University Procedure
Title
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Procedure for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct
Introduction
Purpose
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ("University") is dedicated to upholding the highest standards in academic Research. This procedure describes the University's commitment to:
- Maintaining the integrity and validity of academic Research;
- Conducting ethical and responsible academic Research; and
- Complying with relevant federal regulations governing academic Research, i.e., the Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct (42 CFR Part 93) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) Research Misconduct Regulation (45 CFR 689).
Together, these commitments help the University have a solid foundation for:
- Proposing, performing, or reviewing Research; and
- Reporting research results.
This foundation supports all academic Research, regardless of the scientific or scholarly discipline.
The University seeks to keep the public's trust in the honest and ethical conduct of its researchers. For Research to fulfill its role in the University and society, all Research done under the University's name must meet the highest standards of integrity and ethics.
Scope
This procedure applies to anyone engaged in research or research training on behalf of the University (Covered Individuals"). This includes:
- Faculty;
- Staff (SHRA and EHRA non-faculty);
- Students;
- Guest researchers (e.g., unpaid volunteers, interns, and visiting scholars);
- Collaborators; and
- Consultants.
This procedure also applies to subawardees and/or subcontractors involved with University research or research training.
This procedure also applies to all Research conducted on behalf of the University, regardless of where the alleged Research Misconduct happened or the source of financial support for the Research.
Finally, this procedure addresses alleged Research Misconduct as defined in the "Definitions" section below. This procedure does not address other types of misconduct that may occur in the research setting. Other types of misconduct are addressed in separate University policies.
Procedure
I. When Research Misconduct is Suspected/Alleged
Any Covered Individual who suspects Research Misconduct in University academic research must report their concerns. Covered Individuals have three ways to make a report:
- Telling their department chair (or equivalent leader like an Institute or Center director),
- Using the University's Carolina Ethics Line hotline, or
- Reporting directly to the Institutional Research Integrity Officer ("RIO").
The department chair (or equivalent) must immediately notify the RIO after receiving any concern related to possible Research Misconduct.
Additionally, the University may receive Allegations of possible Research Misconduct from external sources (e.g., federal offices, journals, other institutions, or the public) and anonymous reporting systems.
II. Precautions to Protect Against Conflicts of Interest
Any individual involved in the Research Misconduct Proceedings must disclose to the RIO if a conflict of interest arises at any point during the Research Misconduct Proceedings.
Inquiry or Investigation Committee members, Deciding Officials, and University Officials who may be involved in Research Misconduct Proceedings should be free of unresolved personal, professional, and/or financial conflicts of interest with parties involved, e.g., Complainant, Respondent, or Witnesses.
For any real or apparent personal, professional, and/or financial conflict of interest identified involving Deciding Officials or University Officials, the RIO will consult with the Vice Chancellor for Research, Provost, and/or Chancellor regarding:
- Exclusion of individuals in conflict from the Research Misconduct Proceedings; and
- Selection of alternate individuals free of unresolved personal, professional, and/or financial conflicts of interest with parties involved in the Research Misconduct Proceeding.
Should an Allegation of Research Misconduct create an actual or perceived conflict of interest involving the RIO, the Vice Chancellor for Research will appoint an interim RIO to fulfill the function of the RIO during the Research Misconduct Proceedings.
In cases where conflicts of interest arise involving Inquiry or Investigation Committee members, the RIO will appoint alternate committee members free of unresolved personal, professional, and/or financial conflicts of interest with parties involved, e.g., Complainant, Respondent, or Witnesses.
III. Assessment of Allegations
As soon as practicable after receiving an Allegation of possible Research Misconduct, the RIO will assess the Allegation to determine whether the Allegation:
- Falls within the definition of Research Misconduct listed in the "Definitions" section below and applicable federal regulations, other federal agency guidance, or research sponsor requirements; and
- Is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential Evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified.
An Inquiry must be conducted if these criteria are met.
All Allegations of possible Research Misconduct will be assessed regardless of when the alleged Research Misconduct occurred.
However, under Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct, 42 CFR Part 93, a time limitation applies to Research Misconduct that occurred within six years of the date the University or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) received the Allegation as noted in § 93.105(a) of the Federal Regulations. Specifically, this applies to:
- PHS support of 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 forms of PHS support.
