REG 10.00.02 - Research Integrity and Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct

REG 10.00.02 – Research Integrity and Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct

Authority: Vice Chancellor for Research and Innovation

History: First Issued: April 15, 2002. Last Revised: April 28, 2026.

Additional References:
Public Health Services Policies on Research Misconduct 42 CFR Part 93
NSF Regulation for Research Misconduct 45 CFR Part 689
USDA Misconduct Regulation 2 CFR 422
DoD Instruction, 3210.7 for Research Integrity and Misconduct
Research Integrity | Research Administration and Compliance

Contact Info: Research Integrity Officer (919-515-0158)

1. Purpose and Scope

1.1 Purpose.
Integrity in Research is fundamental to the academic pursuit of knowledge, ensuring truth and reliability. As North Carolina’s land-grant institution, North Carolina State University (NC State) is dedicated to knowledge dissemination and innovation, upholding public trust by conducting all Research with the highest integrity.

This regulation sets forth NC State’s process for addressing all Research Misconduct allegations in compliance with applicable federal requirements for federally funded Research.

1.2 Scope.

This regulation and the associated procedures apply to all NC State Personnel as defined in section 4.9 who engage in Research, as defined in Section 4.13.

2. General Principles

2.1 Culture of Integrity and Ethical Decision-Making: NC State is committed to a culture where integrity is a core value, rather than a mere compliance requirement. All University personnel are expected to move beyond the “letter of the law” by practicing proactive ethical decision-making. When faced with situations where rules are silent or ambiguous, personnel must act with the honesty and transparency inherent to the University’s mission. The expectation of ethical conduct is based on the spirit of academic and research excellence; therefore, individuals should evaluate their actions based on their impact on the scientific record, the University’s reputation, and the public good, ensuring that integrity remains the guiding principle in the absence of specific regulatory direction.

2.2 Confidentiality and Procedural Integrity: NC State will ensure that all inquiry or investigation officers, committee members, and other relevant stakeholders understand their commission; keep the identities of Respondents, Complainants, and witnesses confidential except as required in connection with an inquiry or investigation; and conduct the Research Misconduct proceedings professionally, without bias, and in compliance with this regulation. NC State will address confidentiality during and after Research Misconduct proceedings.

2.3 Protection of Participants and Objectivity: NC State will make all reasonable and practical efforts to protect or restore the reputations of Respondents not found to have committed Research Misconduct, while simultaneously safeguarding the positions and reputations of “good faith” Complainants, witnesses, and committee members. NC State will actively protect these individuals from Retaliation by Respondents or other institutional members. Additionally, NC State will ensure that all individuals responsible for the Research Misconduct proceedings are free from unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with any involved parties. The Institutional Deciding Official conducting the Adjudication must not be one of the individuals who conducted the Inquiry or Investigation, and must be separate organizationally from the element that conducted the Inquiry or Investigation.

2.4 Referral of Other Ethical Breaches: Allegations received by the RIO that do not meet the definition of Research Misconduct but do represent potential breaches in ethical behavior or other NC State policies, regulations or rules, shall be referred to the appropriate university office. Such potential breaches could include bullying, harassment, exploitation, violations of academic integrity, violations of the Code of Student Conduct, Human Resources violations, financial misappropriation or other questionable research practices.

2.5. Proactive Prevention and Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Training:

NC State is committed to fostering a culture of research integrity through proactive education. All individuals engaged in Research are encouraged to participate in comprehensive and ongoing Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training. For researchers, including faculty, staff, and students, who are subject to a federal or NC State RCR requirement, as determined by the VCR, participation in such training is mandatory.

