Reporting Allegations of Research Misconduct

Applies to:	Original Policy Date:	Date of Last Review:	Approved by:
Faculty, staff, students	Effective: February 8, 2011	March 3, 2022 August 2024	Dr. John Nicklow, President

Policy Owner: Office of Sponsored Programs

Policy Purpose

Scientific research at Florida Institute of Technology is grounded upon the principles of academic freedom and mutual trust. The fostering of inquiry and creativity requires an environment that fosters ethical behavior in scholarship and serves to prevent misconduct in research. The university's primary responsibility is to create and maintain such an environment. The members of the university community are presumed to adhere to high ethical standards in the conduct of research and other academic pursuits. Research fraud is a fundamental violation of this trust and represents an assault upon the integrity of the entire university community.

Research misconduct and fraud are, fortunately, rare events. However, because of the seriousness of misconduct and the special responsibilities of the university in such circumstances, both to individual scientists and to society, it is recognized that explicit procedures must be provided for dealing with instances of alleged misconduct. This document outlines the policies and procedures that will be followed in the investigation and reporting of allegations of research misconduct at Florida Institute of Technology.

In establishing procedures, however, it must be emphasized that the best method for dealing with misconduct is to prevent it. This it is imperative that those who participate in scientific inquiry reaffirm their responsibility for the ethical conduct of all research activities with which they are associated. This implies that principal investigators and laboratory supervisors recognize and accept that it is their ultimate responsibility to ensure the authenticity of research conducted and published under their auspices and realize that they must produce adequate supervision for trainees and all members of their research teams. It is also their responsibility to see that anyone who has contributed to the research is given credit for their work. On the other hand, it is incumbent upon research collaborators and other contributors to understand that the inclusion of their names as co-authors of publications reflects both a genuine contribution to the work and their approval of the publication and acceptance of responsibility for the work reported.

In the event that the integrity of any published report should be questioned, it is expected that adequate records of the original experimental protocols, engineering notebooks, and original data will have been preserved for a reasonable period of time (but not for less than five years.)

The university shall pursue an allegation of misconduct to the extent it is reasonably capable of doing so, even if the individual(s) against whom the allegation is made has (have) left the university before the case is resolved.

Policy Scope

This policy and its procedures are applicable to all members of the Florida Institute of Technology academic community, that is, employees (full and part-time), faculty, staff, and students of Florida Institute of Technology.

This document applies to allegations or research misconduct (fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results) involving:

A person who, at the time of the alleged research misconduct, was employed by, was an agent of, or was affiliated by contract or agreement with this institution; and/or
PHS supported biomedical or behavioral research, research training or activities related to that research or research training, such as the operation of tissue and data banks and the dissemination of research information; applications or proposals for PHS support for biomedical or behavioral research, research training or activities related to that research or research training; or plagiarism of research records produced in the course of PHS supported research, research training or activities related to that research or research training. This includes any research proposed, performed, reviewed, or reported, or any research record generated from that research, regardless of whether an application or proposal for PHS funds resulted in a grant, contract, cooperative, agreement, or other form of PHS support.

This statement of policy and procedures does not apply to authorship or collaboration disputes and applies only to allegations of research misconduct that occurred within six (6) years of the date the institution or HHS received the allegation, subject to the subsequent use, health or safety of the public, and grandfather exceptions in 42 CFR §105(b).

Florida Tech's goal of the procedures established in this document is to enable investigation and resolution of allegations of misconduct and fraud in an expeditious, responsible, and fair manner. The protection of the rights and reputations of all who are involved in any investigation of research misconduct is extremely important. To ensure this, proceedings will be confidential. Only those who must participate in any inquiry or formal investigation should have knowledge of it. A determination as to whether other interested parties, such as collaborators, supervisors, and officials of sponsoring or funding agencies or institutions, shall be notified will be made by the Committee on Scientific Misconduct coincident with the decision to initiate a formal investigation, unless otherwise specified.

Policy Statement

Responsibility to Report Misconduct

All institutional members will report observed, suspected, or apparent research misconduct to the RIO. If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of research misconduct, he or she may meet with or contact the RIO to discuss the suspected research misconduct informally, which may include discussing it anonymously and/or hypothetically. If the circumstances described by the individual do not meet the definition of research misconduct, the RIO will refer the individual or allegation to other offices or officials with responsibility for resolving the problem.

At any time, an institutional member may have confidential discussions and consultations about concerns of possible misconduct with the RIO and will be counseled about appropriate procedures for reporting allegations.

Cooperation with Research Misconduct Proceedings

Institutional members will cooperate with the RIO and other institutional officials in the review of allegations and the conduct of inquiries and investigations. Institutional members, including respondents, have an obligation to provide evidence relevant to research misconduct allegations to the RIO or other institutional officials.

Procedures/Guidelines

Confidentiality

The RIO shall, as required by 42 CFR § 93.108:

Limit disclosure of the identify of respondents and complainants to those who need to know in order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective and fair research misconduct proceeding; and
Except as otherwise prescribed by law, limit the disclosure of any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified to those who need to know in order to carry out a research subjects misconduct proceeding. The RIO should use written confidentiality agreements or other mechanisms to ensure that the recipient does not make any further disclosure of identifying information.

Protecting Complainants, Witnesses, and Committee Members

Institutional members may not retaliate in any way against complainants, witnesses, or committee members. Institutional members should immediately report any alleged or apparent retaliation against complainants, witnesses, or committee members to the RIO, who shall review the matter and, as necessary, make all reasonable and practical efforts to counter any potential or actual retaliation and protect and restore the position and reputation of the person against whom the retaliation is directed.

