Detailed Rules for Handling Academic Misconduct at Zhongnan University of Economics and Law

Chapter 1: General Provisions

Article 1: To develop and prosper the scientific research of the university, practice the motto Extensive Knowledge, Profound Morality, and Global Service, promote excellent academic style, maintain academic integrity, standardize academic behavior, encourage academic innovation, effectively prevent and seriously deal with academic misconduct, and promote the healthy, prosperous, and sustainable development of the university's scientific research, these detailed rules are formulated in accordance with relevant national laws and regulations, combined with the actual situation of the university.

Article 2: These rules apply to all teachers, students, staff, units, and individuals engaged in academic activities in the name of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law.

Chapter 2: Academic Ethical Standards

Article 3: In scientific research and related activities, strict adherence to relevant national laws, regulations, and academic norms is required; in various international academic activities, corresponding international norms and conventions should be followed.

1. In academic evaluations, principles of fairness, objectivity, comprehensiveness, and accuracy should be followed.

2. Academic research should respect others' intellectual property, citing sources when using others' work; the cited portion should not constitute the main or substantial part of the user's work; when re-citing from others' work, the source of re-citation should be indicated.

3. Cooperative research results should be reviewed by all signatories before publication, and all signatories are responsible for the research results, with the lead researcher bearing primary responsibility.

4. Major scientific research achievements that require academic demonstration and appraisal should be publicized to the media only after the demonstration is completed and approved by the project management department.

5. In teaching, scientific research, and related activities, regulations regarding national security, information security, ecological safety, health safety, etc., should be strictly observed and maintained.

Chapter 3: Acceptance and Investigation

Article 4: The Academic Committee of the university has an Academic Ethics Committee responsible for academic ethics and academic style construction, accepting reports of academic misconduct and conducting investigations and adjudicating academic disputes.

Article 5: Reports of academic misconduct should generally be made in writing under real names and meet the following conditions:

1. Have a clear subject of the report.

2. Have facts of academic misconduct.

3. Have objective evidence or investigation clues. Anonymous reports may also be accepted if facts are clear, evidence is sufficient, or clues are definite and deemed necessary by the Academic Ethics Committee.

Article 6: The Academic Ethics Committee should promptly and proactively handle cases of academic misconduct involving university personnel reported by the media, other academic institutions, or social organizations according to relevant regulations.

Article 7: If the Academic Ethics Committee deems the report materials meet the conditions, a decision to accept should be made promptly, and the complainant should be notified; if not accepted, reasons should be provided in writing.

Article 8: After accepting a case of academic misconduct, the Academic Ethics Committee will conduct an investigation. A temporary investigation group may be formed to preliminarily review the reasonableness of the report and the feasibility of the investigation, and decide whether to proceed to a formal investigation.

1. Preliminary review procedure includes separately interviewing the complainant and the accused and forming investigation records signed by the parties involved.

2. The accused submits corresponding defense materials.

3. If necessary, investigate signed corroborative materials provided by a third party. After preliminary review, the temporary investigation group should submit a written investigation report, including evidence and preliminary conclusions, to the Academic Ethics Committee for review. If the preliminary review determines that the report lacks substantive content or sufficient evidence, a formal investigation may not be necessary, but the complainant should be informed. If new evidence is provided by the complainant, and the objection is valid, a formal investigation should be initiated.

Article 9: If the Academic Ethics Committee decides to proceed to a formal investigation, the accused should be notified. If the investigated behavior involves funded projects, the funding agency should be notified after a definitive opinion is formed during the investigation.

Article 10: The Academic Ethics Committee should form an investigation team responsible for investigating the reported behavior. For clear, conclusive, and simple cases, a simplified investigation procedure may be used, determined specifically by the Academic Ethics Committee. The investigation team should consist of no less than 5 members, including staff assigned by the Disciplinary Committee if necessary, and may invite peer experts to participate in the investigation or provide academic judgments through consultation. If the investigated behavior involves funded projects, relevant professionals appointed by the funding agency may be invited to join the investigation team.

Article 11: Members of the investigation team who have collaborative research, kinship, mentor-student, or other direct interest relationships with the complainant or accused should recuse themselves.

