1University at Albany Policy and Procedures on Misconduct
in Research and Scholarship1
I.
Introduction
A.
Policy
Maintenance of high ethical standards in research and scholarship is a central and
critical responsibility of the University at Albany (“University”). In keeping with its
commitment to integrity in the conduct of research and scholarship, and in compliance
with its obligations under federal regulations, the University will promptly, thoroughly,
competently, objectively, and fairly respond to good faith allegations of misconduct in
research or scholarship consistent with and in the time limits prescribed by the
procedures set forth herein; ensure that individuals responsible for administering this
policy and these procedures or participating in the proceedings governed hereby are
free from bias and have no real or apparent conflicts of interest with either the parties
involved or the subject matter of any allegation; and protect the rights, reputation, and
confidentiality of all involved individuals including the Respondent and good faith
Complainant.
B.
Scope
This policy and the associated procedures shall be applicable to all University faculty,
researchers, staff, and students engaged in research and scholarship as those terms are
defined herein. While Federal regulations require that institutions applying for or
receiving federal research funding have an established administrative process for
reviewing, investigating, and reporting allegations of research misconduct, the following
procedures outline the University's process for responding to allegations of misconduct
in all areas of research or scholarship regardless of the funding source or whether the
research or scholarship was funded externally or internally. In the case of allegations of
misconduct involving students, except as otherwise required by law, or because of the
involvement of students in cases involving other persons subject to this policy, this
policy shall not apply to academic course work which ordinarily will be addressed under
the University’s policies regarding academic integrity.
II.
Definitions
1 This policy document implements the “Recommendations and Policy Framework on Responding to Misconduct in
Research and Scholarship,” approved by the University Senate on March 17, 2003. A first draft version was completed by the Office
of the Vice President for Research in May 2003. The Committee on Ethics in Research and Scholarship completed a substantially
revised version in summer 2004. The final version incorporated additional input that was received from the Council on Research, the
Vice President for Research, the Office of the University Counsel, and a number of faculty during fall 2004, and passed as Senate bill
0405-02. It has been amended by Senate bills 00405-25, 0506-27. After further consultation, the policy was substantially revised by
CERS during 2008-2009 and passed as Senate bill 09-10 xxx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2
A.
Allegation means any written or oral statement or other evidence of possible
misconduct in research or scholarship made to an institutional official.
B.
Complainant means a person who makes a good faith allegation of misconduct
in research or scholarship.
C.
Committee on Ethics in Research and Scholarship (CERS) is the University
Senate committee whose responsibilities include reviewing the implementation
of the policy and procedures on institutional responses to allegations of
misconduct in research and scholarship and recommending to the University
Senate revisions to the policy and procedures, as needed.
D.
Conflict of Interest means the real or apparent interference of one person’s
interests with the interests of another person, where potential bias may occur
due to prior or existing personal, professional or financial relationships.
E.
Deciding Official (DO) means the institutional official who makes final
determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any institutional
administrative actions. The University President is the University’s Deciding
Official.
F.
Fabrication means making up results and recording or reporting them.
G.
Falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, or
changing or omitting data or results so that the research is not accurately
represented in the research record.
H.
Good Faith as applied to a complainant or witness, means having a belief in the
truth of one's allegation or testimony that a reasonable person in the
complainant's or witness's position could have based on the information known
to the complainant or witness at the time. An allegation or cooperation with a
research misconduct proceeding is not in good faith if made with knowing or
reckless disregard for information that would negate the allegation or testimony.
Good faith as applied to a committee member means cooperating with the
research misconduct proceeding by carrying out the duties assigned impartially
for the purpose of helping an institution meet its responsibilities. A committee
member does not act in good faith if his/her acts or omissions on the committee
are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of
interest with those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.
I.
Inquiry means information gathering and initial fact-finding to determine
whether an allegation or apparent instance of misconduct warrants an
investigation.
J.
Inquiry Committee means the committee that is charged with conducting an
inquiry into an allegation of misconduct.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
3
K.
Institutional Counsel means legal counsel who represents the University during
misconduct proceedings.
L.
Investigation means the formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts
to determine if misconduct has occurred.
M.
Investigation Committee means the committee that is charged with conducting
an investigation into an allegation of misconduct.
N.
