658
edits
Research Integrity: Difference between revisions
→Research Misconduct Prohibited, Standard of Proof
Mhurlocker (talk | contribs) |
Mhurlocker (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
'''''Plagiarism''''' means the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. | '''''Plagiarism''''' means the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. | ||
(a) Plagiarism includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another's work that materially misleads the reader regarding the contributions of the author. It does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology. | |||
(b) Plagiarism does not include self-plagiarism or authorship or credit disputes, including disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a research project. Self-plagiarism and authorship disputes do not meet the definition of research misconduct. | |||
'''''Preponderance of the evidence''''' means proof by evidence that, compared with evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely true than not. | '''''Preponderance of the evidence''''' means proof by evidence that, compared with evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely true than not. | ||
| Line 132: | Line 134: | ||
:(b) the respondent committed the research misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and | :(b) the respondent committed the research misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and | ||
:(c) the allegation be proven by preponderance of the evidence. | :(c) the allegation be proven by preponderance of the evidence. | ||
*UNMC bears the burden of proof for making a finding of research misconduct. | *UNMC bears the burden of proof for making a finding of research misconduct. | ||
*** A respondent’s destruction of research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where UNMC establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent intentionally or knowingly destroyed records after being informed of the research misconduct allegations. | |||
***A respondent’s failure to provide records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where the respondent claims to possess the records but refuses to provide them upon request. | |||
***The absence of or failure to retain records over time that violates retention requirements is not necessarily evidence of misconduct and will not automatically lead to an adverse inference. The facts and circumstances surrounding the absence of or failure to retain records must be examined to determine whether absence or failure constitutes evidence of research misconduct. | |||
*A respondent has the burden of going forward with and the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, any and all affirmative defenses raised (such as honest error). | *A respondent has the burden of going forward with and the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, any and all affirmative defenses raised (such as honest error). | ||
===Duty to Report Research Misconduct=== | ===Duty to Report Research Misconduct=== | ||
| Line 140: | Line 145: | ||
===Duty to Maintain Confidentiality=== | ===Duty to Maintain Confidentiality=== | ||
Allegations of research misconduct (even when ultimately disproven) can have serious career consequences for a researcher. Therefore, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, all individuals subject to this policy shall maintain the strict confidentiality of any information relating to allegations of research misconduct or a research misconduct proceeding and shall disclose such information only to those with a legitimate need to know. The Research Integrity Officer shall limit disclosure of the identity of respondents and complainants to those who need to know in order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective and fair research misconduct proceeding, and, except as otherwise prescribed by law, limit the disclosure of records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified to those who need to know in order to carry out a research misconduct proceeding. The Research Integrity Officer may use written confidentiality agreements or other mechanisms to implement this section. Inappropriate dissemination of information can result in sanctions up to and including termination. | Allegations of research misconduct (even when ultimately disproven) can have serious career consequences for a researcher. Therefore, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, all individuals subject to this policy shall maintain the strict confidentiality of any information relating to allegations of research misconduct or a research misconduct proceeding and shall disclose such information only to those with a legitimate need to know. The Research Integrity Officer shall limit disclosure of the identity of respondents and complainants to those who need to know in order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective and fair research misconduct proceeding, and, except as otherwise prescribed by law, limit the disclosure of records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified to those who need to know in order to carry out a research misconduct proceeding. The Research Integrity Officer may use written confidentiality agreements or other mechanisms to implement this section. Inappropriate dissemination of information can result in sanctions up to and including termination. | ||
===Rights and Responsibilities of Complainant=== | ===Rights and Responsibilities of Complainant === | ||
