Research Misconduct

Research at Northern Illinois University has been performed at a high level of quality and scholarly integrity. Faculty, students, staff, and administrators accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment. They respect and defend free and open inquiry by associates and strive to be objective in their professional judgment of colleagues. They practice intellectual honesty, acknowledge academic debt and scholarly assistance, and take pride in their work. They are careful to acknowledge the published and unpublished contributions of others. They give appropriate professional recognition, including authorship credit when warranted, to the intellectual and technical contributions of students and junior associates. The University has a responsibility to provide an intellectual climate in which open inquiry can flourish. This includes the freedom to pursue research on any intellectual path. Adherence to these standards protects the integrity of the scholarly enterprise, provides a positive climate to which future generations of scholars are exposed, promotes public appreciation of intellectual pursuit, and enhances public trust. Northern Illinois University has an affirmative duty to protect public and private funds from misuse by ensuring the integrity of all public or privately funded work, and primary responsibility for responding to and reporting allegations of research misconduct.

This policy covers research misconduct across all fields. This includes funded and non-funded projects. Certain funding agencies mandate additional regulatory requirements. For example, all research misconduct involving funding provided by the National Science Foundation (NSF) is subject to the provisions of 45 CFR 689. It is important to note that all Public Health Service (PHS) funded research is subject to 42 CFR Part 93 and has additional requirements through the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). In cases where a funding agency’s regulatory requirements differ from this policy, those regulatory requirements will prevail. The University will notify the funding agency at any stage if it is ascertained by the Research Integrity Officer that any of the following conditions exist:

• Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects.
• There is an immediate need to protect federal funds or equipment.
• It is determined by the research integrity officer that violations have occurred that are so egregious that research activities should be suspended.
• There is an immediate need to protect the interests of the person making the allegations or of the individual who is the subject of the allegations and his or her co-investigators and associates, if any.
• There is a strong likelihood that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly.
• The university believes the research community or the public should be informed.
• There is a reasonable indication of violations of civil or criminal law.

This document applies to allegations of research misconduct (fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results) involving a person who, at the time of the alleged research misconduct, was employed by, was an agent of, or was affiliated by contract or agreement with Northern Illinois University.

Allegation

This term is a disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of an institutional or external funding agency official.

Assessment

Assessment means a consideration of whether an allegation of research misconduct appears to fall within the definition of research misconduct; appears to involve PHS-supported 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.

Complainant

Complainant means an individual who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct.

Deciding Official

Deciding Official means the institutional official who makes final determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any institutional actions. The same individual cannot serve as the Institutional Deciding Official and the Research Integrity Officer. The Deciding Official is the Vice President for Research and Innovation Partnerships.

Evidence

Evidence means anything offered or obtained during a research misconduct proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact. Evidence includes documents, whether in hard copy or electronic form, information, tangible items, and testimony.

Fabrication

Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

Falsification

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

Good faith as applied to a complainant or witness means having a reasonable belief in the truth of one’s allegation or testimony, based on the information known to the complainant or witness at the time. An allegation or cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding is not in good faith if made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for information that would negate the allegation or testimony.

Good faith as applied to an institutional or committee member means cooperating with the research misconduct proceeding by impartially carrying out the duties assigned for the purpose of helping an institution meet its responsibilities under 42 CFR Part 93. An institutional or committee member does not act in good faith if their acts or omissions during the research misconduct proceedings are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.

Inquiry

Inquiry means preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding that meets the criteria.

Institutional record

The records that the institution compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the institution did not consider or rely on. These records include but are not limited to

• Documentation of the assessment as required by § 93.306(c);
• If an inquiry is conducted, the inquiry report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the inquiry, including, but not limited to, research records and the transcripts of any transcribed interviews conducted during the inquiry, information the respondent provided to the institution, and the documentation of any decision not to investigate as required by § 93.309(c);
• If an investigation is conducted, the investigation report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the investigation, including, but not limited to, research records, the transcripts of each interview conducted pursuant to § 93.310(g), and information the respondent provided to the institution;
• Decision(s) by the Institutional Deciding Official, such as the written decision from the Institutional Deciding Official under § 93.314;
• The complete record of any institutional appeal consistent with § 93.315;

A single index listing all the research records and evidence that the institution compiled during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the institution did not consider or rely on; and

A general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.

Intentionally

To act intentionally means to act with the aim of carrying out the act.

Investigation

Investigation means the formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record that meets the criteria.

Knowingly

To act knowingly means to act with awareness of the act.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving appropriate credit.

• Plagiarism includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another’s work that materially misleads the reader regarding the contributions of the author. It does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology.
• Plagiarism does not include self-plagiarism or authorship or credit disputes, including disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a research project. Self-plagiarism and authorship disputes do not meet the definition of research misconduct.

Recklessly

To act recklessly means to propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.

Research Integrity Officer

The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) refers to the institutional official responsible for administering the institution’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct in compliance with 42 CFR Part 93. The RIO is the Director of the Office of Research Compliance, Integrity, and Safety.

Research misconduct

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

Research record

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

Respondent means the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding.

Retaliation

Retaliation means an adverse action taken against a complainant, witness, or committee member by an institution or one of its members in response to

• A good faith allegation of research misconduct or
• Good faith cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding

All faculty, staff, and students will report observed, suspected, or apparent research misconduct to the Research Integrity Officer (RIO). If an individual is unsure where a suspected incident falls within the definition of research misconduct, they may meet with or contact the RIO to discuss the suspected research misconduct informally, which may include discussing it anonymously and/or hypothetically.

The key to defining research misconduct is intent. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. Free and open inquiry allows for honest differences in methodology and in the interpretation of or judgments about data. Research misconduct, therefore, consists of the intentional, knowing, or reckless commission of one or more of the following:

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. It excludes self-plagiarism and authorship credit disputes.

The review process for cases of alleged misconduct consists of three phases:

1. Preliminary assessment by the RIO
2. Inquiry
3. Investigation

Procedures for each phase are described below. There are also provisions for appealing a determination of research misconduct. If a RIO or DO referred to herein has a conflict of interest in a case, then the next higher administrative officer or that person's designee will assume the responsibilities indicated. A respondent or complainant may raise the potential conflict to the Vice Provost of Faculty Affairs who will make the determination if a conflict exists.

The respondent shall be given the opportunity to admit that research misconduct occurred and that they committed the research misconduct. With the advice of the RIO and/or other institutional official(s), the Deciding Official (DO) may terminate the institution’s review of an admitted allegation.

In the case of externally funded research, any proposed settlement or termination of review of an admitted allegation must be approved by the appropriate federal agency. PHS funded research is approved by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and NSF funded research by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG).

The University will work with any appropriate federal agency, including ORI, and report any proposed settlements, admissions of research misconduct, or institutional findings of misconduct that arise at any stage of a misconduct proceeding, including the allegation and inquiry stages.

All involved University parties are obligated to cooperate with the proceedings by providing information relating to the case. All relevant documentary information must be provided to the respondent in a timely manner to facilitate the preparation of a response. The respondent shall be provided the opportunity during the investigation to address the charges and evidence in detail and may address the Investigation Committee. The complainant shall also have the opportunity to review the evidence to ensure completeness (for example, that no key documents are missing).

During any and all proceedings, reasonable attempts will be made to protect the confidentiality of respondents, complainants, witnesses, and research subjects identifiable from research records or evidence.

In the course of an investigation, information may emerge that indicates the alleged research misconduct may go beyond the initial complaint. The Investigation Committee may then expand its investigation, but only after the respondent is informed in writing what this additional information is and what new directions the investigation is likely to take. The respondent will be provided the opportunity to review the new information and to address any expanded charges the Investigation Committee feels are warranted by the new evidence. In the event the new information involves other individuals, they should be provided the opportunity to review and respond to the new evidence.

In the event of a collaborative project with an investigator at another institution, the University will not accept an outside determination and will follow this policy independently of another institution’s findings.

Preliminary Assessment

A complainant suspecting research misconduct should report directly to the RIO. In the event the complainant went to another individual, such as a dean or department chair, it is the responsibility of all University parties to refer the complainant to the RIO.

Promptly after receiving an allegation of possible research misconduct through any means of communication, the RIO shall meet with the complainant in confidence to discuss the allegation. The preliminary assessment process may include interviews with other parties (including the respondent), analysis of documents, and any other investigating activities deemed necessary.

A complainant may invite representation to any meeting. Employees represented by a labor union are entitled to union representation at such meetings.

If the allegation is made against an undergraduate student, the RIO will consult with the Director of Student Conduct to determine whether the allegation should be pursued through these policies and procedures or those of the Student Misconduct policies. If the allegation is made against a graduate student, the RIO will consult with the Dean of the Graduate School to determine whether the allegation should be pursued through these policies and procedures or other academic policies.A decision will be made if the misconduct falls under academic misconduct, research misconduct, or both. If the RIO determines that the allegation comes under the jurisdiction of the research integrity policies and procedures, they will discuss the inquiry and investigation procedures with the complainant. Any allegation involving research with external funding will be investigated through these policies and procedures, regardless of student status.

If the RIO determines that the allegation:

1. Meets the definition of research misconduct; and
2. Is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified, then they will notify the DO in writing of the recommendation to move to an inquiry

After the RIO or other designated institutional official determines that requirements for an inquiry are met for allegations of research misconduct, they must document the assessment, promptly sequester all research records and other evidence consistent with 93.305(a), and promptly initiate the inquiry. The RIO must take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester them in a secure manner. Where appropriate the respondent will be given copies of, or reasonable supervised access to, the research records. Any additional research records and evidence discovered during the course of the proceeding will also be sequestered by the RIO.

If the RIO determines that there is not sufficient evidence to move to an inquiry, they will document the determination in sufficient detail, explaining why the University did not proceed to an inquiry and retain such documentation for seven (7) years. This documentation will be provided upon request to any appropriate funding agency including the ORI or OIG.

If the respondent leaves the University before the case is resolved, the University will continue the examination of the allegations and reach a conclusion. Furthermore, the University will cooperate with other institutions' processes to resolve questions of misconduct.

No allegation of research misconduct will be received or inquiry instituted where the alleged misconduct took place more than six years to the day before the allegation was made.

Protection of Respondent and Complainant

The University will, to the greatest extent possible, protect the respondent and the complainant against capricious actions. Unsupported allegations not brought in good faith may lead to disciplinary action against the complainant. Acts of retaliation for good-faith allegations may similarly lead to disciplinary action.

The University will make every effort to restore the reputations of persons alleged to have engaged in research misconduct when allegations are not confirmed. Restoration obligation is limited to persons cleared of allegations. It will also protect the positions and reputations of any complainant who made allegations in good faith, witness, or committee member, and to counter potential or actual retaliation against those complainants, witnesses, and committee members.

Upon acceptance of the DO of the recommendation to move to inquiry, the RIO will initiate the inquiry process as soon as possible.

The purpose of the inquiry is to make a preliminary evaluation of the available evidence and testimony of the respondent, complainant, and key witnesses to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of possible research misconduct to warrant an investigation. The purpose of the inquiry is not to reach a final conclusion about whether misconduct definitely occurred or who was responsible. The findings of the inquiry will be set forth in an inquiry report.

The University is not required to notify a complainant whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted. However, if this institution provides notice to one complainant in a case, it must provide notice to all complainants in the case.

Composition of Research Standards Inquiry Committee

In order to address allegations of research misconduct, the University will establish for each case a Research Standards Inquiry Committee (hereafter called the Inquiry Committee). The Inquiry Committee will be made of no more than five (5) members. As allegations of misconduct vary on a case-by-case basis, it is at the discretion of the RIO who to appoint to the Inquiry Committee.  Members may include faculty, professional staff, outside consultants, or members of the administration. 

All reasonable steps will be taken to ensure an impartial and unbiased research misconduct proceeding to the maximum extent practicable. The DO will receive a list of the proposed members of the Inquiry Committee and has the ability to veto any person. The respondent will also receive a written copy of the proposed membership and within five business days may object to any member on the basis of conflict of interest. The DO will make a determination regarding the validity of any such objection and act accordingly.

The Inquiry Committee must ensure that it has access to the expertise necessary to judge the allegations being made; therefore, it may call upon on- or off-campus consultants as necessary to assist in reviewing a case.

In lieu of a committee, the institution may task the RIO or another designated institutional official to conduct the inquiry, provided this person utilizes subject matter experts as needed to assist in the inquiry.

Inquiry Process

An inquiry must be conducted if the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct, is sufficiently credible, and is specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified.

An inquiry begins when the Inquiry Committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official notifies the respondent of the charges and the process that will follow. Notification will be made in writing and copies will be securely maintained and held confidential. The RIO will issue the Inquiry Committee a written charge with their goals and responsibilities and will convene the committee as soon as possible.

Inquiries should be resolved expeditiously. The inquiry should be completed and the final written report of the findings submitted to the DO within 90 days.

To the greatest extent possible, the inquiry proceedings will be kept confidential in order to protect the rights of all parties involved. During the inquiry stage, the respondent and complainant will normally be interviewed and may bring a personal advisor and/or union representation to this interview.

If the Inquiry Committee anticipates that the established deadline cannot be met, it will submit to the DO a report citing the reasons for the delay and describing progress to date; it will also inform the respondent and other involved individuals. If the inquiry takes longer than 90 days to complete, the final report will include documentation of the reasons for exceeding 90 days.

Inquiry Findings

The completion of an inquiry is marked by a conclusion of whether or not an investigation is warranted, and by submission of the written report of the inquiry findings to the DO. The inquiry report shall contain the following information:

• The names, professional aliases, and positions of the respondent and complainant;
• A description of the allegation(s) of research misconduct;
• All external support, including, for example, grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing support;This includes PHS and NSF support.
• The composition of the inquiry committee, if used, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise;
• Inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted;
• Transcripts of any transcribed interviews;
• Timeline and procedural history;
• Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted;
• The basis for recommending that the allegation(s) warrant an investigation;
• The basis on which any allegation(s) do not merit an investigation;
• Any comments on the inquiry report by the respondent or the complainant; and
• Any institutional actions implemented, including communications with journals or funding agencies.
• Documentation of potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion.

The respondent and the complainant will be informed in writing whether or not the allegations will result in an investigation.If there is potential evidence of honest error or a difference of opinion, the University must note this in the inquiry report. The University must also provide the respondent an opportunity to review and comment on the report, and must attach any comments received to the report.

For PHS research within 30 days of determining that an investigation is warranted, the institution must provide ORI with a copy of an inquiry report. The University must provide the following information to ORI whenever requested: the institutional policies and procedures under which the inquiry was conducted; the research records and other evidence reviewed; and copies of all relevant documents.

Composition of Research Standards Investigation Committee

 If it is determined that a full investigation is required an investigation committee will be formed.  The University will take reasonable steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased investigation and may, if appropriate, use the same committee members from the inquiry in the subsequent investigation. The RIO may not serve on the investigation committee. It is at the discretion of the RIO whether to remove or add members.

Purpose of Investigation

The purpose of an investigation is to determine 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 allegation .

Investigation Process

If warranted, an investigation will be initiated within 30 days of such a finding by the DO. Investigations should be conducted as expeditiously as possible. An investigation ordinarily should be completed within 180 calendar days of its initiation, or as dictated by funding agencies' limitations (including submission of the final report). The investigation proceedings will be kept confidential to the greatest extent possible.

The respondent(s) will be notified in writing sufficiently in advance of the scheduling of their interview with the Investigation Committee so that the respondent may prepare for the interview.

The investigation will consist of a combination of activities, including but not limited to the following:

• Review and copying of data, proposals, correspondence, and other pertinent documents at the University, at the granting agency, or elsewhere.
• Review of published materials and of manuscripts submitted or in preparation.
• Inspection of laboratory or other facilities and materials (including data records and notebooks).
• Interviewing of parties with an involvement in or knowledge about the case, including both the complainant and the respondent. A complainant or respondent may invite representation to any Investigation Process meeting.  Employees represented by a labor union are entitled to union representation at such meetings
• Interviews must be recorded and transcribed electronically, any exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview must be numbered and referred to by that number in the interview, the transcript of the interview must be made available to the relevant interviewee for correction, the transcript(s) with any corrections and numbered exhibits must be included in the institutional record of the investigation, and the respondent must not be present during witnesses’ interviews but must be provided a copy of the transcript of the interview.
• Pursue diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion. If additional allegations are raised, the respondent(s) must be notified in writing of the additional allegations raised against them.

The respondent may submit additional documentation they believe is relevant to the case that the committee did not request. However, this submission must be made in good faith and may not be an effort to burden the committee with excess documentation.  If the committee feels documents were not submitted in good faith, they have no obligation to review them. 

The nature of some cases may render the deadline difficult to meet. If the Investigation Committee determines that the full process cannot be completed in 180 days, then an interim report is to be submitted to the DO before 180 days have expired with a request for an extension including an explanation of why an extension is necessary.

If the Research is PHS funded and if the investigation cannot be completed in 180 calendar days, then the RIO will submit to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) a written request for an extension. If the request is granted, the University will file periodic progress reports as requested by the ORI. If the investigation takes longer than 180 days to complete, the investigation report must include the reasons for exceeding the 180-day period.

Non-PHS funding agencies may have other guidelines or regulations to be followed. Any investigation-related communication with a funding agency will also be sent, in confidence, to the Director, Sponsored Programs Administration.

Potential Findings

The findings of an investigation are either:

• No research misconduct was committed (including a notation, if warranted, that the allegation was malicious or frivolous).
• Research misconduct was committed.

A finding of research misconduct requires that:

• There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
• The misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
• The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

In the course of an investigation, serious unintentional research errors may surface. In such instances, the Investigation Committee will advise the respondent on appropriate corrective action. It may also include in its final report specific recommendations for corrective action, such as notifying editors of journals in which the respondent's research was published or to which manuscripts were sent, and collaborators on such research.

Investigation Report

Documentation of the proceedings must be prepared and will be made available to the appropriate funding agency as required. The investigation report for each respondent will include:

• Description of the nature of the allegation(s) of research misconduct, including any additional allegation(s) addressed during the research misconduct proceeding.
• If applicable, a description and documentation of external support, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing the support. This documentation includes known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with any granting agencies. This includes PHS and NSF funded support.
• Description of the specific allegation(s) of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation of the respondent.
• Composition of investigation committee, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
• Inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence, except records the institution did not consider or rely on. This inventory will include manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied on during the investigation. The inventory will also include a description of how any sequestration was conducted during the investigation.
• Transcripts of all interviews conducted.
• Identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), PHS funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, or other research records that contain the allegedly falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material.
• Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
• A copy of these policies and procedures.
• Any comments made by the respondent and complainant(s) on the draft investigation report and the committee’s consideration of those comments.
• A statement for each separate allegation of whether the committee recommends a finding of research misconduct. If the committee recommends a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the investigation report will present a finding for each allegation. These findings will
  • Identify the individual(s) who committed the research misconduct;
  • Indicate whether the misconduct was 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 and 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 funded support (including PHS); and
  • State whether any publications need correction or retraction

If the investigation committee does not recommend a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the investigation report will provide a detailed rationale for its conclusion.

The investigation committee should also provide a list of any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with PHS and non-PHS Federal agencies.

