Return to Policies
   Print Policy No:
Return to Policies Print Policy No:
University of South Alabama Logo     
Policy No: 2013
Responsible Office: Research Compliance and Integrity
Last Review Date: 04/09/2026
Next Required Review: 04/09/2031
Policy No: 2013
Responsible Office: Research Compliance and Integrity
Last Review Date: 04/09/2026
Next Required Review: 04/09/2031

Research Misconduct

1. Purpose

The University of South Alabama recognizes that academic institutions have the responsibility to set standards for ethical behavior in the conduct of research and scholarly activities.  The pursuits of University's faculty, research staff, and students will be conducted with integrity and openness on the part of all those engaged in research.  The University of South Alabama does not tolerate misconduct in research or scholarly activity and has adopted the definition of misconduct as stated by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP):
 
Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.  Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.
 
To constitute research misconduct, the behavior must (1) represent a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; (2) be committed intentionally, or knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the integrity of research; and, (3) the allegation is proven by a preponderance of evidence [Federal Register: September 12, 2024, Vol. 89, No. 180].

2. Applicability

This policy and associated procedures apply to all University research activities, including those at USA Health facilities, regardless of funding source. The following university-wide procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct apply to all students, faculty, staff, and employees of the University of South Alabama and its affiliations. This policy is based on a model policy from the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) Office of Research Integrity. If funding is from sources other than PHS, it may be necessary to follow the policies of that grantor in addition to this University policy. The Research Integrity Officer or designee will determine policies and guidelines applicable to the alleged research misconduct and will apply USA policy and the sponsoring agency policy accordingly:
  • Public Health Service (PHS) policy, 42 CFR Parts 50 and 93;
  • National Science Foundation (NSF) described in Section 930 of the NSF Grant Policy Manual, NSF policy 45 CFR 689;
  • All other funding sources as applicable to their guidelines.
This policy applies to allegations of research misconduct occurring within six years of the date that the University of South Alabama or the funder received the allegation, subject to the following exceptions.  The six-year time limitation does not apply if:
  • The six-year time limitation does not apply if the respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct that occurred before the six-year period through the use of, republication of, or citation to the portion(s) of the research record alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized, for the potential benefit of the respondent (“subsequent use exception”). For research misconduct that appears subject to the subsequent use exception, the institution via the RIO must document their determination that the subsequent use exception does not apply.  This documentation will be for the latter of seven years after completion of the institutional proceeding or the completion of any HHS proceeding.
  • The six-year time limitation also does not apply if ORI or the University of South Alabama, following consultation with ORI, determines that the alleged research misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public.
Proceedings pursuant to this policy do not preclude additional proceedings involving other University units or committees using other policies and regulations.

3. Definitions

Accepted practices of the relevant research community:  means those practices established by 42 CFR Part 93 and by PHS funding components, as well as commonly accepted professional codes or norms within the overarching community of researchers and institutions that apply for and receive PHS awards.
 
Administrative record:  comprises the institutional record; any information provided by the respondent to ORI, including but not limited to the transcript of any virtual or in-person meetings under § 93.403(b) between the respondent and ORI, and correspondence between the respondent and ORI; any additional information provided to ORI while the case is pending before ORI; and any analysis or additional information generated or obtained by ORI. Any analysis or additional information generated or obtained by ORI will also be made available to the respondent.
 
Allegation:  is a disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of an institutional or HHS official.
 
Assessment:  is defined as reviewing an allegation of research misconduct to determine whether to move forward to Inquiry. The Assessment phase seeks to determine if the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct and whether it is sufficiently credible and specific such that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. The Assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation.
 
Complainant:  a person who makes a good-faith  allegation of research misconduct.
 
Conflict of interest (as used in this Policy):  when an individual or organization has involvement in multiple interests and one of these interests could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act by the individual or organization in another of the interests.
 
Deciding Official:  the University Institutional Official, at USA, the Vice President for Research and Economic Development, who makes final determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any responsive University actions. The Deciding Official will not be the same individual as the Research Integrity Officer.
 
Evidence:  means anything offered or obtained during a research misconduct proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact. Evidence includes documents, whether in hard copy or electronic form, information, tangible items, and testimony.
 
Fabrication:  making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
 
Falsification:  manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
 
Good faith allegation:  an allegation made with the honest belief that research misconduct may have occurred. An allegation is not in good faith if it is made with reckless disregard for or willful ignorance of facts that would disprove the allegation.
 
Inquiry:  preliminary information gathering and initial fact-finding to determine whether an allegation, or apparent instance of research misconduct, warrants investigation.
 
Inquiry Committee:  may be charged to conduct the assessment and/or performs the inquiry into the allegation of potential research misconduct.
 
Institutional Member: Institutional member and members means an individual (or individuals) who is employed by, is an agent of, or is affiliated by contract or agreement with an institution. Institutional members may include, but are not limited to, officials, tenured and untenured faculty, teaching and support staff, researchers, research coordinators, technicians, postdoctoral and other fellows, students, volunteers, subject matter experts, consultants, or attorneys, or employees or agents of contractors, subcontractors, or sub-awardees.
 
Intentionally:  to act intentionally means to act with the aim of carrying out the act.
 
Investigation:  the formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if research misconduct has occurred; and, if so, to determine the responsible person, the seriousness of the research misconduct, and evaluate appropriate action.
 
Investigation Committee:  ad hoc committee charged to perform the investigation of inquiry findings regarding allegations of potential research misconduct.
 
Knowingly:  to act with awareness of the act.  .
 
NSF OIG:  the National Science Foundation Office of Inspector General oversees investigations of research misconduct and conducts any NSF inquires and investigations into suspected or alleged research misconduct.
 
ORI:  the Office of Research Integrity, the office within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) that is responsible for the research misconduct and research integrity activities of the U.S. Public Health Service.
 
Preponderance of the evidence:  “evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 1979, p. 1064) “greater weight of evidence”
 
Plagiarism:  the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another’s work that materially misleads the reader regarding the contribution of the author.  It does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology.  
 
Plagiarism does not include self-plagiarism or authorship or credit disputes including disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a research project. Self-plagiarism and authorship disputes do not meet the definition of research misconduct.
 
Recklessly:  means to propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.
 
Research Integrity Officer:  the individual with primary responsibility for implementation of the institution’s policies and procedures on research misconduct and for overseeing inquiries and investigations.
 