However, there are exceptions to the six-year limitation, as noted in PHS Policies on Research Misconduct § 93.105(b) - specifically, the subsequent use exception and health or safety of the public exception. For instances where the time limitation may apply, the RIO will consult with the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) on PHS-funded Research.
In conducting the Assessment, the RIO does not need to 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 will consult with the Deciding Official, Vice Chancellor for Research, and other University Officials as necessary to conduct the Assessment of the Allegation(s). The RIO will report the outcome of the Assessment to the appropriate Deciding Official and Vice Chancellor for Research.
An Inquiry is not warranted if the circumstances described in the Allegation(s):
- Do not meet the definition of Research Misconduct listed in the "Definitions" section below, or
- Are not sufficiently credible and specific to identify potential Evidence of Research Misconduct.
However, given the nature of the Allegation raised, the RIO may refer the individual or Allegation to other University offices or University Officials responsible for resolution, i.e., research noncompliance.
If more than one Respondent has been identified as possibly having engaged in Research Misconduct as described in the Allegation(s), the subsequent processes of Inquiry and Investigation will be conducted as separate Research Misconduct Proceedings for each Respondent.
IV. The Inquiry
A. Sequestration of Records
If the RIO determines that an Inquiry is warranted on or before the date on which the Respondent(s) is/are notified per Section IV.B ("Notification of Inquiry"), 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 Proceedings, inventory the records and Evidence, and securely sequester them.
Custody may be limited to copies of the data or Evidence on such instruments where the Research Records or Evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by several users, so long as those copies have value substantially equivalent to the instruments themselves.
B. Notification of Inquiry
At the time of or before beginning the Inquiry, the RIO must make a Good Faith effort to notify the Respondent(s) in writing regarding the Allegation(s) of Research Misconduct and the initiation of an Inquiry. If additional Respondents are identified during the Inquiry, the RIO will provide each additional Respondent notification in writing.
The RIO may notify the Dean of the School or College where the Respondent(s) is/are assigned (to the extent the Dean has not already been notified) and/or the appropriate Department Chair(s). The RIO of all Research Misconduct will also inform the Vice Chancellor for Research and Provost about all matters that have progressed to an Inquiry.
C. Appointment of the Inquiry Committee
The RIO, in consultation with other University Officials, as appropriate, will appoint an Inquiry Committee to conduct the Inquiry. The Inquiry Committee will typically consist of at least two faculty members with appropriate scientific expertise to conduct the Inquiry. The members of the Inquiry Committee must consist of faculty who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with individuals directly involved, e.g., Respondent, Complainant, or Witnesses. For any real or apparent personal, professional, and/or financial conflict of interest identified, the RIO will select alternate committee members from within the University who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with individuals directly involved, e.g., Respondent, Complainant, or Witnesses or will select committee members from outside the University, such as in cases that require the need for expertise or to avoid a conflict of interest.
The Inquiry Committee or RIO can invite outside consultants or experts to participate in the Inquiry as needed. Such consultants, if utilized, must be strictly advisory to the Inquiry Committee and promptly informed of the requirement to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the Research Misconduct Proceedings. Outside consultants or experts who participate in the Inquiry will be required to sign non-disclosure agreements.
The Respondent will be provided the names and affiliations of Inquiry Committee members before the start of the Inquiry and the opportunity to summarize in writing any concerns they have about the ability of any of the Inquiry Committee members to provide an objective and unbiased review of this matter.
The Respondent will have five calendar days following receipt of the notification letter naming the Inquiry Committee membership to respond in writing to the RIO. Any Inquiry Committee member where the Respondent has raised reasonable concerns will be excused, and the RIO will select a replacement Inquiry Committee member.
If the Respondent does not respond within five calendar days, the Inquiry will proceed as outlined in this procedure.
D. Initial Meeting with the Inquiry Committee
The RIO will hold an initial meeting with the Inquiry Committee, during which the Inquiry Committee will be charged. That initial meeting will signal the formal start of the Inquiry. At the committee's first meeting, the RIO will review the charge with the committee, discuss the Allegation(s), any related issues, and the appropriate procedures for conducting the Inquiry, assist the Inquiry Committee with organizing plans for the Inquiry, and answer any questions raised by the Inquiry Committee. The RIO will be present or available throughout the Inquiry to advise the Inquiry Committee as needed.