Protecting the Respondent

As requested and as appropriate, the RIO and other institutional officials shall make all reasonable and practical efforts to protect or restore the reputation of persons alleged to have engaged in research misconduct, but against who no finding of research misconduct is made.

During the research misconduct proceeding, the RIO is responsible for ensuring that respondents receive all the notices and opportunities provided for in 42 CFR Part 93 and the policies and procedures of the institution. Respondents may consult with legal counsel or a non-lawyer personal adviser (who is not a principal or witness in the case) to seek advice and may bring the counsel or personal adviser to interview or meetings on the case.

Interim Administrative Actions and Notifying ORI of Special Circumstances

Throughout the research misconduct proceeding, the RIO will review the situation to determine if there is any threat of harm to public health, federal funds and equipment, or the integrity of the PHS supported research process. In the event of such a threat, the RIO will, in consultation with other institutional officials and ORI, take appropriate interim action to protect against any such threat. Interim action might include additional monitoring of the research process and the handling of federal funds and equipment, reassignment of personnel or of the responsibility for the handling of federal funds and equipment, additional review of research data and results or delaying publication. The RIO shall, at any time during a research misconduct proceeding, notify ORI immediately if he/she has reason to believe that any of the following conditions exists:

Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects;
HHS resources or interests are threatened;
Research activities should be suspended;
There is a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law;
Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding;
The research misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely and HHS action may be necessary to safeguard evidence and project the rights of those involved; or
The research community or public should be informed.

Conducting the Assessment and Inquiry

Assessment of Allegations – Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO will immediately assess the allegation to determine whether it is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct in 42 CFR § 93.102(b), and whether the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct in 42 CFR § 93.103 . An inquiry must be conducted if these criteria are met.
The assessment period should be brief, preferably concluded within a week. In conducting the assessment, the RIO need not interview the complainant, respondent, or other witnesses, or gather data beyond any that may have been submitted with the allegation, except as necessary to determine whether the allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. The RIO shall, on or before the date on which the respondent is notified of the allegation, obtain custody of, inventory, and sequester all research records and evidence need to conduct the research misconduct proceeding.
Initiation and Purpose of the Inquiry – If the RIO determines that the criteria for an inquiry are met, he or she will immediately initiate the inquiry process. The purpose of the inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the available evidence to determine whether to conduct an investigation. An inquiry does not require a full review of all the evidence related to the allegation.
Notice to Respondent; Sequestration of Research Records – At the time of or before beginning an inquiry, the RIO must make a good faith effort to notify the respondent in writing, if the respondent is known. If the inquiry subsequently identifies additional respondents, they must be notified in writing. On or before the date on which the respondent is notified, or the inquiry begins, whichever is earlier, the RIO must take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence and sequester them in a secure manner, except that where the research records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments . The RIO may consult with ORI for advice and assistance in this regard.
Appointment of the Inquiry Committee – The Committee on Scientific Misconduct (the “Committee”) is charged with the responsibility of conducting formal investigations of allegations of scientific fraud or misconduct by members of the academic community of Florida Institute of Technology. It is the Committee’s responsibility to:
- determine if allegations of research fraud or misconduct are substantiated by the evidence;
- determine when the relevant sponsoring agencies are informed of the existence and progress of any formal investigations;
- make a report on the findings of investigations; and
- recommend appropriate action(s) to the RIO.

The RIO, in consultation with other institutional officials as appropriate, will appoint an inquiry committee and committee chair as soon after the initiation of the inquiry as is practical. The inquiry committee must consist of individuals who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved with the inquiry and should include individuals with the appropriate scientific expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation, interview the principals and key witnesses, and conduct the inquiry.

Charge to the Committee and First Meeting – The RIO will prepare a charge for the inquiry committee that:

Sets forth the time for completion of the inquiry;
Describes the allegations and any related issues identified during the allegation assessment;
States that the purpose of the inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the evidence, including the testimony of the respondent, complainant and key witnesses, to determine whether an investigation is warranted, not to determine whether research misconduct definitely occurred or who was responsible;
States that an investigation is warranted if the committee determines:
- There is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct and is within the jurisdictional criteria of 42 CFR § 93.102(b); and
- The allegation may have substance, based on the committee’s review during the inquiry.
Informs the inquiry committee that they are responsible for preparing or directing the preparation of a written report of the inquiry that meets the requirements of this policy and 42 CFR § 93.309(a).

At the committee’s first meeting, the RIO will review the charge with the committee, discuss the allegations, any related issues, and the appropriate procedures for conducting the inquiry, assist the committee with organizing plans for the inquiry and answer any questions raised by the committee. The RIO will be present or available throughout the inquiry to advise the committee as needed.

Inquiry Process – The inquiry committee will normally interview the complainant, the respondent, and key witnesses as well as examining relevant research records and materials. Then the inquiry committee will evaluate the evidence, including the testimony obtained during the inquiry. After consultation with the RIO, the committee members will decide whether an investigation is warranted based on the criteria in this policy and 42 CFR § 93.307(d). The scope of the inquiry is not required to and does not normally include deciding whether misconduct occurred, determining definitely who committed the research misconduct or conducting exhaustive interviews and analyses. However, if the respondent makes a legally sufficient admission of research misconduct, misconduct may be determined at the inquiry state if all relevant issues are resolved. In that case, the institution shall promptly consult with ORI to determine the next steps that should be taken.
Time for Completion – The inquiry, including preparation of the final inquiry report and the decision of the DO on whether an investigation is warranted, must be completed within 60 calendar days of initiation of the inquiry, unless the RIO determines that circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If the RIO approves an extension, the inquiry record must include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the 60-day period . The respondent will be notified of the extension.