Research misconduct:  (for the purposes of this document and as defined by the federal Office of Science and Technology Policy) - fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
 
Research record:  means the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry.  Data or results may be in physical or electronic form.  Examples of items, materials, or information that may be considered part of the research record, but are not limited to, research proposals, raw data, processed data, clinical research records, laboratory records, study records, laboratory notebooks, progress reports, manuscripts, abstracts, theses, records of oral presentations, online content, lab meeting reports, and journal articles.
 
Respondent:  the person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or the person whose actions are the subject of the inquiry or investigation. There can be more than one Respondent in any inquiry or investigation.
 
Retaliation:  any adverse action taken against a complainant, witness, or committee member by an institution or one of its members in response to (a) A good faith allegation of research misconduct; or (b) Good faith cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding.
 
Sequestration:  the collection and segregation of research records, equipment, and other tangible or intangible information for the specific purpose of assessing allegations as part of the research misconduct investigative process. All appropriate rights are accorded to the Respondent in the act of sequestrating research records, as outlined in the Roles and Responsibilities of the Respondent section of this policy.

4. Policy Guidelines

4.1  Responsibility to Report Misconduct
 
All institutional members as defined by this policy have a responsibility to report observed, suspected, or apparent research misconduct. Institutional members who know of or receive an allegation of research misconduct must report it immediately to the RIO, an institutional representative, the Office of Research Compliance and Integrity, or through the Ethics and Compliance Hotline (information provided below). University schools, departments, and units must not conduct a review of allegations of research misconduct on their own. If an individual is unsure whether a set of circumstances falls within the definition of research misconduct, then the individual should contact the RIO in the Office of Research Compliance and Integrity, or an institutional representative to discuss the suspected research misconduct informally, which may include discussing it anonymously and/or hypothetically. If the circumstances do not appear to meet the definition of research misconduct, then the RIO or institutional representative may refer the individual or circumstances to appropriate offices or officials for handling. The Office of Compliance maintains the University’s Ethics and Compliance Hotline and Non-Retaliation policy and website, as well as information on alternative methods for reporting. At any time, an employee may have discussions and consultations about concerns of possible misconduct with their immediate supervisor, college/school dean or institute director, Research Integrity Officer or other University administrative officials. The confidentiality of any of these discussions will be maintained to the extent possible as determined by University needs.
 
Individuals may make anonymous reports through the University's Ethics and Compliance Hotline by calling 1-844-666-3599 or visiting the Ethics and Compliance Hotline webpage. The hotline's website is operated by an independent third party who maintains the anonymity of the person making the report while ensuring that the report is routed to proper individuals within the University.
 
4.2  Cooperating with Research Misconduct Proceedings
 
Institutional members have a responsibility to cooperate fully in research misconduct proceedings. Institutional members and the respondent have an obligation to provide evidence relevant to research misconduct allegations to the RIO, other university officials, and committees and/or persons involved in research misconduct proceedings such as investigation committees.
 
4.3  Protecting Complainants, Witnesses, and Committee Members
 
Employees or other parties may not threaten, intimidate or retaliate in any way against Complainants, witnesses, or committee members.  Any threats or attempts to intimidate or retaliate against Complainants, witnesses or committee members should be promptly reported to the Research Integrity Officer, who shall review the matter and, in consultation with appropriate University officials take reasonable and necessary intervening, and/or corrective or restorative actions.  Although efforts will be made to protect the Complainant’s identity, anonymity may not be assured.  If the matter is referred to an Inquiry Committee or the Investigation Committee, the Complainant's testimony may be required.
 
4.4  Protecting the Respondent
 
As requested and as appropriate, the Research Integrity Officer and other University officials shall make reasonable and practical efforts to protect the reputation of persons alleged to have engaged in research misconduct, but against whom no finding of research misconduct is made. Inquiries and investigations will be conducted in a manner that will ensure fair treatment to the Respondent(s),  and  confidentiality of  the  process  will  be  maintained to  the  extent  possible without compromising public health and safety. Respondents accused of research misconduct may seek advice of legal counsel, or a non-lawyer personal advisor (who is not a principal or witness in the case) The Respondent may not bring counsel or a personal advisor to interviews, meetings, or proceedings on the matter.
 
4.5  Confidentiality
 
All those involved in a research misconduct proceeding have the responsibility to maintain confidentiality to the extent reasonable and practical. Disclosure of the identities of the respondent, complainant, and witnesses while conducting the research misconduct proceedings and the contents of records and evidence in a research misconduct proceeding is limited, to the extent possible, to those who need to know as determined by the university, consistent with a thorough, objective, and fair proceeding and as allowed by law. Those who need to know may include institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions. This limitation on disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses no longer applies once the institution has made a final determination of research misconduct findings.  Exceptions include the requirement that the University must disclose the identities of respondents, complainant, or other relevant persons to ORI in accordance with 42 CFR Part 93 and/or as required by other federal regulation or agency requirement when PHS-supported activities are involved
 
4.6  Other Considerations
 
4.6.1  Termination of University Employment or Resignation Prior to Completion of an Inquiry or Investigation
 
The termination of the Respondent’s employment with the University, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation of possible research misconduct has been reported, will not preclude or terminate the misconduct procedures set forth herein.
 
If the Respondent, without admitting to the misconduct, elects to resign his/her position prior to the initiation of the inquiry, but after an allegation has been made, or during an inquiry or investigation, the inquiry or investigation will proceed. If the Respondent refuses to participate in the process after resignation, the ad hoc (inquiry) committee, and, if necessary, the Investigation Committee will use its best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the allegation(s), noting in its report the Respondent's failure to cooperate and its affect on the review of all the evidence.
 
4.6.2  Restoration of the Respondent’s Reputation
 
Upon receiving the report from the ad hoc (inquiry) committee and/or Investigation Committee, if the Deciding Official determines that the Respondent is exonerated of research misconduct and, where relevant, if ORI/NSF or other federal agencies concur, reasonable action(s) will be taken to preserve or restore the Respondent’s reputation. Any such actions will be taken by and at the discretion of the Deciding Official, after consultation with the Respondent and appropriate University officials.  Those actions may include, but are not limited  to  notifying  those individuals aware of or involved in the investigation of the final outcome, publicizing the final outcome in forums in which the allegation of research misconduct was previously publicized, or expunging all reference to the research misconduct from the Respondent's personnel file. The method for restoring a reputation must be determined on a case-by case basis.
        