Misconduct means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that
seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the academic
community for proposing, conducting, reviewing, or reporting research or
scholarship, including artistic expression, and includes misrepresentation of
academic credentials or scholarship in proposing or securing awards, grants, or
professional recognition. It does not include honest error or disagreements,
honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data or disputes among
collaborators about relative credit, or informal presentations, such as classroom
lectures. For there to be a finding of misconduct it must be determined by a
preponderance of the evidence that: (1) there was a significant departure from
accepted practices of the relevant research or scholarly community and (2) the
misconduct was intentional, knowing or reckless. Reckless means evincing
disregard of or indifference to accepted scholarly practices although no harm is
intended.
O.
Office of Research Integrity (ORI) is the federal office located within the Office of
Public Health and Science (OPHS) within the Office of the Secretary of Health and
Human Services (OS) in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
which oversees and directs Public Health Service (PHS) research integrity
activities on behalf of the Secretary of Health and Human Services of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
P.
Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results
or words without giving appropriate credit.
Q.
Preponderance of the evidence means proof by evidence that, compared with
that opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably
true than not.
R.
Research means a systematic investigation, including research development,
testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable
knowledge.
S.
Research Compliance Officer (RCO) is the individual in the Office of Regulatory
Research Compliance (ORRC), or designee, designated by the RIO and charged
with the responsibility to provide administrative support for all research
misconduct proceedings and to assist the RIO to respond to allegations of
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
4
research misconduct. The RCO or designee shall be present at all inquiry and
investigative committee meetings, interviews, and other proceedings regarding
allegations of research misconduct.
T.
Research Integrity Officer (RIO) is the institutional official who has
responsibilities related to the handling of allegations of research misconduct
involving biomedical or behavioral research or research training that is
supported by PHS. The University’s Vice President for Research (VPR) is the
University’s RIO.
U.
Research Record means any data, document, computer file, computer storage
medium, 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 misconduct that constitutes the subject of an allegation
of misconduct. A research record includes, but is not limited to, grant or
contract applications, whether sponsored or not; grant or contract progress
reports; laboratory notebooks; notes; correspondence; electronic
communication; videos; photographs; X-ray or other film; slides; biological
materials; computer files and printouts; manuscripts and publications;
equipment use logs; laboratory procurement records; animal facility records;
and human and animal subject records and protocols.
V.
Respondent means the person against whom an allegation of misconduct in
research or scholarship is directed or who is the subject of a misconduct
proceeding.
W.
Retaliation means any adverse action taken against a complainant, witness, or
committee member by an institution or one of its members in response to:
(a)
A good faith allegation of research misconduct; or
(b)
Good faith cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding.
X.
Scholarship means original contributions or artistic works which constitute
advances or contributions to the individual's discipline or to practice in the field.
III.
Rights and Responsibilities
A.
Research Integrity Officer (RIO)
The University’s RIO will have primary responsibility for implementation of the
procedures set forth in this policy, and shall ensure that all individuals responsible for
administering this policy and these procedures or participating in the proceedings
governed hereby, including, but not limited to, the RIO and the CERS Chair, are free
from bias and have no real or apparent conflicts of interest with either the parties
involved or the subject matter of any allegation. The RIO will, in consultation with the
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
5
CERS Chair, appoint the inquiry and investigation committees and shall take all
reasonable steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased misconduct proceeding to the
maximum extent practicable. Those conducting the inquiry or investigation shall be
selected on the basis of expertise that is pertinent to the matter and, prior to selection,
shall be thoroughly screened by the RIO for any real or apparent personal, professional,
or financial conflicts of interest with the respondent, complainant, potential witnesses,
or others involved in the matter. Any such conflict which a reasonable person would
consider to demonstrate potential bias shall disqualify the individual from selection.
At the time of or before beginning an inquiry, an institution must make a good faith
effort to notify in writing the presumed respondent, if any. If the inquiry subsequently
identifies additional respondents, the institution must notify them.
To the extent allowed by law, the RIO shall maintain the identity of respondents and
complainants and any information obtained during a misconduct proceeding that might
identify the subjects of research securely and confidentially and shall not be disclosed,
except to: (1) those who need to know in order to carry out a thorough, competent,
objective, and fair misconduct proceeding; (2) ORI as it conducts its review of the
misconduct proceeding and any subsequent proceedings; or (3) as otherwise required
by law.
The RIO, or designee, will assist inquiry and investigation committees and all University
personnel in complying with these procedures and with applicable standards imposed
by government or external funding sources. The RIO is also responsible for maintaining
files of all documents and evidence and for the confidentiality and the security of the
files.
The RIO will report to ORI as required by law and keep ORI apprised of any
developments during the course of the inquiry or investigation that may affect current
or potential DHHS funding for the individual(s) under investigation or that PHS needs to
know to ensure appropriate use of Federal funds and otherwise protect the public
interest.
