Senate Bill No.: 0405-02
UNIVERSITY SENATE
UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
Introduced by: The Committee on Ethics in Research and Scholarship (CERS)
Date:
February 7, 2005
UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY POLICY AND PROCEDURES ON MISCONDUCT
IN RESEARCH AND SCHOLARSHIP
IT IS HEREBY PROPSED:
1. That the attached policy be adopted.
2. That this shall become effective immediately.
3. That this policy shall be forwarded to the President for approval.
University at Albany Policy and Procedures on
Misconduct
in Research and Scholarship1[1]
I. Policy
This policy addresses violations of academic integrity as related to misconduct in
research and scholarship, including corresponding misconduct in artistic
expression that is not protected by freedom of expression (hereinafter referred to
as “misconduct”). Misconduct means:
(1) misrepresentation of academic credentials or scholarship;
(2) fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing,
conducting, or reviewing research or in research results; or
(3) other practices involving violations of academic integrity that
significantly deviate from practices commonly accepted within the
academic community in research and scholarship and in artistic
performance and expression.
Maintenance of high ethical standards in research and scholarship is a central
and critical responsibility of the University. In keeping with the commitment to
integrity in the pursuit of truth, and in compliance with federal regulations, the
University at Albany will immediately review reports of suspected misconduct or
other evidence of misconduct; thoroughly investigate such instances if the initial
inquiry concludes that an investigation is warranted; take appropriate action
following the investigation, including imposition of sanctions if allegations of
misconduct are substantiated; and fulfill reporting and other federal requirements
in the case of sponsored research.
This policy shall be followed in responding to all reports of suspected
misconduct on the part of faculty, researchers, staff, and students.
This policy is not limited to acts of misconduct committed while the
individual was affiliated with the University.
In the case of students, this policy shall not apply to academic course
work which is covered under the provisions of academic integrity as
contained in the Undergraduate and Graduate Bulletins.
Definitions of key terms are given in the Appendix.
1[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 incorporates 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.
II. Summary of Procedures
The institutional response to reports of suspected misconduct includes
the following steps. Detailed guidelines and procedures are described
in the remainder of this policy.
II. A. Initial Assessment of Suspected Misconduct
Suspected misconduct is reported to the Vice President for Research who
informs the Chair of the Committee on Ethics in Research and Scholarship
(CERS).
II. B. Inquiry
If either the Vice President for Research or the CERS Chair concludes that an
inquiry should be conducted, an Inquiry Committee will make a recommendation
to the President as to whether the allegation of misconduct warrants a formal
investigation.
II. C. Investigation
If the President authorizes an investigation, an Investigation Committee formally
examines and evaluates the evidence and other relevant information to
determine if misconduct has occurred.
II. D. Institutional Actions
The President reviews the investigation report and the recommendation of the
Vice President for Research, makes the final determination whether misconduct
has occurred, and imposes appropriate institutional sanctions.
III. General Guidelines for Assessment, Inquiry and
Investigation of Allegations of Misconduct
In accord with its principles and in compliance with federal regulations, the
University will adhere to the following guidelines.
III. A. Rights and Responsibilities of the Complainant
Rights: The Vice President for Research will make every effort to ensure
the privacy and confidentiality of complainants. The University will
protect, to the maximum extent possible, the position and the
reputation of those who in good faith report alleged misconduct in
research. However, the identity of a complainant who provides
testimony to inquiry or investigation committees can not be withheld
from the respondent.
The Vice President for Research will work to ensure that complainants
will not be retaliated against in the terms and conditions of their
employment or other status at the University and will review instances
of alleged retaliation for appropriate action. Any alleged or apparent
retaliation should be reported immediately to the Vice President for
Research.
The complainant will be provided a copy of the formal allegations when
and if an inquiry is opened. The complainant will have the opportunity
to review portions of the inquiry and investigation reports pertinent to
the complainant’s report or testimony, and will be informed in writing
of the results of the inquiry and investigation, and of the final
determination. After the final determination and upon request to the
Vice President for Research, the complainant shall be given access to
the full documentation.
Responsibilities: The complainant is responsible for making allegations
in good faith, maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating fully with an
inquiry and/or investigation.