The Inquiry Report

Elements of the Inquiry Report - A written inquiry report must be prepared that includes the following information:
- The name and position of the respondent;
- A description of the allegations of research misconduct;
- The PHS support, including, for example, grant numbers, grant applications, contracts and publications listing PHS support;
- The basis for recommending or not recommending that the allegations warrant an investigation;
- Any comments on the draft report by the respondent or complainant.
Institutional counsel should review the report for legal sufficiency. Modifications should be made as appropriate in consultation with the RIO and the inquiry committee. The inquiry report should include:
- The names and titles of the committee members and experts who conducted the inquiry;
- A summary of the inquiry process used;
- A list of the research records reviewed;
- Summaries of any interviews; and
- Whether any other actions should be taken if an investigation is not recommended.
Notification to the Respondent and Opportunity to Comment – The RIO shall notify the respondent whether the inquiry found an investigation to be warranted, include a copy of the draft inquiry report for comment within 10 days, and include a copy of or refer to 42 CFR Part 93 and the institution’s policies and procedures on research misconduct . The institution may notify the complainant whether the inquiry found an investigation to be warranted and provide relevant portions of the inquiry report to the complainant for comment within 10 days. A confidentiality agreement should be a condition for access to the report.
Any comments that are submitted by the respondent or complainant will be attached to the final inquiry report. Based on the comments, the inquiry committee may revise the draft report as appropriate and prepare it in final form. The committee will deliver the final report to the RIO.
Institutional Decision and Notification –
- Decision by Deciding Official - The RIO will transmit the final inquiry report and any comments to the DO, who will determine in writing whether an investigation is warranted. The inquiry is completed when the DO makes this determination.
- Notification to ORI – Within 30 calendar days of the DO’s decision that an investigation is warranted, the RIO will provide Ori with the DO’s written decision and a copy of the inquiry report. The RIO will also notify those institutional officials who need to know of the DO’s decision. The RIO must provide the following information to ORI upon request:
  - The institutional policies and procedures under which the inquiry was conducted;
  - The research records and evidence reviewed, transcripts or recordings of any interviews, and copies of all relevant documents; and
  - The charges to be considered in the investigation.
- Documentation of Decision Not to Investigate- If the DO decides that an investigation is not warranted, the RIO shall secure and maintain for 7 years after the termination of the inquiry, sufficiently detailed documentation of the inquiry to permit a later assessment by ORI of the reasons why an investigation was not conducted. These documents must be provided to ORI or other authorized HHS personnel upon request.

Conducting the Investigation

Initiation and Purpose - The investigation must begin within 30 calendar days after the determination by the DO that an investigation is warranted . The purpose of the investigation is to develop a factual record by exploring the allegations in detail and examining the evidence in depth, leading to recommended findings on whether research misconduct has been committed, by whom, and to what extent. The investigation will also determine whether there are additional instances of possible research misconduct that would justify broadening the scope beyond the initial allegations. This is particularly important where the alleged research misconduct involves clinical trials or potential harm to human subjects or the general public or if it affects research that forms the basis for public policy, clinical practice, or public health practice. Under 42 CFR § 93.313, the findings of the investigation must be set forth in an investigation report.
Notifying ORI and Respondent; Sequestration of Research Records – On or before the date which the investigation begins, the RIO must:
- Notify the ORI Director of the decision to begin the investigation and provide ORI a copy of the inquiry report; and
- Notify the respondent in writing of the allegations to be investigated.

The RIO must also give the respondent written notice of any new allegations of research misconduct within a reasonable amount of time of deciding to pursue allegations not addressed during the inquiry or in the initial notice of the investigation.

The RIO will, prior to notifying respondent of the allegations, take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of and sequester in a secure manner all research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding that were not previously sequestered during the inquiry. The need for additional sequestration of records for the investigation may occur for any number of reasons, including the institution’s decision to investigate additional allegations not considered during the inquiry stage or the identification of records during the inquiry process that had not been previously secured. The procedures to be followed for sequestration during the investigation are the same procedures that apply during the inquiry.

Appointment of the Investigation Committee – The regulation does not require that a committee conduct the investigation, but many institutions have used such committees.
The RIO, in consultation with other institutional officials as appropriate, will appoint an investigation committee and the committee chair as soon after the beginning of the investigation as is practical. The investigation committee must consist of individuals who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved with the investigation and should include individuals with the appropriate scientific expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation, interview the respondent and complainant and conduct the investigation. Individuals appointed to the investigation committee may also have served on the inquiry committee. When necessary to secure the necessary expertise or to avoid conflicts of interest, the RIO may select committee members from outside the institution.
Charge to the Committee and First Meeting
- Charge to the Committee
  - The RIO will define the subject matter of the investigation in a written charge to the committee that:
    - Describes the allegations and any related issues identified during the inquiry;
    - Identifies the respondent;
    - Informs the committee that it must conduct the investigation as prescribed below in the Investigation Process section;
    - Defines research misconduct;
    - Informs the committee that it must 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 in order to determine that the respondent committed research misconduct it must find that a preponderance of the evidence establishes that:
      - Research misconduct, as defined in this policy, occurred (respondent has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any affirmative defenses raised, including honest error or a difference of opinion);
      - The research misconduct is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
      - The respondent committed the research misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
      - Informs the committee that it must prepare or direct the preparation of a written investigation report that meets the requirements of this policy and 42 CFR § 93.313.
- First Meeting – The RIO will convene the first meeting of the investigation committee to review the charge, the inquiry report, and the prescribed procedures and standards for the conduct of the investigation, including the necessity for confidentiality and for developing a specific investigation plan. The investigation committee will be provided with a copy of this statement of policy and procedures and 42 CFR Part 93. The RIO will be present or available throughout the investigation to advise the committee as needed.
Investigation Process – The investigation committee and the RIO must:
- Use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough and sufficiently documented and includes examination of all research records and evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of each allegation.
- Take reasonable steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased investigation to the maximum extent practical.
- 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 interviewee for correction, and include the recording or transcript in the record of the investigation ; and
- Pursue diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of any additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion.
Time for Completion – The investigation is to be completed within 120 days of beginning it, including conducting the investigation, preparing the report of findings, providing the draft report for comment and sending the final report to ORI. However, if the RIO determines that the investigation will not be completed within this 120-day period, he/she will submit to ORI a written request for an extension, setting forth the reasons for the delay. 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.

