Â鶹´«Ã½¸ßÇå

Research and Scholarly Misconduct

Â鶹´«Ã½¸ßÇå University Policy on Research and Scholarly Misconduct

Research and scholarly misconduct is inherently contradictory to the mission of Â鶹´«Ã½¸ßÇå University. The university seeks to not only comply with legal standards, but expects its administration, faculty, and staff to act with integrity and in an ethical manner that upholds the mission of the university. Although violations are rare, it is a concern to scholars, the Office of Sponsored Programs, the institution, granting agencies, and the public. The Office of Science & Technology Policy published the Federal Policy on Research Misconduct in 2002.  That policy makes it clear that the federal agencies first rely on the researcher’s home institution to make the initial response to allegations of misconduct.  In short, each institution receiving federal funding is responsible for having a policy acknowledging their responsibility “for prevention and detection of research and scholarly misconduct and for the inquiry, investigation, and adjudication of research misconduct alleged to have occurred in their own institution.” [2]  This would pertain to all employees engaged in research, training and public service projects.  Moreover, this policy applies to intramural and extramural programs alike.  The following policy is written to align with the model policy provided by The Office of Research Integrity. [3]

Definitions

Research and Scholarly Activity Misconduct: Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting research results[2].  Research and scholarly misconduct also includes deliberate interference.  Research and scholarly misconduct also means failure to comply with federal, state or University rules governing the conduct of research (including IRB).  Research and scholarly misconduct does not include honest mistakes or differences of opinion.

Fabrication:  Making up data or results and recording or reporting them. [2]

Falsification: Manipulating research and scholarly materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. [2]

Plagiarism: Appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. [2]

Deliberate Interference: Intentionally causing material harm to the research or scholarly work of others, and may include damaging or destroying the property of others, such as research equipment or supplies; disrupting active experiments; or altering or deleting products of research, including data. [4]

Questionable Research Practices:  Other serious deviations from accepted professional practices in proposing, carrying out, or reporting results from scholarly activity.

Complainant: The individual who files the report.  The Complainant may choose to remain anonymous.

Respondent: The subject of the allegations of research and scholarly misconduct.

Preponderance of Evidence: Proof by information that, compared with the information opposing it, leads to a conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not. [4]

Responsibility to Report

Individuals who believe in good faith that they have knowledge of improprieties, or suspects improprieties, must disclose that information promptly.  Ordinarily, the allegations are first reported to the supervisor of the prospective Respondent.  There may be circumstances, however, in which the prospective Complainant first discusses their concerns with the prospective Respondent.

All allegations of research and scholarly misconduct must be conveyed promptly to the Vice Provost of Research (VPR), whether the allegations are reported by the potential Respondent’s supervisor or the Complainant. The VPR is responsible for ensuring proper procedures are followed.  If the supervisor does not feel the VPR is the appropriate official to receive the report, the allegations may be reported directly to the provost.  If a Complainant reports an allegation of research and scholarly misconduct to the supervisor and the supervisor does not report the allegations to the VPR, the Complainant can report the allegations directly to the VPR.  Â鶹´«Ã½¸ßÇå prohibits retaliation against  any complainant, witness, participant in the investigative process, or person who refuses to engage in the impropriety.

All members of the Â鶹´«Ã½¸ßÇå community must cooperate during “The Inquiry” and “The Investigation” phases of a response to an allegation.

Research and Scholarly Misconduct Committee (RMC)

The RMC is charged with investigating the alleged research and scholarly misconduct in regard to research ethics, misrepresentation, and other related misconduct that jeopardizes the integrity of the institution. This committee serves to protect the reputation of Â鶹´«Ã½¸ßÇå University while being the guarantor of due process and ensuring confidentiality to the full extent possible.

Membership:
level appropriate UAAC or UGAC; change to scholarly activity

Director of Sponsored Programs (Chair)
Chair of the University Professional Status Committee or designee
Chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee or designee
Chair of the University Graduate Affairs Committee or designee
Faculty Senate President or designee

Ex officio:
Dean of the College where the faculty/staff member resides.
Content Expert(s) as identified by RMC Chair if deemed necessary.  If the subject matter is outside the purview of the membership, the RMC is encouraged to include any additional faculty expertise needed to join the committee on an Ex officio basis.  Any Content Expert must be judged to have no real or perceived conflict of interest in considering the allegations.

The Process

The Inquiry.  The purpose of the Inquiry is to make a preliminary assessment of the available evidence, the testimony of the Respondent, the testimony of the Complainant (if known), and the testimony of any additional witnesses.  The preliminary assessment is to determine if an investigation is warranted. [5]

1. The VPR should be notified of a potential research and scholarly misconduct in the form of a written and signed statement of the allegation. In circumstances where anonymity is in the best interest of the University, the VPR can sponsor the allegation. In such cases, the VPR signs the formal statement of the allegation on the university's behalf.
2. When the alleged misconduct involves either immediate health hazards or possible criminal misconduct, the VPR should inform the University General Counsel and Provost immediately, and reference Article XV of the University Faculty By-laws: Corrective Action Procedures and Processes for Termination of University Faculty.
3. The VPR will notify a funding agency or agencies of any allegation of research and scholarly misconduct “. . . if (1) the allegation involves Federally funded research (or an application  for Federal funding) and meets the Federal definition of research misconduct given above, and (2) if the institution’s inquiry into the allegation determines there is sufficient evidence to proceed to an investigation.” [2]
4. When allegations of misconduct are received by the VPR, they shall contact the Chair of the RMC. 
5. The Chair of the RMC will evaluate the preliminary evidence, including interviewing the Complainant (if known), the Respondent, and any other potential witness.
6. The Chair of the RMC will take steps to preserve all evidence collected during The Inquiry.
7. Following the inquiry, the Chair of the RMC will prepare a report of the results of the Inquiry culminating in a recommendation as to whether an investigation is warranted.
8. The Inquiry Report is submitted to the VPR.
9. The VPR will report the findings of The Inquiry to the Provost who makes the determination regarding the initiation of an investigation.
10. The VPR will notify the Respondent, the Respondent’s supervisor, and the Complainant (if known) of the results of The Inquiry in writing.
11. The Complainant (if known) can appeal the outcome of The Inquiry to the Provost within five business days.

