Penn Faculty Senate approves revisions to research misconduct policy

Penn’s Faculty Senate accepted revisions to the University policy for reviewing alleged research misconduct.

The new policy — which took effect on Jan. 1 — included several changes to the process for reviewing allegations of research misconduct at Penn. Developed by a working group appointed by the Office of the Vice Provost for Research and the Office of General Counsel, the adjustments are intended to both streamline the existing review system and to align it with regulations at the federal level.

Neurology professor Geoffrey Aguirre, who chaired the Senate Committee on Faculty and the Administration, described the purpose of revisiting the policy in an interview with The Daily Pennsylvanian. 

“This is a good example of the system working,” Aguirre said. “The federal government had some thoughtful rules, and we here at Penn had some policies which were well intentioned but kind of outdated. A group of faculty and administrators worked to harmonize all this, and the University took it really seriously.”

Prior to the new policy, Penn’s regulations for research misconduct were split in two — one regulation concerned faculty and another concerned others at the University.

“It was a bit cumbersome, and so it has been merged into just one policy, cleaning it up and streamlining it,” Aguirre said.

Associate Vice Provost for Research Patrick Egan stated in an interview with the DP that the working group for revising the policy consisted of faculty members familiar with how research misconduct has historically been handled at Penn.

“They had either served as Vice Dean and oversaw the process for their school, or they might have been on a committee that looked into an allegation of research misconduct,” Egan said. “They were very familiar with not only the regulations in our policy, but how the process really works and how it is experienced, both for the faculty members involved who are supporting the process and for those faculty members who have been accused of some kind of wrongdoing.”

He added that the goal of the group was to “be protective of our faculty” and  “make sure that our process was fair, transparent, and thorough.”

In addition to meeting the needs of Penn’s faculty, the working group was tasked with responding to evolving federal regulations on university research misconduct. In September 2024, the Department of Health and Human Services published a final rule revising the regulations governing public health service policies on research misconduct.

The rule aims “to implement policy changes and respond to technological changes that occurred over the past several years applicable to research misconduct,” according to its summary.

Egan pointed to artificial intelligence as an underlying cause for the federal regulation changes, calling the technology “a tool for both perpetuating and identifying research misconduct.”

“I think 20 years ago, when the federal regulations were written, most institutions saw maybe a couple of cases of research misconduct per year,” Egan said. “Now, someplace like Penn sees almost 10 times that many per year.”

According to Egan, the changes — although catalyzed due to regulations at the federal level — do not appear “influenced by any kind of political forces or agenda.”

“It is a very straightforward rule that I think is good regardless of who’s in charge in D.C.,” he added. “Ultimately, I think we ended up with something that's going to be a lot better for our faculty and staff than what we had. This was a success story.”

---