Procedures for Responding to Reports of Violations of Misconduct in Research, Scholarship, or Creative Activity Policy - Policies

Syracuse University is committed to providing a prompt, thorough, and equitable response to reports of violations of the Misconduct in Research, Scholarship, or Creative Activity Policy. These procedures apply to the conduct of all individuals engaged in research activities at Syracuse University, regardless of funding source. Institutional members include faculty, staff, students, and any other persons employed by or affiliated by contract or agreement with the University who conduct, supervise, or contribute to research under the University’s auspices.

These procedures apply only to research misconduct, as defined in the Misconduct in Research, Scholarship, or Creative Activity Policy, occurring or having occurred within six (6) years of the date Syracuse University receives an allegation of research misconduct, subject to the two exceptions articulated in the policy document.

Terms used in these procedures have the same meanings as set forth in the Misconduct in Research, Scholarship, or Creative Activity Policy.

PROCEDURES:

Assessment

Assessment of Allegations

Within five (5) business days after receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the Deciding Official (DO) and/or their designee will review and document the allegation(s) so that the DO may determine whether the allegation: (1) falls within the definition of research misconduct articulated in the Misconduct in Research, Scholarship, or Creative Activity Policy and any applicable federal regulations and (2) is credible and specific enough to proceed to an Inquiry.

If both criteria are met, an Inquiry will be conducted unless the DO determines that unusual circumstances make an Inquiry infeasible or otherwise not warranted (e.g., the data at issue are no longer available).

The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) shall secure and maintain sufficiently detailed documentation to justify why an Inquiry was or was not performed and/or to permit a later Assessment by supporting federal agencies. The RIO shall retain this documentation securely for seven (7) years after completion of the misconduct proceeding or any federal agency proceeding involving the research misconduct allegation, whichever is later.

Sequestration of the Research Records

If the DO determines that an Inquiry will be conducted or if evidence preservation is necessary during the assessment, the RIO has the authority to secure and/or copy data, research records, and other evidence related to the allegation(s) in order to fulfill obligations under federal, state, and/or local regulations, funder-specific requirements, and/or University policy to thoroughly review and resolve allegations of research misconduct. On or before the date on which the Respondent is notified or the Inquiry begins, the RIO shall take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all original research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester[i] them in a secure manner. If deemed appropriate by the RIO, sequestration may be limited to copies of the data or evidence, so long as those copies have substantially equivalent evidentiary value. When appropriate, additional or new evidence discovered after the initial sequestration should be sequestered as soon as practicable after it is identified. Failure to provide evidence at the time of sequestration may impact the credibility of such evidence if subsequently provided. Further, while failure to provide relevant data when requested shall not be the sole basis for a finding of research misconduct, it may be a contributing factor.

Admissions of Misconduct

An allegation may be resolved on the basis that the Respondent has admitted responsibility and a resolution with the Respondent has been satisfactorily reached, as determined by the DO, provided that applicable federal agency or other sponsor requirements regarding early termination of the process are met. Should a Respondent make such an admission, the RIO, in consultation with the DO, shall promptly consult with any appropriate federal agencies or other sponsor to determine the next steps that should be taken and also ensure that this action would not prejudice or interfere with the University’s review of another allegation against that Respondent or against a different Respondent.

If relevant, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Research Integrity (ORI) will be promptly notified in advance (within five (5) business days) if at any point during the proceedings, including the Assessment, Inquiry, Investigation, or Appeal stage, the DO plans to close a research misconduct case because the Respondent has admitted to committing research misconduct and/or because a resolution with the Respondent has been reached. If the Respondent admits to research misconduct, the University will not close the case until HHS ORI has been provided with the Respondent’s signed, written admission.The admission must state the specific fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism that the Respondent committed, detail which research records were affected, and affirm that the Respondent’s actions constituted a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community. The University must not close the case until giving HHS ORI a written statement confirming the Respondent’s culpability and explaining how the University determined that the Respondent’s admission fully addresses the scope of the misconduct.

