Reporting Research Misconduct

Making a report “in good faith” means having a belief in the truth of your allegation that a reasonable person in your position could have, based on the information known to you at the time of the report. 

An allegation, or information provided by a witness during a research misconduct proceeding, is not reported in good faith if made with knowing or reckless disregard of information that would negate the allegation.

Complaints of possible misconduct in research conducted by a member of the MIT community can be submitted to:

• The MIT Research Integrity and Compliance team within the Office of the Vice President for Research
• The Vice President for Research (VPR)
• The MIT EthicsPoint Hotline (includes an option to report anonymously)

MIT makes every effort to protect the anonymity of complainants but cannot guarantee anonymity in all matters. You may verbally report possible research misconduct, but you must follow up with a written report to ensure that your concerns are most accurately relayed to the VPR.

Contact Information

• Kerry Seligman, Director of Research Integrity and Compliance
  Phone: 617-452-2083 | Email: ksousa@mit.edu 
• Dominique Fields, Research Integrity and Compliance Specialist
  Phone: 617-715-5915 | Email: drfields@mit.edu  
• Greg Moffatt, Chief Research Compliance Officer
  Phone: 617-253-9584 | Email: gtm@mit.edu 
• Research Integrity and Compliance Team (Kerry, Dominique & Greg)
  Email: researchintegrity@mit.edu 
• Professor Ian Waitz, Vice President for Research 
  Phone: 617-253-0218 | iaw@mit.edu 
• MIT EthicsPoint Hotline: https://hotline.mit.edu

After you submit your report, you become a possible witness who may have relevant information to MIT’s review of the matter. However, you do not have rights to receive detailed information or documentation during the review.

For an overview of the review process detailed in MIT’s Policies & Procedures § 10.1, download the flowchart for Allegations of Misconduct in Research and Scholarship [PDF]. The review process operates under a legal framework to comply with federal regulations, but it is an academic proceeding. There are no plaintiffs and defendants.

Retaliation is typically a significant adverse action taken against an individual because the individual participated in a review process – as a complainant, witness, factfinder or committee member, or in any other capacity. Retaliation will not be tolerated.  

Retaliation is a serious offense. A complaint of retaliation may be investigated and may lead to disciplinary action, up to and including terminating the responsible person’s relationship with the Institute.

• MIT’s Research Integrity and Compliance team: Contact with questions you may have about the institutional review process or to discuss hypothetical situations in the context of research integrity. 
• MIT’s Ombuds Office is a confidential and independent resource to constructively manage concerns and conflicts related to your experience at MIT. 

MIT cannot advise you on the specific content of your complaint. However, you should state specific, clear, and credible allegations as to each separate instance of possible research misconduct (falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism in research activities at MIT, or deliberate interference in the research or scholarly work of others) and include supporting evidence to the extent reasonably possible.

For example, your complaint should:

• Identify the "Respondent(s)": the current or former member(s) of the MIT community whom you believe engaged in possible research misconduct at MIT, including their title, role, and location where (and when) they conducted the research in question.
• Identify the source(s) of funding/award numbers (if known) for the research or scholarship in question.
• Identify and specifically describe each act that you believe constitutes possible research misconduct and the reasons you believe it to be research misconduct.
• Include all supporting documentation you would like the VPR to take into consideration. If the documentation is not in your possession, please identify its location and who likely has possession of it.

• MIT’s Vice President for Research (VPR) initiates and oversees reviews of possible research misconduct under MIT’s Policies & Procedures § 10.1. The VPR serves as the Research Integrity Officer for the Institute.
• MIT’s Provost serves as the final Deciding Official in connection with inquiries and investigations into allegations of possible research misconduct. 
• The VPR’s Research Integrity and Compliance team provides guidance and support to all participants in a research misconduct proceeding.

Cooperation, honesty, respect, confidentiality, and professional behavior are expected of all participants in a research misconduct proceeding.

Raising good faith concerns of possible research misconduct helps MIT to ensure that the scholarly or research record is accurate, which is essential for preserving public confidence in both the academic and research enterprises. We recognize the challenges that can arise for all participants – both those providing information for review, as well as those who are the subject of such reviews or those conducting the review itself. Research misconduct reviews can be a time-consuming process, but the goal is to ensure that all participants have an opportunity to be heard and that all relevant information is carefully considered before a decision is issued.

Proceedings concerning research misconduct often raise difficult issues for those making the allegations, for those who are the subject of the allegations, and for those responsible for reviewing the allegations.