The Investigation Report

Elements of the Investigation Report – The investigation committee and the RIO are responsible for preparing a written draft report of the investigation that:
- Describes the nature of the allegation of research misconduct, including identification of the respondent; the respondent’s curriculum vitae or resume may be included as part of the identification.
- Describes and documents the PHS support, including, for example, the numbers of any grants that are involved, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS support;
- Describes the specific allegations of research misconduct considered in the investigation;
- Includes the intuitional policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted, unless those policies and procedures were provided to ORI previously;
- Identifies and summarizes the research records and evidence reviewed and identifies any evidence taken into custody but not reviewed; and
- Includes a statement of findings for each allegation of research misconduct identified during the investigation. Each statement of findings must:
  - Identify whether the research misconduct was falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism, and whether it was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly;
  - Summarize the facts and the analysis that support the conclusion and consider the merits of any reasonable explanation by the respondent, including any effort by respondent to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he/she did not engage in research misconduct because of honest error or a difference of opinion;
  - Identify the specific PHS support;
  - Identify whether any publications need correction or retraction;
  - Identify the person(s) responsible for the misconduct; and
  - List any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with non-PHS federal agencies.
Comments on the Draft Report and Access to Evidence
- Respondent – The RIO must given the respondent a copy of the draft investigation report for comment and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to the evidence on which the report is based. The respondent will be allowed 30 days from the date he/she received the draft report to submit comments to the RIO. The respondent’s comments must be included and considered in the final report .
- Complainant – As a policy applicable to all cases, the institution may provide the complainant a copy of the draft investigation report, or relevant portions of it, for comment. The complainant’s comments must be submitted within 30 days of the date on which he/she received the draft report and the comments must be included and considered in the final report. See 42 CFR §§ 93.312(b) and 93.313(g).
- Confidentiality – In distributing the draft report, or portions thereof, to the respondent, the RIO will inform the recipient of the confidentiality under which the draft report is made available and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure such confidentiality. For example, the RIO may require that the recipient sign a confidentiality agreement.
Decision by Deciding Official – The RIO will assist the investigation committee in finalizing the draft investigation report, including ensuring that the respondent’s comments are included and considered, and transmit the final investigation report to the DO, who will determine in writing:
- Whether the institution accepts the investigation report, its findings, and the recommended institutional actions; and
- The appropriate institutional cations in response to the accepted findings of research misconduct.
  If this determination varies from the findings of the investigation committee, the DO will, as part of his/her written determination, explain in detail the basis for rendering a decision different from the findings of the investigation committee. Alternatively, the DO may return the report to the investigation committee with a request for further fact-finding or analysis.
  
  When a final decision on the case has been reached, the RIO will normally notify both the respondent and the complainant in writing. After informing ORI, the DO will determine whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals in which falsified reports may have been published, collaborators of the respondent in the work, or other relevant parties should be notified or the outcome of the case. The RIO is responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification requirements of funding or sponsoring agencies.
Appeals – The respondent has the right to appeal a finding by the committee that the respondent has committed scientific misconduct to the Senior Vice President and Provost within 30 days after receiving the final report of the committee. The grounds for the appeal must be:
- Inadequacy of the investigative procedure; and/or
- New evidence not considered by the committee.
In the event of an appeal, the university will request an extension of time from ORI/PHS to consider the appeal.
The Office for Sponsored Programs, in consultation with the Senior Vice President and Provost, Senior Associate Provost and the President of the Faculty Senate, may appoint an ad hoc Appeals Committee, which cannot include any members of the committee and where there is substantive new evidence in favor of the Respondent. The Appeals Committee shall report in writing to the Director of Sponsored Programs no later than 30 days after the appeal has been received.

If the Appeals Committee finds that the original investigation was procedurally acceptable and that there is no substantive new evidence, it can recommend that the appeal be denied.

If the Appeals Committee finds that there were significant procedural irregularities in the original investigation or agrees that substantive new evidence has been presented, it must recommend re-investigation by the new Committee on Scientific Misconduct. In this case, the university will request an extension of time from the appropriate Federal agency for the re-investigation.
Notice to ORI of Institutional Findings and Actions - Unless an extension has been granted, the RIO must, within the 120-day period for completing the investigation, submit the following to ORI:
- a copy of the final investigation report with all attachments and any appeal;
- a statement of whether the institution accepts the findings of the investigation report or the outcome of the appeal;
- a statement of whether the institution found misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct; and
- a description of any pending or completed administrative actions against the respondent.
Maintaining Records for Review by ORI - The RIO must maintain and provide to ORI upon request "records of research misconduct proceedings" as that term is defined by 42 CFR § 93.317. Unless custody has been transferred to HHS or ORI has advised in writing that the records no longer need to be retained, records of research misconduct proceedings must be maintained in a secure manner for 7 years after completion of the proceeding or the completion of any PHS proceeding involving the research misconduct allegation . The RIO is also responsible for providing any information, documentation, research records, evidence or clarification requested by ORI to carry out its review of an allegation of research misconduct or of the institution's handling of such an allegation.