E. Inquiry Process
The purpose of the Inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the available Evidence to determine whether an Investigation is warranted. An Investigation is warranted if:
- There is a reasonable basis for concluding that the Allegation(s) fall(s) within the definition of Research Misconduct as defined in these Procedures or a separate sponsor or federal agency requirement; and
- Preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding from the Inquiry indicate that the Allegation(s) may have substance.
As part of the Inquiry, the Inquiry Committee may interview the Respondent, the Complainant, and/or other Witnesses. The Respondent may have counsel present during their interview(s) with the Inquiry Committee (see Section V.L.). The Respondent may not be present during interviews of the Complainant or other Witnesses. After evaluating the available Evidence, the Inquiry Committee will prepare an Inquiry report (see Section IV.H.) with its recommendation to the Deciding Official regarding whether or not an Investigation is warranted.
The Inquiry Committee, in consultation with the RIO, will address any additional Allegations of possible Research Misconduct related to the Respondent that are raised during the Inquiry. In such instances, the Respondent will be provided with timely notice of all additional Allegations.
F. Time for Completion
The Inquiry must be completed within 60 calendar days of initiation unless circumstances warrant a longer period. Any extension to this 60-day limit requires approval of the Deciding Official, and the extension request will include written documentation of the reason(s) for the extension. Notification of extensions will be provided to research sponsors as required by law or by the terms of the award.
G. The Inquiry Report
The Inquiry Committee will prepare a written Inquiry report that includes the required elements listed in 42 CFR § 93.309, plus any additional elements as required by applicable federal agencies or research sponsors.
H. Comments to the Inquiry Report
The RIO will provide the Respondent with a copy of the draft Inquiry report for the Respondent's written comment. The Respondent will be given 10 calendar days to review the draft Inquiry report and provide written comments on the draft Inquiry report to the RIO. The RIO will provide the Respondent's comments to the Inquiry Committee, which will consider the Respondent's comments in finalizing the Inquiry report. The Respondent's comments will be attached to the final Inquiry report. The RIO will deliver the final Inquiry report to the Deciding Official within 10 calendar days of receiving the Respondent's comments. If the Respondent does not provide their written comments to the draft Inquiry report within 10 calendar days, the RIO will notify the Inquiry Committee, and the Inquiry report will be delivered to the Deciding Official for their determination.
I. University Decision and Notification
1. Decision by the Deciding Official
The RIO will transmit the final Inquiry report and written comments provided by the Respondent to the Deciding Official, who will make the final determination, in writing, as to whether an Investigation is warranted. The Inquiry is complete when the Deciding Official makes their determination.
2. Notifications
The RIO will notify the Respondent of the Deciding Official's determination. That notice will include a copy of the final Inquiry report, the Deciding Official's written determination, copies of the University's Policy and Procedure for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct, and any applicable sponsor Research Misconduct policy.
The University will provide sponsors, as required by the terms of the award, with the Deciding Official's written determination and a copy of the final Inquiry report. When the Deciding Official determines that an investigation is warranted, such notification will occur no later than 30 calendar days or such shorter period as may be required by any applicable terms of award.
The RIO will also notify the Vice Chancellor of Research and, as appropriate, the Dean of the School or College where the Respondent is assigned (in those cases where the Dean is not the Deciding Official), as well as the Provost. Other University Officials will be informed on a need-to-know basis.
3. Documentation of Decision Not to Investigate
If the Deciding Official determines that an Investigation is not warranted, the RIO will securely maintain records of the Research Misconduct Proceedings for periods consistent with the University's Records Management Policy and applicable sponsor or legal requirements. In addition, after the Inquiry is completed, the RIO will retain sufficiently detailed documentation of the Inquiry to permit a later assessment by external sponsors, or associated federal oversight bodies, e.g., NSF Office of the Inspector General (OIG) or Office of Research Integrity (ORI), as warranted and of the reasons why an Investigation was not conducted. These documents must be provided to external sponsors or associated federal oversight bodies, as required by law or the terms of the award.
In addition, when the Deciding Official determines that an Investigation is not warranted, any reference to the Allegation(s) in the Respondent's personnel file will be removed. Other considerations regarding procedures when the Deciding Official determines that an Investigation is not warranted are described in Section VIII.B.2.
V. The Investigation
A. Initiation and Notification
If the Deciding Official determines that the Allegation(s) warrant(s) an Investigation, such Investigation must begin within 30 calendar days of the Deciding Official's determination.