III. B. Rights and Responsibilities of the Respondent
Rights: The respondent of an allegation of misconduct will be afforded
fairness and respect, a prompt inquiry into the allegations, and a
thorough investigation if one is deemed necessary. The University will
assure the rights of the accused person(s) to respond to the allegations
both during the course of and at the conclusion of any inquiry and
investigation.
The respondent will be informed of the allegations in writing when an
inquiry is opened and notified in writing of the final determinations and
resulting actions. The respondent may be requested to provide
testimony by the inquiry and investigation committees, and will have
the opportunity to review the draft inquiry and investigation reports,
and to have the advice of counsel.
When insufficient evidence of possible misconduct is found, the Vice
President for Research will, as appropriate, undertake diligent efforts to
restore the reputation of the respondent.
Responsibilities: Except as far as necessary to prepare an effective
response, the respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality
and cooperating fully with the conduct of an inquiry and/or
investigation.
III. C. Conflict of Interest
The University will take precautions against real or apparent conflicts of interest
on the part of those involved in any inquiry and investigation resulting from an
allegation of misconduct. Any party with a real or apparent conflict of interest
shall recuse themselves from all aspects of the misconduct investigation. In
cases where the Vice President for Research has a real or apparent conflict of
interest, reports of suspected misconduct will be referred by him/her to an
administrator designated by the Provost. In cases where the Chair of CERS has
a real or apparent conflict of interest, the Chair of the Senate shall designate
another member of CERS. The designees will then act in the place of the Vice
President for Research and/or the Chair of CERS, as applicable, under this
policy.
III. D. Confidentiality
Throughout the inquiry and investigation process the confidentiality of
information regarding the complainant, the respondent, and other
affected individuals will be protected to the maximum extent possible,
consistent with the law, University policy, state and federal regulations,
and effective and efficient proceedings. All members of inquiry and
investigation committees and other participants, such as staff or
advisors to the inquiry and investigation committees must observe
confidentiality of the proceedings and any information and documents
reviewed as a part thereof. Outside of official contexts, they must not
discuss the matter with the respondent, complainant, witnesses, or
anyone not authorized by the Vice President for Research. The Vice
President for Research should share information with other university
officials only in exceptional situations or as called for in this policy or
SUNY policies. The obligation of confidentiality pertains to the
complainant and the respondent as well. If the final institutional
determination results in a finding of misconduct, the President of the
University will determine what additional parties shall be notified of the
outcome, with consideration of the recommendations of the
Investigation Committee and the Vice President for Research, and
consistent with SUNY policies and applicable laws.
III. E. Membership of Committees
Members of Inquiry and Investigation Committees shall be individuals
who do not have real or apparent conflicts of interest, are unbiased,
and have the necessary expertise to evaluate the evidence. They may
be faculty members, administrators, or other qualified persons, and
may be from inside or outside the University.
III. F. Procedural Issues
The chairs of the Inquiry and Investigation Committees may consult
with the Vice President for Research regarding the inquiry or
investigation, as appropriate. Any member of these committees
concerned about procedures or process should first consult with the
chair of the appropriate committee and, if the issue is not resolved,
with the Vice President for Research as the institutional official
responsible for the case. In this instance, the Vice President for
Research will adjudicate the issue in consultation with the chair of the
relevant committee, the committee member, and the CERS chair.
III. G. Regulatory Requirements
In case the alleged misconduct involves research supported by federal
agencies, the University will comply with applicable current federal
procedural guidelines and regulations.
The University will comply with all New York State and federal
regulations regarding maintenance and access to records and
documentation resulting from inquiries and investigations into alleged
misconduct. The University will take appropriate interim
administrative actions to protect federal and other funds and ensure
that the purposes of the federal financial assistance are being carried
out. At any time during an inquiry or investigation, where applicable,
the University shall immediately notify the appropriate federal
sponsoring agency
if public health and safety is at risk;
if sponsoring agency resources or interests are threatened;
if research activities are suspended;
if there is a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or
criminal law;
if federal action is required to protect the interests of those
involved in the investigation;
if the University believes the inquiry or investigation may be
made public prematurely so that appropriate steps can be taken
to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved;
and
if the research community or public should be informed.
III. H. Evidentiary Standards
The burden of proof for making a finding of misconduct is on the
University.