All participants must comply with the confidentiality provisions of the MIT and applicable federal policies to protect the integrity of the review and the identities of participants, to the extent possible and as permitted by law. Thus, only those people with a “need to know,” as determined by the Vice President for Research (VPR), should be informed that a complaint was raised to the VPR for review or that a review has been initiated. 

Violation of the confidentiality provision may result in consequences for the offender, including but not limited to:

• Disciplinary action for current members of the MIT community
• Closure of a case if determined to be submitted in bad faith 
• Cessation of any further communications with offending individuals who are not members of the MIT community

Yes.

Federal Sponsors

If the research or scholarship in question is supported by federal funds, MIT may be required to:

• Submit the final Inquiry Report to the funding agency
• Notify the funding agency before conducting an Investigation
• Submit the final Investigation Report and supporting evidence to the funding agency.

The applicable federal agency may accept MIT’s determination, request additional information, and/or conduct an independent investigation before issuing its own decision and any accompanying actions on the matter. 

Non-Federal Sponsors

The Vice President for Research will give applicable sponsors written notice of any decision of the Provost entering a finding of research misconduct at MIT.

In addition, if a non-federal sponsor requires notification from MIT that research it funded has become the subject of proceedings under MIT’s Policies & Procedures § 10.1, the VPR will supply that notification.

It can be difficult to be a participant in a research misconduct proceeding in any capacity, especially considering the confidentiality requirement. Please don’t hesitate to ask the Research Integrity and Compliance team for assistance if you need support. Additionally, each Respondent in a research misconduct proceeding may identify an "MIT Advisor" with whom they can discuss the matter as much as they choose for guidance and support throughout the review process.

The MIT Advisor:

• Must be a member of the MIT community who is not involved in the subject research or scholarship in any capacity
• Must not be a current or former member of the laboratory in or for which the subject research was conducted
• Must not be a family member, subordinate, or attorney of the Respondent.

It is helpful if the chosen MIT Advisor is a senior faculty member with knowledge of MIT’s review process and has expertise in the area of research or scholarship under review. The Research Integrity and Compliance team is available to assist a Respondent in identifying an MIT Advisor if they choose to have one.

The role of the MIT Advisor is to provide guidance and support to the Respondent throughout the review process; not to be the Respondent’s spokesperson or advocate. The same confidentiality provisions apply to the MIT Advisor.

The duties of an MIT Advisor depend on how much the Respondent shares, and may include:

• Reviewing and providing perspective on any documents the Respondent chooses to share
• Accompanying the Respondent to the interview meeting with the appointed Fact Finder, if asked, but without active participation
• Offering suggestions about comments the Respondent may want to provide on a draft of the report
• Serving as a sounding board for the Respondent to discuss the details of the matter and get feedback if/when needed

Consequences of engaging in research misconduct depend upon the specifics of each matter and the severity of MIT’s findings. Possible disciplinary or administrative actions that may be imposed by MIT include, but are not limited to:

• Correction or retraction of published scholarship or research
• Imposition of additional mandatory supervision or mentorship and training
• Letter to personnel or student file, Human Resources, and/or the DLCI
• Loss of eligibility to receive federal funding
• Suspension or termination of current awards
• Reassignment or loss of employment or appointment
• Referral to MIT’s Committee on Discipline for sanctions (if committed by a student)
• Warning letter, probation, suspension, expulsion, and/or degree revocation

Yes. MIT’s Policies & Procedures § 10.1 provides that if there is no finding of research misconduct, reasonable efforts should be made to restore and protect the reputation of the Respondent. Such efforts by MIT depend on the circumstances of each matter. For example, participants in the review proceeding and any other identified persons having knowledge of MIT’s review may be informed by the VPR, or their designee, of MIT’s final decision. The VPR also consults with MIT’s Office of the General Counsel on any additional proposed restorative actions, including suggestions offered by a Respondent for consideration, subject to privacy concerns and other possible limitations. 

MIT’s Policies & Procedures § 10.1 does not provide for an appeal. MIT’s decision about a submitted allegation of possible research misconduct – whether an Assessment, Inquiry, and/or Investigation – is final.

The Respondent in a research misconduct proceeding (Inquiry and/or Investigation) may provide comments on a draft of the report. Those comments, if any, are appended to the final report and are taken into consideration by the Vice President for Research and Provost before a final decision is issued.