The complainant is responsible for making allegations in good faith, maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating with the inquiry and investigation. The complainant may be interviewed at the inquiry phase and shall be interviewed at the investigation phase as described below. The role of a complainant is not to act as special prosecutor; once a complainant makes an allegation of research misconduct, the complainant is responsible for providing evidence and information in connection with the response to the allegation but otherwise shall defer to, and cooperate with, UNMC’s review, adjudication and response to research misconduct as provided in this policy. A complainant shall not discuss the allegations of research misconduct outside the process. | The complainant is responsible for making allegations in good faith, maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating with the inquiry and investigation. The complainant may be interviewed at the inquiry phase and shall be interviewed at the investigation phase as described below. The role of a complainant is not to act as special prosecutor; once a complainant makes an allegation of research misconduct, the complainant is responsible for providing evidence and information in connection with the response to the allegation but otherwise shall defer to, and cooperate with, UNMC’s review, adjudication and response to research misconduct as provided in this policy. A complainant shall not discuss the allegations of research misconduct outside the process. | ||
===Rights and Responsibilities of Respondent=== | === Rights and Responsibilities of Respondent=== | ||
The respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating with the conduct of an inquiry and investigation. The respondent shall ordinarily receive the procedural rights and protections set forth in this policy. A respondent may be accompanied by legal counsel of their own choosing and at their own expense during an interview conducted under this policy. Legal counsel may advise the respondent, but may not question witnesses or otherwise take part in the proceedings. | The respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating with the conduct of an inquiry and investigation. The respondent shall ordinarily receive the procedural rights and protections set forth in this policy. A respondent may be accompanied by legal counsel of their own choosing and at their own expense during an interview conducted under this policy. Legal counsel may advise the respondent, but may not question witnesses or otherwise take part in the proceedings. | ||
===Retaliation Prohibited=== | ===Retaliation Prohibited=== | ||
| Line 156: | Line 161: | ||
*On or before the date the respondent is notified of any allegation of research misconduct or the inquiry begins, the Research Integrity Officer must take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding. This will include the inventory of records and evidence and sequestration of them in a secure manner. Where the research records or evidence encompasses scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence of such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments. | *On or before the date the respondent is notified of any allegation of research misconduct or the inquiry begins, the Research Integrity Officer must take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding. This will include the inventory of records and evidence and sequestration of them in a secure manner. Where the research records or evidence encompasses scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence of such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments. | ||
*The Research Integrity Officer shall sequester any additional research records that become pertinent to an inquiry or investigation after the initial sequestration. | *The Research Integrity Officer shall sequester any additional research records that become pertinent to an inquiry or investigation after the initial sequestration. | ||
*The Research Integrity Officer may consult with UNMC legal counsel and/or ORI for advice and assistance in this regard. Where appropriate, UNMC shall give the respondent copies of, or reasonable supervised access to the research records. Where the allegation is determined to be sufficiently credible and specific from the assessment the matter must proceed to an inquiry. | *The Research Integrity Officer may consult with UNMC legal counsel and/or ORI for advice and assistance in this regard. Where appropriate, UNMC shall give the respondent copies of, or reasonable supervised access to the research records. Where the allegation is determined to be sufficiently credible and specific from the assessment the matter must proceed to an inquiry. | ||
===Inquiry=== | === Inquiry=== | ||
====Initiation of the Inquiry==== | ====Initiation of the Inquiry==== | ||
At the time of or before beginning an inquiry, the Research Integrity Officer must make a good faith effort to notify the respondent in writing, if the respondent is known. If the inquiry subsequently identifies additional respondents, they must be notified in writing. | At the time of or before beginning an inquiry, the Research Integrity Officer must make a good faith effort to notify the respondent in writing, if the respondent is known. If the inquiry subsequently identifies additional respondents, they must be notified in writing. | ||
====Purpose of the Inquiry==== | ====Purpose of the Inquiry==== | ||
The purpose of the inquiry is to make a preliminary evaluation of the evidence to determine whether to conduct an investigation. The purpose of the inquiry is not to reach a final conclusion about whether misconduct definitely occurred or who was responsible, and an inquiry does not require a full review of all the evidence related to the allegation. An investigation is warranted if the committee determines: | The purpose of the inquiry is to make a preliminary evaluation of the evidence to determine whether to conduct an investigation. The purpose of the inquiry is not to reach a final conclusion about whether misconduct definitely occurred or who was responsible, and an inquiry does not require a full review of all the evidence related to the allegation. An investigation is warranted if the committee determines: | ||
