I. Scope:
This policy applies to all Research conducted by George Mason University (“George Mason”), regardless of funding source, and all individuals at George Mason (including, but not limited to, faculty, students, postdoctoral fellows, other trainees, and all other members of the George Mason research community) engaged in Research in which George Mason affiliation is indicated.
Violations of academic standards by students are governed solely by the Academic Standards Code set forth by George Mason, except for: (1) conduct that occurs as part of Research in which George Mason affiliation is indicated (does not include Research conducted solely for course work and not for publication); and (2) master’s theses and doctoral dissertations, both of which are governed by this policy.
II. Policy Statement:
All Research conducted at George Mason is expected to adhere to the highest standards of ethical, scientific, and scholarly practice. Research Misconduct breaches George Mason’s expectations and is prohibited.
George Mason will take all reasonable and practical steps to foster an environment that:
(a) promotes the responsible conduct of Research, Research training, and Research Related Activities;
(b) discourages Research Misconduct;
(c) deals promptly with Allegations or evidence of possible Research Misconduct; and
(d) ensures an impartial and unbiased Research Misconduct proceeding.
George Mason will also comply with all requirements for the receipt of Federal funds for Research.
All members of the George Mason community are expected to report observed, suspected, or apparent Research Misconduct to the Research Integrity Officer (RIO).
All Allegations of Research Misconduct will be addressed consistent with this policy and associated procedures. George Mason will select those conducting the Inquiry or Investigation on the basis of expertise that is pertinent to the matter and, prior to selection, will screen them for any source of potential bias or unresolved personal, professional, or financial Conflicts of Interest with the Respondent, Complainant, potential witnesses, or others involved in the matter.
George Mason will take specific steps to obtain, secure, and maintain the Research Records and evidence pertinent to the Research Misconduct proceeding as described in the Research Misconduct procedures.
Notifying Funding Agencies
For alleged Research Misconduct that involves Federal support, George Mason will meet the reporting requirements of the funding agency and will cooperate fully with Federal agencies during any oversight reviews and during any process under which the Respondent may contest the agency’s findings of Research Misconduct and proposed administrative actions. George Mason will assist the appropriate Federal agency, as needed, to carry out any administrative actions that may be imposed as a result of a final finding of Research Misconduct by that agency.
For alleged Research Misconduct that involves support from non-Federal entities, George Mason will comply with all reporting requirements of, and provide information requested by, the funding entity subject to any legal limitations on the disclosure of that information.
Protecting and Restoring Reputations
George Mason will take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of good faith Complainants, witnesses, and committee members and to protect these individuals from Retaliation. Retaliation should be reported to the RIO (further detail is provided in SOP: Retaliation).
If a Respondent is found not to have engaged in Research Misconduct, George Mason will, upon request by the Respondent, undertake reasonable, practical, and appropriate efforts, as determined by the Deciding Official, to protect and restore the Respondent’s reputation. George Mason will obtain the permission of the Respondent before taking any such action.
III. Definitions:
Allegation: means a disclosure of possible Research Misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of the Research Integrity Officer.
Assessment: means a consideration, as described in the procedures, of whether an Allegation of Research Misconduct appears to fall within the definition of Research Misconduct and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified. The Assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the Allegation.
Complainant: means an individual who makes an Allegation of Research Misconduct.
Conflict of Interest: means the real or apparent interference of one person’s outside interests with the interests of another person where potential bias may occur due to prior or existing personal, professional, or financial relationships (whether positive or negative). This relationship may be with the person or the person’s close relatives.
Deciding Official: means the institutional official who makes final determinations on Allegations of Research Misconduct and any institutional administrative action.
Good Faith: as applied to
(a) a Complainant or witness, means having a reasonable belief in the truth of one’s Allegation or testimony based on the information known to the Complainant or witness at the time. An Allegation or cooperation with a Research Misconduct proceeding is not in good faith if made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for information that would negate the Allegation or testimony.
(b) a George Mason community member or committee member, means cooperating with the Research Misconduct proceeding by impartially carrying out the duties assigned for the purpose of helping George Mason meet its responsibilities under this policy. A George Mason community member or committee member does not act in good faith if their acts or omissions during the Research Misconduct proceedings are dishonest or influenced by a Conflict of Interest with those involved in the Research Misconduct proceeding.
Inquiry: means preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding, as described in the procedures. An Inquiry leads to a determination of whether the Allegation has substance and if an Investigation is warranted.
Institutional Record: means:
(a) The records that George Mason compiled or generated during the Research Misconduct proceeding, except records that George Mason did not consider or rely on. These records include but are not limited to (1) documentation of the Assessment; (2) if an Inquiry is conducted, the Inquiry report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the Inquiry, including, but not limited to, Research Records and the transcripts of any transcribed interviews conducted during the Inquiry, information the Respondent provided to George Mason, and the documentation of any decision not to investigate; (3) if an Investigation is conducted, the Investigation report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the Investigation, including, but not limited to, Research Records, the transcripts of each interview conducted, and information the Respondent provided to George Mason; (4) decision(s) by the Deciding Official, such as the written decision from the Deciding Official; (5) the complete record of any institutional appeal;
(b) a single index listing all the Research Records and evidence that George Mason compiled during the Research Misconduct proceeding, except records George Mason did not consider or rely on; and
(c) a general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.
Investigation: means the formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record, as described in the procedures, leading to a recommendation for or against a finding of Research Misconduct.
Research: means a systematic experiment, study, evaluation, demonstration, or survey designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge (basic research) or specific knowledge (applied research), such as scientific inquiry. Research also includes work for the advancement of a discipline or field of study, or the integration of the discipline with other fields, through original research, artistic work, exhibitions, or performance, or by the application of discipline- or field-based knowledge to the practice of the profession. For purposes of this policy, Research also includes Research Related Activities.
