APS Ethics Investigation and Resolution Procedures

I. Preamble

The mission of the American Physical Society is to advance physics by fostering a vibrant, inclusive, and global community dedicated to science and society. Ethics and honesty ensure the integrity of physics and the welfare of our communities. Science is best advanced when performed in environments free from any form of harassment, discrimination, or bullying.

The APS Board sets expectations for professional behavior concerning the practice, learning, training, publishing, and communication of science. These expectations extend to APS members, volunteers, non-members, and staff participating in APS sanctioned programs and activities.

These Ethics Investigation and Resolution Procedures (“Procedures”) outline the process to file a Complaint and procedures that APS will follow when investigating and resolving alleged violations of the standards for professional behavior set forth in the APS Ethics Standards¹ (“Standards”) and Code of Conduct for APS Activities (“Code”). The leadership of APS is committed to ensuring that these procedures for investigating and resolving Complaints are followed, and that they are fair to all involved.

II. Scope

1. The APS Ethics Standards contain a set of principles and expectations for professional behavior that apply to all APS members, staff, volunteers, contractors, exhibitors, sponsors, and non-members participating in APS programs and activities.
2. The Procedures, described in this document address: (a) the processes for handling concerns about conduct that is contrary to the Standards and Code; (b) how determinations are made as to whether the Standards and/or Code were violated; and (c) what consequences may follow if a violation is determined to have occurred.
3. The Procedures distinguish activities that occur under APS sponsorship from those that do not. Accordingly, the following definitions identify two paths for investigation and resolution:
   
   “APS Activities” are those activities that are sponsored or sanctioned by APS or one of its constituent units, including but not limited to: preparing APS reports, statements, and publications; conducting research authorized by APS or one of its units; participating in conferences, meetings, presentations, and programs conducted by APS or one of its units; and volunteering in any capacity for APS or one of its units. APS Activities may include off-site gatherings (eateries, hotels, social venues) that are reasonably perceived to be a part of the broader APS conference or meeting venue.
   
   “Non-APS Activities” are those activities that are not sponsored or sanctioned by APS or one of its constituent units, including but not necessarily limited to: matters arising in the scope of a person’s employment by an employer other than APS; academic or research activities undertaken at institutions other than APS and without any formal involvement by APS or any of its constituent units; and conferences, meetings, presentations, and programs conducted by entities other than APS. Non-APS Activities may be considered when evaluating nominees for APS Honors, awards, fellowship, and other forms of recognition by the Society.
4. Members of the larger physics community bear a shared responsibility for upholding scientific and ethical standards in professional activities and enforcing consequences when these standards are breached. APS does not have the authority to accept responsibility for investigating and adjudicating suspected breaches of ethics that are under the rightful jurisdiction of other community stakeholders. Therefore, all members should familiarize themselves with their own institutional Standards, policies, and procedures related to ethical standards for research and conduct and share this information with students and colleagues.
5. APS will cooperate with other institutions who may act in response to an ethics Complaint filed with them. In some situations, APS may be limited in its ability to enforce its Standards.
6. Notwithstanding any other provision of these Procedures, any allegation of misconduct against an APS employee under the Standards must be made and investigated under the applicable APS human resources policies.
7. Statute of Limitations: Allegations of misconduct should be made within a reasonable time after discovery of the incident to facilitate a timely and thorough investigation. Reliable evidence is essential to investigations. Timely reporting of incidents prevents evidence from deteriorating or memories from fading. However, APS — at its discretion — may decide to investigate older incidents on a case-by-case basis. There is no absolute APS statute of limitation for reviewing ethical breaches.
   
   All APS members and anyone who registers for, attends, or participates in an APS meeting or activity agrees to comply with the Code of Conduct and these Procedures.
8. The Head of Ethics is the custodian of records. All files shall be retained for at least five years after the matter is closed. Anonymized summaries may be used for educational purposes.