Completion of Cases; Reporting Premature Closures to ORI

Generally, all inquiries and investigations will be carried through to completion and all significant issues will be pursued diligently. The RIO must notify ORI in advance if there are plans to close a case at the inquiry, investigation, or appeal stage on the basis that respondent has admitted guilt, a settlement with the respondent has been reached, or for any other reason, except:

closing of a case at the inquiry stage on the basis that an investigation is not warranted; or
a finding of no misconduct at the investigation stage, which must be reported to ORI, as prescribed in this policy and 42 CFR § 93.315.

Institutional Administrative Actions (Optional)

If the DO determines that research misconduct is substantiated by the findings, he or she will decide on the appropriate actions to be taken, after consultation with the RIO. The administrative actions may include:

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 actions appropriate to the research misconduct.

Other Considerations

Termination or Resignation Prior to Completing Inquiry or Investigation - The termination of the respondent's institutional employment, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation of possible research misconduct has been reported, will not preclude or terminate the research misconduct proceeding or othe1wise limit any of the institution's responsibilities under 42 CFR Part 93 .
If the respondent, without admitting to the misconduct, elects to resign his or her position after the institution receives an allegation of research misconduct, 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 process after resignation, the RIO and any inquiry or investigation committee will use their best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the allegations, noting in the report the respondent's failure to cooperate and its effect on the evidence.
Restoration of the Respondent’s Reputation - Following a final finding of no research misconduct, including ORI concurrence where required by 42 CFR Part 93, the RIO must, at the request of the respondent, undertake all reasonable and practical effo1is to restore the respondent's reputation. Depending on the particular circumstances and the views of the respondent, the RIO should consider notifying those individuals aware of or involved in the investigation 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 institutional actions to restore the respondent's reputation should first be approved by the DO.
Protection of the complainant, Witnesses and Committee Members - During the research misconduct proceeding and upon its completion, regardless of whether the institution or ORI determines that research misconduct occurred, the RIO must undertake all reasonable and practical efforts to protect the position and reputation of, or to counter potential or actual retaliation against, any complainant who made allegations of research misconduct in good faith and of any witnesses and committee members who cooperate in good faith with the research misconduct proceeding . The DO will determine, after consulting with the RIO, and with the complainant, witnesses, or committee members, respectively, what steps, if any, are needed to restore their respective positions or reputations or to counter potential or actual retaliation against them. The RIO is responsible for implementing any steps the DO approves.
Allegations Not Made in Good Faith – If relevant, the DO will determine whether the complainant’s allegations of research misconduct were made in good faith, or whether a witness or committee member acted in good faith. If the Do determines that there was an absence of good faith he/she will determine whether any administrative action should be taken against the person who failed to act in good faith.

Confidentiality

The RIO shall, as required by 42 CFR § 93.108:

Limit disclosure of the identify of respondents and complainants to those who need to know in order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective and fair research misconduct proceeding; and
Except as otherwise prescribed by law, limit the disclosure of any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified to those who need to know in order to carry out a research subjects misconduct proceeding. The RIO should use written confidentiality agreements or other mechanisms to ensure that the recipient does not make any further disclosure of identifying information.

Protecting Complainants, Witnesses, and Committee Members

Protecting the Respondent

Interim Administrative Actions and Notifying ORI of Special Circumstances

Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects;
HHS resources or interests are threatened;
Research activities should be suspended;
There is a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law;
Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding;
The research misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely and HHS action may be necessary to safeguard evidence and project the rights of those involved; or
The research community or public should be informed.

Definitions

Terms used have the same meaning as given them in the Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct, 42 CFR Part 93.

Research misconduct: Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or reporting research results.

Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
Falsification is 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.
Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
Research misconduct does not include honest errors or differences of opinion.

Complainant: A person who makes a good faith allegation of research misconduct.

Respondent: The person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is made.

Allegation: disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication.

Inquiry: preliminary information gathering and fact-finding to determine if investigation is warranted.

Investigation: formal development and evaluation of a factual record leading to a decision of research misconduct occurrence and, if so, appropriate actions to follow.

Research Integrity Officer (RIO): institutional official responsible for (1) reviewing allegations of research misconduct to determine if they fall within the definition of research misconduct and warrant an inquiry; and (2) overseeing inquiries and investigations.

Deciding Officer (DO): institutional official responsible for reviewing the factual record resulting from investigation and making final determinations of research misconduct and any administrative actions. The DO does not serve as the RIO and is not directly involved with preliminary assessment, inquiry, or investigation (appointment of RIO is not considered direct involvement).

Compliance Reference

This statement of policy and procedures is intended to carry out this institution’s responsibilities under the Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct, 42 CFR Part 93.