:(1) there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct; and, | :(1) there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct; and, | ||
:(2) the allegation may have substance, based on the committee’s review during the inquiry. | :(2) the allegation may have substance, based on the committee’s review during the inquiry. | ||
====Inquiry Committee==== | ==== Inquiry Committee==== | ||
The Research Integrity Officer, in consultation with other UNMC officials as appropriate, will appoint an inquiry committee and committee chair within ten (10) days after initiation of the inquiry. The inquiry committee must consist of individuals who do not have real or apparent conflicts of interest with those involved with the case, are unbiased, and have the necessary expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation, interview the principals and key witnesses, and conduct the inquiry.<br /> | The Research Integrity Officer, in consultation with other UNMC officials as appropriate, will appoint an inquiry committee and committee chair within ten (10) days after initiation of the inquiry. The inquiry committee must consist of individuals who do not have real or apparent conflicts of interest with those involved with the case, are unbiased, and have the necessary expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation, interview the principals and key witnesses, and conduct the inquiry.<br /> | ||
| Line 172: | Line 177: | ||
====Written Report==== | ====Written Report==== | ||
A written report shall be prepared in accordance with applicable legal requirements that includes the following information: | A written report shall be prepared in accordance with applicable legal requirements that includes the following information: | ||
:(1) the name and position of the respondent; | :(1) the name and position of the respondent; | ||
:(2) a description of the allegations of research misconduct; | :(2) a description of the allegations of research misconduct; | ||
:(3) the PHS or other governmental or third-party support; | :(3) the PHS or other governmental or third-party support; | ||
:(4) the evidence that was reviewed; | :(4) the evidence that was reviewed; | ||
:(5) the basis for recommending or not recommending that the allegations warrant an investigation; and | :(5) the basis for recommending or not recommending that the allegations warrant an investigation; and | ||
:(6) any comments on the draft report by the respondent. The respondent shall be given a copy of the draft inquiry report together with a copy of this policy. <br /> | :(6) any comments on the draft report by the respondent. The respondent shall be given a copy of the draft inquiry report together with a copy of this policy. <br /> | ||
If the respondent chooses to comment on the report, they must submit a written response to the Research Integrity Officer within fourteen (14) working days after receiving the report in order for it to be made a part of the record. Based on the comments, the Research Integrity Officer may revise the report as appropriate. | If the respondent chooses to comment on the report, they must submit a written response to the Research Integrity Officer within fourteen (14) working days after receiving the report in order for it to be made a part of the record. Based on the comments, the Research Integrity Officer may revise the report as appropriate. | ||
====Decision by Deciding Official==== | ==== Decision by Deciding Official==== | ||
The Research Integrity Officer will transmit the final inquiry report and any comments to the Deciding Official, who will make the determination of whether the findings from the inquiry indicate a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation has sufficient substance to fall within the definition of research misconduct and that the allegation should proceed to an investigation. | The Research Integrity Officer will transmit the final inquiry report and any comments to the Deciding Official, who will make the determination of whether the findings from the inquiry indicate a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation has sufficient substance to fall within the definition of research misconduct and that the allegation should proceed to an investigation. | ||
====Notification of Decision==== | ====Notification of Decision==== | ||
The Research Integrity Officer will notify both the respondent and appropriate UNMC officials in writing of the Deciding Official's decision of whether to proceed with an investigation. This decision may not be appealed internally. If the Deciding Official determines an investigation is needed, the Research Integrity Officer shall notify appropriate funding and oversight agencies (PHS, NSF, etc.) in writing of the decision within thirty days after the Deciding Official’s decision. | The Research Integrity Officer will notify both the respondent and appropriate UNMC officials in writing of the Deciding Official's decision of whether to proceed with an investigation. This decision may not be appealed internally. If the Deciding Official determines an investigation is needed, the Research Integrity Officer shall notify appropriate funding and oversight agencies (PHS, NSF, etc.) in writing of the decision within thirty days after the Deciding Official’s decision. | ||
====Time for Completion==== | ====Time for Completion ==== | ||
The inquiry, including preparation of the final inquiry report and the decision of the Deciding Official, must be completed within 60 calendar days of its initiation, unless the Research Integrity Officer determines that circumstances warrant a longer period. | The inquiry, including preparation of the final inquiry report and the decision of the Deciding Official, must be completed within 60 calendar days of its initiation, unless the Research Integrity Officer determines that circumstances warrant a longer period. | ||
===Investigation=== | ===Investigation=== | ||