III. Roles and Responsibilities

Head of Ethics: Serves as the APS Ethics Officer and conducts APS Activity investigations to resolve allegations of misconduct. Reviews appeals of Non-APS Activity determinations. Recommends remedial measures to achieve the objectives of the Standards. Conducts administrative reviews for all appeals submitted. Drafts policies and procedures for review by the Ethics Committee and Board. Serves as a Subject Matter Expert for the development of ethics education initiatives.

Ethics Chairperson: Appoints panels for responding to Complaints; approves Sanctions; oversees the committee’s review of policies and procedures and ethics education for membership.

Ethics Committee Members: Serve on Review, Sanction, and Appeals Panels; vote to send Revocation requests to the Board Executive Committee; review and advise on policies, procedures, and educational initiatives.

Ombudsperson: Serves as a safe, confidential, and neutral party for Members who seek to explore options for resolving allegations through formal or informal channels.

Secretary to Board of Directors: Submits final determinations and recommendations from the Ethics Chairperson and/or Head of Ethics to the Board of Directors and/or the Board Executive Committee for review and resolution. Communicates the Board’s decisions to the Ethics Chairperson and/or Head of Ethics for the purpose of informing the parties and closing cases.

Board Executive Committee: Determines whether to adopt the Ethics Committee’s recommendation to proceed with Revocation. Reviews any escalations of matters involving reputational or organizational risks.

Board of Directors: Approves the policies, procedures, and general direction of the Ethics Committee’s activities; reviews Revocation appeals (less Board Executive Committee members who approved original Sanction).

IV. Expectations of Ethical Conduct

All APS Members are expected to act with integrity and honesty. The American Physical Society values a diverse membership and expects its members to support the right of all people to pursue the study of physics and participate in the physics community free from harassment, discrimination, retaliation, or any other form of abusive or disrespectful conduct. For the physics community to benefit from the greatest talent and to strengthen APS as an organization, Members are expected to provide a welcoming and inclusive environment for all those engaged in physics.

V. Unethical Conduct

Any violation of the standards set forth in the Standards and Code is a breach of professional ethics and APS will, in its sole discretion, consider appropriate Sanctions in substantiated cases. The following types of unethical conduct are examples of violations; the list is not intended to be exhaustive, and definitions are located in the Appendix below:

1. Harassment
2. Discrimination
3. Retaliation
4. Scientific Misconduct
5. Undisclosed Conflict of Interest
6. Dishonor to the Society

VI. Reporting Channels and Interim Measures

1.1 Reporting Channels: All Complaints or concerns about conduct that may violate the Standards and Code should be filed using one of the following options:

• Online: Ethics Hotline a third-party confidential platform
• Ethics Hotline: Toll-free number
• Email: APS Ethics team or APS Head of Ethics
• Email: APS Head of Meetings

1.2 Interim Measures and Accommodations: The APS Head of Ethics, Director of Meetings, and/or other designated staff members may implement interim measures and/or accommodations upon a report of misconduct or during a pending APS inquiry. These measures may include, but are not limited to:

• Removal from APS Meeting or Activity
• Physical separation from individuals or locations during an APS Activity
• Providing an escort to insure safe movement during an APS Activity, or
• Any other remedial measures deemed appropriate to prevent and/or mitigate harm

Requests for Interim Measures or Accommodations should be made to the persons referenced above in this paragraph (See § VI. 1.2). Complainants and Respondents may request Interim Measures or Accommodations. All requests will be considered and may be granted based on the sole discretion of APS staff. Individuals with disabilities may submit a request for reasonable accommodations with the Head of Ethics to ensure they are able to participate in the proceedings fairly and adequately.

VII. Standards of Conduct and Evidence for Procedures

1.1 Fairness: An allegation of misconduct does not constitute a finding that unethical behavior has taken place, or that any allegations are or are not likely to be found true. A person accused of misconduct shall be provided the opportunity to respond to all allegations; including asking questions about these Procedures, submitting evidence, and suggesting witnesses. Persons who are interviewed by the investigator may submit a request to the Head of Ethics to have a representative accompany them to the interview. Any representative approved to accompany an interviewee must agree that they will not participate in, obstruct, or record the interview.