On or before the date on which the Investigation begins, but no more than 30 calendar days after the Deciding Official determines that an Investigation is warranted, the RIO must notify external sponsors and associated oversight bodies, as required under applicable federal regulations or award terms, of the decision to begin the Investigation and, if required, provide a copy of the Inquiry Committee's report. Within a reasonable time after determining that an Investigation is warranted, but before the Investigation begins, the RIO must notify the Respondent in writing of the Allegation(s) to be investigated.
Additional Allegations of Research Misconduct related to the Respondent that are raised during the Investigation may be addressed by the Investigation Committee without going through the Inquiry process outlined in Section VI. ("The Inquiry") of this procedure. In such instances, the Respondent will be provided with timely notice of all additional Allegations of Research Misconduct.
B. Sequestration of the Research Records
To the extent not already sequestered, before or when the Respondent is notified of the Investigation, the RIO will take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of and secure all Research Records and Evidence needed to conduct the Investigation. Such sequestration will be consistent with the process described in Section VI.B. ("Sequestration of the Research Records") of this Procedure. If additional items become known or relevant during the Investigation, the RIO must, if possible, take custody of those records.
C. Appointment of the Investigation Committee
The RIO, in consultation with other University Officials, as appropriate, will appoint an Investigation Committee and designate a Committee Chair to conduct the Investigation. The Investigation Committee will consist of at least three faculty members who did not serve on the Inquiry Committee. The members of the Investigation Committee must consist of faculty who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with individuals directly involved, e.g., Respondent, Complainant, or Witnesses. For any real or apparent personal, professional, and/or financial conflict of interest identified, the RIO will select committee members from within the University who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with individuals directly involved, e.g., Respondent, Complainant, or Witnesses or will select committee members from outside the University, such as in cases that require the need for expertise or to avoid a conflict of interest.
Investigation Committee members should have appropriate scientific or scholarly expertise to investigate the Allegations and review the Evidence. Scholars external to the University or persons with expertise in relevant disciplines may be included on the Investigation Committee as necessary to perform the Investigation appropriately. The Respondent will be provided the names and affiliations of possible Investigation Committee members and the opportunity to summarize in writing any concerns about the ability of any of the Investigation Committee members to provide an objective and unbiased review of this matter. The Respondent is provided five calendar days following receipt of the notification letter naming the Investigation Committee membership to respond in writing to the RIO. Any Investigation Committee member where the Respondent has raised reasonable concerns will be excused and the RIO will select a replacement Investigation Committee member. If the Respondent does not respond within five calendar days, the Investigation will proceed as outlined in this procedure.
The Investigation Committee or RIO may invite outside consultants or experts to participate in the Investigation. Such consultants, if utilized, will be strictly advisory to the Investigation Committee and promptly informed of the requirement to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the Research Misconduct Proceedings. Outside consultants or experts who participate in the Investigation will be required to sign non-disclosure agreements.
D. Charge to the Investigation Committee
The RIO will hold an initial meeting with the Investigation Committee during which the RIO will charge the Investigation Committee. It is during this initial charge meeting of the Investigation Committee that the Investigation formally begins. 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 the University's Policy and Procedure for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct and 42 CFR Part 93. The RIO will be present or available throughout the Investigation to advise the committee as needed.
E. Investigation Process
The Investigation Committee and the RIO must:
- Use diligent efforts to ensure that the Investigation is thorough and sufficiently documented and includes an examination of all research records and Evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of each Allegation of possible Research Misconduct;
- Take reasonable steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased Investigation to the maximum extent practical;
- 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 that were not part of the original Allegation(s) but have come to the attention of the Investigation Committee during the course of the Investigation, and continue the Investigation to completion; and
- Interview individuals identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the Investigation. Such individuals include the Complainant, the Respondent, and additional individuals identified by the Investigation Committee and Respondent. During interviews with the Respondent, the Respondent will have the opportunity to provide a written or oral opening statement to the Investigation Committee. The Respondent may have counsel present during their interview(s) with the Investigation Committee (see Section V.L.). The Respondent may not be present during interviews of other Witnesses. The interviews are to be recorded or transcribed. If transcribed, individuals interviewed will be provided copies of their transcripts and the opportunity to submit corrections to the RIO. The interviews will be closed to the public. The Investigation Committee and the RIO will seek to obtain participation by persons identified as having information relevant to the Investigation, but neither the Investigation Committee, the RIO, nor the University has the power to compel individuals to participate. If an individual chooses not to make themselves available, the Investigation Committee may proceed in their absence.