====Initiation of the Investigation==== | ====Initiation of the Investigation==== | ||
The investigation must begin within 30 calendar days of the determination by the Deciding Official that the investigation is warranted. On or before the date on which the investigation begins, the Research Integrity Officer must: | The investigation must begin within 30 calendar days of the determination by the Deciding Official that the investigation is warranted. On or before the date on which the investigation begins, the Research Integrity Officer must: | ||
:(1) if applicable, notify ORI of the decision to begin the investigation and provide ORI a copy of the inquiry report (or comply with any other notice obligation to a government agency or other funder); | :(1) if applicable, notify ORI of the decision to begin the investigation and provide ORI a copy of the inquiry report (or comply with any other notice obligation to a government agency or other funder); | ||
:(2) notify the respondent in writing of the allegations to be investigated. | :(2) notify the respondent in writing of the allegations to be investigated. | ||
====Purpose of the Investigation==== | ====Purpose of the Investigation ==== | ||
The purpose of the investigation is to examine the allegations and evidence in detail and determine specifically whether misconduct has been committed, as defined in accordance with the standards of proof set forth in Section 1, by whom, and to what extent. The investigation committee shall pursue diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion. If new allegations are identified, the Research Integrity Officer must also give the respondent written notice of such allegations within a reasonable amount of time of deciding to pursue allegations not addressed during the inquiry or in the initial notice of the investigation. | The purpose of the investigation is to examine the allegations and evidence in detail and determine specifically whether misconduct has been committed, as defined in accordance with the standards of proof set forth in Section 1, by whom, and to what extent. The investigation committee shall pursue diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion. If new allegations are identified, the Research Integrity Officer must also give the respondent written notice of such allegations within a reasonable amount of time of deciding to pursue allegations not addressed during the inquiry or in the initial notice of the investigation. | ||
====Investigation Committee==== | ====Investigation Committee==== | ||
| Line 197: | Line 202: | ||
*The Research Integrity Officer will provide a written charge to the committee. Such charge shall describe the allegations and related issues identified during the inquiry; identify the respondent; inform the committee that it must conduct the investigation as prescribed by this policy and in accordance with applicable law; define research misconduct; and instruct the investigation committee on the burden of proof. The charge shall state that the committee is to evaluate the evidence and testimony of the respondent, complainant, and key witnesses to determine whether, based on a preponderance of the evidence, research misconduct occurred and, if so, to what extent, who was responsible, and its seriousness. The committee will review procedures and standards for conduct of the investigation, including this policy and applicable federal regulations. The committee will be instructed that it is advisable to develop an investigation plan and as to the necessity for maintaining confidentiality. | *The Research Integrity Officer will provide a written charge to the committee. Such charge shall describe the allegations and related issues identified during the inquiry; identify the respondent; inform the committee that it must conduct the investigation as prescribed by this policy and in accordance with applicable law; define research misconduct; and instruct the investigation committee on the burden of proof. The charge shall state that the committee is to evaluate the evidence and testimony of the respondent, complainant, and key witnesses to determine whether, based on a preponderance of the evidence, research misconduct occurred and, if so, to what extent, who was responsible, and its seriousness. The committee will review procedures and standards for conduct of the investigation, including this policy and applicable federal regulations. The committee will be instructed that it is advisable to develop an investigation plan and as to the necessity for maintaining confidentiality. | ||
*The investigation committee shall use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is impartial, unbiased, objective, thorough and sufficiently documented and shall include examination of all research records and evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of each allegation. | *The investigation committee shall use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is impartial, unbiased, objective, thorough and sufficiently documented and shall include examination of all research records and evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of each allegation. | ||
*The investigation committee shall interview each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent, and record or transcribe each interview, provide the recording or transcript to the interviewee for correction, and include the recording or transcript in the record of the investigation. | * The investigation committee shall interview each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent, and record or transcribe each interview, provide the recording or transcript to the interviewee for correction, and include the recording or transcript in the record of the investigation. | ||
*The investigation committee shall determine whether and to what extent research misconduct occurred. | *The investigation committee shall determine whether and to what extent research misconduct occurred. | ||