1.2 Confidentiality: All proceedings shall be conducted in a confidential manner, as reasonably practicable, to facilitate a fair investigation of the allegations and to consider any health and safety issues. The details of the investigation will not be disclosed to any third party unless required by law or, with the Complainant’s consent, when a parallel Complaint is filed with another institution, including but not limited to an employer and/or funding entity. Investigative reports may be used as evidence in connection with subsequent investigations and reviews under these Procedures. Any breach of confidentiality shall be raised with the Ethics Chairperson and will be responded to in an appropriate manner.

1.3 Cooperation with Ethics Process: Members are required to cooperate fully and in a timely fashion with the ethics process. Failure to cooperate with these Procedures constitutes a violation and shall not prevent the continuation of any proceeding.

1.4 Conflicts of Interest (COI): Investigations and reviews are conducted in an impartial manner and any persons participating in implementing these Procedures must avoid an actual or perceived COI. The Head of Ethics and/or Ethics Chairperson shall be responsible for documenting a COI check before the start of any investigation. In instances where a Member or Head of Ethics is recused under these Procedures, their duties may be assigned to a non-conflicted Member and/or APS staff.

1.5 Preponderance of Evidence Standard: When APS is carrying out an investigation, the Preponderance of Evidence standard shall be used to make all Findings. The Preponderance of Evidence standard means that it is “more likely than not” that a violation has or has not occurred. All investigations will result in Findings, which will be one of the following:

• Substantiated — adequate evidence supports that allegations are more likely than not true and represent a violation;
• Partially Substantiated — adequate evidence supports that some, but not all, allegations are more likely than not true and represent a violation;
• Not substantiated — adequate evidence exists to determine that the allegations are likely not true and therefore do not represent a violation;
• Unable to be Substantiated — insufficient evidence is available to determine whether the allegations are true or false. This Finding reflects the limitations in what evidence is available to examine and verify an allegation. Limitations may include a lack of witness accounts or conflicting accounts.

1.6 Substantial Evidence Standard: When APS is evaluating Findings from other organizations, the Substantial Evidence standard of proof shall be used. Substantial Evidence is defined as evidence which a reasonable mind accepts as sufficient to support a conclusion that a violation has or has not occurred. This standard requires the reviewer to analyze only the existing record, weighing both evidence that supports the determination, as well as that which detracts from it. This standard is limited to a review of the adequacy of evidence on the record used to support the Findings. The review is limited to evidence contained in the record and affords deference to the credibility assessment of all witnesses made by the investigator.

VIII. Submission of Ethics Complaint

1.1 Initiation of Actions: Ethics proceedings are initiated with the filing of a Complaint utilizing one of the Reporting Channels set forth in Section VI of these Procedures. A Complaint may be submitted by Members and non-members of the Society.

APS will investigate Complaints stemming from APS Activities. For Complaints stemming from Non-APS Activities, the Head of Ethics may suggest that the Complainant file a Complaint with the stakeholder that has jurisdiction. APS will defer to the responsible institution to carry out an investigation. APS will cooperate with the investigation and take action based on its Findings.

A Complaint filed against the Complainant during an investigation, otherwise known as a Countercomplaint, will be considered only after the initial complaint is finally resolved. Nothing shall preclude the investigator from investigating all circumstances surrounding the initial Complaint.

Individuals may request a confidential conversation with the APS Ombudsperson for sexual harassment or discrimination concerns before determining whether to file a complaint. Any complaint filed against a member of the APS Senior Leadership Team, the Ethics Chairperson, or Head of Ethics may be investigated by an external investigator, who is neither a Member nor employee of APS.