Responsibilities

Research Integrity Officer (RIO) – The Office of Sponsored Programs will serve as the RIO who will have primary responsibility for implementation of the institution’s policies and procedures on research misconduct. A detailed listing of the responsibilities of the RIO is set forth below. These responsibilities include the following duties related to research misconduct proceedings:

Consult confidentially with persons uncertain about whether to submit an allegation of research misconduct;
Receive allegations of research misconduct;
Assess each allegation of research misconduct in accordance with this policy to determine whether it falls within the definition of research misconduct and warrants an inquiry.
As necessary, take interim action and notify the ORI of special circumstances, in accordance with this policy.
Sequester research data and evidence pertinent to the allegation of research misconduct, maintain it securely in accordance to this policy and applicable laws.
Provide confidentiality to those involved in the research misconduct proceeding as required by 42 CFR §93.108, other applicable law, and institutional policy.
Notify the respondent and provide opportunities for him/her to review/comment/respond to allegations, evidence, and committee reports in accordance to this policy.
Inform respondents, complainants, and witnesses of the procedural steps in the research misconduct proceeding;
Appoint the chair and members of the inquiry and investigation committees, ensure that those committees are properly staffed and that there is expertise appropriate to carry out a thorough and authoritative evaluation of the evidence;
Determine whether each person involved in handling an allegation of research misconduct has an unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest and take appropriate action, including recusal, to ensure that no person with such conflict is involved in the research misconduct proceeding;
In cooperation with other institutional officials, take all reasonable and practical steps to protect or restore the positions and reputations of good faith complainants, witnesses, and committee members and counter potential or actual retaliation against them by respondents or other institutional members.
Keep the Deciding Official (DO) and others who need to now apprised of the progress of the review of the allegation of research misconduct;
Notify and make reports as required by 42 CFR Part 93;
Ensure that administrative actions taken by the institution are enforced and take appropriate action to notify other involved parties, such as sponsors, law enforcement agencies, professional societies, and licensing boards, of those actions; and
Maintain records of the research misconduct proceedings.

The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) has lead responsibility for ensuring that the institution:

Takes all reasonable and practical steps to foster a research environment that promotes the responsible conduct of research, research training, and activities related to that research or research training, discourages research misconduct, and deals promptly with allegations or evidence of possible research misconduct.
Has written policies and procedures for responding to allegations of research misconduct and reporting information that response to ORI, as required by 42 CFR Part 93.
Informs its institutional members who are subject to 42 CFR Part 93 about its research misconduct policies and procedures and its commitment to compliance with those policies and procedures.
Takes appropriate interim action during a research misconduct proceeding to protect public health, federal funds and equipment, and the integrity of the PHS supported research process.
Files an annual report with ORI containing the information prescribed by ORI.
Sends to ORI with the annual report such other aggregated information as ORI may prescribe on the institution’s research misconduct proceedings and the institution’s compliance with 42 CFR Part 93.

Notice and Reporting to ORI and Cooperation with ORI

Notifies ORI immediately if, at any time during the research misconduct proceeding, it has reason to believe that health or safety of the public is at risk, HHS resources or interests are threatened, research activities should be suspended, there is reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law, federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding, the institution believes that the research misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely, or the research community or the public should be informed.
Provides ORI with the written finding by the responsible institutional official that an investigation is warranted and a copy of the inquiry report, within 30 days of the date on which the finding is made.
Notifies ORI of the decision to begin an investigation on or before the date the investigation begins.
Within 120 days of beginning an investigation, or such additional days as may be granted by ORI, (or upon completion of any appeal made available by the institution) provide ORI with the investigation report, a statement of whether the institution accepts the investigation’s findings, a statement of whether the institution found research misconduct and, if so, who committed it, and a description of any pending or completed administrative actions against the respondent.
Seeks advance ORI approval if the institution plans to close a case at the inquiry, investigation, or appeal stage on the basis that the respondent has admitted guilt, a settlement with the respondent has been reached, or for any other reason, except the closing of a case at the inquiry stage on the basis that an investigation is not warranted or a finding of no misconduct at the investigation stage.
Cooperates fully with ORI during its oversight review and any subsequent administrative hearings or appeals, including providing all research records and evidence under the institution’s control, custody, or possession and access to all persons within its authority necessary to develop a complete record of relevant evidence.

Research Misconduct Proceeding

Promptly taking all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester them in a secure manner.
Taking all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of respondents and other institutional members with research misconduct proceedings, including, but not limited to their providing information, research records, and evidence.
Providing confidentiality to those involved in the research misconduct proceeding as required by 42 CFR § 93.108, other applicable law, and institutional policy.
Determining whether each person involved in handling an allegation of research misconduct has an unresolved personal, professional or financial conflict of interest and taking appropriate action, including recusal, to ensure that no person with such a conflict is involved in the research misconduct proceeding.
Keeping the Deciding Official (DO) and others who need to know apprised of the progress of the review of the allegation of research misconduct.
In cooperation with other institutional officials, taking all reasonable and practical steps to protect or restore the positions and reputations of good faith complainants, witnesses, and committee members and to counter potential or actual retaliation against them by respondents or other institutional members.
Making all reasonable and practical efforts, if requested and as appropriate, to protect or restore the reputation of person alleged to have engaged in research misconduct, but against who no finding of research misconduct is made.
Assisting the DO in implementing his/her decision to take administrative action against any complainant, witness, or committee member determined by the DO not to have acted in good faith.
Maintaining records of the research misconduct proceeding, as defined in 42 CFR §93.317, in a secure manner for seven (7) years after completion of the proceeding, or the completion of any ORI proceeding involving the allegation of research misconduct, whichever is later, unless custody of the records has been transferred to ORI or ORI has advised that the records no longer need to be retained.
Ensuring that administrative actions taken by the institution and ORI are enforced and taking appropriate action to notify other involved parties, such as sponsors, law enforcement agencies, professional societies, and licensing boards, of those actions.