The RIO will, upon receipt of an allegation of misconduct, and in consultation with the
CERS Chair, make an initial assessment of whether the allegation warrants an inquiry. If
either the RIO or the CERS Chair concludes that an inquiry is warranted, the RIO shall
initiate an inquiry as provided herein. The RIO shall take all reasonable steps to ensure
an impartial and unbiased misconduct proceeding in accordance with these procedures
to the maximum extent practicable. Upon receipt by the RIO of a timely written
objection to any member of an inquiry or investigation committee or to the RIO or the
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
6
CERS Chair on the basis of a real or apparent conflict of interest, the RIO shall promptly
determine, in consultation with the CERS Chair, whether to replace the challenged
member with a qualified substitute as provided below. The RIO is responsible for
maintaining confidentiality of the misconduct proceedings. Therefore, the RIO shall not
disclose any information regarding the allegations, the proceedings, or the identity of
individuals involved in the proceedings except as may necessary to the proper discharge
of her/his responsibilities hereunder, or as required by law.
B.
Respondent
The Respondent shall be entitled to a prompt, thorough, competent, objective and fair
response to allegations of misconduct. The Respondent will be informed of the
allegations and notified in writing of the final determinations of any inquiry or
investigation of the allegations and the resulting institutional actions, if any. The
Respondent will also have the opportunity to be interviewed by and present evidence to
the inquiry and investigation committees, to review the inquiry and investigation
reports, and to have the advice of counsel. Counsel for the Respondent, however, may
not actively participate in the misconduct proceedings. If the Respondent is found not to
have engaged in misconduct, the University will make a diligent effort to restore his or
her reputation. The Respondent is expected to cooperate with the misconduct
proceeding, and, except as may be necessary to respond fully to an allegation of
misconduct or as appropriate to restoring his or her reputation after the conclusion of
the proceedings, the Respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality of the
misconduct proceedings including all documents and other evidence generated as part
of the proceedings.
If the case becomes public, the University may take such steps as may be appropriate,
consistent with applicable law, to defend its actions.
The Respondent may, within five (5) calendar days of receipt of notice of an allegation of
misconduct or of the initiation of an inquiry or investigation, submit to the RIO or the
CERS Chair a written objection that either the RIO, the CERS Chair, or any appointed
member of an inquiry or investigation committee has a real or apparent conflict of
interest and the basis thereof. The RIO shall, in consultation with the CERS Chair,
promptly determine whether to replace the challenged committee member with a
qualified substitute. Objections regarding the RIO shall be referred to the President, or
designee, who shall promptly determine whether to replace the RIO with a qualified
substitute. Objections regarding the CERS Chair shall be referred to the Chair of the
University Senate who shall promptly determine whether to replace the CERS Chair with
a qualified substitute. A written record of any decision to replace the RIO, the CERS
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
7
Chair, or any member of an inquiry or investigation committee, and the reasons
therefore, shall be made part of the record of the proceeding.
C.
Complainant
The Complainant will ordinarily have an opportunity to be interviewed by the inquiry
and investigation committees, to review portions of the inquiry and investigation
reports pertinent to his/her allegations, evidence, and testimony and to be informed of
the results of the inquiry and investigation and to be protected from retaliation.
The Complainant is expected to make allegations in good faith and fully cooperate with
the misconduct proceeding. The Complainant is responsible for maintaining
confidentiality of the misconduct proceedings. Therefore, the Complainant shall not
disclose any information regarding the proceedings, or the identity of individuals
involved in the proceedings.
D.
Office of University Counsel
The Office of the University Counsel shall serve as legal advisor to the University, the
RIO, the RCO and the inquiry and investigation committees, as needed. Upon request of
the RIO, a member of the Office of the University Counsel shall attend meetings,
interviews, and other proceedings during the inquiry and/or investigation, but will not
actively participate in such meetings, interviews or other proceedings.
IV.
Procedure
A.
Confidentiality
All individuals responsible for administering this policy and these procedures or
participating in any misconduct proceeding shall, to the maximum extent practicable
maintain the confidentiality of information regarding a complainant, a respondent and
all participants in any misconduct proceeding. Therefore, disclosure of the identity of
respondents and complainants in research misconduct proceedings is limited, to the
extent possible, to those who need to know, consistent with a thorough, competent,
objective and fair research misconduct proceeding, and as allowed by law. Furthermore,
except as may otherwise be prescribed by applicable law, confidentiality must be
maintained for any records or evidence from which research subjects might be
identified. Disclosure in all circumstances shall be limited to those who have a need to
know to carry out a research misconduct proceeding.