====Investigation Report==== | ====Investigation Report==== | ||
Upon completion of the investigation, a written report shall be prepared in accordance with applicable legal requirements. Such report shall, without limitation: | Upon completion of the investigation, a written report shall be prepared in accordance with applicable legal requirements. Such report shall, without limitation: | ||
:(1) describe the nature of the allegation(s) of research misconduct, including identification of the respondent(s); | :(1) describe the nature of the allegation(s) of research misconduct, including identification of the respondent(s); | ||
:(2) describe and document support for the research, including PHS support; | :(2) describe and document support for the research, including PHS support; | ||
:(3) describe the specific allegations of research misconduct considered in the investigation; | :(3) describe the specific allegations of research misconduct considered in the investigation; | ||
:(4) include the institutional policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted; | :(4) include the institutional policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted; | ||
:(5) identify and analyze the key research records reviewed; | :(5) identify and analyze the key research records reviewed; | ||
:(6) include a statement of findings for each allegation of research misconduct identified during the investigation, summarizing the basis for the investigation committee’s decision and proposed corrective actions (if any). | :(6) include a statement of findings for each allegation of research misconduct identified during the investigation, summarizing the basis for the investigation committee’s decision and proposed corrective actions (if any). | ||
*The Research Integrity Officer shall provide the respondent with a copy of the draft investigation report for comment and rebuttal. The respondent will be given thirty (30) business days to review and comment on the draft report. The respondent will receive a copy of or have the opportunity to obtain supervised access to the evidence on which the report is based. The respondent shall submit comments to the Research Integrity Officer within 30 days from the date the respondent received the draft report. The respondent's comments will be attached to the final report. | *The Research Integrity Officer shall provide the respondent with a copy of the draft investigation report for comment and rebuttal. The respondent will be given thirty (30) business days to review and comment on the draft report. The respondent will receive a copy of or have the opportunity to obtain supervised access to the evidence on which the report is based. The respondent shall submit comments to the Research Integrity Officer within 30 days from the date the respondent received the draft report. The respondent's comments will be attached to the final report. | ||
*The investigation committee shall consider and address the respondent(s)’ comments on the draft report in connection with finalizing the report. | *The investigation committee shall consider and address the respondent(s)’ comments on the draft report in connection with finalizing the report. | ||
*The draft investigation report will be transmitted to the University of Nebraska Office of the General Counsel for a review of its legal sufficiency. | *The draft investigation report will be transmitted to the University of Nebraska Office of the General Counsel for a review of its legal sufficiency. | ||
====Decision by Deciding Official==== | ====Decision by Deciding Official==== | ||
| Line 218: | Line 223: | ||
===Corrective Action=== | ===Corrective Action=== | ||
Corrective action for research misconduct shall be based on the seriousness of the misconduct, including but not limited to, the degree to which the misconduct: | Corrective action for research misconduct shall be based on the seriousness of the misconduct, including but not limited to, the degree to which the misconduct: | ||
:a) was intentional, knowing or reckless; | :a) was intentional, knowing or reckless; | ||
:b) was an isolated event or part of a pattern; and | :b) was an isolated event or part of a pattern; and | ||
:c) had significant impact on the research record, research subjects, other researchers, institutions, or the public welfare. | :c) had significant impact on the research record, research subjects, other researchers, institutions, or the public welfare. | ||
The range of corrective actions includes, but is not limited to, withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the research where misconduct was found; removal of the responsible person from the particular project; special monitoring of future work; restitution of funds as appropriate; suspension or termination of an active award; termination, expulsion, suspension, leave without pay, and/or letters of reprimand. If the corrective action results in termination or other adverse change in an employee's terms and conditions of employment, the respondent may appeal the decision through the appropriate procedures contained in the Faculty Handbook or UNMC policy for non-faculty members. Students have appeal rights as outlined in the Student or Graduate Student Handbooks. | The range of corrective actions includes, but is not limited to, withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the research where misconduct was found; removal of the responsible person from the particular project; special monitoring of future work; restitution of funds as appropriate; suspension or termination of an active award; termination, expulsion, suspension, leave without pay, and/or letters of reprimand. If the corrective action results in termination or other adverse change in an employee's terms and conditions of employment, the respondent may appeal the decision through the appropriate procedures contained in the Faculty Handbook or UNMC policy for non-faculty members. Students have appeal rights as outlined in the Student or Graduate Student Handbooks. | ||