Inquiry

Notice to Respondent

If the Assessment proceeds to an Inquiry, the RIO shall notify the Respondent and the dean of the respondent’s school or college (for faculty and students) or the Dean or unit head (for staff) in writing of the decision to conduct an Inquiry within five (5) business days of the decision to proceed. In research misconduct cases involving faculty, the chair of the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom, Tenure and Professional Ethics (AFTPE) will be notified by the RIO as well within five (5) business days of the decision to proceed. If the Inquiry subsequently identifies additional Respondents, they shall also be notified in writing, along with the relevant parties described in this paragraph within five (5) business days of the identification.

Initiation and Purpose of the Inquiry

The purpose of the Inquiry is to conduct preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding to determine if an allegation of research misconduct has substance. The purpose of the Inquiry is not to determine whether research misconduct occurred or who was responsible or to conduct exhaustive interviews and/or analysis. If an allegation appears to have substance, an Investigation is warranted. See part H of this Section for further information regarding the standard for determining when to move to an Investigation.

Appointment of the Inquiry Official or Committee

If the DO, with the concurrence of the AFTPE chair or co-chairs (for faculty cases), the Dean (for student and visiting scholar cases), or the Chief Human Resource Officer (for staff cases), determines that the allegations and apparent evidence are straightforward, the DO may designate the RIO or another qualified individual, referred to as the Inquiry Official, to conduct the Inquiry.

For Inquiries involving faculty, the DO must obtain concurrence of the AFTPE chair or co-chairs in order to proceed without a committee.

In all other cases, the DO shall appoint a committee of three or more experts to conduct the Inquiry (an “Inquiry Committee”). The RIO may serve as chair of the Inquiry Committee if the DO determines this is appropriate and if the RIO has no personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest. The DO will solicit a list of at least three qualified nominations from the AFTPE chair or co-chairs (for faculty cases), the Dean (for student and visiting scholar cases), or the Chief Human Resource Officer (for staff cases) regarding suitable expert members for the Inquiry Committee. If no nominations are provided within three (3) working days or the DO determines any of the nominees are not qualified to serve, the DO shall explain this determination to the nominator and appoint qualified persons. The DO makes the final appointment decision.

The Inquiry Official and members of the Inquiry Committee shall not have personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest in relation to the Inquiry and should each have appropriate scientific and/or subject matter expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation and conduct the Inquiry.

If, after the Inquiry has begun, it comes to light that either the Inquiry Official or a member of the Inquiry Committee has any personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the individual(s) or matters involved in the allegations, that person shall recuse themselves or be recused from participation in the research misconduct proceeding. A replacement shall be selected, according to the steps laid out in the Misconduct in Research, Scholarship, or Creative Activity Policy. If it becomes necessary to appoint any replacement during the course of the process, the new appointee shall be fully informed regarding earlier procedures and evidence secured, but the process shall not commence anew.

The DO shall provide the Respondent, in writing, with the name(s) of the Inquiry Official and Committee Members within 5 days of their selection. Upon receiving notification of the proposed Inquiry Official or Committee, the Respondent shall have five(5) calendar days to object to the proposed individual(s) based upon a personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest, by submitting written objections to the RIO. The DO or, in cases where the DO is alleged to have a conflict, the Provost makes the final determination as to whether a conflict exists.

Charge to the Inquiry Official or Committee

The RIO will prepare a charge to the Inquiry Official or Inquiry Committee that addresses the following:

sets forth the timeline for completion of the Inquiry;
describes the allegation(s) and any related issue(s) identified during the Assessment;
states the purpose of the Inquiry, as defined in part B of this Section;
states the criteria for determining that an Investigation is warranted (see part H of this Section); and
states that the Inquiry Official or Committee is responsible for preparing a written Inquiry Report that meets the requirements of part I of this Section.

The RIO or their designee shall make themselves available throughout the Inquiry to advise the Inquiry Official or Committee as needed.