4.6.3  Handling Allegations Not Made in Good Faith
 
If circumstances warrant, the Deciding Official will determine whether the Complainant's allegations of research misconduct were made in good faith. If a determination is made that an allegation was not made in good faith, the Deciding Official will determine whether any administrative action should be taken against the Complainant.
 
4.6.4  Record Retention
 
After completion of a case and all ensuing related actions, the Research Integrity Officer will maintain all records of the research misconduct proceeding, as defined in 42 CFR Section 93.317(a), for seven years after completion of the proceeding, or any ORI or DHHS proceeding under Subparts D and E of 42 CFR Part 93, or as required by the State of Alabama, whichever is later.
 
4.6.5  Admissions of Misconduct
 
An allegation may be resolved on the basis that the Respondent has admitted responsibility and a resolution with the Respondent has been satisfactorily reached, provided that applicable federal agency requirements regarding early termination of the process are met. Should a Respondent make an admission, the RIO, in consultation with the Deciding Official and other appropriate University officials, shall promptly consult with any appropriate federal agencies to determine the next steps that should be taken.  If resolving an allegation due to Respondent admission, the RIO must ensure this action would not prejudice or interfere with the University's review of another allegation against that Respondent or against a different Respondent.
 
4.6.6  Interim Administrative Actions and Notifying Federal Agencies of Special Circumstances
 
Throughout the research misconduct proceeding, the RIO will recommend that warranted interim actions are taken to protect public health, sponsor funds and equipment, and the integrity of the research process, and to ensure that the purposes of the research activity and the financial assistance are carried out.  Such actions may include, for example, additional monitoring of the research process and the handling of federal funds and equipment, reassignment of personnel or of responsibility for handling federal funds and equipment, additional review of research data and results, and/or delay in publication.
 
To the extent required by regulation or by the sponsor, the RIO shall, at any time during a research misconduct proceeding, notify appropriate federal or other officials of facts that may be relevant to protect public health, federal or other sponsor funds and equipment, and the integrity of the sponsor-supported research process and shall make other interim reports as required by research sponsors.

5. Procedures

5.1  Rights and Responsibilities
 
5.1.1  College/School Deans and Institute Directors
 
The deans and institute directors shall facilitate implementation of this policy in their respective College/School/Institute, and  must report knowledge of allegations of research misconduct to the Vice President for Research,  or the Office of Research Compliance and Integrity ., The Dean/Institute Director facilitates cooperation of Respondents and other individuals in his/her respective College/School/Institute in instances of allegations of research misconduct, including, but not limited to, the sequestration of research records and/or other relevant information and documentation relative to the allegations of research misconduct.
 
5.1.2  Research Integrity Officer (RIO)
 
The Vice President for Research and Economic Development shall appoint the Research Integrity Officer who will have primary responsibility for implementation of the procedures set forth in this document.
 
The RIO has broad authority to administer the policy and may delegate some duties throughout the process. The RIO’s duties include:
    • inform Respondents, Complainants, and witnesses of the procedural steps in the research misconduct process;
    • receiving an allegation of potential research misconduct and referring it to Deciding Official or Inquiry Committee for an assessment;
    • notifying relevant government agencies, sponsors, and/or university officials of allegations of research misconduct as permitted by this policy;
    • take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct process; including an inventory of the records and evidence and sequestering such records/evidence in a secure manner;
    • provide Respondent copies of, or reasonable supervised access to, the research records;
    • receive reports of and take appropriate action in the event the Respondent or Complainant has a concern or complaint about the research misconduct process. If necessary, the Research Integrity Officer shall present the issue to the Deciding Official who shall take appropriate action;
    • providing respondent the opportunities to review, comment and respond to an allegation, evidence, and committee reports;
    • work with Deciding Official to appoint an Inquiry or Investigation Committee whose members contain the appropriate expertise, and assist the committee in complying with this policy;
    • keep the Deciding Official and others who need to know, as described in this policy, apprised of the progress of the review of the allegation of research misconduct;
    • assist the Deciding Official in implementing his/her decision to take administrative action against any Complainant, Respondent, witness, or committee member determined by the Deciding Official not to have acted in good faith;
    • be available or present throughout an inquiry or investigation process to advise the committee as requested;
    • assist in the preparation of the Inquiry and Investigation committee reports;
    • confirm that the the RIO has no conflicts of interest in conducting the described duties. If the Research Integrity Officer has a conflict of interest; the Deciding Official shall appoint a qualified administrator or tenured faculty member to conduct the Research Integrity Officer duties described in the policy.
If an investigation is warranted, the Research Integrity Officer will:
    • initiate the investigation within 30 calendar days after the determination by the Deciding Official that an investigation is warranted;
    • on or before the date on which the investigation begins: (1) notify ORI and/or NSF OIG of the decision to begin the investigation and provide a copy of the inquiry report, if applicable; and (2) notify the Respondent in writing of the allegations to be investigated;
    • convene first meeting of the Investigation Committee;
    • if determining that the investigation cannot be completed within 180 days of its initiation, submit a request for an extension including a statement of the reasons for the extension.  If the misconduct is applicable to PHS policy, the Research Integrity Officer will file periodic progress report with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity or other relevant funding agency;
    • transmit the draft investigation report to the University Office of General Counsel for review;
    • submit the report of the Investigation Committee to the Deciding Official.
5.1.3  Complainant
 
The institution may, but is not required to provide the Complainant with an opportunity to speak before the Ad hoc (inquiry) Committee and the Investigation Committee, and to review portions of the inquiry and investigation reports pertinent to his/her allegations or testimony. The Complainant is responsible for making allegations in good faith, and cooperating in good faith with an inquiry or investigation.
 
5.1.4  Respondent
 
The institution will make a good-faith effort to notify the respondent(s) in writing of the allegations being made against them.   The institution will take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the research misconduct proceeding do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the respondent. The institution will give due consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the respondent. 
 
The Respondent has the right to suggest witnesses and present evidence to rebut the testimony and other evidence used against the Respondent before a preliminary determination is made by the Investigation Committee, to be interviewed during the investigation, to have the opportunity to correct the recording (if any) or transcript of that interview, and to have the corrected recording or transcript included in the record of the investigation.
 
