Body
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 committed to the responsible and ethical conduct of research. This procedure outlines the University’s process for responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct as defined in the "Definitions" section and ensures compliance with applicable federal regulations and institutional policies governing academic research.
The purpose of this procedure is to protect the integrity of academic research and research training conducted under the auspices of the University; to support a culture of honesty, rigor and transparency during the proposing, performing, reviewing of research, or in reporting research results; and to maintain public confidence in the University’s research enterprise.
Scope
This procedure applies to all individuals of the University community ("Covered Individuals") engaged in research or research training across all disciplines and under the auspices of the University. Covered Individuals include:
- 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. It governs all research regardless of where the alleged Research Misconduct occurred or the source of financial support.
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 in good faith suspects Research Misconduct is required to report their concern(s) through one or more of the following channels:
- Informing their unit leadership (e.g., Department Chair, Research Dean or School’s Dean),
- Informing an equivalent leader, such as an Institute or Center director,
- Using the University's Carolina Ethics Line hotline, or
- Reporting directly to the Institutional Research Integrity Officer ("RIO").
Unit leadership or equivalent) must immediately notify the RIO upon receiving any concern related to possible Research Misconduct.
The University may also receive Allegations of Research Misconduct from external sources;(e.g., federal offices, journals, other institutions, or the public) or through anonymous reporting systems.
II. Precautions to Protect Against Conflicts of Interest
The University and RIO will take reasonable precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the Research Misconduct Proceeding do not have actual or perceived conflicts of interest with any party involved (e.g., Complainant, Respondent or Witnesses).
Investigation Committee Members, Deciding Officials (DO), and University Officials participating in any part of Research Misconduct Proceeding must be free of unresolved personal, professional, and/or financial conflicts of interest with the parties involved (e.g., Complainant, Respondent, or Witnesses).
If an Allegation of Research Misconduct creates an actual or perceived conflict of interest involving the RIO, the Vice Chancellor for Research will appoint an interim RIO to carry out the RIO’s responsibilities during the Research Misconduct Proceeding.
If conflicts of interest arise among Investigation Committee members, the RIO will appoint alternate members who are free of unresolved conflicts.
For any real or apparent conflict of interest involving the DO or other University Official, the RIO will consult with the Vice Chancellor for Research, Provost, and/or Chancellor regarding:
- Excluding individuals with a conflict of interest from the Research Misconduct Proceeding, and
- Selecting alternate individuals who are free of unresolved conflicts of interest.
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
The purpose of the Assessment is to determine whether an Allegation of Research Misconduct warrants an Inquiry. The Assessment involves reviewing readily accessible information relevant to the Allegation of Research Misconduct.
Upon receiving an Allegation of Research Misconduct, the RIO (or other designated Institutional Official) will, as promptly as possible, determine whether the Allegation:
- Falls within the definition of Research Misconduct outlined in the "Definitions" section of this procedure and applicable federal regulations (e.g., 42 CFR Part 93 § 93.102 and 45 C.F.R. part 689), other federal agency guidance, or sponsor requirements; and
- Is sufficiently credible and specific to identify and sequester potential evidence.
If both criteria are met an Inquiry is warranted. To the extent possible the RIO will promptly sequester all relevant research records and related evidence. The RIO will prepare an Assessment report for the DO and Vice Chancellor of Research. The RIO will document the Assessment and the University will securely retain documentation of the Assessment for seven (7) years following the completion of the Research Misconduct Proceedings.
Except as necessary, the Assessment does not require interviews of the Complainant, Respondent, or Witnesses, nor the collection of additional data beyond what was submitted with the Allegation(s). The RIO may consult with the DO, Vice Chancellor for Research, and other University Officials as needed.
If additional Respondents are identified during the Assessment, any subsequent Inquiries and Investigations will be conducted as separate proceedings for each Respondent.
If the Allegation does not meet the criteria for an Inquiry, the RIO will document as part of the outcome of the Assessment the rationale for not proceeding to an Inquiry.
All Allegations of Research Misconduct will be assessed, regardless of when the alleged Research Misconduct occurred. However, Public Health Service (PHS) regulations impose a six-year limitation from the date the Allegation was received by the University or the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct, 42 CFR Part 93 § 93.104), applicable to:
- PHS-supported biomedical or behavioral research, research training, or related activities (including tissue/data banks and dissemination of research information);
- Applications or proposals for PHS support; or
- Plagiarism of research records produced during PHS-supported activities.