B.
Allegations of Misconduct
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
8
1.
All members of the University community are expected to report
observed, suspected, or apparent misconduct. All allegations of research
misconduct from sources inside or outside the University will be
considered.
2.
Allegations should be directed to the RIO, or designee, or the CERS Chair.
However, any member of the University community who receives an
allegation of misconduct shall promptly forward it to the RIO. 1While the
University will fully consider oral or anonymous allegations, written
allegations containing the following information, though not required,
are ordinarily more useful:
a.
Name of Respondent(s);
b.
Name of Complainant(s);
c.
Names of witnesses, if known;
d.
Description of misconduct;
e.
When misconduct occurred;
f.
Where misconduct occurred;
g.
Supporting documentation, if any;
h.
Grant number or title, if applicable; and
i.
Funding source, if any.
3.
Upon receipt of an allegation of misconduct, the RIO or the CERS Chair, as the
case may be, will promptly and fully inform the other.
4.
To the extent practicable, or as otherwise required by law, the identity of
Complainants who wish to remain anonymous will be kept confidential.
C.
Preliminary Assessment of Allegations
1.
Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO, in consultation
with the CERS Chair, will immediately assess the allegation to determine
whether it:
a.
falls within the definition of misconduct in research or scholarship; and
b.
is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research
misconduct may be identified; and
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
9
c.
falls within the applicable limitation period.
2.
An inquiry is warranted if an allegation falls within the definition of misconduct
as provided herein and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential
evidence of misconduct may be identified. If the RIO, in consultation with the
CERS Chair, determines that an allegation warrants an inquiry, then the RIO
shall, within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of an allegation, initiate an
inquiry, or as appropriate, an investigation.2 If either the RIO or the CERS
Chair concludes that an inquiry is warranted, the RIO shall initiate an
inquiry as provided herein.
3.
The RIO, or designee, shall, on or before the date on which the Respondent is
notified or the inquiry begins, whichever is earlier, promptly 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, except that where the
research records or evidence encompass 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.
4.
The RIO shall prepare a written record of the decision of whether to initiate an
inquiry or investigation, as the case may be, which shall be made part of the
record of the proceeding.
5.
If no inquiry or investigation is initiated, the RIO shall notify the Respondent and
Complainant that the allegation did not warrant an inquiry or an investigation,
as the case may be, under these procedures.
D.
Inquiry
1.
The purpose of an inquiry is to determine whether an allegation warrants an
investigation. An investigation is warranted if the allegation falls within the
definition of misconduct in research and scholarship, and preliminary
information-gathering indicates that the allegation may have substance. The
inquiry phase may draw on testimony or written statements of the Complainant,
Respondent, and key witnesses, if necessary, to determine whether there is
sufficient evidence of possible misconduct to warrant an investigation. An
inquiry does not require a full review of all the evidence related to the
allegation. The purpose of the inquiry is not to reach a final conclusion about
whether misconduct occurred or who was responsible. The inquiry shall be
2 Sometimes, however, when there is sufficient evidence already at hand, for example as the result of an audit of a clinical
trial, the University may move directly to the investigation stage. In such instance, the RIO shall prepare a written record of the
decision to move directly to the investigation phase, which shall be made part of the proceeding record.
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
8
9
10
10
completed with sixty (60) calendar days of its initiation unless circumstances
clearly warrant a longer period. If the inquiry takes longer than 60 days to
complete, the inquiry record shall include documentation of the reasons for
exceeding the 60-day period.
2.
To initiate an inquiry, the RIO shall:
a.
within five (5) calendar days of the determination to initiate an
inquiry, provide a written notice to the Respondent which shall include
a description of all allegations of research misconduct made against
the Respondent, a list of the members of the inquiry committee, an
explanation and documentation of the University's policies regarding
allegations of misconduct, and which shall inform Respondent of
his/her obligations of cooperation and confidentiality;
b.
take all reasonable and practical steps necessary to obtain custody,
inventory, and secure all original research records and evidence
relevant to the allegation at the time or before the Respondent is
notified of an allegation. University students, faculty and staff including
but not limited to the Complainant and Respondent, shall promptly
provide all available records and data, including primary research
material identified as relevant to the allegation. Copies of such records
and data will be returned to individuals who supply the same to the
RIO except for materials not amenable to copying. All reasonable steps,
consistent with time constraints and other obligations imposed by
federal regulations, shall be taken to eliminate or minimize any
disruption that might be created for ongoing research efforts by such
requirements to produce documentation;
c.