The respondent is entitled to:
    • an opportunity to comment on the draft inquiry report and have those comments attached to the final inquiry report;
    • be notified of the outcome of an inquiry; receive the final inquiry report; and be provided with access to or refer to this policy and any government regulations that govern the research misconduct proceeding;
    • if the matter proceeds to an investigation, be notified in writing within a reasonable time after the determination that an investigation is warranted, but before the investigation begins (within 30 days after the university decides to begin an investigation); be notified in writing of any new allegation(s) that was not addressed in the inquiry or in the initial notice of investigation within a reasonable time after the determination to pursue a new allegation(s);
    • be interviewed during the investigation, have the opportunity to correct the recording or transcript of the interview, and have the corrected recording or transcript included in the record of the investigation;
    • have interviewed during the investigation any witness who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent; have the recording or transcript provided to the witness for correction; and, have the corrected recording or transcript included in the record of investigation; and
    • receive the draft investigation report and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to the research records and other evidence that the investigation committee considered or relied on. The respondent’s comments, if any, must be submitted to the RIO within 30 days of receiving the draft investigation report.
The Respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating with the conduct of an inquiry or investigation. If the Respondent is not found to have committed research misconduct, he/she has the right to receive reasonable assistance from the University toward restoring his/her reputation.
 
5.1.5  Deciding Official
 
The Vice President for Research and Economic Development is the Institutional Deciding Official. The Deciding Official determines the need for an inquiry, appoints the Inquiry committee as described herein, and receives the inquiry report and any written comments made by the Respondent on the report.  After consulting with the Research Integrity Officer and the Inquiry Committee, the Deciding Official will determine whether or not an investigation is warranted under the following criteria:
 
there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation constitutes research misconduct as defined by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), based on evidence and/or information gathering and preliminary fact finding from the Inquiry Committee.  If the Investigation Committee determines that research misconduct occurred, the Deciding Official, after consultation with other University officials, decides the extent to which the University accepts the findings of the investigation report and determines what administrative actions are appropriate, if any.
 
This determination must be provided in a written decision that includes:
    • whether the university determined that research misconduct occurred and, if so, who committed the misconduct; and
    • a description of relevant university actions taken or to be taken.
The Deciding Official will ensure that the final investigation report, the finding of the Deciding Official, and a description of any planned or completed administrative action are provided to the federal funding sponsor.
 
5.2  Conducting the Assessment
 
5.2.1  Conducting the Assessment
 
An assessment's purpose is to determine whether an allegation warrants an inquiry. An assessment is intended to be a review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation. Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO or another designated institutional official must promptly assess the allegation to determine whether the allegation:
    • constitutes research misconduct as defined by this policy and OSTP;
    • is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified; and
    • for matters involving PHS-supported activities, the assessment also must include a determination whether the criteria of 42 CFR §93.102 apply.
An inquiry must be conducted if the allegation meets the three assessment criteria as noted above. Allegations that do not meet these criteria will be referred to the appropriate university unit, committee or official for handling, as appropriate. If the RIO or another designated university official determines that requirements for an inquiry are met, they must:
    • document the assessment; and
    • promptly sequester all research records and other evidence and promptly initiate the inquiry. For matters involving PHS-supported activities, the sequestration must be consistent with 42 CFR §93.305(a).
If the RIO or another designated institutional official determines that requirements for an inquiry are not met, they must keep sufficiently detailed documentation of the assessment to permit a later review by ORI (when PHS support is involved) of the reasons why the institution did not conduct an inquiry. Such documentation must be retained in accordance with 42 CFR §93.318 when PHS support is involved.
 
5.3  Conducting the Inquiry
 
5.3.1  An inquiry is warranted if the allegation meets the following three criteria:
  • falls within the definition of research misconduct in this policy;
  • is within the applicability criteria of 42 CFR §93.102 for PHS-supported activities; and
  • is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified.
An inquiry's purpose is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine whether an allegation warrants an investigation. An inquiry does not require a full review of the evidence related to the allegation.
 
At the time of or before beginning an inquiry, a good faith effort must be made to notify in writing the presumed respondent, if any. If the inquiry subsequently identifies additional respondents, the university must notify them. Only allegations specific to a particular respondent are to be included in the notification to that respondent. If additional allegations are raised, the respondent(s) must be notified in writing of the additional allegations raised against them.
 
The university must obtain all research records and other evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding. When PHS-supported activities are involved, the sequestration must be consistent with 42 CFR §93.305(e).
 
5.3.2  Conducting the inquiry
 
5.3.2.1  When multiple institutions are involved, a joint research misconduct proceeding must be conducted consistent with 42 CFR 93.305(e) when PHS-supported activities are involved.
 
5.3.2.2  The university may convene committees of experts to conduct reviews at the inquiry stage to determine whether an investigation is warranted. The inquiry review may be done by the RIO or other designated institutional official in lieu of a committee, with the caveat that if needed, these individuals may utilize one or more subject matter experts to assist them in the inquiry.
 
5.3.2.3  The university may interview witnesses or respondents that would provide additional information for the university’s review.
 
5.3.2.4  An investigation is warranted if:
    • there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation constitutes research misconduct as defined by this policy and OSTP, and in the case of PHS-supported activities, involves PHS-supported biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or research training, as provided in 42 CFR §93.102; and
    • preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding from the inquiry indicates that the allegation may have substance.
5.3.2.5  Findings of research misconduct, including the determination of whether the alleged misconduct is intentional, knowing or reckless, cannot be made at the inquiry stage.
 
5.3.3  Inquiry report
 
The university must prepare a written report as described below in the section entitled Preparing the Inquiry Report. When PHS support is involved, the report must meet the requirements of this section and 42 CFR §93.309. If there is potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion, the university must note this in the inquiry report. The university must provide the respondent an opportunity to review and comment on the inquiry report and attach any comments received to the report as explained below in the section below entitled Notifying the Respondent and Providing Opportunity to Comment.
 