1.2 Procedures for Filing Complaints: All persons filing complaints agree to maintain confidentiality throughout the inquiry and resolution of the matter. The Head of Ethics and/or a designee will promptly acknowledge receipt of the complaint and provide access to these Procedures. Additional requirements for submitting complaints are as follows:

• APS Activity — Complaints involving an APS Activity (as defined in Section II of these Procedures) should include a sufficiently detailed statement of the incident and/or conduct (Who, What, Where, When), including the identity of any person who observed or may have information about the concern raised. If available, the Complainant is encouraged to submit any documents they believe support their allegations.
• Non-APS Activity — Complaints involving a Non-APS Activity (as defined in Section II of these Procedures) must include a Finding made or actions taken by a credible body or agency. A credible body may include federal or state agencies, a professional organization, an international organization, an academic institution, an employer, a court of law, or an admission by the Respondent. Alternatively, a public announcement of the Findings made, or actions taken, may be submitted. Media reports alone may not be sufficient to support a conclusion that the misconduct occurred. The Complaint must include detailed information about the sources used in order to enable verification of information.

IX. Preliminary Review

1.1 Purpose: The Head of Ethics or designee conducts the Preliminary Review to determine whether the Complaint is within the scope of these Procedures and sufficiently detailed to raise the allegation above the level of speculation. This review is not to investigate the merits of the Complaint; rather, the inquiry shall be limited to evaluating whether the Complaint meets the following Threshold Criteria:

• The Complaint alleges misconduct against a Member, Participant in an APS Activity, or Honoree; and
• The allegations are of the substance that, if true, would establish a violation of the Standards or Code; and
• If an APS Activity, the Complaint contains a description of the incident or misconduct; or
• If a Non-APS Activity, the Complaint contains adequate supporting documentation of a Finding from a credible body or agency.

1.2 Process: Upon receipt of a Complaint, the Head of Ethics or designee will acknowledge receipt within three (3) business days and complete the Preliminary Review within ten (10) business days. One of the following determinations shall be made:

• The Complaint contains all the required Threshold Criteria as set forth above, which initiates the opening of an investigation or review;
• The Complaint does not contain the required Threshold Criteria, in which case the reviewer will provide the Complainant with an opportunity to submit additional information within thirty (30) days of receipt of the notice of deficiency. If no response is received within thirty (30) days, or the resubmission is deficient, the matter may be dismissed.
• The Complaint does not involve a Member, Participant in an APS Activity, or Honoree, in which case the matter is closed, and the Complainant is notified. APS will cooperate with responsible institutions as needed and required to resolve the Complaint.

A Complaint may be dismissed in full or in part. If dismissed in part, an investigation will start to address the remaining issues in the Complaint. If the Complaint is dismissed in full, the Head of Ethics will promptly notify the Complainant of the reason for dismissal and will close the matter.

X. Procedure for Investigation

1.1 Purpose: These Procedures are intended to facilitate a prompt, objective, and fair resolution of Complaints concerning ethical misconduct. Investigators are charged with gathering evidence, determining credibility, analyzing evidence, and making Findings. All Respondents shall receive timely notice of the initiation of an investigation and be provided an opportunity to respond to the allegations and submit evidence.

1.2 Notices: Upon initiating an investigation, the Head of Ethics and/or Ethics Chairperson shall issue Opening Letters to both the Complainant and Respondent informing them of the start of the investigation. The Opening Letter does not constitute a finding that any unethical conduct has taken place, or that any allegations in the Complaint are or are not likely to be true. The Opening Letter contains a concise description of the alleged behaviors of concern and identifies specific section(s) of the Standards or Code at issue; as well as access to the applicable Standards, Code, and Procedures.

1.3 Timeline: The investigative process will typically be completed within the timeframes in this document and within 90 calendar days from the time it is determined that an investigation will be conducted. Given the many variables and factors that may arise, additional time may be needed in some cases. Any deviation from the time frames in this document will be communicated to both the Complainant and Respondent simultaneously, along with a new timeline and explanation of the reason for the extension of time.

