obligation to disclose what the believe, in
good faith, to be well-founded suspicions of academic fraud. Allegations
of fraud must, of course, be made with great caution; yet those who come
forward with such allegations must understand that the University respects
the honest exercise of their judgment. At the same time, the rights of
those whose scholarship or research is questioned must also be scrupulously
protected, all in accord with a process that responds to such allegations
with the utmost care, diligence, sensitivity, and respect for the rights
of all concerned."
Yale University first formally addressed the issue of academic fraud
in its Policy Statement on Collaborative Research published in 1982 from
which the above statements are taken. The University believes that the
academic community must do everything within its power to guard against
academic fraud, and as part of that responsibility should have in place
detailed and well-established procedures for dealing with allegations
of academic fraud in a timely and fair manner. The procedures are necessary
not only to protect the academic community from fraud, but also to protect
individuals who may be unjustly accused.[1], They
do not supplant existing disciplinary procedures, but rather establish
an initial process for the review and investigation of allegations, which
may result in the initiation of disciplinary action if warranted, in accordance
with applicable procedures.
Three general principles must govern the response when allegations of
academic fraud are brought forward. They are (1) that any well-founded
accusation of scholarly misconduct made in good faith must be given serious
consideration; (2) that an accused person must be assumed innocent until
the weight of evidence requires a conclusion to the contrary; and (3)
that every effort should be made to protect the privacy and reputation
of both the accuser and the accused, to provide for fair process, and
to restore the good name of an unjustly accused individual.
The procedures to be followed are as follows:*
Initiation of Allegation
- Any allegation of academic fraud, including but not limited to falsification
or fabrication of data, plagiarism, or gross negligence in the conduct,
proposing or reporting of research, whether lodged from within or outside
the University, that is directed against a faculty or staff member or
postdoctoral fellow or associate of any School of Yale University, will
be directed to the Dean of the School in which the accused hold appointments.[2}
[3]
- The Dean, in a timely manner but no longer than two weeks following
receipt of an allegation, with the advice of two senior faculty members
designated by him or her, will determine whether there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the allegation was made in good faith, is
non-trivial and if true would constitute academic fraud. If it is necessary
to consult with others in order to make this decision, the Dean will
seek to maintain, if possible, the anonymity of all individuals involved,
including those who have made the allegations, and in any event will
require all those consulted to treat the matter as strictly confidential.
- If the Dean determines that the allegation does not warrant further
attention, the results of the Dean's evaluation and the reasons therefore
will be set forth in a written report which will be for a period of
three years maintained in a locked file. The Dean will promptly inform
the person(s) who made the allegations of this decision.
Inquiry
- If the Dean determines that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the allegation was made in good faith, is non-trivial and if true
would constitute academic fraud, or if the Dean is unable to reach a
determination in a timely manner, the Dean, will appoint an ad hoc Inquiry
Committee to examine the allegation. The Inquiry Committee will be comprised
of tenured faculty members of the School, but in consideration of the
privacy of all concerned, will be limited to the minimal number required
for competent completion of the task. A faculty member will not appointed
to the Inquiry Committee if the Dean believes that individual to have
a potential conflict of interest in relation to the matter at hand or
the individuals involved. The Dean will promptly inform the accused
that an allegation has been made and will be subject to an inquiry and
will provide to him or her the names of members of the Inquiry Committee
and sufficient information about the allegation so as to permit the
accused to prepare to respond.
- The Dean will notify the Provost that an inquiry has been initiated
and the nature of the alleged fraud. If warranted, in the Dean's judgment,
based upon an overriding need to protect the health, safety, reputation
or financial interest of others or when required by Federal regulations,
the Dean will notify relevant funding, regulatory or other agencies
of the initiation of the inquiry. Where federally funded research is
involved, the Dean will take such interim administrative actions during
the inquiry (or during any later investigation) as are appropriate,
in his or her judgment, to protect Federal funds and ensure that the
purposes of the Federal financial assistance are being carried out,
as required under Federal regulations.