Time for completion:
    • The inquiry must be completed within 90 days of its initiation unless circumstances warrant a longer period.
    • In the case of PHS-supported activities, if the inquiry takes longer than 90 days to complete, the inquiry report must document the reasons for exceeding the 90-day period.
    • In the case of NSF-sponsored research, if the inquiry will take longer than 90 days, an extension of time should be requested from the NSF.
5.3.4  Preparing the Inquiry Report
 
At the conclusion of the inquiry, an inquiry report must be prepared. For research involving PHS-supported activities, the report must be provided to ORI within 30 days of determining that an investigation is warranted. The report must include the following information:
  • the names, professional aliases, and positions of the respondent and complainant;
  • a description of the allegation(s) of research misconduct;
  • a description of funding for the research involved in the inquiry. In the case of PHS-supported activities, include grant numbers, grant applications, contracts and publications listing the PHS support;
  • the composition of the inquiry committee, if used, including name(s), position (s) and subject matter expertise;
  • inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted;
  • transcripts of any transcribed interviews;
  • timeline and procedural history;
  • any scientific or forensic analyses conducted;
  • the basis for recommending that the allegation(s) warrant an investigation;
  • the basis on which any allegation(s) do not merit an investigation;
  • a recommendation regarding other steps to be taken, if any. If the inquiry determines that an investigation is not warranted, it may recommend other actions.
  • any comments on the inquiry draft report by the respondent or complainant;
  • any university actions implemented, including communications with journals or funding agencies.72All documents relied upon must be attached to the inquiry report.
For inquiries involving PHS-supported activities, the University must provide the following information to ORI whenever requested:
  • The university’s policies and procedures under which the inquiry was conducted; and
  • The research records and other evidence reviewed, and copies of all relevant documents.
The university must keep detailed documentation of inquiries to permit a later assessment, including by ORI in matters involving PHS support, of the reasons why the university decided not to investigate. In matters involving PHS support, such documentation must be retained in accordance with 42 CFR 93.318 and, in accordance with 42 CFR § 93.305(g), the university must notify ORI of any special circumstances that may exist.
 
5.3.5  Notifying the Respondent and Providing Opportunity to Comment
 
The university must notify the respondent whether the inquiry found that an Investigation is warranted. The notice must include a copy of the inquiry report and, in the case of PHS-supported activities, include a copy of or refer to this part and the university's policies and procedures adopted under its research integrity assurance.
 
For research involving NSF Support, the respondent must be provided with access to 45 CFR §689. The respondent will be allowed 14 days to provide the RIO with comments to the draft inquiry report. If the draft inquiry report is emailed to the respondent, the date of receipt is considered to be the date the email is sent. The respondent’s comments to the draft inquiry report will be attached to the final inquiry report. Based on the comments, the inquiry report may be revised as appropriate before it’s the inquiry report is finalized.
 
5.3.6  Notifying the Complainant and Providing Opportunity to Comment
 
The university may, but is not required to notify the complainant whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted. The university may, but is not required to, provide relevant portions of the report to a complainant for comment. If the university provides notice to one complainant in a case, it must provide notice, to the extent possible, to all complainants in the case.
 
5.3.7  Making the Institutional Decision and Providing Notice
 
After reviewing for compliance with this policy, the RIO will transmit the final inquiry report and its attachments to the Deciding Official. The Deciding official will determine whether an investigation is warranted. The Deciding official’s institutional decision must be in writing and must state whether it: (a) accepts the inquiry findings, including whether an investigation is warranted; (b) accepts any other recommendations made in the inquiry report; and (c) imposes any new or additional administrative action. In making the institutional decision, the Deciding Official may consult with the RIO and other appropriate University officials. The Deciding Official must give considerable weight to the findings and recommendation in the inquiry report. If the deciding official rejects the findings and/or recommendations in the inquiry report, then as part of the institutional decision, the deciding official must provide a detailed written explanation and rationale for rendering a decision different from the findings in the inquiry report. Alternatively, the Deciding Official may return the report with a request for additional fact finding or analysis. The inquiry is complete when the Deciding Official makes the institutional decision.
 
When NSF sponsored research is involved, the RIO will immediately notify the NSF OIG when the finding of an inquiry supports an Investigation. The RIO will notify appropriate university officials of the Deciding Official's decision.
 
5.4  Conducting the Investigation
 
The investigation must begin no later than 30 calendar days after the institutional decision by the Deciding Official that an investigation is warranted.
 
The purpose of the investigation is to formally develop and examine a factual record by exploring the allegation in detail and examining the research record and the evidence in depth, leading to a decision whether research misconduct was committed and, if it was, who committed the misconduct The investigation also requires diligently pursuing all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and, continuing the investigation to completion including broadening the scope of the investigation beyond the initial allegation(s).
 
5.4.1  Notifying Government Agencies and University Officials
 
In matters involving PHS-supported activities and/or NSF funding, the RIO must notify ORI (for PHS-supported activities) and/or the NSF OIG (for NSF-sponsored funding) of the decision to begin an investigation on or before the date on which the investigation begins. The notification must include the Deciding Official’s institutional decision; the inquiry report, its attachments, and any respondent comments. Upon request, the RIO will provide the institutional policies and procedures under which the inquiry was conducted, the research records and other evidence reviewed, and copies of all relevant documents. In matters moving to investigation, the RIO may notify appropriate university officials.
 
If the University determines that it will not be able to complete the investigation in 180 days, the Research Integrity Officer will submit to the applicable federal agency(ies) a written request for extension that explains the delay, reports on the progress to date, estimates the date of completion of the report, and describes other necessary steps to be taken. If the request is granted, the Research Integrity Officer will file periodic progress reports as requested by the ORI and/or NSF OIG. When PHS funding or other federal agency applications for funding are involved and an admission of research misconduct is made, the Deciding Official or Research Integrity Officer will contact the applicable office(s) for consultation. Normally, the individual making the admission will be asked to sign a statement attesting to the occurrence and extent of misconduct. When the case involves PHS funds, the University cannot accept an admission of research misconduct as a basis for closing a case or not undertaking an investigation without prior approval from ORI.
 
The Research Integrity Officer will notify ORI, and/or NSF OIG immediately and at any stage of the inquiry or investigation if:
    • there is an immediate health or safety hazard involved, including the immediate need to protect human or animal subjects;
    • there is an immediate need to protect Federal resources, reputations or other interests;
    • there is an immediate need to protect the interests of the person(s) making the allegations or of the individual(s) who is the subject of the allegations as well as his/her co-investigators and associates, if any;
    • it is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly;
    • the research activities should be suspended; or
    • there is reasonable indication of possible violation of civil or criminal law.
NSF Funded Activities (45 CFR 689)
 
Where NSF funds are involved, the requirements at 45 CFR 689 must be met by the University. Possible actions to be taken by OIG (including initiation of its own Investigation) are identified in 45 CFR 689, and should be noted.
 