Adding Respondents and/or Allegations

If additional Respondents are identified during the Inquiry, the RIO will notify the new Respondent(s) in writing of the allegations to be added within five (5) business days. Additionally, the RIO will make all existing Respondents aware, in writing, of any new or modified allegations not in the initial notice of the Inquiry within five (5) business days. If appropriate, the RIO should sequester any additional relevant evidence pursuant to Section I.B.

Interview Process

Although not required at Inquiry, the Inquiry Official or Committee may elect to conduct interviews at this phase, including seeking additional expert testimony. If interviews are conducted as part of the Inquiry at the discretion of the Inquiry Official or Committee, each interview will be recorded and transcribed. The respondent is permitted to bring another member of the University to serve as their advocate any time they are interviewed.

Time for Completion

The Inquiry, including submission of the final Inquiry Report, must be completed within 90 calendar days of its initiation unless the RIO determines that circumstances warrant a longer period. If the Inquiry takes longer than 90 calendar days and if the DO and/or any applicable federal agency approves an extension, the Inquiry record shall include documentation of the reasons for the extension. The Respondent will be notified by the RIO of the duration of any extension of time granted to the Inquiry Official or Committee.

Standard for Determination

After evaluation of the evidence, the Inquiry Official or Committee shall make a finding and recommendation to the DO as to whether an Investigation is warranted, based on the following criteria:

there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct articulated in this Policy and
preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding from the Inquiry indicate that the allegation may have substance.

The Inquiry Report

At the conclusion of the Inquiry, regardless of whether they determine that an investigation is warranted, the Inquiry Official or Committee will prepare a written Inquiry Report. The contents of a complete Inquiry Report will include the following elements:

the names, professional aliases, and positions of the Respondent(s) and Complainant(s);
a description of the allegation(s) of research misconduct;
a list of pertinent federal or other externally sponsored support (e.g., funding agency, grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing such support);
the composition of the Inquiry Committee, if used, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise;
an inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted;
transcripts of interviews;
inquiry timeline and procedural history;
any scientific or forensic analyses conducted;
the basis for recommending that any allegation does or does not warrant an investigation;
any comments on the inquiry report by the Respondent or the Complainant(s) (see Section J below);
any institutional actions implemented, including internal communications or external communications with journals or funding agencies;
any written comments on the draft report by the Respondent; and
what other actions, if any, should be taken if an Investigation is not warranted.

The Inquiry Report shall either be signed by the Inquiry Official or by each member of the Inquiry Committee or include other written evidence of each person’s concurrence or non-concurrence with the findings and conclusions of the Inquiry. The final Inquiry Report will be uploaded into the ethics reporting system.

Opportunity to Comment on the Inquiry Report

The Respondent shall be provided with an opportunity to review and comment on the Inquiry Report. The RIO shall provide the Respondent with a copy of the draft Inquiry Report and all attachments, including the Misconduct in Research, Scholarship, or Creative Activity Policy, these procedures, and any applicable federal or other sponsor research misconduct policy. In the case of physical evidence, the RIO will provide the Respondent with supervised access if requested. Any comments from the Respondent must be in writing to the RIO and received within 10 business days of the Respondent’s receipt of the draft Inquiry Report. Based on the comments, the Inquiry Official or Committee may revise the draft report as appropriate before finalizing and submitting the signed report to the RIO.

Decision and Notification

Decision by the Deciding Official

The RIO will transmit the final Inquiry Report and any written comments to the DO within 90 calendar days of the initiation of the Inquiry. The DO will determine in writing to the Respondent and the Dean whether an Investigation is warranted within ten (10) business days. The Inquiry is complete when the DO makes this determination.

If the DO’s determination differs from the determination and recommendation of the Inquiry Official or Committee, the DO will, as part of their written determination, explain in detail the basis for rendering a decision different from the findings of the Inquiry Official or Committee. Alternatively, the DO may return the report to the Inquiry Official or Committee with a request for further fact-finding or analysis; the nature of the DO’s request will determine the timeframe, usually not to exceed ten (10) business days.

