Research Misconduct Overview
The University of Houston is committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity and ethical conduct in the pursuit, performance, and reporting of research. As part of our commitment to maintaining the public’s trust in research and scholarly activities, any actions that constitute research misconduct undermine the core values and principles we strive to uphold.
Our goal is to minimize the risk of research misconduct by ensuring that all allegations are addressed promptly, thoroughly, and fairly. When necessary, we take appropriate steps to correct the scientific record and restore the reputations of those affected.
Research misconduct includes:
- Fabrication
- Falsification
- Plagiarism
Research misconduct does not include:
- Ordinary errors
- Good faith differences in interpretations or judgments of data
- Scholarly or political disagreements
- Authorship disputes
Any individual with a reasonable suspicion that research misconduct has occurred at the University is encouraged to report their concern to the Research Integrity and Oversight (RIO) Office. UH's research misconduct evaluation process is consistent with the U.S. Public Health Service regulations.
For details on the research misconduct process and procedures, view UH's Research Misconduct Policy.
Research Misconduct Definitions and Process
This section provides an overview of the definitions and process for responding to allegations of research misconduct in research supported by UH.
- Fabrication: making up data or results and recording or reporting them
- 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: the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit
Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.
- Deciding Official (DO):
- The institutional official who makes final determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any institutional administrative actions. The Deciding Official shall have no direct prior involvement in the institution’s inquiry, investigation, or allegation assessment. The Chancellor/President of the University of Houston has delegated DO responsibilities, including sanctioning authority, to the Provost.
- Research Integrity Officer (RIO):
- The institutional official, designated by the President, who is responsible for The institutional official, appointed by the Vice Chancellor/Vice President for Research (VPR), who is responsible for receiving Allegations of Research Misconduct and overseeing the Research Misconduct process in accordance with the University’s policies and procedures. The RIO is the Vice Chancellor/Vice President for Research.
- Complainant:
- A person who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct.
- Respondent:
- The person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding.
Steps:
- Assessment:
- Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO will assess the allegation to determine whether the allegation falls within the scope of the University’s research misconduct policy and is within the jurisdiction of 42 CFR 93.102(b), 45 CFR 689, or other funding source guidelines.
- Inquiry:
- The purpose of the inquiry is to review and analyze case evidence to determine whether to conduct an investigation.
- Investigation:
- The purpose of the investigation is to establish a committe which interviews participants, develops a factual record by exploring the allegation(s) in detail, and to write an investigative report for submission to the Deciding Official (DO).
- Deciding Official Review:
- The Provost reviews the investigation report and determines whether to accept the report and recommend actions or return the report to teh committee and request additional information.