Allegation Receipt and Assessment

Consulting confidentially with persons uncertain about whether to submit an allegation of research misconduct.
Receiving allegations of research misconduct.
Assessing each allegation of research misconduct to determine if an inquiry is warranted because the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct, is within the jurisdiction criteria of 42 CFR § 93.102(b), and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified.

Inquiry

Initiating the inquiry process if it is determined that an inquiry is warranted.
At the time of, or before beginning the inquiry, making a good faith effort to notify the respondent in writing, if the respondent is known.
On or before the date on which the respondent is notified, or the inquiry begins, whichever is earlier, taking all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventorying the records and evidence and sequestering them in a secure manner, except that where the research records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on the instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments.
Appoint an inquiry committee and committee chair as soon after the initial of the inquiry as is practical.
Preparing a charge for the inquiry committee in accordance with the institution’s policies and procedures.
Convening the first meeting of the inquiry committee and, at that meeting, briefing the committee on the allegations, the charge to the committee, and the appropriate procedures for conducting the inquiry, including the need for confidentiality and for developing a plan for the inquiry, and assisting the committee with organizational and other issues that may arise.
Providing the inquiry committee with needed logistical support, e.g., expert advice, including forensic analysis of evidence, and clerical support, including arranging witness interviews and recording or transcribing those interviews.
Being available or present throughout the inquiry to advise the committee as needed and consulting with the committee prior to its decision on whether to recommend that an investigation is warranted on the basis of the criteria in the institution's policies and procedures and 42 CFR § 93.307(d).
Determining whether circumstances clearly wan-ant a period longer than 60 days to complete the inquiry (including preparation of the final inquiry report and the decision of the DO on whether an investigation is warranted), approving an extension if warranted, and documenting the reasons for exceeding the 60-day period in the record of the research misconduct proceeding.
Assisting the inquiry committee in preparing a draft inquiry report, sending the respondent a copy of the draft report for comment (and the complainant if the institution's policies provide that option) within a time period that permits the inquiry to be completed within the allotted time, taking appropriate action to protect the confidentiality of the draft report, receiving any comments from the respondent (and the complainant if the institution's policies provide that option), and ensuring that the comments are attached to the final inquiry report.
Receiving the final inquiry report from the inquiry committee and fo1warding it, together with any comments the RIO may wish to make, to the DO who will determine in writing whether an investigation is warranted.
Within 30 days of a DO decision that an investigation is warranted, providing ORI with the written finding and a copy of the inquiry report and notifying those institutional officials who need to know of the decision.
Notifying the respondent (and the complainant if the institution's policies provide that option) whether the inquiry found an investigation to be warranted and including in the notice copies of or a reference to 42 CFR Part 93 and the institution's research misconduct policies and procedures.
Providing to ORI, upon request, the institutional policies and procedures under which the inquiry was conducted, the research records and evidence reviewed, transcripts or recordings of any interviews, copies of all relevant documents, and the allegations to be considered in the investigation.
If the DO decides that an investigation is not wanted, securing and maintaining for 7 years after the termination of the inquiry sufficiently detailed documentation of the inquiry to permit a later assessment by ORI of the reasons why an investigation was not conducted.

Investigation

Initiating the investigation within 30 calendar days after the determination by the DO that an investigation is warranted.
On or before the date on which the investigation begins:

notifying ORI of the decision to begin the investigation and providing ORI a copy of the inquiry report; and
notifying the respondent in writing of the allegations to be investigated.

Prior to notifying respondent of the allegations, taking all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of and sequester in a secure manner, all research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding that were not previously sequestered during the inquiry.
In consultation with other institutional officials as appropriate, appointing an investigation committee and committee chair as soon as after the initiation of the investigation as is practical.
Preparing a charge for the investigation committee in accordance with the institution’s policies and procedures.
Convening the first meeting of the investigation committee and at that meeting:

Briefing the committee on the charge, the inquiry report and the procedures and standards for the conduct of the investigation, including the need for confidentiality and developing a specific plan for the investigation; and
Providing committee members a copy of the institution’s policies and procedures and 42 CFR Part 93.

Providing the investigation committee with needed logistical support, e.g., expert advice, including forensic analysis of evidence, and clerical support, including arranging interviews with witnesses and recording or transcribing those interviews.
Being available or present throughout the investigation to advise the committee as needed.
On behalf of the institution, the RIO is responsible for each of the following steps and for ensuring that the investigation committee:

Uses diligent efforts to conduct an investigation that includes an examination of all research records and evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegations and that is otherwise thorough and sufficiently documented;
Takes reasonable steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased investigation to the maximum extent practical;
Interviews 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 records or transcribes each interview, provides the recording or transcript to the interviewee for correct, and includes the recording or transcript in the record of the research misconduct proceeding; and
Pursues diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of any additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continues the investigation to completion.

