Research Integrity: Difference between revisions

Research Integrity (view source)

Revision as of 11:01, October 6, 2025

357 bytes added , October 6

→‎Inquiry Committee

VisualWikitext

Mhurlocker

Administrators

658

edits

@@ Line 194: / Line 194: @@
 :(1) there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct; and,
 :(2) the preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding indicate the allegation may have substance.
-==== 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 will notify the respondent of the proposed committee membership. If the respondent submits a written objection to a member or members of the inquiry committee based on bias or conflict of interest within five (5) business days, the Deciding Official will determine whether to replace the challenged member with a qualified substitute.
 ====Inquiry Process====
-The Research Integrity Officer shall deliver a charge to the inquiry committee that sets forth the committee’s responsibilities and timeline. The Research Integrity Officer and other institutional officials and outside consultants may advise the inquiry committee. The inquiry committee may interview the complainant, the respondent, and key witnesses as well as examine relevant research records and materials. The inquiry committee will evaluate the evidence and determine whether an investigation is warranted.
+The Research Integrity Officer or designee shall conduct the inquiry. The Research Integrity Officer or designee may obtain assistance from one or more subject matter experts as may be necessary to conduct the inquiry. No person conducting or consulting on the inquiry will have an unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest with the complainant, respondent, or witnesses. The Research Integrity Officer or designee may interview the complainant, the respondent, and key witnesses as well as examine relevant research records and materials. If additional allegations are raised during the inquiry, the respondent(s) must be notified in writing of the additional allegations raised against them. The Research Integrity Officer or designee will evaluate the evidence and determine whether an investigation is warranted. Findings of research misconduct, including whether the alleged misconduct is intentional, knowing, or reckless, cannot be made through the inquiry process. The Research Integrity Officer or designee may make a determination of honest error as a result of the inquiry, which would not warrant an investigation.
 ====Written Report====
 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;
-:(2) a description of the allegations of research misconduct;
+# the names, professional aliases, and position of the respondent and the complainant;
-:(3) the PHS or other governmental or third-party support;
+# a description of the allegations of research misconduct;
-:(4) the evidence that was reviewed;
+# the PHS or other governmental or third-party support including, for example, grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing support;
-:(5) the basis for recommending or not recommending that the allegations warrant an investigation; and
+# inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted;
-:(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 />
+# transcripts of any transcribed interviews;
-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.
+# timeline and procedural history;
+# any scientific or forensic analyses conducted;
+# the basis for recommending or not recommending that the allegations warrant an investigation;
+# if there is potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion;
+# any comments on the draft inquiry report by the respondent;
+# any institutional actions implemented, including communications with journals or funding agencies; and
+# if the inquiry took longer than 90 days to complete, the reasons for exceeding the 90-day period.
+The respondent shall be given a copy of the draft inquiry report together with a copy of this policy. If the respondent chooses to comment on the report, they must submit a written response to the Research Integrity Officer or designee within fourteen (14) 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 or designee may revise the report as appropriate.
 ==== 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.