appoint, within ten (10) calendar days after the determination to
initiate an inquiry, and in consultation with the CERS Chair, an inquiry
committee consisting of normally three (3), but not more than five (5)
individuals who do not have real or apparent conflicts of interest in the
proceeding. The members may be from within or outside the
institution. The inquiry committee, which shall elect its own chair, shall
include at least one (1) member of CERS, but shall not include the CERS
Chair or the RIO;
d.
provide a written notice to the Complainant that an inquiry has been
initiated, which shall include a copy of the University's policies
regarding allegations of misconduct and which shall inform the
Complainant of her/his obligations of cooperation, good faith and
confidentiality; and
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
11
e.
prepare a charge for the inquiry committee that describes the
allegations and any related issues identified during the allegation
assessment and that states the purpose of the inquiry. 1
3.
At the inquiry committee’s first meeting, the committee will elect a chair and
the RCO will review the inquiry committee’s charge, discuss the allegations and
any related issues, outline the purpose of the inquiry, i.e., to determine
whether the allegation warrants an investigation, review the appropriate
procedures for the conduct of the inquiry, answer any questions raised by the
committee, and otherwise assist the committee in the planning and conduct of
the inquiry.
4.
In the conduct of the inquiry, the committee shall interview the Respondent,
and, if necessary, the Complainant and other key witnesses and shall examine
relevant records and other evidence. Interviews of all witnesses interviewed by
the committee shall be transcribed or recorded. The committee shall evaluate
the testimony and other evidence and shall determine whether there is
sufficient evidence of possible misconduct to warrant an investigation.
5.
The committee shall ordinarily complete its inquiry and submit a final report of
its findings to the RIO within twenty one (21) calendar days of its appointment
unless the RIO grants an extension for good cause. The RIO shall prepare a
written record of the decision of whether to grant an extension which shall be
made part of the record of the proceeding. The RIO shall notify the CERS Chair,
the Respondent, and the Complainant of the reasons for any delay.
The committee shall prepare and submit to the RIO, an inquiry report that
includes: the name and title of the committee members and experts, if any, the
allegations, the sponsor support, if any, a summary of the inquiry process used,
a list of the evidence reviewed, summaries of any interviews, a description of
the evidence in sufficient detail to demonstrate whether an investigation is
warranted, and the committee's determination as to whether an investigation
is recommended and whether any other actions should be taken if an
investigation is not recommended.
6.
The RIO shall, within five (5) calendar days of receipt of the report from the
committee, provide the Respondent with a copy of the inquiry report, and,
concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the evidence on which the
report is based, for comment and rebuttal, and will provide the Complainant
with those portions of the draft report that address the Complainant’s
testimony and evidence. Within ten (10) calendar days of their receipt of the
report or the portions thereof as the case may be, the Respondent and the
Complainant may provide their comments to the committee. The comments
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
12
shall be made part of the record of the proceeding, and the committee may
revise its report based upon the comments as appropriate.
7.
Within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of comments on the report by the
Complainant and Respondent, the committee shall submit a final inquiry report
along with a copy of the record of the proceeding to the RIO who, in turn, shall
promptly submit the report and proceeding record to the University President.
8.
The University President will, within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the
final inquiry report and proceeding record, make a final determination, in
writing, of whether the findings of the committee provide sufficient evidence
of possible misconduct to justify conducting an investigation. The President
may also return the report to the inquiry committee with a request for further
information or analysis. In such event, the President’s reasons therefore shall
be set forth in writing and included in the proceeding record. The time for the
President’s determination hereunder may be extended by the President for
good cause and the reason therefor recorded in the record of the proceeding.
9.
The inquiry is completed when the President makes the determination of
whether the findings of the committee provide sufficient evidence of possible
misconduct to justify conducting an investigation. The RIO shall thereafter
notify the Respondent and the Complainant in writing of the President’s
determination, and shall notify the CERS Chair.
E.
Investigation
1.
The purpose of the investigation is to explore the allegations of misconduct in
detail, to examine the evidence in depth, and to determine specifically whether
the respondent has committed misconduct. The investigation may also
determine whether there are additional instances of possible misconduct that
would justify broadening the scope beyond the initial allegations. The
investigation, including conducting the investigation, preparing the report of
findings, providing the draft report for comment and sending the final report to
the President, and ORI if the matter involves federal research support, shall be
completed with one hundred twenty (120) calendar days of its initiation unless
circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If the investigation takes longer
than 120 days to complete, the inquiry record shall include documentation of
the reasons for exceeding the 120 day period. The CERS Chair, the Complainant,
and the Respondent will be notified of the reasons for the delay.
