658
edits
Research Integrity: Difference between revisions
→Reporting Misconduct
Mhurlocker (talk | contribs) |
Mhurlocker (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 161: | Line 161: | ||
==Procedures== | ==Procedures== | ||
===Reporting Misconduct=== | ===Reporting Misconduct=== | ||
All individuals subject to this policy shall report observed, suspected, or apparent research misconduct to the Research Integrity Officer by phone or email. (<nowiki>https://www.unmc.edu/academicaffairs/compliance/research-integrity.html</nowiki>) | All individuals subject to this policy shall report observed, suspected, or apparent research misconduct to the Research Integrity Officer by phone or email. [https://www.unmc.edu/academicaffairs/compliance/research-integrity.html (<nowiki>https://www.unmc.edu/academicaffairs/compliance/research-integrity.html</nowiki>)] | ||
Observed, suspected, or apparent research misconduct can also be reported to the UNMC Compliance Hotline at 1-844-348-9584 or www.nebraska.ethicspoint.com. | Observed, suspected, or apparent research misconduct can also be reported to the UNMC Compliance Hotline at 1-844-348-9584 or [http://www.nebraska.ethicspoint.com/ www.nebraska.ethicspoint.com.] | ||
In determining whether an incident falls under this policy, an individual may refer to the definitions under this policy (e.g., authorship disputes and self-plagiarism do not fall under this policy) and review University of Nebraska Executive Memorandum No. 41, Policy on Research Data and Security (e.g., for questions regarding data ownership). If an individual is unsure whether the suspected incident falls within the definition of research misconduct, they may call the Research Integrity Officer to discuss the suspected misconduct informally, including anonymously or hypothetically. Such discussions shall ordinarily be confidential. If the circumstances do not meet the definition of research misconduct, the Research Integrity Officer or designee will refer the individual or allegation to other offices with responsibility for resolving the problem. | In determining whether an incident falls under this policy, an individual may refer to the definitions under this policy (e.g., authorship disputes and self-plagiarism do not fall under this policy) and review University of Nebraska Executive Memorandum No. 41, Policy on Research Data and Security (e.g., for questions regarding data ownership). If an individual is unsure whether the suspected incident falls within the definition of research misconduct, they may call the Research Integrity Officer to discuss the suspected misconduct informally, including anonymously or hypothetically. Such discussions shall ordinarily be confidential. If the circumstances do not meet the definition of research misconduct, the Research Integrity Officer or designee will refer the individual or allegation to other offices with responsibility for resolving the problem. | ||
=== '''Allegations Involving Multiple Institutions''' === | |||
When allegations involve research conducted at multiple institutions, the Research Integrity Officer will communicate with the administrator charged with research integrity at the other institution(s). UNMC and the other institution(s) must determine whether a joint research misconduct proceeding will be conducted and, if so, designate one institution to serve as the lead institution. The lead institution will follow its research misconduct policies and procedures to conduct the proceeding as modified by the procedures included- immediately below in this paragraph as agreed to by the participating institutions. In a joint research misconduct proceeding, the lead institution should obtain research records and other evidence pertinent to the proceeding, including witness testimony, from the other relevant institution(s). By mutual agreement, the joint research misconduct proceeding may include committee members from the institutions involved. The determination of whether further inquiry and/or investigation is warranted, whether research misconduct occurred, and the institutional actions to be taken may be made by the institutions jointly or tasked to the lead institution. | |||
Allegations involving research being conducted at more than one campus of the University of Nebraska will be treated as allegations involving multiple institutions. | |||
=== '''Allegations Involving the Research Integrity Officer or Institutional Deciding Official''' === | |||
In the event an allegation of research misconduct is made against the Research Integrity Officer or Institutional Deciding Official, or the Research Integrity Officer or Institutional Deciding Official has a conflict of interest with the outcome of the assessment, inquiry, or investigation of an allegation, the Vice Chancellor for Research will appoint a substitute for the Research Integrity Officer or Institutional Deciding Official. If such a replacement is not possible, the Vice Chancellor for Research will confer with the Office of General Counsel to determine whether external resources will be engaged to complete the necessary process under this policy. | |||
===Preliminary Assessment of Allegations=== | ===Preliminary Assessment of Allegations=== | ||
Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the Research Integrity Officer shall assess the allegation as soon as is feasible (usually within 21 days of receipt of the allegation) to determine whether it is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. If so, the matter must proceed to an inquiry. | Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the Research Integrity Officer or designee shall assess the allegation as soon as is feasible (usually within 21 days of receipt of the allegation) to determine whether it falls within the definition of research misconduct, is within the scope of this policy, and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. If so, the matter must proceed to an inquiry. The Research Integrity Officer or designee will document the assessment, including, in cases where an inquiry is not warranted, with sufficient detail to permit a later review by the ORI of the reasons why an inquiry was not conducted. If the identity of the complainant is known, the Research Integrity Officer or designee will notify the complainant of the outcome of the assessment. | ||
Authorship or collaboration disputes and other matters that are not within the definition of research misconduct, as set forth in this policy, are not subject to this policy and shall be addressed through procedures outlined in the UNMC Faculty Handbook [<nowiki/>[[Faculty Handbook|Faculty]]], University of Nebraska Student Code of Conduct [https://catalog.unmc.edu/general-information/student-policies-procedures/code-of-conduct/code-of-conduct.pdf (https://catalog.unmc.edu/general-information/student-policies-procedures/code-of-conduct/code-of-conduct.pdf)] and University of Nebraska Medical Center Code of Conduct (<nowiki>https://catalog.unmc.edu/general-information/student-policies-procedures/unmc-code-of-conduct/</nowiki>), as appropriate. Authorship guidelines are found at [https://wiki.unmc.edu/index.php/Authorship_Guidelines Authorship Guidelines - University of Nebraska Medical Center] | |||
===Sequestration of Research Records=== | ===Sequestration of Research Records=== | ||
* | |||
*The Research Integrity Officer shall sequester any additional research records that become pertinent to an inquiry or investigation after the initial sequestration. | * If an inquiry is warranted, on or before the date the respondent is notified of any allegation of research misconduct or the inquiry begins, the Research Integrity Officer or designee must take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, which may include copies of the data or other evidence so long as those copies are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value. 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 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. | |||
*The Research Integrity Officer or designee shall sequester any additional research records that become pertinent to an inquiry or investigation after the initial sequestration. | |||
*The Research Integrity Officer or designee will review any physical evidence that will be sequestered to determine whether any physical evidence requires special conditions of storage and develop a plan for storage of any such physical evidence. | |||
*The Research Integrity Officer or designee may consult with UNMC legal counsel, the Compliance Officer, 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 that have been sequestered. | |||
*All sequestered evidence including physical objects must be maintained pursuant to the Record Retention provisions of this policy. | |||
=== 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 or designee 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. Only allegations specific to a particular respondent are to be included in the notification to that respondent. | ||
====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: | ||