3. Roles, Responsibilities and Rights

Maintaining research integrity is a shared responsibility across the university community. Key roles and their responsibilities in addressing allegations of Research Misconduct include:

3.1. Research Integrity Officer (RIO):

The RIO, appointed by the Vice Chancellor for Research and Innovation, also serves as the Institutional Certifying Official (ICO) and is responsible for:

Maintaining Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for processes necessary to meeting the requirements of this Regulation and specific Research Sponsors’ regulations. SOPs shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Notifications of actions related to Research Misconduct cases
2. Federal Agency requirements and reporting
3. Research Misconduct report requirements
4. Sequestration and Evidence handling
5. Committee management
Coordinating with the relevant Academic Leaders to address non-compliance with Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training requirements.
Receiving and assessing allegations of Research Misconduct.
Notifying relevant federal agencies as required by federal regulations and other Research Sponsors as required by relevant terms and conditions.
Securing and sequestering Research Records and Evidence.
Appointing Inquiry and Investigation committees and ensuring their members are unbiased,free from conflicts of interest, and receive appropriate training regarding their roles in the process.
Monitoring the treatment of Complainants and cooperators to prevent Retaliation.
Undertaking reasonable efforts to restore the reputation of Respondents if no Research Misconduct is found.
Maintaining complete case files for required retention periods.
Providing assurances to federal agencies regarding the institution’s policies and procedures for addressing Research Misconduct, as required by applicable federal regulations.

3.2. Deciding Official:

The Vice Chancellor for Research and Innovation (VCR) serves as the Institutional Deciding Official and is responsible for:

Making the final Adjudication.
Ensuring that the final decision is based on a Preponderance of the Evidence and, if differing from the committee’s findings, providing a detailed, written explanation.
Determining steps to restore the Respondent’s or Complainant’s position or reputation if needed.
Administering corrective actions and sanctions.
In addition to any requirements set by federal regulations, establishing the criteria for NC State Personnel to complete Responsible Conduct of Research training.
Should the VCR possess a conflict of interest regarding a specific Research Misconduct case, the Chancellor shall designate an unconflicted individual to fulfill the duties of the Deciding Official for the duration of that case.

3.3. Academic Leaders (Department Heads, Associate Deans, Deans, etc):

Academic Leaders are responsible for:

Fostering and maintaining a culture of research integrity within their respective departments, colleges, or units.
Reporting any allegations of Research Misconduct to the RIO promptly.
Addressing RCR training requirement non-compliance, which may include ensuring the individual completes the required training or limiting their Research activities.

3.4. Responsible Conduct in Research (RCR) Coordinator:

The RCR Coordinator is responsible for:

Tracking completion of Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training for personnel subject to federal or NC State established RCR requirements and reporting non-compliance to the RIO.
Supporting colleges, departments, and labs in ensuring the availability and proper conduct of RCR training.

3.5. Complainant:

3.5.1 The Complainant is responsible for:

Making allegations in good faith.
Maintaining confidentiality throughout the process. Cooperating fully in Inquiries and Investigations.

3.5.2 The Complainant has the right to:

To have confidential discussions with the RIO prior to filing a formal report to discuss concerns and receive counseling on the appropriate procedures.
To provide Evidence to the Inquiry and Investigation committees. This could include providing written testimony or being interviewed by the committees.
Review portions of the Inquiry and Investigation reports that are directly pertinent to the allegations or testimony.
To be notified of the final results and findings of the Inquiry and Investigation.
Be protected from Retaliation. Complainants are considered whistleblowers and are entitled to the protections outlined in the 3D Memo – Whistleblower Protections (September 27, 2017). This includes protection against adverse employment or academic actions taken because of a good faith allegation of potential misconduct.

3.6. Respondent:

3.6.1 The Respondent is responsible for:

Cooperating fully with Inquiries and Investigations.
Providing relevant Evidence.
Understanding that failure to cooperate, including the destruction of Research Records or refusal to provide relevant Evidence or records upon request, may be considered evidence of misconduct and may lead to institutional administrative action.
The Respondent has the burden of raising and proving, by a Preponderance of the Evidence, all affirmative defenses (such as honest error, difference of opinion, proving the actions did not constitute a significant departure from accepted practices) and any mitigating factors relevant to a decision to impose administrative actions after a Research Misconduct proceeding.