The standard of proof for a finding of misconduct will be by a
preponderance of evidence. This means that the evidence shows that
it is more likely than not that the respondent committed misconduct.
III. I. Maintenance of Documents
The Vice President for Research or his/her designee shall locate,
collect, inventory, and secure relevant research records to prevent the
loss, alteration, or fraudulent creation of records. During this process
the Vice President for Research or his/her designee shall follow the
guidelines detailed in ORI Model Procedures. The University will
maintain for at least seven years complete documentation of the
investigation process, proceedings, inquiry and investigation reports,
findings, recommendations, and final determination. Documents shall
be kept in the offices of the Vice President for Research for
safekeeping.
Upon request to the Vice President for Research, the complainant and
the respondent shall be given access to the complete documentation
for review.
IV. Stage 1: Reporting of Suspected Misconduct and Initial
Assessment
All employees or individuals associated with the University should report
observed, suspected or apparent misconduct to the Vice President for Research.
To the extent possible, the identity of complainants who wish to remain
anonymous (such as a student who provides evidence of plagiarism in the form
of published articles) will be kept confidential. If an individual is unsure whether a
suspected incident falls within the definition of misconduct detailed in this policy,
or if that individual wishes to learn more about general procedural matters
pertaining to this policy, he or she may informally contact the Vice President for
Research or the Chair of CERS. Reports of suspected misconduct, or other
evidence of possible misconduct, from whatever source, will receive immediate
attention. The Vice President for Research will promptly and fully inform the
CERS Chair of any report or evidence of possible misconduct that has been
received.
If either the Vice President for Research or the CERS Chair concludes that a
reasonable basis for an Inquiry exists, the Vice President for Research will initiate
an Inquiry within 14 days by preparing a formal written allegation outlining the
charges of suspected misconduct.
If during the assessment of suspected misconduct it is determined that the
suspected misconduct pertains to another area of non-compliance (human
subjects, animal subjects, fiscal fraud, etc.), the Vice President for Research will
refer the individual or evidence to other institutional officials or authorities, as
appropriate.
V. Stage 2: Inquiry
The purpose of the inquiry is to make a preliminary evaluation of the
available evidence and testimony of the complainant, respondent, and
key witnesses to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of
possible misconduct to warrant an investigation. The purpose of the
inquiry is not to reach a final conclusion about whether misconduct
occurred or who was responsible.
V. A. Initiation of the Inquiry
In initiating the inquiry, the Vice President for Research shall prepare a
formal allegation in writing and clearly identify any related issues that
should be evaluated. The Vice President for Research ensures that
pertinent records (or citations to them) are obtained and placed in an
inquiry file.
V. B. Formation of the Inquiry Committee
In consultation with the CERS chair, the Vice President for Research
shall appoint the Inquiry Committee and its chair within 10 days of the
initiation of the inquiry. The Inquiry Committee shall include at least
one CERS member. The CERS chair shall not serve on the committee.
V. C. Notification of the Respondent and Complainant
The Vice President for Research will notify the respondent in writing of
the initiation of the inquiry. The notification should:
include the written allegation(s) and identify the research,
scholarship, or artistic performance or expression in question,
list the members of the Inquiry Committee, and
include a copy of the University at Albany Policy and Procedures on
Misconduct in Research and Scholarship.
This notification shall be transmitted to the respondent within 10
calendar days of the initiation of the inquiry. If this time is exceeded,
the record of the inquiry shall include a justification for the delay.
The respondent may submit a written objection to any appointed
member of the Inquiry Committee based on bias or conflict of interest
within 5 calendar days of notice. Upon receipt of such objection the
Vice President for Research will promptly determine in consultation
with the CERS Chair whether to replace any challenged member with a
qualified substitute.
The Vice President for Research shall notify the complainant in writing
of the initiation of the inquiry, of the formal allegation(s), and of the
obligation to cooperate in the inquiry.
V. D. Response to Allegation
If the respondent admits to any material aspect of the allegation(s) of
misconduct, he or she should be asked to sign a statement attesting to
the occurrence and the extent of the misconduct. An admission of
misconduct will automatically terminate the inquiry process and result
in the Vice President for Research recommending an investigation to
the President.
V. E. Procedures
The inquiry must be completed within 60 calendar days of its initiation
unless circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If the inquiry
takes longer than 60 calendar days to complete, the record of the
inquiry shall include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the
60-day period.