2.
To initiate an investigation, the RIO shall:
a.
within five (5) calendar days of the determination to initiate an
investigation, provide a written notice to the Respondent which shall
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
13
include a description of all allegations of research misconduct made
against the Respondent, a copy of the inquiry report and proceeding
record, the President’s determination, a list of the members of the
investigation committee, an explanation and documentation of the
University's policies regarding allegations of misconduct, and a
description of the Respondent’s obligations of cooperation and
confidentiality;
b.
take all reasonable and practical steps necessary to obtain custody,
inventory, and secure any additional original research records and
evidence relevant to the allegation at the time or before the
Respondent is notified that an investigation has been initiated. The
need for additional sequestration of records may occur for any number
of reasons, including the institution's decision to investigate additional
allegations not considered during the inquiry stage or the identification
of records during the inquiry process that had not been previously
secured. University students, faculty and staff including, but not limited
to, the Complainant and Respondent, shall promptly provide all
available records and data, including primary research material
identified as relevant to the allegation. Copies of such records and data
will be returned to individuals who supply the same to the RIO except
for materials not amenable to copying. All reasonable steps, consistent
with time constraints and other obligations imposed by federal
regulations, shall be taken to eliminate or minimize any disruption that
might be created for ongoing research efforts by such requirements to
produce documentation;
c.
appoint within ten (10) calendar days after the determination to initiate
an investigation, and in consultation with the CERS Chair, an
investigation committee, which may include one or more members of
the inquiry committee, normally consisting of no fewer than three (3),
but not more than five (5) individuals, no more than two (2) of whom
may be members of the inquiry committee, who do not have real or
apparent conflicts of interest in the proceeding and have the necessary
expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation,
interview the principals and key witnesses, conduct the inquiry, and
they may be individuals from within or outside the institution. The
investigation committee, which shall elect its own chair, shall include at
least one (1) member of CERS, but shall not include the CERS Chair or
the RIO. 1The Respondent may submit a written objection to any
appointed member of the Investigation Committee based on perceived
bias or conflict of interest within ten (10) calendar days of notice of the
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
14
initiation of an investigation. Upon receipt of such an objection the RIO
will promptly determine, in consultation with the CERS Chair, whether
to replace any challenged member(s), and if so determined, will appoint
a qualified substitute;
d.
provide a written notice to the Complainant that an investigation has
been initiated which shall include a description of the Complainant’s
obligations of cooperation, good faith and confidentiality; and
e.
prepare a charge for the investigation committee that describes the
allegations and any related issues identified during the inquiry and that
states the purpose of the investigation.
3.
At the investigation committee’s first meeting, the committee will elect a chair
and the RCO will review the charge with the committee, discuss the allegations
and any related issues, review the appropriate procedures for the conduct of
the investigation, answer any questions raised by the committee and otherwise
assist the committee in the planning and conduct of the investigation.
4.
In the conduct of the investigation, the committee ordinarily will interview the
Complainant, the Respondent and other key witnesses and examine relevant
records and other evidence. Interviews of all witnesses interviewed by the
committee shall be transcribed or recorded. The committee shall evaluate the
testimony and other evidence and shall determine whether, based upon a
preponderance of the evidence, misconduct has occurred.
5.
The committee shall prepare and submit to the RIO an investigation report that
shall include: a description of the policies and procedures under which the
investigation was conducted; a description of how and from whom information
relevant to the investigation was obtained; a statement of the findings of the
investigation, including whether or not misconduct has been found for each
allegation; an explanation of the basis for the finding, recommendations of the
committee for correcting the public record; and any recommendations for an
institutional response. The report also shall include the actual text or an
accurate summary of the testimony of any individual(s) found to have engaged
in misconduct.
7.
The RIO shall, within five (5) calendar days of receipt of the report from the
committee, provide the Respondent with a copy of the report for comment and
rebuttal, and will provide the Complainant with the Complainant’s allegation
and testimony as contained in the report. Within ten (10) calendar days of their
receipt of the report or the portions thereof as the case may be, the
Respondent and the Complainant will provide their comments to the
committee. The comments shall be made part of the record of the proceeding,
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
15
and the committee may revise its report based upon the comments as
appropriate.
8.
Within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of comments on the report by the
Complainant and Respondent, the committee shall submit a final report along
with a copy of the proceeding record to the RIO who, in turn, shall promptly
submit the report and proceeding record to the University President, and the
CERS Chair along with a written recommendation.