3.6.2 The Respondent has the right to:

Be informed of the allegations when an Inquiry is opened and notified of the final determinations and resulting actions.
To review Inquiry and Investigation reports and provide written comments. Written comments received by the RIO within the timeframe specified in Section 5 will be provided to the Deciding Official with the applicable report.
Have the opportunity to present Evidence to the Investigation committee.
To consult with legal counsel or a non-lawyer personal advisor (who is not a principal or witness in the case).
May bring counsel or personal advisor to interviews or meetings on the case, however, they may only consult with the Respondent and shall not speak on their behalf or address the committee directly.
Receive institutional assistance in restoring their reputation if the Investigation results in a finding of no Research Misconduct.

3.7. Inquiry Committee:

When applicable in accordance with section 5.3, this committee is responsible for determining if there is Sufficient Evidence, as defined in 4.19, to warrant an Investigation. This includes:

Objectively evaluating a representative subset of the available Evidence to determine if it meets the threshold for Investigation.
Interviewing the Respondent, Complainant, or key witnesses only as necessary to clarify the Evidence and determine if an Investigation is required..
Drafting a report of their findings for the Deciding Official.

3.8 Investigation Committee:

In accordance with section 5.4, this committee is responsible for determining by a Preponderance of the Evidence if Research Misconduct has occurred and if so, by whom, and to what extent. Findings from this Investigation result in recommended corrective actions. This committee conducts a thorough Investigation including:

Interviewing the Respondent, the Complainant, and allwitnesses who might have relevant information.
Conducting a deep-dive review of all relevant research records, notebooks, digital data, and any additional Evidence discovered during the proceedings.
Creating a final report for the Deciding Official that details factually based information and recommendations for corrective actions.

3.9 All NC State Personnel:

All NC State Personnel are obligated to:

In good faith, report observed, suspected, or apparent Research Misconduct to the RIO, an Academic Leader or other senior administrator.
Cooperate fully with the RIO and other officials involved in Inquiries and Investigations, providing relevant Evidence, including participation in Sequestration where appropriate.
Cooperate with Research Sponsor’s inquiries, investigations, and oversight.
Complete RCR training if required by a Research Sponsor or the VCR.

4. Definitions

For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply:

4.1 Adjudication: A formal review of an Investigation record of alleged Research Misconduct to determine whether and what corrective actions and sanctions should be taken. This is completed by the Deciding Official.

4.2 Allegation: An assertion of possible Research Misconduct through any means of communication, written or oral, to the RIO, an Academic Leader or other senior administrator responsible for Research programs within their college, school, or unit.

4.3 Complainant: Complainant means an individual who in good faith makes an Allegation of Research Misconduct.

4.4 Evidence: Evidence means anything offered or obtained during a Research Misconduct proceeding that may prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact. Evidence can include documents (whether in hard copy or electronic form), information, tangible items, testimony, and other materials.

4.5 Fabrication: Making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

4.6 Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the Research is not accurately represented in a Research Record.

4.7 Intentionally: To act Intentionally means to act with the aim of carrying out the act.

4.8 Knowingly: To act Knowingly means to act with awareness of the act.

4.9 NC State Personnel: Any person engaged in Research paid by, under the control of, or affiliated with NC State, including faculty, scientists, trainees, technicians and other staff members, students, fellows, visiting researchers, volunteers, or collaborators.

4.10 Plagiarism: The appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. 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. This definition does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology, self-plagiarism or authorship disputes.

4.11 Preponderance of the Evidence: A standard of proof that something is more likely than not to have occurred. The burden of proof is met when there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true. The decision is made by weighing the Evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of Evidence.

4.12 Recklessly: To act Recklessly means to propose, perform, or review Research, or report Research results, with indifference to a known risk of Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism.

4.13 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) by establishing, discovering, developing, elucidating, or confirming information or underlying mechanisms related to biological causes, functions, or effects; diseases; treatments; or related matters to be studied. This includes, but is not limited to:

Applications and Proposals: The submission of any oral or written assertion of research plans to internal university entities or external Research Sponsors.
Conducting Research: All systematic experiments, studies, evaluations, and surveys designed to develop or contribute to general or specific knowledge.
Reporting and Dissemination: The recording or reporting of data and results in the Research Record, including manuscripts, abstracts, theses, journal articles, and online content.
Reviewing Research: The peer review process for manuscripts, grant applications, or other research-related materials.
Academic Pursuits: Any research activity involving NC State Personnel, including faculty research, student theses or dissertations, and collaborative projects with external partners.