===Reporting to the Funding Agency (including ORI)=== | ===Reporting to the Funding Agency (including ORI)=== | ||
The Research Integrity Officer shall notify the funding agency (or agencies in some cases), including the ORI Director if applicable, in writing of the following events, among others: | The Research Integrity Officer shall notify the funding agency (or agencies in some cases), including the ORI Director if applicable, in writing of the following events, among others: | ||
*Decision to initiate a research misconduct investigation on or before the date the investigation begins; | * Decision to initiate a research misconduct investigation on or before the date the investigation begins; | ||
*Transmission of the final investigation report; | * Transmission of the final investigation report; | ||
*Decision to terminate an investigation for any reason without completing all regulatory requirements or as otherwise called for by this policy; | *Decision to terminate an investigation for any reason without completing all regulatory requirements or as otherwise called for by this policy; | ||
*Request for extension in the event that UNMC will not be able to complete the investigation within 120 days. | *Request for extension in the event that UNMC will not be able to complete the investigation within 120 days. | ||
| Line 238: | Line 243: | ||
UNMC will cooperate with ORI or other government agencies during oversight review or any subsequent administrative hearings or appeals. This includes provision of research records and evidence under the institution's control, custody, or possession and reasonable access to persons within its authority necessary to develop a complete record of relevant evidence. | UNMC will cooperate with ORI or other government agencies during oversight review or any subsequent administrative hearings or appeals. This includes provision of research records and evidence under the institution's control, custody, or possession and reasonable access to persons within its authority necessary to develop a complete record of relevant evidence. | ||
===Other Considerations=== | ===Other Considerations=== | ||
====Respondent Admissions==== | ==== Respondent Admissions ==== | ||
Generally, all inquiries and investigations will be carried through to completion and all significant issues will be pursued diligently. The Research Integrity Officer must notify ORI in advance if there are plans to close a case at the inquiry, investigation, or appeal stage on the basis that respondent has admitted guilt, a settlement with the respondent has been reached, or for any other reason, except: | Generally, all inquiries and investigations will be carried through to completion and all significant issues will be pursued diligently. The Research Integrity Officer must notify ORI in advance if there are plans to close a case at the inquiry, investigation, or appeal stage on the basis that respondent has admitted guilt, a settlement with the respondent has been reached, or for any other reason, except: | ||
:(1) closing of a case at the inquiry stage on the basis that an investigation is not warranted; or | :(1) closing of a case at the inquiry stage on the basis that an investigation is not warranted; or | ||
:(2) a finding of no misconduct at the investigation stage, which must be reported to ORI, as prescribed in this policy and 42 CFR § 93.315. | :(2) a finding of no misconduct at the investigation stage, which must be reported to ORI, as prescribed in this policy and 42 CFR § 93.315. | ||
====Respondent Resignation/Withdrawal==== | ==== Respondent Resignation/Withdrawal==== | ||
If the respondent terminates UNMC employment, resigns, or withdraws from school (in the case of a student) prior to completion of the inquiry or investigation, the inquiry or investigation will proceed. If the respondent refuses to participate in the proceedings, the investigation 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. | If the respondent terminates UNMC employment, resigns, or withdraws from school (in the case of a student) prior to completion of the inquiry or investigation, the inquiry or investigation will proceed. If the respondent refuses to participate in the proceedings, the investigation 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. | ||
====Restoration of Respondent's Reputation==== | ==== Restoration of Respondent's Reputation ==== | ||
If UNMC finds no research misconduct, and the funding agency concurs when required, the Research Integrity Officer will undertake reasonable efforts to restore the respondent's reputation after consulting with the respondent and receiving approval from the Deciding Official. Such actions could include, for example only, notifying those individuals aware of or involved in the investigation of the final outcome, publicizing the final outcome in any forum in which the allegation of research misconduct was previously publicized, and expunging all reference to the research misconduct allegation from the respondent's personnel file. | If UNMC finds no research misconduct, and the funding agency concurs when required, the Research Integrity Officer will undertake reasonable efforts to restore the respondent's reputation after consulting with the respondent and receiving approval from the Deciding Official. Such actions could include, for example only, notifying those individuals aware of or involved in the investigation of the final outcome, publicizing the final outcome in any forum in which the allegation of research misconduct was previously publicized, and expunging all reference to the research misconduct allegation from the respondent's personnel file. | ||
====Allegations Not Made in Good Faith==== | ====Allegations Not Made in Good Faith==== | ||