Article 12: Investigations may be conducted through document review, on-site inspection, experimental testing, witness questioning, and questioning of the complainant and accused. If necessary, the investigation team may entrust independent experts or third-party professional organizations without conflicts of interest to conduct independent investigations or verifications of relevant matters.

Article 13: During the investigation, the investigation team should carefully listen to the statements and defenses of the parties involved, verify the relevant facts, reasons, and arguments, and may adopt a hearing approach if deemed necessary.

Article 14: Relevant units and individuals should provide necessary conveniences and assistance for the investigation team. Complainants, accused, witnesses, and other relevant individuals should truthfully answer questions, cooperate with the investigation, present relevant evidence, and must not conceal or provide false information.

Article 15: If disputes over intellectual property or other legal disputes arise during the investigation, potentially affecting the characterization of the behavior, the investigation should be suspended until the dispute is resolved, then resumed.

Article 16: The investigation team should form an investigation report based on the facts. The report should include identification of the person responsible for academic misconduct, investigation process, factual determination and reasons, and investigation conclusions. If academic misconduct is collectively committed by multiple people, the report should differentiate each person's role in the behavior.

Article 17: Personnel who access the complaint materials and participate in the investigation should not disclose personal information of the complainant, accused, or investigation details to unrelated personnel.

Chapter 4: Determination and Handling

Article 18: The Academic Ethics Committee should review the investigation report submitted by the investigation team; if necessary, the investigation team should be heard. The Academic Ethics Committee should determine whether the investigated behavior constitutes academic misconduct and assess the nature and severity of the behavior, making decisions on handling or recommending corresponding actions by the university. If the investigated behavior involves funded projects, the funding agency should also be notified. Before the university makes disciplinary or organizational decisions, except in public hearings, all procedures and materials should remain confidential, and all involved personnel must not disclose investigation and handling details.

Article 19: Upon investigation, if the accused is confirmed to have engaged in any of the following behaviors in scientific research and related activities, it should be determined as academic misconduct:

1. Plagiarism and theft: copying others' works in academic activities, claiming others' academic views, thoughts, experimental data, research results as one's own without citing sources, etc.

2. Falsification and alteration: fabricating scientific research data, materials, literature, annotations, or fabricating facts, inventing false research results, altering others' research results.

3. Falsification of academic experience: inaccurately reporting academic experience, achievements, falsifying expert appraisals, certificates, and other academic ability proof materials, etc., in the process of applying for projects, achievements, awards, and job reviews.

4. Improper authorship: signing on research results or academic papers without participating in research or creation, using others' signatures without permission, or not acknowledging others' academic contributions in collaborative research results.

5. Abuse of academic reputation: exaggerating the value of results in academic activities, publicizing research results to the media that should have been peer-reviewed but were not, etc.

6. Selling or ghostwriting papers and other behaviors that seriously violate recognized academic norms and betray academic integrity, as defined by relevant academic organizations or university rules as academic misconduct.

Article 20: Academic misconduct with any of the following circumstances should be considered as serious:

1. Causing adverse effects.

2. Involving interest transfer or exchange.

3. Retaliating against the complainant.

4. Organizing academic misconduct.

5. Repeatedly committing academic misconduct.

6. Other behaviors causing serious consequences or adverse effects.

Article 21: Handling of academic misconduct should follow these principles:

1. Clear facts, sufficient evidence.

2. Protect the legal rights and interests of complainants, petitioners, and accused.

3. Combination of education and punishment.

Article 22: In the case of academic misconduct determined by the Academic Ethics Committee, the relevant functional departments such as personnel, scientific research, disciplinary inspection, academic affairs, and research management shall formulate preliminary processing opinions based on the policies and regulations of the Ministry of Education and their respective administrative authorities. These opinions shall be submitted for discussion at the school's academic affairs meeting to form a final decision.

(1) For faculty members, postdoctoral researchers, visiting scholars, exchange teachers, and part-time staff who violate these regulations, the following penalties may be imposed depending on the severity, either individually or in combination:

1.     Public criticism;

2.     Termination or revocation of related research projects, with the cancellation of application eligibility within a specified period;

3.     Revocation of academic awards or honorary titles;

4.     Postponement of promotion to professional technical positions;

5.     Reduction of professional technical position level, revocation of professional technical qualifications;

6.     Dismissal or termination. Additionally, in accordance with relevant regulations, warnings, reprimands, demotion, dismissal, or other disciplinary measures may be imposed on the responsible party for academic misconduct.