- The Inquiry Committee immediately will request and secure all materials
it believes directly relevant to the allegations. The Inquiry Committee
will seek to interview the accuser(s) and the accused so as to hear
first hand the allegations as well as the response of the accused.[4]
The Inquiry Committee also may interview or otherwise request information
from others within or without the University, including persons uninvolved
in but knowledgeable about the matter under inquiry, and may seek expert
advice. All persons requested to participate in the Inquiry or to provide
documents are expected to cooperate. The members of the Inquiry Committee
will make every effort to maintain the confidentiality of their materials
and deliberations. All correspondence, minutes, and other records will
be marked "confidential" and kept in locked files. In seeking information,
the Inquiry Committee, insofar as it can, will require confidentiality
of those with whom it must communicate. The Inquiry Committee will give
due regard to preserving the privacy of the person(s) bringing the allegations;
however, if the Inquiry Committee determines that confidential disclosure
of the identity of the accuser to any person (including the accused)
is necessary in order for it to proceed fairly with its deliberations,
the Inquiry Committee, after first informing the accuser, may make such
disclosure.
- As soon as practicable, and normally within 60 days after receiving
its charges, the Inquiry Committee will prepare a written report for
the Dean setting forth its conclusions and the evidentiary basis for
those conclusions (including summaries of interviews). If circumstances
clearly warrant extending the inquiry beyond 60 days, the report shall
include documentation of the reasons for the extension. The Inquiry
Committee may reach one of two conclusions:
- (a) If the Inquiry Committee concludes that there are not reasonable
grounds for believing that the allegation may be true, the Dean
will maintain the written report as described in paragraph 3 above.
In that event, the Dean will inform the accuser, and to the extent
appropriate, persons consulted by the Inquiry Committee, of that
conclusion and the reasons for it and will provide a copy of the
report for the accused. The Dean will also determine what steps,
if any, should be taken to restore the reputation of the accused.
- (b) If the Inquiry Committee concludes that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the allegations may be true and that
a formal investigation is required, it will provide to the Dean
along with its report a formal written statement detailing the specific
charge or charges of academic fraud that should in its judgment
be the subject of an investigation. The Dean will convey the report
and this statement to the accused.
- If the inquiry substantiates academic fraud which is admitted by the
accused, the Dean will determine what actions should be taken, including
any further investigation, and the sanctions to be imposed or recommended,
consistent with applicable disciplinary procedures. If fraudulent scholarship
or research has been published, the Dean will see that the facts are
submitted to the appropriate journals in sufficient detail to allow
for correction of the relevant public record. The Dean will notify the
applicable funding, regulatory or other agencies of the outcome, as
required by law or regulation.
Investigation
- The Dean will initiate a formal investigation, if he deems one warranted,
as soon as practicable after receiving the report from the Inquiry Committee
containing its conclusions and its statement of charges. Normally this
will be within 30 days. The Investigation will be carried out by an
ad hoc investigation committee consisting of three or more individuals
whom the Dean will appoint and which may include, in addition to or
in lieu of tenured members of the faculty of the School, qualified individuals
from outside the School or University. The Dean will not appoint to
the Investigation Committee any individuals whom he or she believes
have a potential conflict of interest with respect to the matter under
review or the individuals involved. The Dean will inform the accused
of the membership of the Investigation Committee, and will consider
any objection promptly raised by the accused based on conflict on interest.
However, the Dean's evaluation of any such objection shall be final.
The Dean will promptly inform the Provost of the initiation of the Investigation
and will also report the Investigation to the applicable funding, regulatory
or other agencies as may be equired by law or regulation.
- The Investigation Committee will gather, review and assess relevant
evidence and will determine whether the charge or charges are substantiated.
- The Investigation Committee will impound any materials, including
laboratory notebooks, data and other research or scholarly materials
which it believes are relevant. The Investigation committee will make
every effort to hear directly from the accused as well as the accuser(s).
It may call witnesses who may be any persons within or without the University
who may be knowledgeable about the matters under investigation, may
seek expert advice and may review the records of the Inquiry Committee.
The Investigation will follow the same procedures as described in paragraph
6 to maintain confidentiality and protect the privacy of those involved.
