Academic Integrity and Research Misconduct
Approval status Approved
Approval date October 1, 2026
Effective date October 1, 2026
Policy owner President
Presidential authority
The President approves this policy, oversees its administration, designates the integrity officer, appoints investigators and appeal reviewers, makes decisions on degree revocation and personnel termination, and directs final notices and implementation. The Office of Ethical Compliance administers the process under the authority of the President. The President assigns the Provost responsibility for initial misconduct findings and student sanctions other than degree revocation. Investigation committees and appeal panels are appointed for individual cases.
Academic and research standards
New Meridian University requires honest academic work, accurate records, and responsible research. Students, faculty, staff, supervisors, contractors, and affiliated researchers are accountable for academic and research activities connected with the university. The complete Academic Integrity and Research Misconduct policy explains the standards, review procedures, possible sanctions, and appeal rights.
The policy covers coursework, examinations, dissertations, research proposals, data collection and analysis, publications, presentations, and academic or research records. It also addresses misconduct committed during an NMU affiliation that is discovered after graduation or departure. Conduct is evaluated under the standards applicable when it occurred.
Conduct addressed by the policy
Plagiarism includes presenting another person's words, ideas, processes, results, or other work as one's own without appropriate attribution. Reviewers examine the actual material and its context. A text similarity score alone does not establish a violation.
Fabrication includes inventing participants, interviews, survey responses, quotations, observations, or results and presenting them as actual research evidence. Falsification includes deceptive changes to research processes, data, or reporting, including alterations or omissions that inaccurately represent the work.
The policy also addresses cheating, impersonation, unauthorized collaboration or assistance, presenting another person's work as one's own, substituting outside work for an assessment requiring personal completion, prohibited reuse of previously assessed work, invented citations, and falsified academic or research records. Falsified records may include transcripts, grades, qualifications, consent documentation, research approvals, or claims about completed activities.
Research misconduct consists of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, conducting, reviewing, or reporting research. Honest error and reasonable differences of scholarly opinion are excluded. A research misconduct finding requires a significant departure from accepted practices and intentional, knowing, or reckless conduct.
Permitted editing, tutoring, consultation, and collaboration depend on the requirements of the activity. Substantial assistance must be disclosed when required, and students and researchers remain responsible for submitted work. Artificial intelligence use is addressed in NMU's separate Artificial Intelligence policy and applicable activity instructions.
Data and authorship responsibilities
Researchers preserve original data and document material changes, exclusions, transformations, and analytical decisions, including imputation. Retention follows the complete policy, applicable requirements, and approved consent and data-management terms, including necessary evidence preservation. Simulated data may be used for an authorized instructional or methodological purpose when clearly identified. They may not be presented as data collected from actual participants or events.
Publication credit reflects substantial scholarly contributions and responsibility for the work. Research teams discuss authorship early and update their understanding as contributions change. Supervisory position alone does not establish authorship. Publications substantially based on a student's independent thesis or dissertation ordinarily identify the student as principal author, consistent with actual contributions and documented disciplinary or publication conventions.
An authorship dispute may concern inclusion, acknowledgment, author order, or publication corrections. A person may report it directly without first negotiating with an implicated supervisor. An impartial reviewer examines contribution records and hears the affected people before recommending a resolution. Ordinary authorship disagreements do not automatically establish research misconduct. Related allegations of plagiarism, falsified records, coercion, or retaliation receive the appropriate separate review.
Reporting a concern
Report concerns to the Academic and Research Integrity Officer within the Office of Ethical Compliance. Include the work involved, people and dates, a description of the concern, and any available evidence. A reporter may describe uncertainty and does not have to prove a completed violation before reporting.
Anonymous reports are assessed when they provide enough specific information to identify evidence. Information is restricted to people who need it for the process, although absolute confidentiality or anonymity cannot be promised. Good-faith reporters, people responding to allegations, and witnesses are protected against retaliation. An allegation that is not substantiated does not establish that the report was knowingly false.
How allegations are reviewed
The integrity officer ordinarily acknowledges an identifiable report within five business days and completes an initial assessment within fifteen business days. Relevant evidence is preserved, conflicts are checked, and the appropriate process is identified. A minor coursework citation problem may receive instruction and a revision opportunity. Serious allegations receive formal review.
Formal notice explains the allegations, evidence standard, possible consequences, assigned reviewers, and deadlines. The person receives the evidence relied upon with necessary privacy protections and ordinarily has at least ten business days to respond. They may submit evidence, identify witnesses, and raise documented conflict objections.
Coursework reviews ordinarily conclude within thirty business days after notice. Research inquiries ordinarily conclude within sixty calendar days and determine whether a full investigation is warranted. An inquiry decision is not a final finding of misconduct. A full investigation ordinarily begins within thirty calendar days of the decision to investigate and concludes within one hundred twenty calendar days after initiation. Written extensions explain the reason and revised expected completion date.
NMU bears the burden of establishing a violation by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that it is more likely than not to have occurred. Research findings must also establish the required significant departure and intentional, knowing, or reckless conduct. Written decisions address each allegation and explain the evidence, findings, sanctions, and appeal rights. A person who declines participation is not treated as having admitted the allegation.