If NSF conducts a formal Investigation, prompt written notice will be made to the individual or institutions to be investigated, unless notice would prejudice the Investigation, or unless a criminal Investigation is underway or under active consideration. In the case of consideration of a criminal Investigation by the Department of Justice, FBI etc., the OIG will determine what information may be disclosed to the subject of the Investigation.
 
5.4.2  Sequestering Materials
 
All research records and other evidence needed to conduct the investigation must be sequestered. The need for additional sequestration of records for the investigation may occur for multiple reasons, including the university's decision to investigate additional allegations that were not considered during the inquiry or the identification of records during the inquiry that were not sequestered previously.
 
5.4.3  Notifying the Respondent
 
At the time of or before beginning an investigation, the RIO must make a reasonable, good faith effort to notify the respondent in writing, if the respondent is known, of the allegation(s) involved in the investigation. The RIO must also give the respondent written notice of any allegation(s) of research misconduct not addressed during the inquiry or in the initial notice of investigation within a reasonable amount of time after the decision is made to pursue such allegation(s). A separate inquiry may (but is not required to) be conducted regarding additional respondents added during the investigation. If additional respondents are identified during the investigation, a good faith attempt must be made to notify them of the allegation(s) and provide an opportunity to respond in accordance with the provisions of this policy.
 
5.4.4  Appointing the Investigation Committee
 
The Deciding Official, in consultation with the RIO, will appoint an investigation committee within 10 days of the initiation of the investigation or as soon thereafter as practical. The investigation committee must consist of individuals who do not have an unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest with the complainant, respondent or witnesses. The investigation committee will consist of individuals with the appropriate expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation, interview the principals and key witnesses, and conduct the investigation. Members of the inquiry committee may serve on the investigation committee. Some or all of the members of the investigation committee may be selected from outside of the university. The RIO must make a reasonable, good faith attempt to notify the respondent in writing of the names of the investigation committee members. The respondent has 10 days from the receipt of the notice to provide the RIO with any written objection to the committee members. If the RIO sends notice via email, the date of receipt is considered to be the date the email was sent. If no objection is received within the 10-day period, then any objection to the investigation committee must be considered waived. If a timely objection is made, it must be made in good faith and must set forth in sufficient detail a reasonable basis for the objection. The institutional representative in consultation with the RIO must consider any objection. If they determine that the objection is valid, the institutional representative, in coordination with the RIO, must appoint one or more new members of the investigation committee. If they determine that the objection is not made in good faith or is not valid, the membership of the investigation committee will remain the same.
 
5.4.5  Charging the Investigation Committee
 
The institutional representative, in consultation with the RIO, should define the subject matter of the investigation in a written charge to the investigation committee that:
    • identifies the respondent;
    • describes the allegation(s) and any related issues identified during the inquiry;
    • defines research misconduct;
    • informs the committee that it must use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough and sufficiently documented and includes examination of all research records and other evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegation(s);
    • advises the investigation committee that the purpose of the investigation is the formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record leading to a finding of whether research misconduct was committed and, if so, who committed it;
    • advises the committee that it should consider recommending administrative action based on the facts learned during the investigation, regardless of whether or not research conduct was committed;
    • instructs the committee that it must interview each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who reasonably has been identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent;
    • instructs the committee that it must thoroughly evaluate the evidence and testimony to determine whether, based on a preponderance of the evidence, research misconduct occurred and, if so, the type and extent of it and who was responsible;
    • informs the committee that to determine that the respondent committed research misconduct it must find that a preponderance of the evidence establishes that: (i) research misconduct, as defined in this policy, occurred; (ii) the research misconduct is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and (iii) the respondent (or some other person) committed the research misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly;
    • advises the committee that the respondent has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any affirmative defenses raised, including honest error or a difference of opinion;
    • informs the committee that if during the investigation, additional information becomes available that substantially changes the subject matter of the investigation or suggests additional respondents and/or allegations, then the investigation committee should notify the RIO, who in conjunction with the institutional representative, will determine whether it is necessary to notify the respondent of the new subject matter or provide notice to additional respondents;
    • informs the committee that if, in the case of PHS-supported activities, the respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct that occurred before the six-year time limitation through the use, republication of, or citation to the portion(s) of the research record alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized, for the potential benefit of the respondent, then the committee must determine whether such alleged use(s) should be added to the investigation as additional allegations;
    • instructs the committee to diligently pursue all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct and continue the investigation to completion;
    • advises the investigation committee that it is responsible for preparing a written report of the investigation that meets the requirements of this policy and, in the case of research related to PHS-supported activities, meets the requirements of 42 CFR §93.313 or, in the case of research related to NSF support, meets the requirements of 45 CFR §689.4;
    • advises the investigation committee that it must take all reasonable steps to ensure the confidentiality of the research misconduct proceeding; and
    • sets forth the time for completing the investigation.
5.4.6  Communicating During the Investigation
 
During the investigation, the investigation committee must keep the RIO apprised of any development that discloses (1) facts that may affect current or future funding for the respondent; or (2) information that appropriate government agencies may need to know to ensure the appropriate use of government funds or to protect the public interest. The RIO must be responsible, in coordination with the institutional representative or other university officials, as appropriate, for providing notice to the following entities regarding such developments: NSF OIG in the case of research involving NSF support; ORI in the case of research involving PHS support; and other appropriate government agencies.
 
5.4.7  Conducting the Investigation
 
The investigation committee must:
 
    • use diligent efforts to ensure that the Investigation is thorough and sufficiently documented and includes examination of all research records and other evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of each allegation(s);
    • take reasonable steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased investigation to the maximum extent practical including participation of persons with appropriate expertise who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest relevant to the investigation;
    • interview each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent, and record or transcribe each interview, provide the recording or transcript to the person interviewed for correction, and include the recording or transcript in the record of the Investigation. Interviews must be recorded and transcribed. Exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview must be numbered and referred to by that number in the interview. The transcript of the interview must be made available to the relevant interviewee for correction. The transcript(s) with any corrections and numbered exhibits must be included in the institutional record of the investigation. The respondent must not be present during witness interviews but must be provided with a transcript of each interview;
    • consider the prospect of additional researchers being responsible for the alleged research misconduct;
    • conduct an investigation involving multiple institutions, if applicable; and
    • pursue diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion. If additional allegations are raised, the respondent(s) must be notified in writing of the additional allegations raised against them.
5.4.8  Timing for Completing the Investigation
 
All aspects of the investigation should be completed within 180 days of beginning it, including conducting the investigation, preparing the draft investigation report for each respondent, providing the draft report to each respondent for comment. In matters involving PHS-supported activities, the institutional record, the final investigation report, and decision by the Deciding Official must be transmitted to ORI.
 