Notice to Respondent and Complainant

When a final decision has been reached, the RIO shall notify the Respondent and the Dean of the DO’s determination. This notice shall include a copy of the Inquiry Report and any attachments and include or refer to the Misconduct in Research, Scholarship, or Creative Activity Policy and any applicable federal research misconduct policy. The RIO may also notify the Complainant of the outcome of the Inquiry.

Notice to Applicable Sponsor or Federal Agency

The RIO is responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification requirements of funding or sponsoring agencies. When required, the RIO shall provide applicable sponsors or federal agencies with any required reports regarding the Inquiry and decision to initiate an Investigation. For cases involving HHS ORI jurisdiction, within 30 calendar days of the DO’s decision that an Investigation is warranted, but not later than the date the Investigation begins, the RIO shall provide HHS ORI with the DO’s written decision and a copy of the Inquiry Report and all attachments.

Notice to AFTPE Committee and appropriate University Officials

For cases involving faculty, the RIO will notify the AFTPE Committee and appropriate dean of the DO’s decision as necessary. For cases involving students, the RIO will notify the appropriate Dean. For cases involving staff, the RIO will notify the Chief Human Resources Officer and, if applicable, the Dean of the respondent’s school or college.

In cases involving current or former students, the University will not release educational records without receipt of a subpoena unless the individual has signed a Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) release form.

Documentation of Decision Not to Investigate

If the Inquiry Official or Committee determines and recommends and the DO concurs that an Investigation is not warranted, the RIO shall secure and maintain, for the required retention period after the termination of the Inquiry, sufficiently detailed documentation of the Inquiry to permit a later assessment by supporting federal agencies of the reasons why an Investigation was not conducted. The RIO will upload these documents into the ethics reporting system, and the documents will be provided to authorized federal personnel upon request.

Investigation

Initiation and Purpose

If the DO determines that an Investigation is required, it will be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Section. In accordance with federal regulations, the Investigation shall begin within 30 calendar days after the DO determines that one is warranted. If an extension of time to begin the Investigation is needed, the RIO must request it from the appropriate sponsoring agency, or if the allegation(s) involve non-sponsored research, the RIO must document the reason for the extension in the case file. The purpose of the Investigation is to develop a factual record by exploring the allegation(s) in detail and examining the evidence in depth, leading to a finding as to 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. The findings of the Investigation shall be set forth in the Investigation Report, as outlined in part I of this Section.

Appointment of the Investigation Committee

The DO will appoint an Investigation Committee of three members or more, as well as a committee chair, to conduct the Investigation.

In cases involving faculty, the DO will solicit a list of at least three qualified nominations from the Senate AFTPE Committee. In cases involving students, the DO will solicit a list of at least three qualified nominations from the Dean of the student’s home school/college. In cases involving staff, the DO will solicit a list of at least three qualified nominations from the Chief Human Resource Officer. If no nominations are provided within three (3) working days or the DO determines any of the nominees are not qualified to serve, the DO shall explain this determination to the nominator and appoint qualified persons. The DO makes the final appointment decision.

The Investigation Committee shall consist of individuals who do not have personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest in relation to the Investigation. Investigation Committee members shall have appropriate scientific or other expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation, interview the Respondent and Complainant, and conduct the Investigation. The RIO may not serve as a member of the Investigation Committee. Once the DO has appointed Investigation Committee members, notice of the members shall be provided to the Respondent by the RIO.

The Respondent shall have an opportunity to object to proposed members of the Investigation Committee based upon personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest, by submitting written objections to the DO no more than five (5) calendar days following notification regarding the committee membership. The DO makes the final determination as to whether a conflict exists.

If, after the Investigation has begun, it comes to light that either a Committee member or other key individual in the Investigation process has any personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the individual(s) involved in the allegations, that person shall be recused from participation in the research misconduct proceeding.