F. Time for Completion
The Investigation is to be completed within 120 calendar days of its initiation, including the Deciding Official's determination and communication of the final Investigation report to external sponsors or associated oversight bodies, as required under applicable law or the terms of the award. If the Investigation Committee determines that the Investigation will not be completed within the 120-day period, the RIO will seek an extension of the Investigation. Any extension to this 120-day limit requires approval of the Vice Chancellor for Research and these requests will include written documentation of the reason(s) for the extension. In instances where the Allegation of Research Misconduct relates to an externally supported project, the RIO will submit a written extension request to external sponsors or associated oversight body (with an explanation of the need for the extension) as required by applicable law or the terms of the award.
A finding of Research Misconduct requires:
- That the alleged misconduct meets the definition of Research Misconduct as described in this procedure or applicable federal agency policy or sponsor standards;
- That the alleged misconduct is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
- That the alleged misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.
A finding of Research Misconduct for each Allegation must be proven by a Preponderance of the Evidence and must be agreed to by a majority of the Investigation Committee. If external sponsor requirements describe a different standard for a finding of Research Misconduct, the Investigation Committee will analyze that standard separately and make a finding under the sponsor standard in addition to the standard described in this procedure.
The destruction, absence of, or Respondent's failure to provide research records adequately documenting the questioned Research is Evidence of Research Misconduct where the University establishes by a preponderance of the Evidence that the Respondent intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly had research records and destroyed them, had the opportunity to maintain the records but did not do so, or maintained the records and failed to produce them in a timely manner and that the Respondent's conduct constitutes a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.
If the Respondent presents any affirmative defenses, e.g., honest error to an Allegation of Research Misconduct, the Respondent has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the Evidence, any and all affirmative defenses raised.
H. Elements of the Investigation Report
The Investigation Committee is responsible for preparing a written Investigation report, consistent with the elements described in 42 CFR § 93.313, plus any additional elements as required by applicable federal agencies or research sponsors.
I. Comments on the Preliminary Investigation Report and Access to Evidence
The RIO will provide the Respondent with a copy of the preliminary Investigation report for comment, and if requested, provide the Respondent with a copy of, or supervised access to, the Evidence on which the report is based. Respondent comments to the preliminary Investigation report must be submitted in writing to the RIO within 20 calendar days of the Respondent's receipt of the preliminary Investigation report. The RIO will provide the Investigation Committee with the Respondent's comments on the preliminary Investigation report. The Investigation Committee will consider the Respondent's comments in finalizing the Investigation report and will include a copy of the Respondent's comments with the final Investigation report. The RIO must submit the final Investigation report to the Deciding Official within 10 calendar days of receipt of the Respondent's comments.
In distributing the preliminary Investigation report or portions thereof to the Respondent, the RIO will inform the Respondent of the confidentiality under which the preliminary Investigation report is made available and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure such confidentiality.
J. Decision by the Deciding Official
The RIO will provide the final Investigation report with the Respondent's comments to the Deciding Official.
The Deciding Official will review the Investigation report and determine in writing whether they accept the Investigation's findings/recommendations. If the Deciding Official's determination varies from the recommendations of the Investigation Committee, the Deciding Official must, as part of their written determination, explain in detail the basis for rendering a decision different from the recommendations of the Investigation Committee.
Alternatively, the Deciding Official may return the report to the Investigation Committee with a request for further fact-finding or analysis.
The RIO will also notify the Dean of the School or College where the Respondent is assigned (in those cases where the Dean is not the Deciding Official) and the Department Chair. The RIO will report to the Vice Chancellor for Research and Provost on the complete account of the Research Misconduct Proceedings.
K. Notice of University Findings and Actions to External Bodies
The RIO will notify external sponsors and associated oversight bodies, as applicable, regarding the results of the Investigation. Such notification will be consistent with the law and the terms of the award.
The RIO will, in consultation with appropriate University units, determine whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals in which Research Misconduct has occurred, collaborators of the Respondent in the Research involved, or other relevant parties should or are required to be notified of the outcome of the case.