4.14 Research Misconduct: Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing Research, or in reporting Research results. A finding of Research Misconduct requires that:

There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
The misconduct be committed Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly; and
The Allegation can be proven by a Preponderance of the Evidence.
Research Misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. For specific Research Misconduct cases involving federal sponsorship, if the applicable federal regulation has a definition of Research Misconduct that differs from this Regulation, the funding agency’s definition will be used.

4.15 Research Record: Research Record means the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry. 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.

4.16 Research Sponsor: The agency, institution, or organization that sponsored the Research, which can be governmental, private, or non-profit.

4.17 Respondent: the individual against whom an allegation of Research Misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a Research Misconduct proceeding.

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

a good faith allegation of Research Misconduct or
good faith cooperation with a Research Misconduct proceeding.

4.19 Sufficient Evidence: Indicates that there is some substance to the Allegation, distinguishing serious allegations from frivolous ones.

5. Process

5.1 Sequestration of Research Records: Through reasonable and practical steps The RIO or their designee will obtain copies of all Research Records and other Evidence, which may include copies of the data or other Evidence so long as those copies are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value, needed to conduct the Research Misconduct proceeding; inventory the Research Records and other Evidence; and sequester them in a secure manner. Whenever possible, Sequestration should occur:

Before or at the time the Respondent of the Allegation(s) is notified; and
Whenever additional items become known or relevant to the Inquiry or Investigation.

5.1.1 Access to Research Records. At the RIO’s discretion, where appropriate, the Respondent will be provided copies of, or reasonable supervised access to, the Research Records that are sequestered.

5.2. Preliminary Assessment of Allegations and Interim Actions

5.2.1 Initiation and Assessment Purpose: Upon receiving an Allegation, the RIO or their designee shall immediately conduct a preliminary Assessment. The Assessment’s purpose is to determine whether an Allegation warrants an Inquiry. An Assessment is intended to be a review of readily accessible information relevant to the Allegation.

5.2.2 Assessment Results: An Inquiry will be initiated if the result of the Assessment is that the Allegation:

Falls within the scope of this regulation, and
Falls under the definition of Research Misconduct, and
It is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential Evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified.

5.2.3 Possible Interim Administrative Actions: During the Assessment or subsequent Inquiry/Investigation, the Deciding Official, in consultation with the General Counsel, may take appropriate interim administrative actions to protect public health, federal funds and equipment, the integrity of the research process, and the safety and welfare of NC State Personnel. Such actions may include, but are not limited to, temporary suspension from research activities, removal from a specific project, freezing of funds, or referral to appropriate support units. When necessary to protect public health, federal funds, or the integrity of the research process, this may also include public disclosure of allegations or ongoing investigations.

5.2.4 Documentation of Assessment:

If the RIO determines that the Allegation meets the three criteria noted in 5.3.2, they will promptly:

Initiate an Inquiry and sequester all relevant Research Records and other Evidence, and
Document the Assessment.
1. If the RIO determines that Inquiry is warranted, the documentation must include the identification of any federal or other external funding sources involved.
2. If the RIO determines that the alleged misconduct does not meet the criteria to proceed to an Inquiry, they will sufficiently document why the allegation did not move onto the inquiry stage.

5.2.5 Federal Reporting at the Assessment Phase: If potential criminal violations, immediate health hazards, or threats to federal funds are found, or if the incident is likely to be publicly reported, the RIO must notify the applicable federal Research Sponsor within 24 hours of that determination.

5.3. Conducting the Inquiry

5.3.1. Initiation of the Inquiry: If during the Assessment the RIO determines that the Allegation falls under the definition of Research Misconduct and it is both sufficient and credible, an Inquiry process will be initiated and the Respondent shall be notified.

5.3.2. Purpose of the Inquiry: The purpose of the Inquiry is to make a preliminary evaluation of available Evidence to determine if there is Sufficient Evidence of Research Misconduct to warrant a full Investigation.