9.
The University President will, within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the
final investigation report and proceeding record, make a final determination, in
writing, whether to accept the investigation report, its findings, and the
recommended institutional action. The President may also return the report to
the investigation committee with a request for further fact-finding or analysis.
The time for such determination may be extended by the President for good
cause, and the reason therefor shall be recorded in writing in the proceeding
record.
10.
If the President does not accept the investigation report, its findings or the
recommended institutional action, the President may consult with the
investigation committee before finalizing the determination. The investigation is
completed when the President makes a determination of whether to accept the
investigation report, its findings and the recommended institutional action. The
RIO shall thereafter notify the Respondent and the Complainant in writing of the
President’s determination, and shall notify such other institutional officials of
the determination as may be appropriate.
11.
When the investigation report has been accepted, the President shall forward,
as appropriate, copies to the responsible federal agencies.
12.
The RIO will undertake appropriate efforts to restore the reputation of the
Respondent if an allegation of misconduct is unsubstantiated, and to protect the
Complainant, as set forth below.
F.
Institutional Administrative Actions
1.
The University will take appropriate administrative actions against a respondent
when an allegation of misconduct against them has been substantiated. If the
President determines that the alleged misconduct is substantiated by the
findings, he or she will decide on the appropriate actions to be taken. Such
administrative actions may include, but shall not be limited to:
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
16
a.
appropriate steps to correct the research record;
b.
public disclosure;
c.
counseling and/or disciplinary action in accordance with the provisions
of the applicable collective bargaining agreement;
d.
withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and
papers emanating from the research where research misconduct was
found;
e.
removal of the responsible person from the particular project;
f.
special monitoring of future work; and
g.
restitution of funds as appropriate.
2.
The University will take appropriate administrative actions against any
person found to have violated the confidentiality provisions of this policy.
Such administrative actions may include, but shall not be limited to,
counseling and/or disciplinary action in accordance with the provisions of
the applicable collective bargaining agreement.
V.
Reporting to ORI
A.
A decision to initiate an investigation involving allegations of misconduct involving
federally-funded research and proposals submitted to federal agencies for research
funding, must be reported in writing to ORI, on or before the date the investigation
begins and to the Research Foundation of the State University of New York. At a
minimum, the notification should include the name of the person(s) against whom the
allegations have been made, the general nature of the allegation as it relates to the
federal sponsor’s definition of research misconduct, and the sponsor applications or
grant number(s) involved. The RIO must also be notified of the final outcome of the
investigation and must be provided with a copy of the investigation report. Any
significant variations from the provisions of the institutional policies and procedures
should be explained in any reports submitted to the sponsor.
B.
If the University intends to terminate an inquiry or investigation of misconduct involving
federally-funded research and proposals submitted to federal agencies for research
funding for any reason without completing all relevant requirements of the sponsor’s
regulation, the RIO will submit a report of the planned termination to the sponsor,
including a description of the reasons for the proposed termination.
C.
If the University determines that it will not be able to complete the investigation of
misconduct involving federally-funded research and proposals submitted to federal
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
17
agencies for research funding in 120 calendar days, the RIO will submit to ORI, or the
applicable federal sponsor, a written request for an extension that explains the delay,
reports on the progress to date, estimates the date of completion of the report, and
describes other necessary steps to be taken. If the request is granted, the RIO will file
periodic progress reports as requested by the ORI or the applicable federal sponsor.
D.
When Federal funding or applications for funding are involved and an admission of
research misconduct is made, the RIO will contact ORI for consultation and advice.
Normally, the individual making the admission will be asked to sign a statement
attesting to the occurrence and extent of misconduct. When the case involves external
funds, the institution cannot accept an admission of research misconduct as a basis for
closing a case or not undertaking an investigation without prior approval from ORI.
Admissions must be fully documented in the proceeding record using the terms of the
research misconduct definition (falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism) and
acknowledging that the action constituted research misconduct.
E.
The RIO will, as appropriate, notify ORI at any stage of the inquiry or investigation if:
1.
There is an immediate health hazard involved;
2.
There is an immediate need to protect Federal funds or equipment;
3.
There is an immediate need to protect the interests of the person(s) making the
allegations or of the individual(s) who is the subject of the allegations as well as
his/her co-investigators and associates, if any;
4.
It is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly;
5.
The allegation involves a public health sensitive issue, e.g. a clinical trial; or
6.
There is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violation. In this instance,
the institution must inform the sponsor within 24-hours of obtaining that
information.
VI.