Charge to the Investigation Committee

The RIO will define the subject matter of the Investigation in a written charge to the Investigation Committee that does the following:

describes the allegation(s) and related issues identified during the Inquiry;
identifies the Respondent(s);
informs the Investigation Committee that it must conduct the Investigation as set forth in these Procedures;
defines “research misconduct”;
informs the Committee of the purpose of Investigation, as described in part A of this Section; and
informs the Investigation Committee that, at the conclusion of its work, it must prepare a written Investigation Report that meets the requirements of part I of this Section.

The RIO shall make themselves available throughout the Investigation to advise the Investigation Committee as needed.

Adding Respondents and/or Allegations

If additional Respondents or allegations are identified during the Investigation, the RIO will notify the new Respondent(s) in writing of the allegations to be added. Additionally, all existing Respondents should be made aware of any new or modified allegations not in the initial notice of the Investigation. If appropriate, the RIO should sequester any additional relevant evidence pursuant to Section I.B.

Investigation Process

The Investigation Committee and the RIO shall undertake the following tasks/responsibilities:

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;
Interview each Respondent, Complainant, and any other relevant person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any aspects of the Investigation, including witnesses identified by the Respondent, and record and transcribe each interview, provide the transcript to the interviewee for correction, and include the transcript and any corrections, in the record of the Investigation; and
Pursue diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined by the investigation Committee and RIO to be relevant to the Investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the Investigation to completion.

Additionally, when a University employee is the Respondent in an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO may consult with the relevant University office(s) on behalf of the Investigation Committee to determine whether the employee has ever been disciplined for violations of academic integrity involving plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification. The RIO will provide any relevant information obtained to the Investigation Committee to inform them of any pattern of behavior and level of intent of the Respondent pursuant to this Policy.

Additionally, when a University student is the Respondent in an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO may consult with the relevant University office(s) on behalf of the Investigation Committee to determine whether the student has ever been disciplined for violations of academic integrity involving plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification. The RIO will provide any relevant information obtained to the Investigation Committee to inform them of any pattern of behavior and level of intent of the Respondent pursuant to this Policy.

Additional Sequestration of Research Records during Investigation

Throughout the Investigation, the RIO shall take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of and sequester in a secure manner all research records and evidence necessary to conduct the research misconduct proceeding that were not previously sequestered during the Inquiry. See Section I.B for additional details about the sequestration process and procedures.

Standard for Making a Finding of Research Misconduct

To make a finding of research misconduct, the Investigation Committee must find by a preponderance of the evidence that:

research misconduct, as defined in the Misconduct in Research, Scholarship, or Creative Activity Policy and/or applicable federal agency regulations or policies, occurred;
the research misconduct that occurred represents a significant departure from the accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
the Respondent committed the research misconduct recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally.

The RIO will advise the Investigation Committee of any additional applicable regulatory standards for making a finding of research misconduct. (e.g., 42 CFR 93.106-Evidentiary Standards)

Timeline for Completion

The Investigation shall ordinarily be completed within 180 calendar days of its initiation, including conducting the Investigation, preparing the report of findings, providing the draft report to the Respondent for comment, and sending the final report to the DO, the Respondent, and any applicable federal agency. However, if the Investigation Committee determines at any point that the Investigation cannot be completed within the 180 calendar-day period, or upon request by the applicable agency, the RIO (on behalf of the Committee) shall submit the request for an extension to the applicable agency or sponsor. If no agency is involved, the Committee shall submit a written request to the RIO for an extension, including an explanation of the reason for the delay.