Research Integrity Officer: or RIO means the institutional official responsible for administering George Mason’s written policies and procedures for addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct.
Research Misconduct: means Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing Research, or in reporting Research results. For the purposes of Research Misconduct, Fabrication, Falsification, and Plagiarism have the following meanings:
(a) Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
(b) Falsification means 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.
(c) Plagiarism: means the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
a. 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.
b. 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 Research Misconduct.
Research Misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.
Research Record: means the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from Research. Data or results may be in physical or electronic form. Examples of items, materials, or information that may be considered part 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.
Research Related Activities: means ancillary activities that occur in support of Research, including but not limited to Research training supported by Federal funding, Research proposals, progress reports, presentations of preliminary results, presentations in meetings or conferences, posters, drafts, final written reports, and publications.
Respondent: means the individual against whom an Allegation of Research Misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a Research Misconduct proceeding.
Retaliation: means any materially adverse action taken against a Complainant, witness, or committee member because that individual made a good faith Allegation of Research Misconduct; or engaged in good faith participation with a Research Misconduct proceeding.
IV. Responsibilities:
1. Provost
The Provost is the Deciding Official. If the Provost has a Conflict of Interest with a proceeding, the President will serve in all capacities assigned to the Deciding Official under this policy.
The Deciding Official (DO) makes the final determination of Research Misconduct findings. The DO cannot serve as the RIO. The DO documents their determination in a written decision that includes whether Research Misconduct occurred, and if so, what kind and who committed it, and a description of the relevant actions George Mason has taken or will take. The DO’s written decision becomes part of the Institutional Record.
If a particular proceeding presents the Vice President for Research, Innovation, and Economic Impact (VPRIEI), RIO, Dean, or Director with a real or apparent Conflict of Interest, the Provost will appoint a replacement to carry out the responsibilities of the individual with a Conflict of Interest for that proceeding. If there is a disagreement as to whether a conflict exists, the Provost will resolve the disagreement.
In cases where conflicts exist or George Mason has inadequate institutional expertise, the Deciding Official may engage consultants to carry out portions of this policy.
2. Vice President for Research, Innovation, and Economic Impact
The VPRIEI is responsible for the overall administration of all Research related policies. The VPRIEI will appoint the Investigation committee and will receive the final Investigation report. Upon reviewing the Investigation report, the VPRIEI will recommend a final determination and administrative actions, where appropriate, to the Deciding Official.
3. Research Integrity Officer
The RIO has primary responsibility for the implementation of this policy and associated procedures. The RIO will consult with persons uncertain about whether to submit an Allegation of Research Misconduct. The RIO is the primary point of contact for questions from Respondents, Complainants, and witnesses about procedural issues. The RIO will receive Allegations of Research Misconduct, conduct the Assessment, appoint the Inquiry committee, and prepare the Inquiry report as provided in the procedures. The RIO will also manage other communications with the Respondent, Complainant, witnesses, funding agencies, and university officials, including the Deciding Official.
The RIO has the authority and responsibility to sequester evidence which, in the RIO’s judgment, may be germane to an Allegation of Research Misconduct under review.
The RIO has the authority and responsibility to investigate instances in which Complainants, witnesses, or committee members are suspected of not acting in Good Faith, and to provide evidence of not acting in Good Faith to the Deciding Official.
Additionally, the RIO will provide support throughout the Investigation and resolution of the Allegation.
4. Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee is responsible for conducting an initial review of evidence and determining if an Allegation warrants Investigation as provided in the procedures. The Inquiry committee is not responsible for conducting a full review of all evidence related to the Allegation.
5. Investigation Committee
The Investigation Committee is responsible for conducting a thorough examination of all facts and evidence, as described in the accompanying procedures, and make a recommendation to the VPRIEI as to whether Research Misconduct occurred, and any appropriate institutional actions.
6. Deans, Directors, and supervisors
Deans, Directors, and supervisors are responsible for forwarding Allegations of Research Misconduct to the RIO. They are also responsible for providing support for this policy and participating in the associated procedures, including implementing any corrective actions. For Respondents with multiple reporting lines, all supervisors may be engaged in the process, or one responsible supervisor may be designated by mutual agreement of all supervisors.
7. Faculty, students, postdoctoral fellows, other trainees, and all other members of the George Mason research community
All members of the George Mason research community are responsible for conducting Research in compliance with this policy, reporting Good Faith suspicions of Research Misconduct, cooperating with Research Misconduct proceedings, and providing information during an Inquiry or Investigation.
V. Compliance:
- George Mason may take appropriate interim actions at any time during a Research Misconduct proceeding to protect the integrity of the Research process, public health, and any sponsor or institutional funds and equipment involved in the proceeding. The necessary actions will vary according to the circumstances of each case.
- Failure to cooperate with a Research Misconduct proceeding, or to provide information during an Inquiry or Investigation, is a violation of this policy.
- Making Allegations of Research Misconduct not in Good Faith or providing evidence or otherwise participating in a Research Misconduct process or proceeding not in Good Faith is a violation of this policy.
- Retaliation is prohibited.
- Violations of this policy will result in sanctions or other corrective actions in accordance with applicable disciplinary policies and procedures.
VI. Timetable for Review
This policy, and any procedures, shall be reviewed every three (3) years.
VII. Amendments:
Amendments to this policy will be approved by the Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer and the Provost and Executive Vice President.
VII. Dates:
This policy became effective on April 20, 2016.
Revision approved: June 1, 2021
Revision approved: April 27, 2026
Page last updated: April 27, 2026