AIAR Scholarly Misconduct Policy

I. Preamble 

The W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem (AIAR) expects its staff and appointees to abide by the highest standards of scholarly conduct and accepts responsibility for investigating allegations and making findings of misconduct concerning its staff; scholars whose research was conducted with funds from the AIAR or with funds from other sources that are awarded by the AIAR; or scholars undertaking excavation or survey, research, or publication of archaeological materials, archival or other primary source materials in the care of the AIAR. Findings of a violation of this policy on the part of scholars whose research was conducted at the AIAR with funds from external sources such as the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Educational and Cultural Affairs Bureau of the U.S. State Department will be reported to the relevant funding source.

II. Definition of Research Misconduct 

Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or misappropriation of intellectual property in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. 

1. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. 

2. Falsification is 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 (i.e. the record of data or results that embody the facts emerging from the research, and includes, but is not limited to, research proposals, progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal reports, journal articles, and books). 

3. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, data, or words without giving appropriate credit. 

4. Misappropriation of intellectual property is the use of intellectual property in violation of copyright and similar laws that protect authors’ intellectual products without the express written permission of the owner of the rights concerned. 

5. The use of archaeological, archival or other primary source material in the custody of the AIAR requires the written permission of the AIAR Director. The use of archaeological, archival or other primary source material not in the custody of the AIAR requires the written permission of the individual with responsibility for care and oversight of these materials.

III. Standard for a Finding of Research Misconduct 

A violation of this policy must be the result of intentional, knowing, or reckless conduct and not the result of honest error or a difference of opinion. In addition, the alleged misconduct must constitute a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community. The allegation must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, and the burden of proof is on the complainant. 

IV. Procedures of Inquiry, Investigation, and Adjudication:

A. Informal Procedure 

The complainant must first file a complaint with the supervising authority, who is either the Director of the AIAR or the Chair of the Fellowships Committee, to determine if the complaint may be resolved informally to the satisfaction of those involved. The Chair of the Fellowships Committee may appoint another member of the Fellowships Committee to serve as the supervising authority in case of the Chair’s lack of availability. In case of conflict of interest, the President of the Board may appoint another member of the Board to serve as the supervising authority. The complainant may be any individual or entity. 

The supervising authority shall conduct a preliminary investigation and either dismiss the complaint or refer the complaint for formal proceedings within four weeks of the filing of the complaint. If the supervising authority determines to dismiss the complaint, the individual against whom the complaint was made need not be informed. If the supervising authority determines to refer the complaint for further proceedings, then the individual must be informed immediately and the supervising authority must attempt to resolve the complaint between the two parties before making the referral.

B. Formal Procedure 

If the complaint cannot be resolved informally or in the event that the supervising authority deems that an informal procedure is for any reason inappropriate with respect to a specific case, the following formal procedure is to be followed.

1. Grievance Panel: An ad-hoc Grievance Panel consisting of three members of the Board will be appointed by the President of the Board, or if the President has a conflict of interest, by the Treasurer. This panel will convene to inquire into, investigate, and adjudicate the case. The President or, in case of conflict of interest, the Treasurer, shall designate one of the three members of the panel to serve as Chair. The Chair shall be responsible for convening meetings of the panel and for preparing the report.

2. Determination of Misconduct: 

a. Inquiry: If the allegation is judged to have no substance, the case will be dismissed. If the allegation is judged to have substance, a complete investigation will be conducted. 

b. Formal Investigation: The formal investigation will consist of the full development of a factual record and the examination of that record leading to a dismissal of the case or to a finding of research misconduct if a majority of the Grievance Panel agrees. Both parties have the right to present any evidence that they wish and the individual accused of misconduct has the right to consult with any additional individuals. In carrying out its investigation, the Grievance Panel may contact any individuals whom the Panel believes can assist with the investigation or have relevant evidence.

c. Adjudication: If the Grievance Panel makes a determination by majority vote that the Research Misconduct Policy has been violated, the Panel shall recommend to the AIAR Board President or, in case of conflict of interest, the Treasurer what appropriate penalties are to be imposed. These may include a reprimand, either oral or written, appropriate steps to correct the research record, revocation of association with and/or use of the facilities of the AIAR for a determined period of time and informing the individual’s home institution of the research misconduct. In deciding what penalty or penalties are appropriate, the Grievance Panel should consider the seriousness of the misconduct, including, but not limited to, the degree to which the conduct was knowing, intentional, or reckless; was an isolated event or part of a pattern; or had significant impact on the research record, other researchers, or institutions. The AIAR Board President or, in case of conflict of interest, the Treasurer has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the recommendation of the Grievance Panel concerning penalties is carried out. 

d. Report of the Grievance Panel: Immediately upon the conclusion of the adjudication phase, the Chair of the Grievance Panel shall prepare and submit a Report to the President of the AIAR Board. This Report shall include the evidentiary record, the investigative report, the decision, the basis for the decision, and any corrective actions taken or planned. The Report shall also contain an explanation of the methods and procedures employed as well as a full explanation of the findings, recommendations, and conclusions of the investigation. This Report shall be submitted to the NEH Inspector General and to other external funding agencies, in compliance with Section V below.

e. Both informal and formal procedures should be executed in the most expedited manner possible and in no case should these procedures take longer than six months from the time that a complaint has been filed. Extension of time for formal procedures will be granted only by a two thirds majority vote of the Grievance Panel in favor of an extension. If an extension is voted, it will be limited to a maximum of three additional months with no provision for any further extension. The decision of the Grievance Panel will be final. 

V. Notification of Allegations and Adjudications of Research Misconduct to Granting Agencies 

A. If an allegation or finding of research misconduct is made involving research funded by an outside funding source, such as the National Endowment for the Humanities, or an application for such funding, the granting agency shall be notified a follows: 

1. At the time that a determination is made that there is sufficient evidence to proceed to an investigation; and 

2. If resources or interests are threatened; if public health or safety is at risk; if research activities should be suspended; if there is reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law; if action by the outside funding agency is required to protect the interests of those involved in the investigation; if the AIAR believes the inquiry or investigation may be made public prematurely so that appropriate steps can be taken to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved; or if the research community or public should be informed. 

B. When the adjudication of an allegation of research misconduct that involves NEH-funded research or an application for NEH funding is complete, the AIAR will forward the Report of the Grievance Panel, described in Section IV.B.2.d above, to the NEH Inspector General. If, as a result of the investigation’s findings, the institution takes action against anyone, it should provide the name and title of the President of the AIAR Board or of the Treasurer, if acting in place of the President, who imposed the action and copies of documents detailing how the action was implemented. 

C. If a finding of research misconduct is made involving research funded by an outside funding source or agency other than the National Endowment for the Humanities, that source or agency shall be informed immediately of the determination, any penalties imposed on the individual who committed the misconduct, and the Report of the Grievance Panel at the request of the outside funding source or agency.