The Investigation Report

The Investigation Committee is responsible, with the assistance of the RIO, for preparing a written Investigation Report, which shall address the following:

describes the nature of the allegation(s) of research misconduct, including any additional allegation(s) addressed during the research misconduct proceedings;
describes and documents any federal, state, or private funding sources, including grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing such support, and any applications or proposals for support that the Respondent has pending;
describes the specific allegation(s) of research misconduct considered in the Investigation;
includes or references the Misconduct in Research, Scholarship, or Creative Activity Policy and any applicable federal regulations;
lists the composition of the Investigation Committee, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise;
includes an inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence. This inventory should include manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied on during the investigation. The inventory should also include a description of how any sequestration was conducted during the investigation;
includes transcripts of all interviews conducted;
identifies all research products that contain the falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material, including published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), federally or other sponsor-funded applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, and any/all other research records.
describes any scientific or forensic analyses conducted;
provides any comments made by the Respondent and/or Complainant(s) on the draft investigation report and the committee’s consideration of those comments;
provides a statement for each separate allegation as to whether the Committee recommends a finding of research misconduct (see below); and
is signed by each member of the Investigation Committee or includes written evidence of each member’s concurrence or non-concurrence with the findings and conclusions of the Investigation.

If the Committee recommends a finding of research misconduct for any allegation, the Investigation Report will present a finding for each allegation. These findings will address the following:

identify the individual(s) who committed the research misconduct
indicate the type of misconduct (falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism);
indicate whether the misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly;
identify any significant departure from the accepted practices of the relevant research community;
indicate that the allegation was proven by a preponderance of the evidence;
summarize the facts and analysis supporting the conclusion and consider the merits of any explanation by the Respondent;
identify the specific funding agency, if any; and
state whether any publications need correction or retraction.

If the Investigation Committee does not recommend a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, they shall include in the investigation report a detailed rationale for its conclusion.

The Investigation Committee shall also provide a list of any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the Respondent has pending with HHS Public Health Service (PHS) and non-PHS federal agencies or sponsors.

Comments on the Draft Investigation Report and Access to Evidence

The RIO shall provide the Respondent with the draft Investigation Report for comment with all attachments, including the Misconduct in Research, Scholarship, or Creative Activity Policy and any applicable federal regulation. In the case of physical evidence, the RIO will provide the Respondent with supervised access, if requested. The Respondent will be given 30 calendar days to review the draft report and submit written comments to the RIO. The Respondent’s comments will be taken into consideration by the Investigation Committee when preparing the final Investigation Report and shall be included as an attachment.

Decision and Notification

The RIO will assist the Investigation Committee in finalizing the draft Investigation Report, including ensuring that the Respondent’s written comments and, in appropriate cases, the Complainant’s written comments are included and considered.

Decision by the Deciding Official (DO)

The RIO will transmit the final Investigation Report to the DO. The DO will determine in writing the following:

(a) whether the University accepts the Investigation’s findings; and

(b) the corrective actions, if any, to be taken and/or the disciplinary actions recommend to the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs in response to the accepted findings of research misconduct.

If the DO ’s determination differs from the findings of the Investigation Committee, the DO will, as part of their 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; the nature of the DO’s request will determine the timeframe, not to exceed ten (10) business days. The DO’s final determination will be provided to the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs and, in the case of faculty, the AFTPE Committee and the Dean of the faculty member’s school/college, in the case of students, the Dean of the student’s home school/college, and in the case of staff, the Chief Human Resource Officer. It will also be uploaded into the ethics reporting system.

Notice to Respondent and Complainant

When a final decision has been reached, the RIO shall notify the Respondent of the DO’s determination. This notice shall include the DO’s determination, as well as the Investigation Report and any attachments, and include or refer to the Misconduct in Research, Scholarship, or Creative Activity Policy and any applicable federal regulations. The RIO may also notify the Complainant of the outcome of the Investigation.

Notice to Applicable Sponsor or Federal Agency

The RIO is responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification requirements of funding or sponsoring agencies. When required, the RIO will provide the applicable sponsor or agency with the DO’s written determination, the Investigation Report, including all attachments, and, if required by the agency, a description of any pending or completed administrative actions involving the Respondent(s). In cases involving current or former students, the University will not release educational records without receipt of a subpoena unless the individual has signed a FERPA release form.

Notice to Others

The DO, in consultation with the RIO and other University officials as necessary, will determine whether law enforcement agencies, funding agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals or any other publications in which affected articles or reports may have been published, collaborators of the Respondent(s), or other relevant parties should be notified of the outcome of the Investigation.