1.4 Process:

A. APS Activity Complaints

1. After the Opening Letters are issued, the Head of Ethics shall commence with the Evidence Gathering Phase of the investigation by preparing an investigation plan, scheduling witness interviews, and reviewing available documents. In general, the Complainant or Reporting Party is interviewed first, along with other relevant witnesses, and then the Respondent is interviewed. All witnesses shall be provided an opportunity to supplement their interviews with additional evidence. After interviews are completed and upon the review of evidence, the investigator may determine that rebuttal interviews are needed to address information gaps or conflicting evidence.
2. Upon completion of the Evidence Gathering Phase, the investigator shall analyze the evidence and make Findings and determinations in a Report of Investigation.
3. The Head of Ethics will forward the Report of Investigation to the Ethics Chairperson and may recommend a Sanction or an Educative Letter. If a Sanction is recommended, the Ethics Chairperson shall convene a Sanctions Panel of two (2) Ethics Committee members to determine the Sanction.
4. If the recommended Sanction is Revocation, the case is first escalated to the full Ethics Committee, and then to the Board Executive Committee, as described below. If not, the Sanction is deemed final. The Head of Ethics and/or the Ethics Chairperson will meet with the Complainant and Respondent separately to advise them of the case disposition. The Head of Ethics shall issue a Closing Letter, simultaneously informing each party of the case disposition, and any appeal rights.
5. In cases where the Head of Ethics believes there are organizational or reputational risks as a result of the final Sanction imposed, the matter may be escalated to the Board Executive Committee for review. When matters are escalated under this section, the Closing Letters will be delayed until the review is completed by the Board Executive Committee.

B. Non-APS Activity Complaints

1. After the Opening Letters are issued, the Ethics Chairperson shall appoint a Review Panel of five (5) Ethics Committee Members to review the Complaint and recommend a Sanction. The Review Panel shall be appointed within thirty (30) days of the Ethics Chairperson’s receipt of the record from the Head of Ethics. The Review Panel will remain active until a determination has been made; a Member’s work on the panel may continue past their term on the Ethics Committee.
2. The Ethics Chairperson shall promptly inform the Respondent of names of the Members on the Review Panel. The Respondent will be invited to respond in writing to the allegations within thirty (30) days, and if desired, to make an oral presentation to the Review Panel. Oral presentations will be limited in time and scope per the direction of the Review Panel. Representatives of the Respondent are not permitted to participate in any oral presentation.
3. After the thirty-day (30) deadline, the Review Panel shall decide by majority vote whether the record contains Substantial Evidence of a violation of the Standards, considering the complaint, the written or oral responses, the record of action taken by the recognized body, and documents otherwise publicly available. The Review Panel shall not conduct a review of the matters beyond the information presented in the Complaint, the record or action taken by the recognized body, and documents otherwise publicly available (such as publications or court records).
4. The Review Panel shall provide a summary report to the Ethics Chairperson that includes: a Substantial Evidence determination, an analysis of factors considered for determining a Sanction, and a recommended Sanction. The vote tally, but not the decisions of individual members of the Review Panel, shall be included in the report.
5. The Review Panel shall consult with the Ethics Chairperson to finalize any proposed Sanction. If the proposed Sanction is Revocation, the recommendation is escalated to the full Ethics Committee, then to the Board Executive Committee, as described below. If not, the Sanction is deemed final. The Ethics Chairperson shall communicate the determination and Sanction to the Head of Ethics within ten (10) days of reaching its decision. The Head of Ethics and/or the Ethics Chairperson will meet with the Complainant and Respondent separately, to advise them of the case disposition. The Head of Ethics shall issue a Closing Letter, simultaneously informing each party of the case disposition, and any appeal rights.
6. In cases where the Head of Ethics believes that there are organizational or reputational risks as a result of the final Sanction imposed, the matter may be escalated to the Board Executive Committee for review. When matters are escalated under this section, the Closing Letters will be delayed until the review is completed by the Board Executive Committee.