5.3.3. Selection of Inquiry Lead: At the discretion of the Deciding Official, an Inquiry shall be conducted by either:

An Inquiry Committee; or
The RIO or another designated institutional official, who may utilize one or more unconflicted subject matter experts to assist them. In the event the RIO or a designated official conducts the Inquiry in lieu of a committee, that individual shall assume all responsibilities and fulfill all procedural steps assigned to the Inquiry Committee under this Section 5.3.

5.3.4 Inquiry Committee Composition. If an Inquiry Committee is convened, the RIO shall appoint at least three unbiased individuals who possess relevant expertise and are free from conflicts of interest. The Respondent has the right to object to committee members based on bias or conflict of interest and the RIO will consider their objections before finalizing the committee membership. The committee must include:

At least one member from the Respondent’s specific research community; and
At least one peer of the Respondent.

5.3.5. Inquiry Process: In the process of the Inquiry, the Inquiry committee may interview the Respondent, the Complainant, relevant key witnesses, and will examine relevant Research Records. Should they occur, interviews will be transcribed, and summaries or transcripts will be provided to the interviewed party for comment. The committee will evaluate Evidence to decide if there is credible and Sufficient Evidence of possible Research Misconduct. The Inquiry, including its report, must be completed within 60 calendar days of its initiation unless an exception is authorized by the Deciding Official and allowable under relevant federal regulations.

5.3.6 Inquiry Results: If the Inquiry results in a determination there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of Research Misconduct and the preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding from the Inquiry indicates that there is Sufficient Evidence to warrant an Investigation. The Inquiry committee will not determine if Research Misconduct occurred, nor assess whether the alleged misconduct was Intentional, Knowing, or Reckless; such a determination is not made until the conclusion of an Investigation.

5.3.7 Inquiry Report: The individual(s) or committee conducting the Inquiry will prepare a written report of their findings. The Respondent will be given 5 business days to review and comment on the Inquiry report. The report, along with the Respondent’s comments provided within the allotted time, will then be forwarded to the Deciding Official for a decision on whether to proceed to an Investigation. The report must meet the requirements of applicable federal regulations and meet the requirements of the Research Misconduct Report Requirements standard operating procedures maintained by the RIO.

5.3.8 Determination by the Deciding Official: The Deciding Official shall receive the Inquiry report and, within 10 business days, issue a written determination as to whether an Investigation is warranted. The Deciding Official may accept, reject, or modify the recommendations in whole or in part. In the event that the Deciding Official’s determination varies from the recommendations in the Inquiry report, the Deciding Official shall provide a detailed written explanation of the basis for that variance in the final administrative record.

5.3.9 Final Disposition of Inquiries Not Warranting Investigation: If the Deciding Official determines that a formal investigation is not warranted, the RIO shall maintain all Inquiry records in a secure manner for a minimum of seven (7) years following the closure of the matter. These records must contain sufficient detail to justify the determination and shall be made available to the Research Sponsor or relevant federal oversight agencies upon request.

5.3.10 Inquiries resulting in Investigations: After reviewing the Inquiry report, If the Deciding Official determines an investigation is warranted, the Investigation is initiated within a reasonable amount of time after the determination is made. The RIO will, within 10 business days of the Deciding Official’s decision, provide written notice to the Respondent(s) of the decision to conduct an Investigation of the Allegation. Notifications to Research Sponsors will be in accordance with Section 5.6.

5.4. Conducting the Investigation

5.4.1. Purpose of the Investigation: The purpose of an Investigation is to formally develop a factual record, pursue leads, and explore all Allegations in detail, examine Evidence in depth, and determine if Research Misconduct occurred, by whom, and to what extent, and make a recommendation to the Deciding Official. As part of its Investigation, the committee will diligently pursue all significant issues and relevant leads, including any Evidence of additional instances of possible Research Misconduct, and continue the Investigation to completion.

5.4.2. Sequestration of Research Records: Any additional pertinent Research Records not previously sequestered, are immediately secured by the RIO.

5.4.3. Additional Respondents: If any additional Respondent(s) are identified during the Investigation, the RIO will notify them of the Allegation(s) and provide them an opportunity to respond consistent with this regulation. The RIO, in consultation with the Deciding Official, may choose to either conduct a separate Inquiry or add the new Respondent(s) to the ongoing Investigation. The Investigation committee will adhere to this regulation regarding the additional Respondent’s due process.