The Vice President for Research shall ensure that individual interviews
are scheduled with the respondent and complainant so that the inquiry
process has direct input from both parties. The interviews shall be
conducted by the Inquiry Committee and staffed by the Office of the
Vice President for Research. The Committee will permit the
respondent, complainant, or witnesses to bring an advisor to the
interview. The advisor may act solely as an observer and shall not
participate in the proceedings. The University shall always have the
option of having its attorney present.
Interviews with the respondent will be transcribed or recorded.
Interviews with anyone else will be summarized, recorded, or
transcribed.
V. F. Inquiry Report
The Inquiry Committee shall submit a written report to the Vice
President for Research. This report must indicate what evidence was
reviewed, summarize statements and interviews from relevant
individuals, and present the conclusions of the committee as to
whether sufficient evidence exists to warrant an investigation. The
Vice President for Research will provide the respondent with a copy of
the draft inquiry report for comment and rebuttal and will provide the
complainant with those portions of the draft report that address the
complainant’s role and opinions in the inquiry. The respondent and
complainant will be given 14 calendar days from the transmission of
the report to provide their written comments. Any written responses to
the report by either party will be made part of the report and record.
The Vice President for Research shall transmit the inquiry report to the
President of the University and to the Chair of CERS.
V. G. Decision by the President
The President will make the final determination whether the findings of
the inquiry provide sufficient evidence of possible misconduct to justify
the initiation of an investigation, or whether additional information or
clarification is necessary. If the President does not concur with a
committee finding of sufficient evidence of possible misconduct, he or
she may ask the Committee to re-review the allegation(s). If the
President determines that there is insufficient evidence of possible
misconduct, the case will be terminated. The basis for the President’s
decision must be fully documented.
The President’s decision marks the end of the Inquiry.
The Vice President for Research shall notify the respondent, the
complainant, all persons involved in the inquiry (i.e., anyone who has
been interviewed or otherwise informed of the allegations) and the
chair of CERS of the President’s decision.
V. H. Reports NOT Made in Good Faith
If relevant, the Vice President for Research, in consultation with the
chair of CERS, will determine whether the complainant’s report of
suspected misconduct was made in good faith. If a report was not
made in good faith, the Vice President for Research will determine
whether any pertinent action should be taken against the complainant.
VI. Stage 3: Investigation
The purpose of the investigation is to explore the allegations 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.
VI. A. Initiation of the Investigation
If an investigation is deemed necessary, the President shall authorize
the Vice President for Research to initiate the investigation. The Vice
President for Research shall notify the Chair of CERS of the initiation of
the investigation.
When an investigation involves a sponsored program through the
Research Foundation, the Vice President for Research will notify the
Research Foundation of SUNY (Office of the General Counsel and
Secretary). The University will also notify relevant federal or other
external granting agencies and partnering institutions, in accordance
with applicable regulatory requirements. The University will take
interim administrative actions, as appropriate, to protect federal and
other funds and ensure that the purposes of the federal financial
assistance are being carried out.
VI. B. Formation of the Investigation Committee
In consultation with the CERS Chair, the Vice President for Research
shall appoint the Investigation Committee and its chair within 10
calendar days of the initiation of the investigation. The Investigation
Committee shall include at least one CERS member, normally including
the CERS member(s) who served on the Inquiry Committee. It may
also include other individuals who served on the Inquiry Committee.
The CERS chair shall not serve on the Investigation Committee. If the
Investigation Committee is not appointed within 10 days, the record of
the investigation shall include a justification for the delay.
VI. C. Notification of the Respondent and Complainant
The Vice President for Research shall notify the respondent in writing of
the initiation of the investigation. The notification should include:
a copy of the final inquiry report;
the specific allegations;
a list of members of the Investigation Committee.
The respondent may submit a written objection to any appointed
member of the Investigation Committee based on bias or conflict of
interest within 5 calendar days of notice. Upon receipt of such
objection the Vice President for Research will promptly determine in
consultation with the CERS Chair whether to replace any challenged
member(s) with a qualified substitute.
The Vice President for Research will also notify the complainant in
writing of the initiation of the investigation and of the obligation to
cooperate with the process and to maintain confidentiality.