XI. Sanctions

1.1 APS, in its sole discretion, may impose Sanctions for violations of its Standards or Code of Conduct, including any of the following:

• Educative Letter. Issued where there is insufficient evidence of a violation but setting forth the professional and behavioral expectations and/or information about conduct that might prevent future violations.
• Removal or Exclusion from Meetings. Appropriate if there has been a violation of a kind likely to cause substantial harm to another person or the profession or was otherwise of sufficient gravity as to warrant such action.
• Reprimand. Letter from Sanctions or Review Panel, used for a violation that is not likely to cause substantial harm to another person or to the profession and is not otherwise of sufficient gravity to warrant a more severe sanction.
• Censure. Letter from the Ethics Chairperson, on behalf of the full Committee, used for a violation that has caused substantial harm to another person or the profession and is not otherwise of sufficient gravity to warrant a more severe sanction.
• Removal from Membership, Official Position, or Committee.
• Disqualification from consideration for Future APS Honors, either permanently or for a specific period of time.
• Disqualification from future service in an official position, or on an APS Selection Committee, either permanently or for a specific period of time.
• Probation. Requires the monitoring of the Respondent’s conduct to ensure compliance with Ethics Committee directives during a specific period of time.
• Revocation of an APS Honor. Revocation must follow the additional processes described below.
• Other Such Sanctions, as deemed appropriate based on the circumstances.

1.2 APS shall reasonably exercise its discretion when determining Sanctions by considering any of the following factors:

• Nature and the seriousness of the violation, and its relation to the Member’s standing and responsibilities in APS;
• Career phase: early career, mid-career, or late career;
• Past disciplinary record;
• Length of membership and service record;
• Consistency of the Sanction with those imposed on other Members for similar violations;
• Potential of reputational risk for APS;
• Clarity with which the Member was on notice that the conduct may violate the Standards;
• Other mitigating factors.

The above is a guide, and not all factors must be considered in every case; only relevant, applicable factors should be credibly considered.

1.3 In cases involving findings of research misconduct involving APS Publications or other Activities, the Head of Ethics or other appropriate APS staff may take appropriate actions to correct the research record, including, but not necessarily limited to:

• Notifying individuals and/or units within APS of the Findings and directing them to take appropriate remedial actions;
• Informing research participants and other involved parties of the Findings;
• Notifying external organizations, where appropriate, that the research is subject to allegations of misconduct that were upheld;
• Notifying the public, where appropriate, that the research is subject to allegations of misconduct that were upheld; and
• Making recommendations for retraction/correction of published research, via notification of findings to editors/publishers.

These procedures are intended to determine whether a violation of the Standards has occurred and to decide the appropriate Sanction. It is not the intent of the procedures to correct poor research and/or scholarship except to correct the publishing record as appropriate.

1.4 In cases where the recommended Sanction is Revocation of an APS Honor, the matter must first be approved by the Ethics Committee. Upon a majority vote recommending Revocation, the Ethics Chairperson shall inform the Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Committee’s recommendation. The Secretary of the Board of Directors shall submit the Complaint and record to the Board Executive Committee to determine whether to adopt the recommendation. If either the Ethics Committee or the Board Executive Committee declines to endorse the Revocation, the matter is returned with instructions for a lesser Sanction.

1.5 The determination to impose Revocation is a decision of the Board Executive Committee. A Respondent may appeal a Revocation determination to the Board of Directors as set forth in Section XII below.

1.6 In instances where Revocation has been imposed as a Sanction, the Head of Ethics shall inform the membership staff who shall document APS records to reflect the Revocation.

XII. Appeals

1.1 All appeals must be filed with the Head of Ethics on an Appeal Request Form within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Closing Letter or other notice of determination. The Head of Ethics shall perform a procedural review to determine if the appeal has been filed in a timely manner and states a basis for appeal.

