Ohio Administrative Code › Title 3361:10 - University of Cincinnati › Chapter 3361:10-17 - Conduct and Ethics › Section 3361:10-17-05 - Conduct and ethics: policy for investigation of research misconduct

Current through all regulations passed and filed through July 1, 2024
(A) Definitions
As used herein, the following terms have the indicated
				meaning:
"Fabrication": making up data or results and recording or
				reporting them.
"Falsification": 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.
"Inquiry": Gathering information and initial fact-finding to
				determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of scientific misconduct
				warrants an investigation.
"Investigation": the formal examination and evaluation of all
				relevant facts to determine if misconduct has occurred and if so, to determine
				the responsible person and the seriousness of the misconduct.
"ORI": office of research integrity, the office within the
				United States department of health and human services (HHS) that is responsible
				for the scientific misconduct and research integrity activities of the public
				health service (PHS).
"Plagiarism": the appropriation of another person's ideas,
				processed, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
"Research integrity officer or RIO": the individual appointed
				by the provost responsible for assessing allegations of scientific misconduct
				and determining when such allegations warrant inquiries and for overseeing
				inquiries and investigations.
"Research records": any data, document, computer file, external
				hard drive/flash drive, or any other written or non-written account or object
				that reasonably may be expected to provide evidence or information regarding
				the proposed, conducted, or reported research that constitutes the subject of
				an allegation of scientific misconduct. A research record includes, but is not
				limited to, grant or contract applications, grant or contract progress and
				other reports, laboratory notebooks, notes, correspondence, videos,
				photographs, x-ray film, slides, biological materials, manuscripts and
				publications, equipment use logs, laboratory procurement records, animal
				facility records, human and animal subject protocols, consent forms and patient
				record files.
(B) The
			 university endorses the following introductory statement in the "Framework for
			 Institutional Policies and Procedures to Deal with Fraud in Research," issued
			 November 4, 1988, by the "Association of American Universities, National
			 Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, and Council of
			 Graduate Schools."
"Fraud in research undermines the scientific enterprise in ways
				that go far beyond the waste of public funds. Although an uncommon event
				relative to the large scientific literature, violations of accepted standards
				inevitably appear in this as in all human pursuits. Institutions engaged in
				research have a major responsibility, not only to provide an environment that
				promotes integrity, but also to establish and enforce policies that deal
				effectively and expeditiously with allegations or evidence of fraud.
In dealing with this problem it is important not to create an
				atmosphere that might discourage openness and creativity. Good and innovative
				science cannot flourish in an atmosphere of oppressive regulation. Moreover, it
				is particularly important to distinguish fraud from the honest error and
				ambiguities of interpretation that are inherent in the scientific process and
				are normally corrected by further research."
Generation of new knowledge through scholarly and creative
				works is a fundamental goal of the University of Cincinnati. This work is
				broadly defined as research. Individuals directly engaged in research, those
				charged with supervision of research, and collaborators of university
				investigators outside their own units shall bear obligations to pursue their
				studies in an ethical manner. Supervisors of research shall bear responsibility
				for the ethical conduct of research in their own unit as well as the
				laboratories of their collaborators.
This rule is designed to be consistent with the Public Health
				Service (PHS) policies on research misconduct, 42 CRF part 93, adopted 16 June
				2005. However, the policy and process is generally applicable to all research
				irrespective of funding source.
(C) Research misconduct is defined as
			 fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing
			 research proposals or in reporting research results. Research misconduct does
			 not include honest error or differences of opinion that arise out of proposing,
			 performing, reviewing or reporting research.
(D) Misconduct, which has been established by
			 a preponderance of evidence, may constitute grounds for administrative action
			 including termination of the individual's appointment at the university. It
			 shall be recognized that accusations of falsifying or misrepresenting data or
			 authorship shall be among the most serious charges that may be lodged against
			 an investigator. Any person contemplating such accusations shall fully consider
			 the gravity of the accusation and its consequences and shall make every
			 reasonable effort to avoid lodging charges that shall prove to be devoid of a
			 substantial element of truth. Frivolous or false accusations may also
			 constitute grounds for administrative action. Likewise, it shall be the policy
			 of the University of Cincinnati that no individual who, in good faith, shall
			 have reported apparent scientific misconduct of research shall be subject to
			 retaliation by the university or any member of the university community.
			 Impermissible retaliation shall be subject to university discipline. The
			 reputations of all involved parties will be protected to the extent possible
			 and measures to restore reputations will be undertaken as appropriate.
			 Documentation of any adverse action taken with respect to any individual
			 employee shall remain permanently in that employee's personnel file.
(E) When misconduct shall have been alleged,
			 a sequence of events shall take place within the institution to provide maximal
			 opportunity for reaching valid conclusions about the alleged misconduct. In
			 addition to reaching valid conclusions, it shall be imperative that due process
			 shall be followed and protection be afforded to the rights and reputation of
			 both accuser and accused, collaborators of the accused, those investigating the
			 allegations, any sponsoring agency, any publisher, and the university. Thus,
			 university legal counsel shall provide advice and counsel throughout the
			 proceedings.
(F) During inquiry
			 into and investigation of allegations, confidentiality shall be observed in the
			 interests of all parties except that the appropriate college dean (hereafter
			 referred to as dean) shall inform, and keep apprised of the investigation, the
			 vice president for research and the senior vice president and provost for
			 baccalaureate and graduate education . The dean may delegate any authority described herein.
(G) Appropriate administrative action may be
			 taken as necessary to ensure the integrity of the research, to protect the
			 rights and interests of research subjects and the public, to protect sponsoring
			 agency funds, and to assure that the purposes of the financial assistance are
			 met.
Allegations which meet the following criteria for special
				circumstances should be reported to the vice president for research, the
				research integrity officer, the appropriate funding agencies and office of
				research integrity. These include, but are not limited to:
(1) risk to public health or safety including
			 immediate need to protect human or animal subjects;
(2) Threats to agency resources, reputation
			 or other interests that need protecting;
(3) any reasonable indication of possible
			 violations of civil or criminal law;
(4) suspension of research
			 activities;
(5) need for federal
			 action to protect the interests of a subject of the investigation or of others
			 potentially affected; or
(6) the
			 scientific community or the public should be informed.