Exceptions to the PHS limitation include the subsequent use exception and the health or safety of the public exception. When applicable, the RIO will consult with the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) regarding PHS-funded Research.
Allegations of misconduct outside the scope of Research Misconduct may be referred to other University offices or officials for resolution under separate policies and/or procedures.
IV. The Inquiry
Introduction
The purpose of the Inquiry is to conduct preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding of the evidence to determine whether an Allegation warrants an Investigation. An Inquiry does not require a full review of all related evidence.
All Research Misconduct Proceedings at the University begin with the fundamental position that there is no presumption that the Respondent engaged in Research Misconduct. This principle ensures fairness and objectivity throughout the process. A determination whether or not Research Misconduct occurred will be made during the Investigation phase of the Research Misconduct Proceeding.
A. Sequestration of Records
On or before the date the Respondent(s) is/are notified (see "B. Notification of Inquiry"), or the Inquiry begins, whichever occurs first, the RIO must take all reasonable steps to obtain custody of all original or substantially equivalent copies of the Research Records and evidence relevant to the proceeding. The RIO must:
- Inventory all materials sequestered
- Securely sequester evidence
- Retain the sequestered evidence for seven (7) years
If Research Records include shared scientific instruments, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence, provided those copies are substantially equivalent in value to the originals.
B. Notification of Inquiry
At or before the start of the Inquiry, the RIO must make a Good Faith effort to notify the Respondent(s) in writing:
- That an Allegation of Research Misconduct has been raised against them
- That an Inquiry will be conducted to decide whether to proceed with an Investigation
- That relevant research records have been sequestered
When appropriate, the Respondent may be provided copies of the sequestered materials or reasonable supervised access to the relevant research records that have been sequestered. If additional Allegations arise, the Respondent will be notified in writing.
The RIO may also notify the relevant Dean if the Dean is not also the Deciding Official and/or Department Chair(s) and will inform the Vice Chancellor for Research and Provost of all matters that have progressed to an Inquiry.
If additional Respondents are identified during the Inquiry, the RIO will provide each Respondent with equivalent written notification and ensure they receive the same rights and opportunities as the initial Respondent.
C. Inquiry Process
The RIO, or other designated Institutional Official, will independently conduct the Inquiry and may consult with non-conflicted subject matter experts as needed. Any consultants engaged must serve in an advisory capacity only and will be required to maintain strict confidentiality. The Respondent will be provided the name(s) of the University subject matter expert(s), e.g., faculty and an opportunity to respond in writing to the RIO with concerns they have about the ability of the subject matter expert to provide an objective and unbiased consultation of this matter. External subject matter consultants must sign non-disclosure agreements.
As part of the Inquiry, the RIO may conduct interviews with the Respondent, the Complainant, and/or Witnesses. The Respondent may have legal counsel present during their interview. The Respondent will not be present during interviews of the Complainant or other Witnesses but will be provided a transcript of the interview after it takes place.
After reviewing the available evidence, the RIO will prepare an Inquiry Report with a recommendation to the DO on whether an Investigation is warranted.
D. Criteria for an Investigation
- There is a reasonable basis to conclude that the Allegation(s) fall within the definition of Research Misconduct under this Procedure, 42 CFR Part 93, or other applicable sponsor or federal agency; and
- Preliminary fact-finding during the Inquiry indicates ;that the Allegation(s) may have substance.
E. Time for Completion
The Inquiry must be completed within ninety (90) calendar days of initiation unless circumstances require additional time. Initiation of the Inquiry occurs within thirty (30) calendar days from the conclusion of the Assessment. Any extension of the Inquiry must be approved by the DO or applicable federal agency, e.g., ORI, and the RIO will provide written documentation of the reason(s) for exceeding the ninety (90) calendar day period for the Inquiry. Notification of extensions will be provided to research sponsors as required by law or award terms.
F. The Inquiry Report
At the conclusion of the Inquiry, regardless of whether an Investigation is warranted, the RIO will prepare a written Inquiry Report. The Inquiry Report will meet the requirements of the Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct, 42 CFR Part 93 § 93.309.
The Inquiry Report will include any institutional actions taken, including internal or external communications with journals or funding agencies. The Inquiry Report must note if there is potential evidence of honest error or differences of opinion.
G. Comments on the Inquiry Report
The RIO will provide the Respondent with a copy of the draft Inquiry Report for written comment. The Respondent will be given ten (10) calendar days to review the draft Inquiry Report and provide written comments to the RIO. These comments will be attached to the final Inquiry Report.
The RIO will deliver the final Inquiry Report to the DO within ten (10) calendar days of receiving the Respondent's comments. If the Respondent does not submit comments within the allotted time, the RIO will forward the report to the DO for their determination.
H. Decision by the Deciding Official (DO)
The RIO will provide the final Investigation Report, along with the Respondent's comments to the draft Investigation Report to the DO. The DO will review the report and issue a written determination on whether to accept the Investigation Committee’s findings and recommendations for each Allegation. If the DO's determination differs from the Investigation Committee’s recommendations, the DO must explain the basis for the decision in writing. Alternatively, the DO may return the Investigation Report to the Investigation Committee for additional fact-finding or analysis. The RIO will also notify the Dean (if not the DO), the Department Chair, and report to the Vice Chancellor for Research and Provost on the complete proceedings.
I. If an Investigation is Warranted
The RIO will notify the Respondent within a reasonable period of time, providing:
- A copy of the final Inquiry Report
- The DO's written determination
- The University's Policy and Procedure for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct
- Any applicable sponsor Research Misconduct policy
- Any Allegations not addressed during the Inquiry
The University will also notify sponsors as required by the terms of the award(s), providing the DO's determination and the final Inquiry Report. When an Investigation is warranted, this notification will occur within thirty (30) calendar days or sooner if required by sponsor terms.
The RIO will also inform the Vice Chancellor of Research, Provost, and, as appropriate, the Dean of the Respondent's school or college. Other University Officials will be notified on a need-to-know basis.
For Research Misconduct Proceedings involving PHS funding the RIO will provide ORI with a copy of the final Inquiry Report and relevant records within thirty (30) calendar days of the DO’s determination.
J. Documentation of Decision Not to Investigate
Should the DO determine that an Investigation is not warranted the RIO will securely maintain records of the proceedings in accordance with the University's Records Management Policy and applicable sponsor or legal requirements. Documentation must be detailed enough to allow later review by external sponsors or oversight bodies (e.g., NSF, OIG, or ORI) and explain why an Investigation was not conducted.
When an Investigation is not warranted, any reference to the Allegation(s) will be removed from the Respondent's personnel file. Additional procedures for such cases are outlined in Section VIII.B.2.
V. The Investigation
Introduction
The purpose of an Investigation is to develop a complete factual record, pursue all relevant leads, analyze the evidence, and recommend findings to the DO. The DO will make the final determination on each Allegation and any related institutional actions based on a preponderance of evidence.
As part of the Investigation, the University will diligently examine all significant issues and relevant leads, including any indication of additional instances of potential research misconduct. The Investigation will continue until it is completed thoroughly and in compliance with applicable policies and regulations.
A. Initiation and Notification
If the DO determines that an Investigation is warranted, the Investigation must begin within thirty (30) calendar days of the DO’s determination.
On or before the start of the Investigation, but no later than thirty (30) calendar days after the DO’s determination, the RIO must notify external sponsors and associated oversight bodies, as required by federal regulations or award terms, and provide a copy of the Inquiry Report if required.
Before the Investigation begins, the RIO will notify the Respondent in writing of the Allegation(s) to be investigated. If additional Allegations arise during the Investigation, the Respondent will receive timely written notice. These additional Allegations may be addressed by the Investigation Committee without a separate Inquiry.
If new Respondents are identified during the Investigation, they will be notified and given the opportunity to respond in accordance with applicable regulations. The RIO may conduct a separate Inquiry or include the new Respondent's in the ongoing Investigation, ensuring compliance with all relevant policies.
B. Sequestration of the Research Records
Before or at the time the Respondent is notified of the Investigation, the RIO will take all reasonable steps to secure custody of all Research Records and Evidence needed for the Investigation. If additional materials become relevant during the Investigation, the RIO will promptly take custody of those records.