Completion of Cases and Reporting Resolutions to Applicable Federal Agencies

Generally, all Inquiries and Investigations will be carried through to completion, and all significant issues will be pursued diligently. However, as noted in Section II of these Procedures, the RIO shall, if required by a federal agency or other sponsor, notify said federal agency or sponsor in advance if there are plans to resolve a case at the Inquiry or Investigation stage on the basis that the Respondent has admitted to committing research misconduct, a settlement with the Respondent has been reached, or for any other reason except that: (1) no notification to federal agencies need be provided when a case is resolved after an Inquiry finds pursuant to Section III.H that an Investigation is not warranted and (2) if an Investigation is completed, the University’s findings must be reported as specified under Section IV.K.3.

A University finding is not binding on a federal agency or other sponsor. Thus, the outcome of an Investigation does not prevent a federal agency or other sponsor from conducting its own separate investigation, making its own separate findings, and/or imposing its own sanctions and/or corrective actions.

Maintaining Records for Review by Federal Agencies

The RIO shall maintain records and, upon request, provide to authorized federal officials records of research misconduct proceedings, including: (1) records secured by the University during the Assessment, Inquiry, and Investigation; (2) documentation of the determination of irrelevant or duplicate records; (3) the Inquiry Report and final documents produced in the course of preparing that report, including the documentation of any decision not to investigate; and (4) the Investigation Report and the records in support of that report, including the recording or transcript of each interview conducted pursuant to the Misconduct in Research, Scholarship, or Creative Activity Policy.

Unless custody of the records has been transferred to the applicable federal agency or other sponsor or the agency has advised the University in writing that the records no longer need to be retained, these records shall be maintained in a secure manner for seven (7) years after the completion of the University proceeding or the completion of any federal agency proceeding involving the research misconduct allegation, whichever is later.

The RIO is also responsible for providing any information, documentation, research records, evidence, or clarification requested by authorized federal officials to carry out their review of an allegation of research misconduct or of the University’s handling of such an allegation.

Internal Corrective Actions

If the DO determines that a finding of research misconduct is substantiated, the University, through the DO, AFTPE Committee, RIO, or other appropriate official(s), may initiate or require corrective actions, which may include, but are not limited to, the following:

training;
unannounced or announced audits;
a letter of reprimand or admonishment to be included in Respondent’s permanent file;
supervision or monitoring of Respondent’s future work, including a requirement for certification that their work met specified conditions;
Removal of Respondent from the research project in question;
formal notification of sponsoring agencies, funding sources, co-authors, co-investigators, collaborators, or editors of journals or other publications;
withdrawal or correction of pending abstracts and papers emanating from the research where research misconduct was found;
formal withdrawal of pending applications for research support;
public announcements; and/or
restitution of funds by the Respondent.

If the DO determines that a finding of research misconduct is substantiated, the DO may also recommend disciplinary actions to the appropriate University official(s), which may include, but are not limited to the following:

probation or suspension;
initiation of steps leading to possible impact on salary or financial aid;
initiation of steps leading to revocation of a degree;
initiation of steps leading to possible expulsion from the University; and/or
initiation of steps leading to possible termination of employment.

None of these actions limit the authority of the funding sponsor to impose its own sanctions or corrective actions.

Other Considerations

Protecting the Respondent

Respondents may consult with legal counsel or a non-lawyer personal advisor of their choice (so long and they are not a principal or witness in the case) to seek advice.

As appropriate, the DO, Inquiry Committee, and other University officials shall make all reasonable and practical efforts to protect or restore the reputation of person(s) alleged to have engaged in research misconduct but against whom no finding of research misconduct is made. Depending on the particular circumstances and the views of the Respondent, the DO should consider whether to notify those individuals aware of or involved in the research misconduct proceeding of the final outcome, publicize the final outcome in any forum in which the allegation of research misconduct was previously publicized, and/or recommend the expungement of references to the research misconduct allegation from the Respondent’s personnel file.