If the RIO determines that the investigation will not be completed within the 180-day period, then an extension may be granted. In matters involving PHS-supported activities, the RIO will submit to ORI a written request for an extension of time that includes the circumstances or issues warranting additional time. The RIO will ensure that periodic progress reports are filed with ORI, if ORI grants the request for an extension and directs the filing of such reports. If an investigation involving PHS-supported activities takes more than 180 days to complete, the investigation report must include the reasons for exceeding the 180-day period. In the case of NSF-sponsored Research, the Investigation must be completed within 180 days with the possibility of seeking an extension of time from NSF.
 
5.4.9  The Investigation Report
 
Preparing the Investigation Report
 
The investigation committee is responsible for preparing a separate written report for each respondent in the investigation. While an investigation into multiple respondents can convene with the same investigation committee members, separate investigation reports and research misconduct determinations are required for each respondent. Each investigation report must include the following information:
    • the name and position of the respondent;
    • composition of the investigation committee including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise;
    • a description of the nature of the allegation(s) of research misconduct including any additional allegation(s) addressed during the research misconduct proceeding;
    • a description and documentation of the funding for the research involved in the Investigation. For PHS-supported research, NSF-supported research, or other government support, include grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing the support;
    • a description of the specific allegation(s) of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation;
    • inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence, except records that were not considered or relied on; and a description of how any sequestration was conducted during the investigation. The inventory must include manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied on during the investigation;
    • transcripts of all interviews conducted;
    • identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), PHS funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, or other research records that allegedly contained the falsified, fabricated or plagiarized material;
    • any scientific or forensic analysis conducted;
    • the university’s policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted;
    • any comments made by the respondent and complainant on the draft investigation report and the investigation committee’s consideration of those comments;
    • a statement for each separate allegation of whether the investigation committee recommends a finding of research misconduct;
    • if the investigation committee recommends a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the investigation report must, for that allegation:
      • identify the individual(s) who committed the research misconduct;
      • indicate whether the research misconduct was falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism;
      • indicate whether the research misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly or recklessly;
      • summarize the facts and the analysis which support the conclusion and consider the merits of any explanation by the respondent;
      • in matters involving PHS support, identify the specific PHS support;
      • identify whether any publications need correction or retraction.
    • if the investigation committee does not recommend a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the investigation report must provide a detailed rationale;
    • list of any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with PHS and non-HS federal agencies;
    • a recommendation regarding other steps to be taken, if any, including administrative action.
5.4.10  Notifying the Complainant and Respondent and Providing Opportunity to Comment on Draft Investigation Report
 
5.4.10.1  The Respondent
 
The RIO must give the respondent the draft investigation report and, concurrently, a copy of or supervised access to the research records and other evidence that the investigation committee considered or relied on. The respondent must submit any comments on the draft report within 30 days of receiving the draft investigation report. The RIO will inform the respondent of the confidentiality of the report and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure confidentiality such as signing a confidentiality agreement.

If the draft investigation report is emailed to the respondent, the date of receipt is considered to be the date the email is sent. For research involving PHS-supported activities, the respondent must be provided with access to 42 CFR Part 93. For research involving NSF support, the respondent must be provided with access to 45 CFR §689. Based on the comments, the investigation committee may revise the report as appropriate before preparing its final investigation report. The committee must deliver the final investigation report to the RIO.
 
5.4.10.2  The Complainant
 
The RIO may, but is not required to provide the complainant the draft investigation report or relevant portions of the report. If the RIO provides the complainant with the draft investigation report, then the complainant will be allowed 30 days from the date the complainant received the draft investigation report or relevant portions of it to submit comments to the RIO. If the draft investigation report is emailed to the complainant, the date of receipt is considered to be the date the email is sent.
 
5.4.11  Decision by the Institutional Deciding Official and Providing Notice
 
5.4.11.1  Institutional Decision by the Deciding Official
 
After reviewing for compliance with this policy, the RIO will transmit the final investigation report and its attachments to the Deciding Official. The Deciding Official is responsible for making a final determination of research misconduct findings. The determination must be provided in a written decision that includes:
      • whether research misconduct as defined by this policy and OSTP was found, and if so, who committed the misconduct;
      • a description of relevant institutional actions taken or to be taken.
In making the institutional decision, the Deciding Official may consult with the RIO and other appropriate university officials. The Deciding Official must give considerable weight to the findings and recommendation of the investigation committee. If the deciding official rejects the investigation committee’s findings and/or recommendations, then as part of the institutional decision, the Deciding Official must provide a detailed written explanation for rendering a decision different from the findings of the investigation committee. Alternatively, the deciding official may return the report to the investigation committee with a request for additional fact-finding or analysis. The institutional decision must document administrative action imposed on the respondent. The investigation is completed when the Deciding Official issues the institutional decision.
 
5.4.11.2  Notifying the Respondent
 
The Deciding Official or RIO will notify the respondent in writing of the investigation committee’s findings and the institutional decision.
 
5.4.11.3  Notifying Government Agencies
 
In matters involving PHS-supported activities, after the Deciding Official has made a final determination of research misconduct findings, the RIO will transmit the institutional record to ORI. The institutional records must be consistent with 42 CFR§93.220.
 
In matters involving NSF-sponsored research, the RIO will submit the following information to NSFOIG within the180-day period for completing the report:
      • the final investigation report with all attachments;
      • a statement of whether the university accepts the findings of the investigation report;
      • a statement of whether the university found research misconduct and, if so, who committed the research misconduct; and
      • a description of any planned or completed administrative action.
5.4.11.4  Notifying Others
 
Working in cooperation, the Deciding Official and the RIO may notify appropriate university officials. The Deciding Official, the RIO and appropriate university officials will cooperate to determine whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals, collaborators of the respondent regarding the subject matter of the investigation, or other relevant entities or individuals should be notified of the outcome of the proceeding and how the notification should be made. The RIO is responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification requirements of funding or sponsoring agencies. The Deciding Official is responsible for signing the required notifications.
 
