Research Integrity: Difference between revisions

The Research Integrity Officer or designee will transmit the final inquiry report and any comments to the Institutional Deciding Official.  The Institutional Deciding Official will make the determination of whether an investigation is warranted after reviewing the inquiry report and recommendation. If the findings from the inquiry indicate a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct and the preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding from the inquiry indicate the allegation may have substance, then an investigation is warranted.

The Research Integrity Officer or designee will notify both the respondent and appropriate UNMC officials in writing of the Institutional Deciding Official's decision of whether to proceed with an investigation. The notice to the respondent must include a copy of the inquiry report, a copy of this Policy and, for PHS-funded research, a copy of or reference to 42 CFR Part 93. If the Institutional Deciding Official determines an investigation is warranted, the Research Integrity Officer or designee shall notify appropriate funding and oversight agencies (PHS, NSF, etc.) in writing of the decision and provide a copy of the inquiry report within thirty days after the Institutional Deciding Official’s decision.

 

 

The inquiry, including preparation of the final inquiry report and the decision of the Institutional Deciding Official, must be completed within 90 days of its initiation, unless the Research Integrity Officer or designee determines that circumstances warrant a longer period.  

The investigation must begin within 30 days of the decision by the Institutional Deciding Official that the investigation is warranted. On or before the date on which the investigation begins, the Research Integrity Officer or designee must:  

The Research Integrity Officer or designee, in consultation with other UNMC officials as appropriate, will appoint an investigation committee within ten (10) days after the notification to the respondent of the investigation or as soon thereafter as practicable. The investigation committee shall consist of at least three individuals who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest in the case, who are unbiased, and who have the necessary expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegations, interview the principals and key witnesses, and conduct the investigation. Individuals appointed to the investigation committee may have also participated in the inquiry. The Research Integrity Officer or designee will notify the respondent of the proposed committee membership. If the respondent submits a written objection to the appointed member of the inquiry committee based on bias or conflict of interest within five (5) days, the Institutional Deciding Official will determine whether to replace the challenged member with a qualified substitute.

*The Research Integrity Officer or designee 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 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.

 

# Interviews during the investigation must be recorded and transcribed;

# Any exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview must be numbered and referred to by that number in the interview;

# The transcript of the interview must be made available to the relevant interviewee for correction;

 

* If a respondent, complainant, or witness refuses an interview and or the respondent, complainant, witness or Investigation Committee requests another form of fact gathering, such as a response in writing to written questions, the Research Integrity Officer or designee will confer with the Office of Research Integrity to determine the permissibility of the proposed alternative to interview.

 

* If the investigation committee identifies additional respondents during the investigation, UNMC is not required to conduct a separate inquiry for each new respondent. If any additional respondent(s) are identified during the investigation, the Research Integrity Office must notify them of the allegation(s) and provide them an opportunity to respond consistent with this policy.

* The investigation committee shall determine whether, to what extent, and by whom research misconduct has been committed.

 

Upon completion of the investigation, a written report for each respondent 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); (2) describe and document support for the research, including PHS or other funding agency support; (3) describe the specific allegations of research misconduct considered in the investigation; (4) describe composition of the investigation committee, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise;  (5) include the inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence, except records UNMC did not consider or rely on, with a description of how any sequestration was conducted during the investigation and including manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied on in the investigation;  (6) include transcripts of all interviews conducted;  (7) identify any specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, or other research records that allegedly contain the falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized materials;  (8) describe any scientific or forensic analyses conducted;  (9) include the institutional policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted; (10) include any comments made by the respondent and complainant on the draft investigation report and the investigation committee’s consideration of those comments; (11) 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 statement shall include the identity of the individual(s) who committed the research misconduct, the type of misconduct (falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism), indicate whether the research misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and state whether the requirements for finding research misconduct have been met. If the committee does not recommend a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the investigation report must provide a detailed rationale; and  (12) If the investigation took longer than 180 days to complete, include the reasons for exceeding the 180-day period.

:* The Research Integrity Officer or designee shall provide the respondent with a copy of the draft investigation report for comment and rebuttal. The respondent will be given thirty (30) 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 or designee 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 draft investigation report will be transmitted to the University of Nebraska Office of the General Counsel for a review of its legal sufficiency.

Within fifteen (15) days of receiving the investigation report, the Institutional Deciding Official will make a final determination whether to accept the final report and the recommended actions (with or without further modifications), or reject the recommendations and instruct the investigation committee to conduct further fact finding. If the Institutional Deciding Official's determination varies from that of the investigation committee, the Institutional Deciding Official shall explain in writing and in detail the basis for rendering a different decision.

 

 

When a final decision is reached, the Research Integrity Officer or designee will normally notify both the respondent and the complainant in writing. After informing ORI, the Institutional Deciding Official shall determine whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals in which research misconduct may have been published, collaborators of the respondent in the work, or other relevant parties should be notified of the outcome of the case. The Research Integrity Officer or designee is responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification requirements of funding or sponsoring agencies.

All aspects of the investigation shall be complete within 180 days of beginning it, including conducting the investigation, preparing the draft investigation report for each respondent, providing the draft report to each respondent for comment, and transmitting the institutional record including the final investigation report and decision by the Institutional Deciding Official to ORI or other funding agencies as required. If unable to complete the investigation within 180 days, the Research Integrity Officer or designee shall request an extension in writing that includes the circumstances or issues warranting additional time from any pertinent funding agencies as required. If an allegation involves research for which there is no external funding agency, the Research Integrity Officer or designee may extend the time to complete the investigation for a period reasonable under the circumstances in the Research Integrity Officer’s or designee’s discretion.

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;

 

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.

 

 

===Reporting to ORI or the Funding Agency===

The Research Integrity Officer or designee will make any notifications related to research misconduct required by the funding agency.

 

For PHS agencies subject to 42 CFR Part 93: The Research Integrity Officer or designee shall notify the ORI Director, in writing of the following events, among others:

 

* 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 180 days.

 

The Research Integrity Officer or designee shall provide immediate notice to the ORI Director, when:

 

* The health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects;

* There is an immediate need to protect Federal funds or equipment or interests;

* Research activities should be suspended;

* Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding;

* There is a reasonable indication of possible civil or criminal law violation; or

* The Department of Health and Human Services may need to take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved.