Source: https://policy.wright.edu/policy/6120-administrative-procedures-allegations-research-misconduct
Timestamp: 2018-06-21 06:16:13
Document Index: 706185397

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 93', 'art 689', '§6120', '§6120', '§6120', '§6120', '§6120', 'art 93', 'art 689', '§6120', '§6120', '§6120', '§6120', '§6120', '§6120', '§6120', '§6120', '§6120', '§6120', '§6120', '§6120', '§6120']

Administrative Procedures for Allegations of Research Misconduct | policy.wright.edu | Wright State University
Administrative Procedures for Allegations of Research Misconduct
42 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 93;45 CFR Part 689
6120.1 Preamble
It is the policy of Wright State University that the highest ethical standards in the conduct of research be maintained. Misconduct in research as defined in this policy shall be considered a major breach of the contract between the faculty, staff member, or student and the university. The goals of this statement relating to ethics in the conduct of research are to maintain the highest standards and to establish institutional policies that provide a conspicuous and understandable mechanism for dealing with instances of alleged misconduct.
Assessment Phase (mandatory; see §6120.6.a.)
Inquiry Phase (conditional upon certain findings in the Assessment Phase; see §6120.6.b. through §6120.7.c.)
Investigation Phase (conditional upon a determination by Deciding Official; see §6120.8 and §6120.9)
Any allegation of misconduct in carrying out research procedures or handling research results is a serious matter requiring extreme care. The guiding principle in processing an initial allegation is to protect the rights and reputation of all parties involved, including the respondent and the individual or individuals who in good faith report perceived misconduct.
6120.2 Scope and Application
This policy is intended to carry out this institution’s responsibilities under applicable laws and regulations, commensurate with but not necessarily identical to the Public Health Services (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct, 42 CFR Part 93; the National Sciences Foundation (NSF) regulations at 45 CFR Part 689; and any other sponsor requirements. This policy applies to allegations of research misconduct (fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results), regardless of whether the research was supported by external funding, involving:
sexual harassment [see University Policy 8000.20, “Policy Against Discrimination and Harassment”]
In the event that this policy or some portion thereof is found to be inconsistent with some provision of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), the CBA will prevail unless a duly constituted authority finds that said provision is in conflict with some applicable law or federal regulation in which case said law or federal regulation will prevail. In the latter event, Article 35 “Separability” of the CBA will apply.
6120.3 Definitions
AAUP-WSU means the Wright State University Chapter of the American Association of University Professors, as represented by a duly-authorized official with authority to receive confidential information.
Allegation means a disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication. The disclosure may be by written or oral statement or other communication to an institutional or federal funding agency official.
6120.4 Rights and Responsibilities
A detailed listing of the responsibilities of the RIO is set forth in §6120.13. These responsibilities include the following duties related to research misconduct proceedings:
Assess each allegation of research misconduct in accordance with §6120.6.a . to determine, with the concurrence of the DO, whether it falls within the definition of research misconduct and warrants an inquiry;
As necessary, take interim action and notify federal officials of special circumstances, in accordance with §6120.5.f.;
Notify the respondent and provide opportunities for him/her to review/comment/respond to allegations, evidence, and committee reports in accordance with §6120.4.c.;
Ensure that administrative actions taken by the institution and ORI are enforced and take appropriate action to notify other involved parties, such as sponsors, law enforcement agencies, professional societies, and licensing boards of those actions; an
An opportunity to comment on the inquiry report ( see §6120.7) and have his/her comments attached to the report;
Receive a copy of the draft investigation report and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the evidence on which the report is based, and be notified that any comments must be submitted within 30 days of the date on which the copy was received and that the comments will be considered by the institution and addressed in the final report
The respondent should be given the opportunity to admit that research misconduct occurred and that he/she committed the research misconduct. With the advice of the RIO and institutional legal counsel, the Deciding Official may terminate the institution's review of an allegation that has been admitted. If PHS funds are involved, the institution's acceptance of the admission and any proposed settlement must be approved of ORI.
6120.5 General Policies and Principles
All institutional members will report observed, or suspected, or apparent misconduct-even if only indirectly related to research-to the RIO. Any official who receives an allegation of misconduct that might be research-related must report it immediately to the RIO. The RIO will then conduct an assessment pursuant to §6120.6.
6120.6 Conducting the Assessment and Inquiry
Upon receiving an allegation of misconduct, the RIO will immediately assess the allegation to determine whether it is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of misconduct may be identified, whether it is within the jurisdictional criteria of §6120.2, and whether the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct in §6120.3. The RIO will send a report of this assessment to the DO. An inquiry must be conducted if these criteria are met and the DO concurs with the RIO’s assessment.
The assessment period should be brief, preferably concluded within a week. In conducting the assessment, the RIO will make every effort to interview the complainant, respondent, or other witnesses, or gather data beyond any that may have been submitted with the allegation, to the extent necessary to determine whether the allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. The RIO should consult with the DO, the institutional legal counsel, and others as appropriate, while strictly enforcing the confidentiality of the proceeding pursuant to 6120.5.c.
If there is a danger of the respondent learning of the allegation from another source during the assessment phrase, the RIO may sequester data, records, or other materials in order to preserve their integrity (see 6120.6.c).
At the time of or before beginning an inquiry, the RIO must make a good faith effort to notify the respondent in writing, if the respondent is known. If the inquiry subsequently identifies additional respondents, they must be notified in writing. On or before the date on which the respondent is notified, or the inquiry begins, whichever is earlier, the RIO must take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence and sequester these materials in a secure manner. In order to minimize the respondent’s research disruption, a copy of the evidence either on paper or in electronic form is made and either are given to the respondent while the RIO or the inquiry committee (see §6120.6.d) keep the originals. Where the research records or evidence include scientific instruments shared by a number of users custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments. The RIO may consult with ORI for advice and assistance in this regard.
there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct and is within the jurisdictional criteria of §6120.2; and,
Informs the inquiry committee that it is responsible for preparing or directing the preparation of a written report of the inquiry that meets the requirements of §6120.7.a.
The inquiry committee will normally interview the complainant, the respondent, and key witnesses as well as examine relevant research records and materials. Then the inquiry committee will evaluate the evidence, including the testimony obtained during the inquiry. After consultation with the RIO, the committee members will decide by majority vote of the full committee whether an investigation is warranted based on the criteria in §6120.6.e.4. The scope of the inquiry is not required to and does not normally include deciding whether misconduct definitely occurred, determining definitely who committed the research misconduct or conducting exhaustive interviews and analyses. However, if a legally sufficient admission of research misconduct is made by the respondent and all relevant issues are resolved, misconduct may be determined at the inquiry stage. In that case, and if PHS funds are involved, the institution shall promptly consult with ORI to determine the next steps that should be taken.
6120.7 The Inquiry Report
Documentation of Decision Not to Investigate: If the DO decides that an investigation is not warranted, the RIO shall secure and maintain for 7 years after the termination of the inquiry sufficiently detailed documentation of the inquiry. If PHS funds were involved, these documents must be provided to ORI or other authorized HHS personnel upon request. It is not otherwise necessary to notify ORI of a decision not to investigate, unless warranted by the special circumstances enumerated in §6120.5.f.
6120.8 Conducting the Investigation
6120.9 The Investigation Report
The RIO will assist the investigation committee in finalizing the draft investigation report, including ensuring that the respondent’s comments are included and considered, and transmit the final investigation report to the DO, with a copy to the respondent and, if the respondent is a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member, to the AAUP-WSU.
Prior to any final determination that research misconduct on the part of the respondent is substantiated by the findings,
After such disciplinary meetings and/or procedures, the DO will determine in writing
6120.10 Completion of Cases; Reporting Premature Closures to ORI
Generally, all inquiries and investigations will be carried through to completion, and all significant issues will be pursued diligently. If PHS funds are involved, the RIO must notify ORI in advance if there are plans to close a case at the inquiry or investigation stage on the basis that the respondent has admitted guilt, a settlement with the respondent has been reached, or for any other reason, except:
6120.11 Institutional Administrative Actions
However, if the respondent is a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member, the provisions of CBA Article 14 “Discipline” will apply; and if either unpaid suspension or termination is anticipated as a sanction, then the provisions of Article 15 Suspension and Tenure Removal” will apply as well.
6120.12 Other Considerations
6120.13 Research Integrity Officer Responsibilities
Files an annual report with ORI containing the information presribed by ORI.
the health and safety of the public is at risk
there is a reasonable indication of possible violations of divil or criminal law,
federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceedings,
If PHS funds are involved, within 120 calendar days of beginning an investigation, or such additional calendar days as may be granted by ORI, provides ORI with the investigation report, a statement or whether the institution accepts the investigation's findings, a statement of whether the institution found research misconduct and, if so, who committed it, and a description of any pending or completed administrative actions against the respondent.
If PHS funds are involved, cooperates fully with ORI during its oversight review and any subsequent administrative hearins, including providing all research records and evidence under the institution's control, custody, or possession and access to all persons within its authority necessary to develop a complete record of relevant evidence.