Student sanctions
Depending on established conduct and relevant circumstances, sanctions may include required instruction, revision or reassessment, a reduced or failing assignment grade, course failure, probation, restrictions, suspension, expulsion, invalidation of credit, or degree revocation. A proven serious first offense may justify a severe sanction without previous warnings.
Ordinary student cases proceed through reporting and assessment, written notice and evidence disclosure, an opportunity to respond, a Provost decision, an independent appeal if requested, and implementation. Cases involving possible expulsion require a three-member investigation committee and an offered hearing. Expulsion is stayed through the appeal period and any timely appeal.
Degree revocation procedure
Stage 1 Assessment and notice. A credible allegation concerning work or representations used to obtain an NMU credential is assessed. The graduate receives notice expressly identifying the possibility of revocation.
Stage 2 Investigation. An impartial three-member committee examines degree-related records and relevant evidence. The graduate may review relied-upon material, submit evidence, and identify witnesses.
Stage 3 Findings and hearing. Proposed findings are disclosed for comment, and the graduate is offered a hearing before the report is finalized.
Stage 4 Academic determination. The Provost determines responsibility and explains any recommendation for revocation, including how established misconduct materially undermines the awarded credential and why a lesser measure is inadequate.
Stage 5 Initial sanction decision. The President issues a reasoned initial decision, identifying affected credentials and appeal rights.
Stage 6 Independent appeal. A separate panel considers a timely appeal of the finding, sanction, or both. Revocation is stayed until the appeal period expires without an appeal or a timely appeal reaches final disposition.
Stage 7 Final notice and implementation. The President communicates the final outcome and directs implementation after the appeal period or any timely appeal has concluded, consistent with the final appeal determination. If revocation is upheld, the Registrar updates the appropriate records and verification information while preserving an accurate history of the original award and revocation.
Faculty employment and contract procedure
The same notice, investigation, hearing, and appeal protections apply to termination of staff or contractors imposed as a misconduct sanction. The President may designate an uninvolved official to perform the initial responsibility decision and recommendation role for a nonacademic appointment. The President makes the sanction decision and directs implementation.
Stage 1 Assessment and notice. The faculty member receives notice of the allegations, applicable requirements, possible termination, and review rights.
Stage 2 Temporary measures and investigation. The President appoints an impartial three-member committee to investigate. The President authorizes any necessary temporary restrictions directly or through a designated official. Restrictions are documented, reviewed, and handled under applicable appointment or contract terms.
Stage 3 Findings and hearing. The faculty member receives proposed findings, access to relied-upon evidence with necessary protections, and opportunities to respond and participate in a hearing.
Stage 4 Responsibility determination and recommendation. The Provost issues findings and explains any termination recommendation and the inadequacy of lesser measures. The faculty member may address sanction factors.
Stage 5 Initial employment or contract decision. The President issues the initial decision through the applicable employment, appointment, contractual, and other required procedures.
Stage 6 Independent appeal. A separate panel reviews a timely appeal of findings and the proposed sanction. Final termination for misconduct is stayed through the appeal period and a timely appeal. Necessary temporary protections may continue with review.
Stage 7 Final notice and implementation. The President communicates the final decision and effective date and directs implementation after the appeal period or any timely appeal has concluded, consistent with the final appeal determination. Employee dismissal, contract termination, removal of an academic appointment, and nonrenewal are handled as distinct actions under the applicable terms.
Appeals and procedural protections
A person whose conduct was reviewed may appeal within ten business days after receipt of the initial decision. In an authorship dispute, each person whose credit is determined may appeal. A reporter may provide new evidence supporting reopening or report procedural or retaliation concerns. Appeal grounds include a material procedural error, relevant new evidence unavailable earlier, a material conflict or demonstrated bias, unsupported findings, or a disproportionate sanction. A separate three-member panel reviews the appeal. At least one external member serves in appeals involving expulsion, degree revocation, personnel termination for misconduct, or university leadership.
The President may appoint independent appeal reviewers after making an initial decision, but does not sit on the appeal panel, decide an appeal of the President's own decision, direct findings, or override the appeal determination. For allegations personally implicating the President, an independent external reviewer designated in advance by the President receives the report and appoints impartial officials for that case.
The panel ordinarily decides within thirty business days after receiving the complete record. It may affirm, reduce, reverse, or return a matter for specified further review. It does not increase the sanction on appeal. Material new evidence is disclosed for response, and a remand resulting in a new adverse decision includes a further appeal opportunity. Qualified reviewers must be appointed even when university positions are vacant.
Business days exclude weekends and published NMU holidays and closures. Calendar days include those dates. Response periods begin on the next applicable day after receipt of notice. Documented extensions and reasonable accessibility arrangements may be provided. The full policy explains evidence access, hearings, temporary measures, confidentiality, records, and applicable additional rights.
Complete policy
Read the complete Academic Integrity and Research Misconduct policy (PDF)
Policy approval date October 1, 2026
Policy effective date October 1, 2026
The complete approved policy governs university procedures. Questions about this policy may be directed to the Office of Ethical Compliance.