L. Respondent's Right to Individual Representation
The Respondent has the right to independent counsel to represent the Respondent's personal interests during the Research Misconduct Proceedings. The Respondent must be responsible for all costs associated with the retention of individual counsel. The Respondent's counsel cannot address substantive matters before the Inquiry or Investigative Committee. The University is not obligated to make any individuals available for questioning by the Respondent's counsel.
M. Maintaining Records for Review by External Sponsors
The University will securely maintain records of the Research Misconduct Proceedings. Upon request, the University will provide these records to sponsors if required by law or the terms of the award.
Records must be maintained securely for periods consistent with the University's Records Management Policy and applicable sponsor or legal requirements.
The RIO is also responsible for providing any information, documentation, research records, Evidence, or clarification requested by an external sponsor to conduct its review of Allegations of Research Misconduct or the University's handling of such Allegations.
VI. Completion of Cases and Reporting Premature Closures to External Sponsors
Generally, all Inquiries and Investigations must be carried through to completion, and all significant issues will be pursued diligently. As required by law or the terms of the award, the RIO will consult with other University Officials and sponsors about closing the case based on a written admission of Research Misconduct. The University must notify external oversight bodies as required according to governing regulations if the University intends to close the case early because the Respondent has provided an admission of Research Misconduct.
VII. Administrative and Disciplinary Actions
If the Deciding Official determines that the Respondent has engaged in Research Misconduct, the University may impose administrative or disciplinary action(s) separate and distinct from Office of Human Resources (OHR) disciplinary processes. In instances where Research Misconduct involving students is found, the matter would be referred to the appropriate University Honor System.
Administrative actions may include withdrawing or correcting all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the Research where research misconduct was found. The Deciding Official or University may impose other administrative actions, e.g., supervision of Research or removal from the research project or study following the conclusion of the Investigation.
If the University believes that criminal or civil fraud violations may have occurred, the University will promptly refer the matter to the appropriate investigative body.
VIII. Other Considerations
A. Termination or Resignation Prior to Completing the Inquiry or Investigation
The termination of the Respondent's employment, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an Allegation of possible Research Misconduct has been reported will not prevent the Research Misconduct Proceedings from happening or terminate the Research Misconduct Proceedings.
If the Respondent, without admitting to the Research Misconduct, elects to resign their position after the University 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 or termination, the University will use its best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the Allegations, noting in the report the Respondent's failure to cooperate and its effect on the Proceedings.
B. Confidentiality and Protection of Individuals Involved in Research Misconduct Proceedings
1. Confidentiality
Throughout the Research Misconduct Proceedings and after its conclusion, the University must make all reasonable and practical efforts to limit disclosure of the identity of Respondents and Complainants to those with a "need to know" to conduct a thorough, competent, objective, and fair Research Misconduct Proceedings. The University must also make all reasonable and practical efforts to limit disclosure of the identity of Research subjects identifiable from Research records or Evidence to those with a "need to know" to carry out Research Misconduct Proceedings.
2. Protection of Individuals Involved in Research Misconduct Proceedings
The University must make all reasonable and practical efforts to protect or restore the reputation of persons alleged to have engaged in Research Misconduct but against whom no finding of Research Misconduct is made, as well as any Complainant, Witness, and Committee Member who cooperate in Good Faith with the Research Misconduct Proceedings.
Any use of the University's Policy and Procedure for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct to bring malicious Allegations or Allegations not otherwise in Good Faith against any individual will be viewed as a violation of the University's Policy and Procedure for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct. Any act of Retaliation or reprisal against an individual for reporting in Good Faith an allegation of Research Misconduct will be viewed as a violation of the University's Policy and Procedure for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct and the University's Whistleblower Policy. Such violations will be handled through regular administrative processes for violations of other University policies.
C. Deviation from the Policy and/or Procedure
In those instances where it is determined by the University that a deviation from the Policy and/or Procedure is necessary to more appropriately handle the Allegation(s), such deviation must be reasonable and approved by the University's Vice Chancellor for Research.
Exceptions
None.
Definitions
Allegation means a disclosure of possible Research Misconduct through any means of communication.
Assessment means the initial step in a Research Misconduct Proceeding when the University receives an Allegation of possible Research Misconduct. It is the responsibility of the RIO to determine if the Allegation falls within the definition of Research Misconduct in the University Policy and applicable federal regulations, other federal agency guidance, or research sponsor requirements, and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential Evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified.