C. Appointment of the Investigation Committee
The RIO, in consultation with appropriate University Officials, will appoint an Investigation Committee and designate a Committee Chair to lead the Investigation. The Committee will consist of at least three non-conflicted faculty members. All appointees must be verified faculty without unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with parties involved (e.g., Respondent, Complainant, or Witnesses), or be selected from outside the University when specialized expertise is required or to avoid conflicts of interest.
Committee members should have appropriate scientific or scholarly expertise to evaluate the Allegations and evidence. External scholars or individuals with relevant disciplinary expertise may be included as necessary to ensure a fair and thorough Investigation.
The Respondent will receive written notification of the proposed committee membership and will have five (5) calendar days to submit any concerns in writing to the RIO regarding the objectivity or impartiality of any member. If reasonable concerns are raised, the RIO will excuse the member and appoint a replacement. If the Respondent does not respond within five (5) calendar days, the Investigation will proceed as planned.
The Investigation Committee or RIO may invite non-conflicted external consultants or experts to assist in the Investigation. These consultants will serve in an advisory capacity only and must maintain strict confidentiality. All external consultants will be required to sign a non-disclosure agreement prior to participation.
D. Charge to the Investigation Committee
The RIO will convene an initial meeting with the Investigation Committee to formally charge the committee and begin the Investigation. During this meeting, the RIO will:
- Explain the committee's responsibilities and applicable policies and regulations
- Provide the Inquiry Report and outline the prescribed procedures and standards for conducting the Investigation
- Emphasize the importance of confidentiality and the need to develop a detailed Investigation plan.
- Supply copies of the University's Policy and Procedure for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct and 42 CFR Part 93.
The RIO will remain available throughout the Investigation to advise the committee as needed.
E. Investigation Process
The Investigation Committee and the RIO must:
- Ensure a thorough and well-documented investigation, including examination of all Research Records and Evidence relevant to each Allegation of possible Research Misconduct
- Maintain impartiality and objectivity to the greatest extent possible
- Pursue all significant issues and leads, including any evidence of additional potential Research Misconduct discovered during the Investigation, and continue until the process is complete
- Interview individuals with relevant information, including the Complainant, Respondent, and other individuals identified by the committee and Respondent.
During interviews with the Respondent:
- The Respondent may provide a written or oral opening statement
- The Respondent may have counsel present
- The Respondent may not attend interviews of other Witnesses
The interviews must be recorded or transcribed. If transcribed, individuals will receive copies of their transcripts and have an opportunity to submit corrections to the RIO. Interviews are closed to the public.
The Investigation Committee and RIO will make reasonable efforts to secure participation from individuals with relevant information. However, the University does not have authority to compel participation. If an individual declines, the Investigation will proceed in their absence.
F. Time for Completion
The Investigation must be completed within one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of its initiation. This timeframe includes:
- Completion of the Investigation
- The DO's determination
- Communication of the final Investigation Report to external sponsors or oversight bodies, as required by law or award terms
If the Investigation cannot be completed within the one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days, the RIO will request an extension. Any extension requires approval from the Vice Chancellor for Research and must include written documentation of the reason(s) for the delay in completing the Investigation.
For Investigations related to externally supported projects, the RIO will also submit a written extension request to the relevant sponsors or oversight body, e.g., ORI, including an explanation of the need for the extension, as required by applicable regulations or award terms.
G. Standard for a finding of Research Misconduct
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 standard;
- The conduct represents a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
- The conduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.
The findings for each Allegation must be proven by a Preponderance of the Evidence and agreed to by a majority of the Investigation Committee. If an external sponsor applies a different standard, the Investigation Committee will evaluate that standard separately and issue a finding under both the sponsor standard and the University’s standard.
H. Evidentiary Considerations
The destruction, absence, or failure to provide Research Records that adequately represent the questioned Research may constitute evidence of Research Misconduct if the University establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent:
- Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly destroyed records;
- Had the opportunity to maintain records but failed to do so; or
- Maintained records but did not produce them in a timely manner, and such conduct represents a significant departure from accepted practices.
I. Affirmative Defenses
The Respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of evidence, affirmative defenses raised (e.g.,honest error).
J. Elements of the Investigation Report
The Investigation Committee must prepare a written report consistent with 42 CFR § 93.313 and any additional requirements from applicable federal agencies or research sponsors.