The Investigation.  The investigation is the development of a factual record, the critical evaluation of that record, and a decision regarding dismissal of the case or a finding of research and scholarly misconduct. [5]

1. The VPR will direct the Chair of the RMC to initiate The Investigation.
2. The Investigation will be initiated and completed within a reasonable time frame in keeping with the complexity of the allegations and consistent with ensuring The Investigation is fair and thorough.
3. The VPR will provide the Respondent written notification that a formal investigation is being initiated and detailing the nature of the allegations. The Complainant (if known), any direct report of The Respondent, the Dean, and the Provost will all be blind-copied on this communication.
4. Every effort will be made to discover any and all additional relevant facts. Once all the evidence is collected, the RMC will meet to determine next steps.
5. The RMC will submit a written report with appropriate documentation to the VPR within thirty days of the first notification of the alleged misconduct.
6. The VPR will notify the Provost and the Respondent in writing of the outcome of The Investigation.  The Complainant will not be informed of the outcome of The Investigation.
7. When the investigation is complete, the VPR will forward the funding agency or agencies copies of the evidentiary record, the investigative report, the recommendations to the adjudicator, and any written response from the Respondent regarding the recommendations. [2]

Adjudication

1. If scholarly misconduct is determined to have occurred, appropriate further action will be taken by the Provost in accordance with Article XV of the University Faculty By-laws: Corrective Action Procedures and Processes for Termination of University Faculty.
2. The Provost has the authority to mitigate the effects of the Misconduct, taking formal steps deemed necessary and appropriate.
3. If Misconduct is not found to have occurred, there will be a sincere effort to protect and, if necessary, restore the reputations of the Respondent and all others involved in the investigation.
4. The Chair of the RMC will take steps to preserve all evidence collected during The Investigation.
5. The VPR will be the custodian of all evidence and records associated with The Inquiry, The Investigation, and the Adjudication.
6. When The Adjudication is complete, the VPR will forward the adjudicating official’s decision and corrective actions taken to the agency or agencies. [2]

Additional Safeguards

The rights and reputations of Respondents and Complainants will be respected and protected at all times during The Inquiry and The Investigation.  The following protections will be provided:

1. The RMC will protect the rights, the reputation, and the professional and institutional standing of any Respondent and any Complainant by affording them confidential treatment at all times being sensitive to difficult
2. The Respondent will be afforded every opportunity to comment on the allegations against them and all related findings.
3. Â鶹´«Ã½¸ßÇå prohibits retaliation against any Complainant, witness, participant in the investigative process, or person who refuses to engage in the impropriety.  Retaliation is a serious offense and may lead to investigation and disciplinary action. [4]
4. If the allegations of research and scholarly misconduct are determined to be made in bad faith or frivolous, the RMC will refer the Complainant to the VPR for potential disciplinary action.

Appeals

The Respondent has the right to appeal a finding of research and scholarly misconduct to the VPR within 10 days of receipt by the Respondent of the final report of the RMC.

1. The only grounds for appeal are (a) procedural error or (b) substantive new Evidence in favor of the Respondent. If no appeal is received by the end of the 10-day period, the Respondent will be deemed to have waived any appeal rights.
2. The appeal must be in writing and must enumerate the grounds for appeal and provide documentation or affidavits of any substantive new Evidence for consideration. If an appeal is received in a timely fashion, the VPR shall review the appeal.
3. If the VPR determines that the Investigation was not procedurally flawed, or there is no substantive new Evidence that could justify reversing the Committee of Investigation’s original decision, or both, then the appeal is denied.
4. If the VPR determines that there was one or more significant procedural errors committed during the Investigation or that substantive new Evidence exists that could justify reversing the RMC’s original decision, then VPR shall grant the appeal.
5. If the appeal is granted, the VPR shall direct the RMC to reopen its Investigation in order to correct the procedural error or to take into consideration the new Evidence or both.
6. If the reason for granting the appeal is procedural error only, and the VPR believes that fundamental fairness dictates the appointment of a new Committee of Investigation, then the Vice Provost for Research shall appoint a new RMC to conduct a new Investigation.

References

1. Huggett, K.N., et al., Twelve tips for conducting collaborative research in medical education. Medical Teacher, 2011. 33(9): p. 713-718.
2. Executive Office of the President; Federal Policy on Research Misconduct; Preamble for Research Misconduct Policy. 2000, Government Publishing Office: Federal Register. p. 76260-76264.
3. Sample Policy & Procedures for Responding to Research Misconduct Allegations.  [cited 2024 April 25]; Available from: .
4. Procedures for Dealing with Academic Misconduct in Research and Scholarship, M.I.o. Technology, Editor.
5. Integrity, T.O.o.R. Handling Misconduct.  [cited 2024 April 23]; Available from: .
6. Standards for Addressing Research Misconduct.  [cited 2024 April 25]; Available from: .

Endorsed UFAC, 10-7-24, ALT 10-15-24

Share ➤