Protecting the Complainant, Witnesses, and Committee Members

During the research misconduct proceeding and upon its completion, regardless of whether the University or a federal agency determines that research misconduct occurred, the DO, RIO, and Inquiry Committee (when applicable) shall 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 cooperated in good faith with the research misconduct proceeding.

Allegations Not Made in Good Faith

If necessary, the DO, in consultation with the Inquiry Committee (if applicable), RIO, Investigation Committee, and other University officials, as appropriate, will determine whether the Complainant’s allegations of research misconduct were made in good faith or whether a witness, Official, or Committee Member acted in good faith. If the DO determines that the Complainant knowingly made a false allegation of research misconduct or that a witness, Official, or Committee Member did not act in good faith, the DO shall determine whether any administrative action will be taken against that individual or whether any disciplinary action will be recommended to the appropriate University official(s).

Appeal

Respondents have the right to appeal the DO’s final determination and/or the actions resulting from the research misconduct proceeding unless an appeal is separately provided for under another University policy governing any disciplinary action(s), in which case appeals should be submitted in accord with such other University policy, and the outcome of the appeal reported to the RIO. Appeals are limited in scope and must follow the procedures below.

Who May Appeal

The Respondent(s) may submit an appeal of the final determination or any actions that are not separately governed by another University policy, including the Faculty Manual Policies on Tenure and Promotion.

If the RIO determines it is appropriate to notify a complainant of the result, as permitted and appropriate under University policy and federal regulations, the RIO may notify the complainant of outcomes. If notified, the complainants may raise concerns about procedural irregularities to the RIO; however, this is not an appeal.

Grounds for Appeal

Appeals must be based on one or more of the following:

A substantial procedural error in adhering to the University’s Research Misconduct Policy that materially affected the outcome; or
New, significant evidence that was not reasonably available during the investigation and that could have materially affected the Inquiry or Investigation Committee’s determinations; or
Corrective or disciplinary actions that are disproportionate to the findings; however, if a separate University policy governs the action, any appeal of the action should be submitted in accord with such other University policy, and the outcome of the appeal reported to the RIO.

Timeframe and Contents

Appeals must be submitted in writing via email with attachments within twenty one (21) calendar days of receipt of the DO’s written decision.

The appeal must identify specific portions of the Inquiry or Investigative Committee report, or DO’s written determination that are being appealed, with exact references by page and line number. For each item, the appellant must identify the alleged error and explain the nature of the error with specific references or citations to the institutional record. The appeal must be clear and specific and must be limited to providing new information or arguments that were not previously submitted by the respondent during the inquiry or investigation. If the appeal is based on new, significant evidence, respondent shall also provide a detailed explanation regarding why such evidence was not previously provided during the course of the proceeding.

To Whom the Appeal is Made

Appeals must be submitted in writing via email with attachments to the RIO.

Appeals must be addressed to the Provost through the Office of the Provost. If the Provost has an unresolved conflict, the Chancellor will designate an alternative senior official to review the appeal.

Review of Appeals

The Provost will conduct a thorough review of the appeal and of any relevant portions of the institutional record.

The Provost’s review shall be limited to the contents of the appeal and the institutional record, unless respondent provides sufficient justification for including new, material evidence that was not previously provided during the course of the proceeding.

The Provost will issue a written decision either upholding, modifying, or directing the RIO to obtain further review of the matter which may include performing parts of the proceeding again, such as reconvening or reconstituting the Investigative Committee, or supplementing the record with review of additional matters or reconsidering aspects of the determination.

The decision on appeal is final within the University, subject only to obligations for external reporting or review (e.g., by HHS ORI).

FURTHER INFORMATION:

For questions, please contact the Office of the Research, Vice President for Research.

[i]In these procedures, sequestration means the secure collection and preservation of all relevant research records and evidence (physical and digital) at the start of an inquiry or investigation to prevent tampering, loss, or alteration, ensuring data integrity for the review process, with strict documentation (inventory/chain of custody) and controlled access for the Respondent.