Respondent Review of Report

The Investigation Committee will provide a copy of the draft report to the respondent and complainant for comment.. The respondent and complainant must submit any comments on the draft report to the institution within 30 days of receiving the draft investigation report. Any comments will be reviewed and considered. If appropriate, the draft report will be modified to take into account any additional findings or evidence presented prior to finalization.

Both the draft and final reports are confidential and will be shared only with appropriate bodies. The report will adhere to all applicable sponsor requirements.

Deciding Official Review of Final Report

The Investigation Committee will then submit the final investigation report to the DO for their review, including the complainant and respondent’s comments for consideration. The DO will provide a written determination to the RIO and Investigation Committee as to whether the institution found research misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct, as well as a description of the relevant institutional actions taken or to be taken. The respondent will also receive a copy of this determination.

After the DO has reviewed and accepted the report of the investigation committee, the respondent may, within 10 work days of the date of the determination letter, file a written appeal with the DO.  A time extension, where there is appropriate justification, may be requested of the DO. Either the findings, or the sanctions, or both, may be appealed. An appeal must be restricted to the body of evidence already presented, and the grounds for appeal must be limited to failure to follow appropriate procedures in the investigation, arbitrary and capricious decision-making, or sanctions not in keeping with the findings. The decision of the DO is the final University determination.

If the research is PHS funded and a respondent appeals this University’s finding(s) of research misconduct or institutional actions, the University must promptly notify ORI. If the University has not transmitted its institutional record to ORI prior to the appeal, the University must ensure that the complete record of the appeal is included in the institutional record.

New evidence or newly discovered conflict of interest may warrant a new investigation, in which case the DO may direct that the original committee or a modified committee conduct a new inquiry.

The investigation is complete when the DO has confidentially submitted the determination letter with a description of any sanctions to be imposed by the University, to the respondent(s), each respondent's department chair and college dean, or the respondent's unit and divisional directors, and the funding agency, if any. The respondent’s direct supervisor will take previous disciplinary action into consideration when determining the application of any sanctions.

Restoration of Respondent’s Reputation

All persons and agencies informed of the inquiry or investigation must be notified promptly of the finding of no misconduct. Notification will be made by the Vice President for Research.

The Vice President for Research will work with appropriate persons to counter any adverse publicity experienced by the respondent during the inquiry or investigation.

All possible efforts will be made to redress damage to the respondent's reputation and status as a competent researcher.

If the unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct are found to have been maliciously motivated, appropriate grievance procedures or disciplinary action will be initiated against the complainant. If the allegations, however incorrect, are found to have been made in good faith, no disciplinary measures will be taken and all possible efforts will be made to prevent retaliatory action against the complainant.

Any findings-related communication with a funding agency will also be sent, in confidence, to the Director of Sponsored Programs Administration.

Sanctions

University sanctions for committing research misconduct may include, but are not limited to: removal from the research project, a reprimand, financial restitution, and termination of association with the University. Other sanctions may include, if appropriate, actions such as notifying editors of journals in which the research in question was published or to which manuscripts were sent; other institutions with which the respondent has been affiliated; collaborators on such research; and professional societies, licensing boards, or criminal authorities.

The University's response to a finding of research misconduct, including sanctions against the researcher, will reflect the severity of the misconduct and will be in compliance with the provisions of the University Constitution and Bylaws, the union collective bargaining agreement, and other relevant documents.

If termination of faculty employment is to be considered, all applicable due processes within university bylaws and policies, as well as collective bargaining agreements, shall apply. If termination of a member of the Supportive Professional Staff is to be considered, due process will apply.

If dismissal of a member of the Operating Staff is to be considered, the procedures in the State Universities Civil Service System statute and rules will apply.

If dismissal of a student is to be considered, the Student Judicial Code appeal procedures will be followed. Sanctions or other actions may also be taken by the awarding funding agency.

The University will maintain the institutional record and all sequestered evidence including physical objects, securely for seven years after completion of the proceeding.