VI. D. Investigation Process
The Vice President for Research is responsible for conducting the
investigation. The investigation must be completed within 120
calendar days of its initiation unless circumstances clearly warrant a
longer period. If the investigation takes longer than 120 calendar days
to complete, the record of the investigation shall include
documentation of the reasons for exceeding the 120-day period.
The Vice President for Research shall provide the necessary support
and staff to the Investigation Committee for the conduct of the
investigation and shall monitor the progress.
The Vice President for Research will determine if additional experts
other than those appointed to the Investigation Committee need to be
consulted during the investigation to provide special expertise to the
committee regarding the analysis of specific evidence. In such cases,
the experts provide a strictly advisory function to the committee; they
do not vote and generally do not interview witnesses. The experts
may be chosen from inside or outside the University.
The investigation process will include, but not necessarily be limited to,
examination of pertinent research data and written materials,
interviews with all individuals involved either in making the allegation
or against whom the allegation is made, and statements from or
interviews with other individuals who might have information regarding
the allegation.
Interviews with the respondent will be transcribed or recorded.
Interviews with anyone else will be transcribed or recorded if practical,
or else summarized.
VI. E. Investigation Report and Recommendations of the Vice
President for Research
The Investigation Committee will prepare a written report of the
conclusions of the investigation. This report will include a summary of
the inquiry process, a listing of the allegations, the composition of the
Investigation Committee, the evidence, and a summary of any
dissenting views from members of the Investigation Committee. The
report should indicate whether or not misconduct has been found for
each allegation, and provide the specifics to support the conclusions.
For findings of misconduct, the report should identify the type of
misconduct, and the extent and seriousness of the misconduct,
including its effect on research findings, publications, and research
subjects. The Investigation Committee may offer recommendations
on how to correct any relevant public record and recommendations for
sanctions.
The Vice President for Research will provide the respondent with a copy
of the draft investigation report for comment and rebuttal and will
provide the complainant with those portions of the draft report that
address the complainant’s role and opinions in the investigation. The
respondent and complainant will be given 14 calendar days from the
transmission of the report to provide their written comments. Any
written responses to the report by either party will be made part of the
report and record.
Upon receipt of the final investigation report, including written
comments from the respondent or complainant, the Vice President for
Research shall prepare a recommendation to the President and shall
transmit both the report and the recommendation to the President and
to the Chair of CERS.
The investigation concludes when the President makes the final
determination as detailed in section VII. A and the President’s report is
submitted to federal officials, as applicable, and to the Chair of CERS.
VII. Stage 4: Institutional Actions
VII. A. Decision by the President
The President reviews the report of the Investigation Committee and
the recommendations of the Vice President for Research. In this
process, the President may consult with the Investigation Committee to
clarify facts, seek further information, or to ask the Committee to
reconsider the allegations and evidence.
The President will make the final institutional determination in writing
of whether misconduct has occurred. If the President does not concur
with the final conclusions of the Investigation Committee, the President
shall consult with CERS before finalizing the determination.
The Vice President for Research shall notify the respondent in writing of
the President’s decision. If no procedural appeal according to Section
B is filed, the Vice President for Research will notify all other affected
individuals, parties and organizations, as detailed in Section E, of the
President’s decision.
VII. B. Appeal
Within 14 calendar days of receipt of written notification of a finding of
misconduct, the respondent may appeal to the President on the sole
question of whether the procedures prescribed in this policy have been
followed correctly. The appeal must be in writing and must specify the
nature of the procedural error. The President shall issue a decision
within 30 calendar days, affirming or vacating the determination of
research misconduct, with the option to reopen the investigation.
VII. C. Finding of No Misconduct
If an allegation of misconduct is unsubstantiated, the Vice President for
Research will undertake appropriate diligent efforts to restore the
reputation of the individual against whom the allegations have been
presented.
VII. D. Sanctions
If an allegation of misconduct is substantiated, The President shall
consult with the Investigation Committee and the Chair of CERS, and
with the Vice President for Research, the University Counsel, the
Director of Human Resources, the supervisor(s) of the respondent, and
the Vice President for Student Affairs, as appropriate, regarding
disciplinary sanctions. In such cases the President shall reveal to the
Investigation Committee and to the Chair of CERS any additional
information relevant to the case or the respondent as might be
required for effective consultation.