Upon determining that the investigation cannot be completed within 120 days of its initiation (including providing the draft report for comment and sending the final report with any comments to ORI), submitting a request to ORI for an extension of the 120-day period that includes a statement of the reasons for the extension. If the extension is granted, the RIO will file periodic progress reports to ORI.
Assisting the investigation committee in preparing a draft investigation report that meets the requirements of 42 CFR Part 93 and the institution’s policies and procedures, sending the respondent (and complainant at the institution’s option) a copy of the draft report for his/her comment within 30 days of receipt, taking appropriate action to protect the confidentiality of the draft report, receiving any comments from the respondent (and complainant at the institution’s option) and ensuring the that comments are included and considered in the final investigation report.
Transmitting the draft investigation report to institutional counsel for review of its legal sufficiency.
Assisting the investigation committee in finalizing the draft investigation report and receiving the final report from the committee.
Transmitting the final investigation report to the DO and:

If the DO determines further fact-finding or analysis is needed, receiving the report back from the DO for that purpose;
If the DO determines whether or not to accept the report, its findings and the recommended institutional actions, transmitting to ORI within the time period for completing the investigation, a copy of the final investigation report with all attachments, a statement of whether the institution accepts the findings of the report, a statement of whether the institution found research misconduct, and if so, who committed it, and a description of any pending or completed administrative actions against the respondent; or
If the institution provides for an appeal by the respondent that could result in a modification or reversal of the DO’s findings of research misconduct, ensuring that the appeal is completed within 120 days of its filing, or seeking an extension from ORI in writing (with an explanation of the need for the extension) and, upon completion of the appeal, transmitting to ORI a copy of the investigation report with all attachments, a copy of the appeal proceedings, a statement of whether the institution accepts the findings of the appeal proceedings, a statement of whether the institution found research misconduct, and if so, who committed it, and a description of any pending or completed administrative actions against the respondent.

When a final decision on the case is reached, the RIO will normally notify both the respondent and the complainant in writing and will determine whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of involved journals, collaborators of the respondent, or other relevant parties should be notified of the outcome of the case.
Maintaining and providing to ORI upon request, all relevant research records and records of the institution’s research misconduct proceeding, including the results of all interviews and the transcripts or recordings of those interviews.

Complainant – The complainant is responsible for making allegations in good faith, maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating with the inquiry and investigation. As a matter of good practice, the complainant should be interviewed at the inquiry stage and given the transcript or recording of the interview for correction. As a matter of policy, the institution may provide to the complainant for comment:

Relevant portions of the inquiry report (within a timeframe that permits the inquiry to be completed within 60 days of its initiation); and
The draft investigation report or relevant portions of it.

The institution must require that comments on the draft investigation report be submitted within 30 days of the date on which the complainant received the draft report. The institution must consider any comments made by the complainant on the draft investigation report and include those comments in the final investigation report.

Respondent – The respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating with the conduct of an inquiry and investigation. The respondent is entitled to:

A good faith effort from the RIO to notify the respondent in writing at the time of or before beginning an inquiry;
An opportunity to comment on the inquiry report and have his/her comments attached to the report;
Be notified of the outcome of the inquiry, and receive a copy of the inquiry report that includes a copy of, or refers to 42 CFR Part 93 and the institution’s policies and procedures on research misconduct;
Be notified in writing of the allegations to be investigated within a reasonable time after the determination that an investigation is warranted, but before the investigation begins (within 30 days after the institution decides to being an investigation), and be notified in writing of any new allegations, not addressed in the inquiry of in the initial notice of investigation, within a reasonable time after the determination to pursue those allegations;
Be interviewed during the investigation, have the opportunity to correct the recording or transcript, and have the corrected recording or transcript included in the record of the investigation;
Have interviewed during the investigation any witness who has been reasonable identified by the respondent as having information on relevant aspects of the investigation, have the recording or transcript provided to the witness for correction, and have the corrected recording or transcript included in the record of investigation;
Receive a copy of the draft investigation report and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to the evidence on which the report is based, and be notified that any comments must be submitted within 30 days of the date on which the copy was received and that the comments will be considered by the institution and addressed in the final report.

The respondent should be given the opportunity to admit that research misconduct occurred and that he/she committed the research misconduct. With the advice of the RIO and/or other institutional officials, the Deciding Official may terminate the institution’s review of an allegation that has been admitted, if the institution’s acceptance of the admission and any proposed settlement.

As provided in 42 CFR §93.314(a), the respondent will have the opportunity to request an institutional appeal if the institution’s procedures provide for an appeal.

Deciding Official (DO) – The DO will receive the inquiry report and after consulting with the RIO and/or other institutional officials, decide whether an investigation is warranted under the criteria in 42 CFR § 93.307 (d). Any finding that an investigation is warranted must be made in writing by the DO within 30 days of the finding and must be provided to ORI, together with a copy of the inquiry report meeting the requirements of CFR § 93.309, within 30 days of the finding. If it is found that an investigation is not warranted, the DO and the RIO will ensure that detailed documentation of the inquiry is retained for at least seven (7) years after termination of the inquiry, so that the ORI may assess the reasons why the institution decided not to conduct an investigation.

The DO will receive the investigation report and, after consulting with the RIO and/or other institutional officials, decide the extent to which this institution accepts the findings of the investigation and, if research misconduct is found, decide what, if any, institutional administrative actions are appropriate. The DO shall ensure that the final investigation report, the findings of the DO and a description of any pending or completed administrative actions are provided to ORI, as required by 42 CFR § 93.315.

Enforcement

The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) may address institutional deficiencies through technical assistance if the deficiencies do not substantially affect compliance with the final rule. If an institution fails to comply with its assurance and the requirements of the final rule HHS may take some or all of the following compliance actions: (1) issue a letter of reprimand; (2) direct that research misconduct proceedings be handled by HHS; (3) place the institution on special review status; (4) place information about the institutional noncompliance on the ORI web site; (5) require the institution to take corrective actions; (6) require the institution to adopt and implement an institutional integrity agreement; (7) debar or suspend the institution; and (8) any other action appropriate to the circumstances.