K. Comments on the Preliminary Investigation Report and Access to Evidence
The RIO will provide the Respondent with a copy of the draft Investigation Report for review and comment. If requested, the Respondent will also be provided copies of, or supervised access to, the Evidence on which the report is based.
- The Respondent must submit written comments to the RIO within twenty (20) calendar days of receiving the draft Investigation Report.
- The RIO will forward these comments to the Investigation Committee, which will consider them when finalizing the Investigation report.
- The Respondent's comments will be attached to the final Investigation Report.
- The RIO must submit the final Investigation report to the DO within ten (10) calendar days of receiving the Respondent's comments.
When distributing the draft Investigation Report or portions thereof to the Respondent, the RIO will remind the Respondent of the confidentiality requirements and may impose reasonable conditions to ensure confidentiality.
L. Decision by the Deciding Official (DO)
The RIO will provide the final Investigation Report, along with the Respondent's comments to the draft Investigation Report to the DO. The DO will review the report and issue a written determination on whether to accept the Investigation Committee’s findings and recommendations for each Allegation. If the DO's determination differs from the Investigation Committee’s recommendations, the DO must explain the basis for the decision in writing. Alternatively, the DO may return the Investigation Report to the Investigation Committee for additional fact-finding or analysis. The RIO will also notify the Dean (if not the DO), the Department Chair, and report to the Vice Chancellor for Research and Provost on the complete proceedings.
M. Notice of University Findings and Actions to External Bodies
The RIO will notify external sponsors and oversight bodies, as required by law or award terms. In consultation with appropriate University units, the RIO will determine additional notifications are necessary, including law enforcement agencies, professional societies or licensing boards, journal editors, collaborators of the Respondent, or other relevant parties.
N. Respondent's Right to Individual Representation
The Respondent has the right to retain independent legal counsel to represent their personal interests during the proceedings. All costs associated with such representation are the Respondent’s responsibility. Counsel may attend Respondent interviews during the Inquiry and Investigation but cannot address substantive matters before the RIO during the Inquiry or the Investigation Committee during the Investigation.
O. Maintaining Records for Review by External Sponsors
The University will securely maintain all records related to Research Misconduct Proceedings. Upon request, these records will be provided to sponsors as required by law or the terms of the award.
Records must be retained in accordance with the University's Records Management Policy and applicable sponsor or legal requirements, e.g., seven (7) years as required by ORI. The RIO is also responsible for supplying any information, documentation, research records, evidence, or clarification requested by an external sponsor to review regarding 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 DO determines that the Respondent has engaged in Research Misconduct, the University may impose administrative or disciplinary actions that are from the University's Office of Human Resources (OHR) disciplinary processes. When Research Misconduct involves students, the matter will be reviewed with the appropriate University Honor System.
Administrative actions may include withdrawing or correcting all pending or published abstracts and papers originating from the Research where Research Misconduct was identified. The DO or University may also implement additional measures, such as requiring supervision of future research activities or removing the individual from the research project or study following the completion 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 does not halt the continuation of the Research Misconduct Proceedings.
If after the University has received an Allegation the Respondent chooses to resign without admitting to Research Misconduct, the Assessment will proceed, followed by the Inquiry and Investigation, as appropriate, based on the outcome of prior steps. Should the Respondent decline to participate after resignation or termination, the University will make every reasonable effort to reach a conclusion concerning the Allegations. The final Inquiry and/or Investigation Report(s) will document the Respondent’s lack of cooperation and note its impact 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 will make all reasonable and practical efforts to limit disclosure of the identities of Respondents and Complainants to individuals with a "need to know" in order to conduct ;a thorough, competent, objective, and fair process. Similarly, the University will take steps to restrict disclosure of identities of Research subjects identifiable from Research records or Evidence, except to those who require such information to carry out the proceedings.
2. Protection of Individuals Involved in Research Misconduct Proceedings
The University will make all reasonable and practical efforts to protect or restore the reputation of individuals alleged to have engaged in Research Misconduct but against whom no finding is made. This protection also extends to Complainants, Witnesses, and Committee Members who participate in Good Faith in the proceedings.
Any use of this policy to bring malicious or bad-faith Allegations against any individual will be considered a violation of the University's Policy and Procedure for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct. Likewise, any act of Retaliation or reprisal against an individual for reporting an allegation in Good Faith will be treated as a violation of both this policy and the University's Whistleblower Policy. Such violations will be addressed through the University’s standard administrative processes for policy infractions.