(2) For students who violate these regulations, the following penalties may be imposed depending on the severity, either individually or in combination:

1.     Public criticism;

2.     Postponement of thesis defense;

3.     Cancellation of thesis defense qualification;

4.     Postponement, denial, or legal revocation of the degree. Students engaging in academic misconduct should also be subject to corresponding academic penalties according to relevant regulations.

(3) If the guiding teacher is found to have faults in the graduate student's thesis determined to violate these regulations, the following penalties may be imposed depending on the severity, either individually or in combination:

1.     Public criticism;

2.     Suspension of the guiding teacher's qualification for graduate students;

3.     Revocation of the guiding teacher's qualification for graduate students. Additionally, warnings, reprimands, demotion, dismissal, or other disciplinary measures may be imposed according to relevant regulations.

(4) If the academic misconduct constitutes a violation of laws and regulations, the case shall be transferred to judicial authorities for handling.

Article 23: Corresponding measures shall be taken based on the severity of academic misconduct and the degree of fault of the person being processed. In cases of the following circumstances, a lenient or reduced penalty may be applied:

(1) Negligence without significant impact;

(2) Voluntarily admitting mistakes and actively cooperating with the investigation;

(3) Taking proactive measures to rectify losses or prevent harmful consequences.

In cases of the following circumstances, a severe or increased penalty may be applied:

(1) Forgery, destruction, or concealment of evidence;

(2) Hindering others from reporting or providing evidence;

(3) Interfering with or obstructing the investigation process;

(4) Retaliating against whistleblowers;

(5) Engaging in other egregious misconduct.

Article 24: When the school makes a decision on academic misconduct, a decision document shall be prepared, including the following information:

(1) Basic information of the responsible party;

(2) Verified facts and evidence;

(3) Processing opinions and basis;

(4) Appeal procedures and deadlines.

Article 25: The decision document shall be delivered in writing to the person being processed by the relevant department and publicly announced throughout the entire school. Simultaneously, it shall be reported to the higher supervisory department. If the person being processed disagrees with the decision, they may appeal to the relevant department. The execution of the decision shall not be suspended during the appeal period.

Article 26: The decision document shall take effect from the date of delivery to the parties involved. If the parties refuse to acknowledge or cannot be delivered, the decision document shall be posted on the school website or relevant media, with a notice period of 15 days. Upon the expiration of the notice period, it shall be deemed as delivered.

Article 27: If, after investigation, it is determined that there is no academic misconduct, the school shall, upon the request of the accused, take certain measures to eliminate the impact and restore reputation. During the investigation and processing, if the report is found to be untrue or improperly accused, the Academic Ethics Committee shall promptly clarify and uphold the dignity and legal rights of the accused. If it is confirmed that the reporter intentionally fabricated facts or falsely accused others, the reporter shall be criticized, ordered to apologize, or subject to administrative sanctions until legal responsibility is pursued by judicial authorities.

Article 28: Personnel involved in the reporting, acceptance, investigation, and processing of academic misconduct who violate confidentiality regulations and cause adverse effects shall be subject to disciplinary action or other measures according to relevant regulations.

Chapter 5: Appeal and Review

Article 29: If the reporter or the reported party is dissatisfied with the processing decision, they may, within 30 days after receiving the decision, submit a written objection or appeal to the school. Objections and appeals do not affect the execution of the processing decision.

Article 30: Upon receiving objections or appeals, the school shall refer the matter to the Academic Ethics Committee for discussion and make a decision on whether to conduct a review within 15 days. If a review is decided, the Academic Ethics Committee may organize an investigative team for further inquiry. If a review is not granted, written notification shall be provided to the objector or appellant.

Article 31: If the objector or appellant is dissatisfied with the review decision and continues to raise objections based on the same facts and reasons, the objections shall not be accepted.

Chapter 6: Supplementary Provisions

Article 32: The interpretation of these implementation rules is the responsibility of the Academic Committee of the university.

Article 33: These implementation rules shall take effect from the date of publication. In cases of inconsistencies between the provisions of these rules and those in previously issued regulations or documents by the university, these rules shall prevail.