The Investigation Committee will provide to the accused the opportunity
to inspect all documents which it will consider, except where there
is a compelling need to protect the confidentiality of a communication,
in which case the Committee will inform the accused of the substance
of the document. The Investigation Committee also will provide the accused
the opportunity to submit evidence and suggest witnesses. The Investigation
Committee at its discretion may permit the accused to be present during
the hearing of testimony from other witnesses or may exclude the accused,
provided that the accused is given an opportunity to rebut or respond
to the substance of all testimony.[5]
- The Investigation Committee will complete its work as soon as possible
and will ordinarily take no longer than 120 days from the date it receives
its charges. If the Investigation cannot be completed within that time,
the Investigation Committee will report to the Dean on the status of
the Investigation and he or she will notify the Provost as to an estimated
timetable for completion of the Investigation. The Dean will also notify
and request any necessary extension of time from any funding, regulatory
or other agencies as may be required by applicable law.
Report of Investigation
- Upon completion of its Investigation, the Investigation Committee
will prepare a written report consisting of the following three parts:
- (a) A summary of the substance of the documents, the testimony
and the other forms of evidence which the Investigation Committee
relied upon in reaching its conclusion.
- (b) A statement of the Committee's findings of fact and the conclusions
it has drawn from those facts
- (c) The Committee's recommendation, if any, as to what actions
the Dean should undertake.
The report of the Investigation Committee will be adopted upon the majority
vote of the members of the Committee.
- The Dean will permit the accused to inspect the Committee's summary
of documents, testimony and other evidence in the report and its findings
of fact and conclusions, and to indicate in writing what clarification
or corrections, if any, he or she believes are appropriate. The Dean,
solely at his or her discretion, may allow a similar opportunity to
the accuser. The Dean, after receiving the comments on the report, may
ask the Investigation Committee to supplement its report. The Dean also
may request the Committee to advise him or her on steps which should
be taken to restore the reputation of the accused if the Investigation
does not substantiate the charges.
- The Dean will accept the findings of fact and conclusions of the report,
as supplemented, of the Investigation Committee and will determine in
light of the report, what actions, including disciplinary action, he
or she will take or recommend to the Provost and President be taken
or initiated in accordance with University procedures. The Dean will
notify the accused of his or her decision in writing. The Dean also
will notify any funding, regulatory or other agencies as required by
law or regulation of the outcome of the Investigation and the action
that will be taken or initiated and will submit such reports as may
be required. In the event that the Investigation concludes that charges
are not substantiated, the Dean will determine what measures reasonably
can and should be taken to help restore the reputation of the accused,
and will see that they are taken.
Appeal
- Any person who has brought an allegation of academic fraud, or any
person accused of academic fraud who believes that the allegation was
improperly reviewed, may appeal in writing to the Provost. In considering
such an appeal, the Provost will limit his or her review to determining
whether appropriate procedures and standards were applied.
[1] Retaliation against an individual for having made
in good faith an allegation of academic fraud is a violation of University
policy and an offense subject to discipline. On the other hand, an individual
who maliciously or in bad faith brings such an allegation also will be
subject to discipline.
[2] In the case of joint appointments, the complaint
should be directed to the School of primary appointment; if neither School
is primary, the Provost will determine to which Dean the complaint should
be directed.
[3] An allegation that a student has committed
academic fraud in the course of proposing, conducting or reporting of
research supported by the Federal government will also be addressed under
these procedures, and will be directed to the Dean of the School in which
the accused is enrolled. If Federally supported research is not involved,
the Dean may address the matter either under these procedures or under
the student disciplinary procedures of the School, in the Dean's discretion.
[4] When being interviewed by the Inquiry Committee,
an accused may be accompanied by an adviser, who may be any member of
the Yale Community, but not by legal counsel.
[5] The accused may be accompanied before the Investigation
Committee by an adviser who may be any member of the Yale University community.
If the accused has engaged legal counsel, then counsel instead will be
permitted to accompany the accused to consult with him or her as an adviser.
However, the Investigation is not a trial-type proceeding and legal counsel
will not be permitted to direct questions or answers or offer argument
on behalf of the accused.
September 1996
*Note (added January 22, 2007):
When an allegation under this policy concerns research that was supported
by federal funding, Yale will follow the research misconduct regulations,
policies and procedures of the cognizant federal funding agency, which
will supersede Yale polices and procedures in case of conflict.
|