Appeals will only be considered in the following circumstances:

1. The existence of a procedural error(s) is so substantial that it would likely alter the investigative findings and ultimate outcomes; or
2. Presentation of new and significant evidence which was not reasonably available at the time of the initial investigation and would likely alter the investigative findings and ultimate outcome;
3. For Revocation, a claim that the Sanction is substantially disproportionate to the violation. For other cases, the Sanction is presumed to be appropriate and cannot be appealed.

In any request, the burden of proof lies with the party requesting the appeal to demonstrate that there are grounds for an appeal. The appeal is not another adjudication of the underlying matter.

1.2 For all appeals except Revocation, the process shall proceed as follows:

• For APS Activities, the appeal shall be heard by an Appeal Panel, composed of five (5) members of the Ethics Committee, who shall determine, by majority vote, whether there is Substantial Evidence in the record to support the determination.
• For Non-APS Activities, the appeal shall be heard by the Head of Ethics or designee using the Substantial Evidence standard.

In each case, the appeal decision is final.

1.3 The APS Board of Directors shall hear appeals of Revocations. Upon receipt of an appeal of a Revocation, the Head of Ethics shall forward the Request for Appeal and the record to the Secretary to the Board of Directors, who shall forward the appeal to the Board of Directors, less those Board Executive Committee members who approved the original Revocation. The Head of Ethics shall notify the parties that an appeal has been received.

The Head of Ethics will perform a procedural review to determine whether the preconditions for appeal set forth above have been met. If the preconditions have not been met, the Head of Ethics shall recommend to the Board of Directors that the appeal be dismissed, and the Revocation Sanction become final.

If the preconditions for appeal are met, the Board of Directors shall review the complete record. The Board of Directors may, in its discretion, accept, reject, or modify any determination or Sanction. The Board of Directors will determine, by majority vote, one of the following outcomes:

• The Revocation is affirmed.
• New evidence should be considered, in which case the record and determination will be returned to the Ethics Chairperson with instructions to restart the review process in light of the new information.
• A material procedure error occurred, in which case the record and determination will be returned to the Ethics Chairperson with instructions to restart the review process and cure the error.
• A lesser Sanction is available to provide adequate deterrence for the future conduct, in which case the record and determination will be returned to the Ethics Chairperson with instructions to restart the review process and determine a lesser Sanction.
• In rare cases where the procedure error cannot be cured (as in the case of bias), the Board of Directors may direct the Ethics Chairperson to start afresh or appoint an external investigator to review the matter.

The standard of review for an appeal of a Revocation Sanction is Clearly Erroneous, meaning that there is a firm conviction that the previous decision should be reconsidered.

The Board of Directors shall have sixty (60) business days to complete its review and communicate the results of the appeal to the Secretary of the Board of Directors, who will inform the Head of Ethics in a timely manner. Within five (5) business days of being so informed, the Head of Ethics shall communicate the result of the appeal to the parties and coordinate the implementation of the Board of Directors’ instructions. Appeal decisions by the Board of Directors are final.

Once an action has been taken by APS and any appeal exhausted, the matter is considered closed and may not be pursued independently through another APS process.

XIII. Independent Actions by the Board of Directors

In cases where the Board of Directors believes that an immediate action must be undertaken because of the seriousness of the incident or where the reputation of APS is potentially at stake, the Board may act independently of the Ethics Committee. The Board will use the Standards in their deliberations. Actions taken and sanctions levied must be documented and copies forwarded to the Ethics Chairperson and Head of Ethics.

¹ Principles and procedures have been adapted from the following sources:

• The AGU Scientific Integrity and Professional Ethics
• IAU Code of Conduct
• Societies Consortium Model-Investigations-Policy

Appendix

Definitions

View the definitions

Download a PDF of flow charts of the APS Ethics Investigation and Resolution Procedures

Revised and adopted by the Board of Directors: Dec. 16, 2024
Effective: Jan. 1, 2025