Disciplinary sanctions must be commensurate with the nature/severity
of the proven allegations. They may include, but are not limited to:
a reprimand,
alteration of the respondent’s employment or academic
status, including probation, suspension, salary reduction,
rank reduction, or termination,
correction of the research record including a requirement to
withdraw or correct abstracts, manuscripts, reports, or
grant/contract proposals,
correction of academic credentials such as curriculum vitae,
activity reports, and websites,
public disclosure,
requirement for participation in training programs,
removal from a project,
requirement of a letter of apology,
requirement of monitoring the respondent’s research or
scholarly activities.
Disciplinary proceedings and sanctions must be consistent, as
applicable, with established University, Board of Trustees, and
Research Foundation policies, the student code of conduct, and the
collective bargaining agreement.
The President makes the final decision and informs the respondent
regarding disciplinary actions.
VII. E. Notifications
In consultation with CERS and with the recommendation of the Vice
President for Research, the President shall make the final
determination as to which concerned parties should be notified of the
President’s decision. In addition to respondent and complainant,
typically this would include the Investigation Committee members,
Inquiry Committee members, the Research Foundation of SUNY (the
Office of the General Counsel and Secretary) and all persons known to
have knowledge of the investigation (i.e., any one who has been
interviewed or otherwise informed of the allegations). Furthermore, in
case there is a finding of misconduct, appropriate members of the
research and scholarly community should 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.
VIII. Annual Report to CERS
The Vice President for Research shall provide an annual report to CERS
with statistics on misconduct proceedings. The report will contain no
specific information on individuals.
APPENDIX: DEFINITIONS
A.
Allegation means a formal statement of charges of possible misconduct,
normally prepared by the Vice President for Research upon the initiation of an
Inquiry.
B.
Complainant means a person who reports observed, suspected, or apparent
misconduct. A complainant may not remain anonymous to the Vice President for
Research or any other University official designated to administer this policy.
C.
Committee on Ethics in Research and Scholarship (CERS) is the University
committee charged to author, review, and implement policies governing
allegations of misconduct. The composition of CERS and its responsibilities are
detailed in the Charter of the University Senate.
D.
Conflict of Interest means the interference of one person’s
interests with the interests of another person, so as to create the potential for
bias.
E.
Fabrication means making up results and recording or reporting them.
F. 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.
G.
Good Faith Report means a report of suspected misconduct made
with the honest belief that the misconduct may have occurred. A
report is not in good faith if it is made with reckless disregard for or
willful ignorance of facts that would disprove the charges.
H.
Inquiry means information gathering and initial fact-finding to determine
whether an allegation or apparent instance of misconduct
warrants an
investigation.
I.
Inquiry Committee means the committee that is charged with conducting an
inquiry into an allegation of misconduct.
J.
Institutional Counsel means legal counsel who represents the University during
the misconduct inquiry and who is responsible for advising the Vice President for
Research, the Inquiry and Investigation committees, and the President. The
institutional counsel does not represent the respondent, the complainant, or any
other person participating during the inquiry, investigation, or any follow up
action, except University officials responsible for managing or conducting the
University misconduct process as part of their official duties.
K. Institutional Official means the individual charged with the responsibility of
responding to allegations of misconduct and with conducting all misconduct
inquiries and investigations. The institutional official in cases of misconduct is the
Vice President for Research.
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:
(1) misrepresentation of academic credentials or scholarship;
(2) fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, conducting, or
reviewing research or in research results; or
(3) other practices involving violations of academic integrity that significantly
deviate from practices commonly accepted within the academic community in
research and scholarship and in artistic performance and expression.
A finding of misconduct requires that:
(a) there be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant
research or scholarly community;
(b) the misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
(c) the allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
O. Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person’s ideas,
processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit.
P. Research Record means any data, document, computer file, computer
diskette, 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 film; slides; biological materials; computer files and printouts;
manuscripts and publications; equipment use logs; portfolios and laboratory
procurement records. It shall also include Institutional Review Board or
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee records or documentation if these
relate to or form the basis of an allegation of research misconduct based on
fabrication, falsification or plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate
from those commonly accepted with the academic community.
Q.
Respondent means the person who is alleged to have committed possible
misconduct.