5.5  Completing the Research Misconduct Process
 
In matters involving PHS-supported activities, ORI expects that inquiries and investigations will be carried through to completion and that all significant issues and credible allegations of research misconduct will be diligently pursued. ORI must be notified in advance if there are plans to close a research misconduct proceeding at the assessment, inquiry or investigation stage on the basis that the respondent has admitted to committing research misconduct or a settlement with the respondent has been reached.
 
A respondent’s admission of research misconduct must be made in writing and signed by the respondent. An admission must specify the falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism that occurred and which research records were affected. The admission statement must meet all elements required for a research misconduct finding under 42 CFR §93.103 and must be provided to ORI before the research misconduct proceeding is closed. A statement must be provided to ORI describing how it determined that the scope of the misconduct was fully addressed by the admission and confirmed the respondent’s culpability.
 
5.6  Retention and Custody of the Institutional Record
 
The RIO must maintain the institutional record and all sequestered evidence including physical objects (regardless of whether the evidence is part of the institutional record) in a secure manner for the time period specified below after the date on which the investigation concludes or any PHS, NSF or other federal government proceeding involving the research misconduct allegation is completed, whichever is later, unless ORI, NSF, OIG or another applicable government agency notifies the university that it no longer needs to retain the records or unless custody has been transferred to HHS as provided for by 42 CFR § 93.318(a).
 
For PHS-supported activities, the RIO must maintain the institutional record and all sequestered evidence including physical objects regardless of whether the evidence is part of the institutional record misconduct proceeding in a secure manner for seven years after completion of the proceeding or the completion of any HHS proceeding involving the research misconduct allegation under subparts D and E of 42 CFR 93, whichever is later, unless custody has been transferred to HHS or ORI advises otherwise in writing. On request, the RIO must transfer custody, or provide copies, to HHS of the institutional record or any component of the institutional record and any sequestered evidence (regardless of whether the evidence is included in the institutional record) for ORI to conduct its oversight review, develop the administrative record, or present the administrative record in any proceeding under subparts D and E of 42 CFR Part 93. For research that is not federally sponsored, the RIO must keep all records of the research misconduct proceeding in a secure manner for eleven years after the later of the date on which the research misconduct proceeding concluded
 
5.7  Institutional Administrative Action
 
If the Deciding Official determines that research misconduct is substantiated by the findings of an investigation, the Deciding Official will determine any administrative action to be taken, after consulting with the RIO and other appropriate university officials. The administrative action may include but is not limited to:
  • withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the research where research misconduct was found;
  • removal of the responsible person from the particular project, letter of reprimand, special monitoring of future work, probation, suspension, salary reduction, or initiation of steps leading to possible rank reduction or termination of employment;
  • restitution of funds to the grantor agency as appropriate; and other action appropriate to the research misconduct.
5.8  Other Considerations for Inquiries and Investigations
 
5.8.1  Termination or Resignation Prior to Completing Inquiry or Investigation
 
The termination of the respondent's university employment, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation of research misconduct has been reported, must not be sufficient justification to preclude or terminate the research misconduct proceeding or otherwise limit any of the university’s responsibilities under 42 CFR Part 93 or 45 CFR Part 698.
 
If the respondent, without admitting to the research misconduct, elects to resign after the university receives an allegation of research misconduct, then the assessment of the allegation will proceed, as well as the inquiry and investigation, as appropriate based on the outcome of the preceding steps. If the respondent refuses to participate in the research misconduct process after resignation, then the RIO and any committee will use their best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the allegation, noting in the report the respondent's failure to cooperate and its effect on the research misconduct proceeding.
 
5.8.2  Restoration of Reputations
 
All reasonable and practical efforts, if requested and appropriate, will be made to protect or restore the reputations of good faith complainants, witnesses, committee members, institutional representatives, respondents against whom no finding of research and others related to a research misconduct process. Depending on the particular circumstances, the RIO should consider notifying those individuals who are aware of or involved in the research misconduct proceeding of the final outcome, publicizing the final outcome in any forum in which the allegation of research misconduct was previously publicized, and expunging all reference to the research misconduct allegation from the respondent's personnel file. Any administrative action to restore the respondent's reputation should be pre-approved by the Deciding Official in coordination with the RIO and appropriate university officials.
 
5.9  Appeals
 
Within ten (10) business days of such finding, the Respondent may appeal findings of research misconduct in writing to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs or the Vice President for Medical Affairs or the Director, Mitchell Cancer Institute, as applicable given the academic appointment of Respondent. The appellate Vice President or Director will review the grounds for an appeal. This review is limited to a determination of whether procedural error occurred, and the appropriateness of the disciplinary action taken. All parties will be notified in writing of the appeal decision within ten (10) business days with the option of an extension if the appellate, vice president, or director chooses to meet with the Respondent and/or representative of the Investigation Committee as part of the appeal process. The decision is final and no further appeal is allowed. If a respondent appeals an institutional finding(s) of research misconduct or institutional actions, the institution must promptly notify ORI. If the institution has not transmitted its institutional record to ORI in accordance with 93.316 prior to the appeal, the institution must wait until the appeal is concluded to transmit the institutional record. If the institutional record has been transmitted to ORI prior to the appeal, the institution will provide ORI a complete record of the appeal once concluded.

6. Enforcement

The University will take appropriate administrative actions against individuals when an allegation of misconduct has been substantiated. If the Deciding Official determines that the alleged misconduct is substantiated by the findings, he/she, after consultation with other University officials, will decide on the appropriate action(s) to be taken. Actions may include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the research where the research misconduct was found;
  • withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the research where research misconduct was found;
  • notification of professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals, collaborators of the respondent in the work, or other relevant individuals or organizations;
  • removal of the responsible person from the particular project; letter of reprimand; special monitoring of future work; probation; suspension; salary reduction; or initiation of steps leading to possible rank reduction or termination of employment;
  • restitution of funds as appropriate;
  • notification of law enforcement agencies;
  • completion of appropriate training, specified by the Deciding Official;
  • unacceptable academic/employment performance combined with research misconduct could be a cause for an adverse employment action, up to and including dismissal;
  • other action appropriate for cases involving students, including but not limited to referral for  possible  charges of academic misconduct under the Student Academic Conduct Policy or possible charges of non-academic misconduct under the Student Code of Conduct; and
  • other actions as appropriate to remedy the research misconduct and to prevent it the future.

7. Related Documents

7.1  USA Related Documents

Ethics and Compliance Hotline (policy)

Non-Retaliation (policy)

7.2  Related Regulations:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity

National Science Foundation