Committee Member means any individual serving on the Inquiry Committee or the Investigation Committee.
Complainant means the person(s) who in Good Faith make(s) an Allegation of Research Misconduct.
Covered Individual means all University personnel, including faculty, staff (SHRA and EHRA non-faculty), students, guests (e.g., unpaid volunteers, interns, and visiting scholars), collaborators, and consultants.
Deciding Official is the University Official responsible for final determinations following Inquiries and Investigations. In the absence of any conflict, the Deciding Official is normally the Dean of the School or College within the University where the Respondent is assigned, or such other University Official as determined by the Vice Chancellor for Research. For Allegations of Research Misconduct related to an individual whose primary work is performed at a University Center or Institute that is not part of a School or College, the Vice Chancellor for Research or designee will serve as the Deciding Official. When a conflict exists, the Deciding Official must be another University Official as determined by the Vice Chancellor for Research, Provost, or Chancellor.
Evidence means any element of the research record including electronic and physical documents, tangible items, or testimony offered or obtained during a Research Misconduct Proceedings that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact.
Good Faith, as applied to a Complainant or Witness, means having a belief in the truth of one's Allegation or testimony that a reasonable person in the Complainant's or Witness's position could have, based on the information known to the Complainant or Witness at the time. An Allegation of Research Misconduct is not in Good Faith if it is made with knowing or reckless disregard for information that would negate the Allegation. A Witness does not act in Good Faith if they knowingly or recklessly disregard information that could negate the accuracy of the testimony. Good Faith as applied to an Inquiry or Investigation Committee member means cooperating with the Research Misconduct Proceedings by carrying out the duties assigned impartially for the purpose of helping the University meet its responsibilities under the Procedures, related Policy, and applicable sponsor terms and regulations. An Inquiry or Investigation Committee member does not act in Good Faith if their actions or omissions while serving on the committee are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest.
Inquiry means preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding that meets the criteria and follows the procedures described in these Procedures, applicable federal regulations, and external sponsor requirements to determine whether or not an investigation is warranted.
Investigation means the formal development and examination of a factual record leading to (1) a decision not to make a finding of Research Misconduct or (2) a recommendation for a finding of Research Misconduct.
Preponderance of the Evidence means proof by information that, compared with information opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not (as stated in 2 CFR § 180.990 - Preponderance of the Evidence).
Research means a systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge. For purposes of these Procedures, Research includes all basic, applied, clinical, translational, and demonstration research in all academic and scholarly fields. Research fields include, but are not limited to, the arts, the sciences, liberal arts, applied sciences, social sciences, the professions, and Research involving human subjects and animals.
Research Integrity Officer ("RIO") means the University Official who is responsible for assessing Allegations of Research Misconduct and determining when such Allegations warrant inquiries and for overseeing inquiries and Investigations. The responsibilities of the RIO may be delegated to another individual as approved by the Vice Chancellor for Research.
Research Misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing Research, or in 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.
Research Misconduct Proceedings means any action related to alleged Research Misconduct, including but not limited to, Allegation Assessments, Inquiries, and Investigations.
Research Record means the record of data or results that embody the facts that are subject of the Allegation and those resulting from the Research Misconduct Proceedings, including but not limited to, research proposals, physical and electronic laboratory records, progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal reports, journal articles, and any documents and materials provided by or collected from an external entity or a Respondent in the course of the Research Misconduct Proceedings.
Respondent means the person(s) against whom an Allegation of Research Misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a Research Misconduct Proceedings.
Retaliation means an adverse action taken against any participant, e.g., Complainant, Respondent, Witnesses, committee members in a Research Misconduct Proceedings by the University or one of its employees or affiliates in response to:
- A Good Faith Allegation of Research Misconduct;
- Good Faith cooperation with a Research Misconduct Proceeding; or
- A complaint of inadequate University response to an Allegation of Research Misconduct.
Witness means an individual who may have substantive information regarding any relevant aspect of the Research Misconduct Proceedings.
Related Requirements
External Regulations
University Policies, Standards, and Procedures
Contact Information
Primary Contact
- Title: Institutional Research Integrity Officer
- Unit: Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research
- Email: eric_everett@unc.edu
- Phone: 919-962-0988