5.4.4. Investigation Committee Composition: The RIO will appoint an Investigation committee of at least five unbiased individuals with relevant expertise, free from conflicts of interest. The Respondent has the right to object to committee members based on bias or conflict of interest and the RIO will consider their objections before finalizing the committee membership.The committee must include:

A majority of members from the Respondent’s specific research community; and
At least one peer of the Respondent.

5.4.5. Investigation Process: The Investigation committee will conduct interviews with the Complainant, Respondent, and other relevant individuals, pursue leads, and examine all Research Records and other Evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the Allegation(s). The RIO and Investigation committee will ensure that the Investigation is thorough, sufficiently documented, impartial, and unbiased to the maximum extent practicable. The RIO will notify the Respondent in writing of any additional Allegations raised against them during the Investigation. The Investigation, including its report, must be completed within 180 calendar days of its initiation unless an exception is authorized by the Deciding Official and allowable under relevant federal regulations. Communication regarding extensions will be in accordance with section 5.6.

5.4.6. Investigation Report: The committee will prepare a written report of their findings and recommended actions. The Respondent will be given 5 business days to review and comment on the Investigation report. The report, along with the Respondent’s comments provided within the allotted time, will then be forwarded to the Deciding Official for Adjudication.

5.4.7. Finding of No Research Misconduct: If the Investigation committee does not recommend a finding of Research Misconduct for an Allegation, the Investigation report must provide a detailed rationale.

5.4.8. Finding of Misconduct: If the Investigation committee recommends a finding of Research Misconduct for an Allegation, the report must address each Allegation fully in accordance with the requirements of applicable federal regulations and meet the requirements of the Research Misconduct Report Requirements standard operating procedure maintained by the RIO.

5.5. Institutional Review, Adjudication, and Decision

Based on a Preponderance of the Evidence, the Deciding Official will make the final determination whether to accept the Investigation report, its findings, and the recommended institutional actions. If the decision differs from the Investigation committee’s, the Deciding Official will provide a detailed, written explanation. The RIO will notify the Respondent and Complainant in writing of the final decision.

5.6. Communication with Research Sponsors

5.6.1 Notice of Investigation – The RIO shall report the initiation of an Investigation in writing to any Research Sponsor on or before the start date. The Research Sponsor will be notified of the final outcome and provided with a copy of the Investigation report. If an Investigation is terminated without completing all requirements, a report explaining the reasons will be submitted to the Research Sponsor. The RIO will promptly advise the Research Sponsor of any developments affecting current or potential federal funding or public interest.

5.6.2 Request for Extensions: The RIO shall submit any requests for extensions beyond 180 days for the Investigation completion to the Federal Research Sponsor with explanations and progress reports, if applicable.

5.6.3 Respondent Admission: If an admission of Research Misconduct is made in federally funded Research, the RIO will contact the Federal Research Sponsor for consultation before closing the proceedings.

5.6.4 Specific Federal Agency Requirements: NC State will adhere to specific federal agency reporting timelines and requirements.

5.7. Institutional Administrative Actions

NC State will take appropriate administrative actions against individuals when Research Misconduct is substantiated. Actions may include withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the Research where Research Misconduct was found; removal of the responsible person from the particular project, letter of reprimand, or special monitoring of future work; restitution of funds as appropriate; probation, suspension, salary/rank reduction, or termination of employment/student disciplinary proceedings.

5.8. Record Retention

In accordance with NC State Regulation 01.25.12 – University Record Retention and Disposition Regulation, the RIO will maintain the institutional records and all sequestered Evidence, including physical objects (regardless of whether the Evidence is part of the institutional record), in a secure manner for seven years after completion of the proceeding or the completion of any applicable federal agency proceeding involving the Research Misconduct Allegation, whichever is later. An exception may be made if custody has been transferred to the applicable federal Research Sponsor or the federal Research Sponsor advises otherwise in writing. On request, NC State will transfer custody, or provide copies to the applicable federal Research Sponsor.