C. Deviation from the Policy and/or Procedure
Exceptions
None.
Definitions
Allegation means a disclosure of possible Research Misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of the University.
Assessment means a consideration of whether an Allegation of Research Misconduct appears to fall within the definition of Research Misconduct; appears to involve academic research, e.g., biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or research training; and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified. The Assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the Allegation.
Committee Member means any individual serving on the Investigation Committee.
Complainant means the person(s) who in Good Faith make(s) an Allegation of Research Misconduct.
Confidentiality means the principle that disclosure of the identities of the Respondent and/or Complainant, is limited, to the extent possible, to individuals with a legitimate need to know. This may include the IRB, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions. Any limitations on disclosure no longer apple once the proceedings reach a final determination.
Covered Individuals mean all individuals engaged in research or research training across all disciplines and under the auspices of the University. Covered Individuals include: faculty; staff (SHRA and EHRA non-faculty); students; guest researchers (e.g., unpaid volunteers, interns, and visiting scholars); collaborators; and consultants.
Deciding Official is the University Official responsible for making final determinations following Inquiries and Investigations. In the absence of a conflict, the DO is typically the Dean of the School or College where the Respondent is assigned, or another university official designated by the Vice Chancellor for Research. For Allegations involving individuals whose primary work occurs at a University Center or Institute outside a School or College, the Vice Chancellor for Research or designee will serve as the DO. If a conflict exists, the DO will be another University Official as designated 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.
Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
Falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
Good Faith, 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 to determine if an Investigation is warranted.Intentionally means to act with the aim or purpose of carrying out the act (as defined in 42 CFR Part 93 § 93.221).
Investigation means the formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record to determine whether or not Research Misconduct occurred.
Knowingly means to act with awareness of the act (as defined in 42 CFR Part 93 § 93.222).
Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving appropriate credit. (a) Plagiarism includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another’s work that materially misleads the reader regarding the contributions of the author. It does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology. (b) Plagiarism does not include self-plagiarism or authorship or credit disputes, including disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a research project. Self-plagiarism and authorship disputes do not meet the definition of research misconduct.
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 and in 42 CFR Part 93 § 93.231).
Recklessly means proposing, performing, or reviewing research or reporting research results, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (as defined in 42 CFR Part 93 § 93.231).
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 responsible for assessing Allegations of Research Misconduct, determining whether they warrant an Inquiry, and overseeing Inquiries and Investigations. The RIO's responsibilities may be delegated to another individual with approval by the Vice Chancellor for Research.
Research Misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing Research, or in reporting research results.
Research Misconduct Proceedings means any actions related to alleged Research Misconduct, including Allegation Assessments, Inquiries, and Investigations.
Research Record means the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry. Data or results may be in physical or electronic form. Examples of items, materials, or information that may be considered part of the research record include, but are not limited to, research proposals, raw data, processed data, clinical research records, laboratory records, study records, laboratory notebooks, progress reports, manuscripts, abstracts, theses, records of oral presentations, online content, lab meeting reports, and journal articles.
Respondent means the person(s) against whom an Allegation of Research Misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a Research Misconduct Proceeding. The Respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of evidence, affirmative defenses raised. The Respondent's destruction of research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where a preponderance of evidence establishes that the Respondent intentionally or knowingly destroyed records after being informed of the Research Misconduct Allegations. The Respondent's failure to provide research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of Research Misconduct where the Respondent claims to possess the records but refuses to provide them upon request. Mere failure to maintain adequate records, without intent, is not sufficient to establish misconduct.
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, Good Faith cooperation with Research Misconduct Proceedings, or a complaint of inadequate University response to an Allegation of Research Misconduct.
Sequestration means the securing all Research Records and Evidence needed to conduct the Research Misconduct Proceeding beginning on or before the date the Respondent is notified or the Inquiry begins, whichever occurs first. When original records cannot be obtained, copies that are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value may be used. Additional records may be sequestered as they become known or relevant to the Inquiry or Investigation.
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
Name: Eric Everett
Title: Institutional Research Integrity Officer
Unit: Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research
Phone: 919-962-0988