Other Notifications
The President shall make the final determination as to which concerned parties should be notified of the
President’s final determination. In addition to the Respondent and Complainant, typically this would
include the CERS Chair, the Investigation Committee members, Inquiry Committee members, and other
parties with a legitimate need to know the outcome of the proceedings. In addition, appropriate
members of the research and scholarly community may be informed, so as to correct the public record.
The University will also notify relevant federal or other external granting agencies and partnering
institutions, where applicable and in accordance with regulatory requirements.
VII.
Annual Report to CERS
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
18
The RIO shall provide an annual report to CERS with information on misconduct proceedings and their
disposition. The report will contain no specific information on individuals, but will contain sufficient
information to enable CERS to fulfill its responsibilities for reviewing the implementation of the policy
and procedures on institutional responses to allegations of misconduct in research and scholarship and
recommending to the University Senate revisions to the policy and procedures, as needed. The report
shall also contain a summary of training of CERS members and of University researchers. Prior year
reports shall be provided to the new CERS committee. The outgoing CERS chair and RIO shall provide to
the new CERS chair all information available to the outgoing chair about all ongoing cases.
VIII.
Other Considerations
A.
Termination of Institutional Employment or Resignation Prior to Completing Inquiry or
Investigation
1.
The termination of the respondent's institutional employment, by resignation or
otherwise, before or after an allegation of possible misconduct has been
reported, will not preclude or terminate the misconduct procedures.
2.
If the Respondent, without admitting to the misconduct, elects to resign his or
her position prior to the initiation of an inquiry, but after an allegation has been
reported, or during an inquiry or investigation, the inquiry or investigation will
proceed.
3.
If the Respondent refuses to participate in the process after resignation, the
committee will use its best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the
allegations, noting in its report the respondent's failure to cooperate and its
effect on the committee's review of all the evidence.
B.
Destruction or Absence of Records
The destruction, absence of, or a respondent's failure to provide records adequately
documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where it is
determined by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent intentionally, knowingly,
or recklessly had research records and destroyed them, had the opportunity to maintain the
records but failed to do so, or maintained the records, but failed to produce them in a timely
manner, and that respondent's conduct constitutes a significant departure from accepted
practices of the relevant research community.
C.
Restoration of the Respondent's Reputation
In proceedings where it is determined that no misconduct occurred, the University will, if
requested, and as appropriate, take all reasonable and practical efforts to protect or restore the
Respondent's reputation.
D.
Protection of the Whistleblower and Others
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
19
1.
Regardless of whether the institution or ORI, as the case may be, determines
that scientific misconduct occurred, the RIO will undertake reasonable efforts to
protect complainants who made allegations of misconduct in good faith and
others who cooperate in good faith with inquiries and investigations of such
allegations.
2.
Upon completion of a misconduct proceeding, the University will, if requested
and as appropriate, take all reasonable and practical efforts to protect or
restore the position and reputation of any complainant, witness, or committee
member and to counter potential or actual retaliation against those
complainants, witnesses and committee members.
E.
Allegations Not Made in Good Faith
If relevant, the President will determine whether the Complainant’s allegations of misconduct
were made in good faith. If an allegation was not made in good faith, the President will
determine whether any administrative action should be taken against the Complainant. Such
administrative actions may include, but shall not be limited to, counseling and/or disciplinary
action in accordance with the provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreement.
F.
Interim Administrative Actions
Institutional officials will take interim administrative actions, as appropriate, to protect Federal
funds and ensure that the purposes of the Federal financial assistance are carried out.
G.
Limitations Period
Ordinarily, allegations of misconduct in research or scholarship occurring more than six (6) years
prior to the University’s receipt of the allegation of misconduct will not be pursued unless:
1.
it is determined that a prompt, thorough, competent, objective, and fair
investigation of an allegation occurring more than six (6) years prior to the
University’s receipt of an allegation of misconduct may be undertaken based
upon data/or research records that have been published or are otherwise in the
public domain.
2.
the University, in consultation with the funding agency, if any, determines that
the alleged misconduct, if it occurred, could possibly have a substantial adverse
effect on the health or safety of the public; or
3.
The Respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged misconduct that
occurred before the six-year limitation through the citation, republication or
other use for the potential benefit of the Respondent of the research or
scholarly record that is alleged to have constituted misconduct.
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
20
IX.
Record Retention
The RIO will prepare and maintain in a secure manner all records of research misconduct proceedings as
that term is defined in applicable federal regulations for seven (7) years after completion of the
proceedings or the completion of any PHS proceeding involving the research misconduct allegation.
673
674
675
676
677
