ÀÇÓÑÊÓƵ

6.1.1 ÀÇÓÑÊÓƵ (“University”) strives to create a research climate that promotes faithful adherence to high ethical standards in the conduct of research while not inhibiting the productivity and creativity of scientist and academician. Research misconduct is an offense which not only damages the reputation of those involved, but also that of the entire educational community.

6.1.2 Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. To constitute research misconduct, the behavior must (1) represent a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and, (2) be committed intentionally, knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the integrity of the research; and, (3) the allegation is proven by the preponderance of evidence. [Federal Register: May 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 94)].

6.1.3 Research misconduct is a major breach of the relationship between a faculty or staff member and the University. In order to maintain the integrity of research projects, every person engaged in research, including faculty, graduate and undergraduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and technicians, must keep a permanent auditable record of all experimental protocols, data, and findings. Co-authors on research reports of any type, including publications, must have had a bona fide role in the research and must accept responsibility for the quality of the work reported.

6.1.4 Scholarly activities which involve faculty/student collaboration are encouraged and may be positively recognized in faculty personnel processes. Issues related to faculty/student collaboration may include matters such as expected contributions of each party, order of authorship, and/or type of citation to be given, and must be addressed early in any scholarly project. Decisions must be congruent with the ethics and scholarly customs of each discipline involved. Specific recognition of the nature and scope of individual student contributions must be made in all published materials.

6.1.5 Any inquiry or investigation of allegations of research misconduct must proceed promptly and with due regard for the reputation and rights of all individuals involved.

6.1.6 The University will take all reasonable steps to assure that the persons involved in the evaluation of the allegations and evidence have appropriate expertise; no person involved in the procedures is either biased against the accused person(s) or has a conflict of interest; and, affected individuals will receive confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible.

6.3.1 The following evidentiary standards apply to findings:

1. Standard of proof. A University finding of research misconduct must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
2. Burden of proof.
   1. The University has the burden of proof for making a finding of research misconduct. The destruction, absence of, or respondent's failure to provide research records adequately documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where the University establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly had research records and destroyed them, had the opportunity to maintain the records but did not do so, or maintained the records and failed to produce them in a timely manner and that the respondent's conduct constitutes a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.
   2. The 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. In determining whether the University has carried the burden of proof imposed by this section, the finder of fact shall give due consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the respondent.
   3. The respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving by a preponderance of the evidence any mitigating factors that are relevant to a decision to impose administrative actions following a research misconduct proceeding.

6.4.1 Allegations of research misconduct should be placed in writing and brought to the attention of the Vice President for Research. The Vice President for Research will bring such allegations to the attention of the appropriate Dean, department Chair, principal investigator of the research program and any researchers affected by the allegations. The Vice President for Research, with due regard for the reputations of all parties involved, including those who in good faith reported the apparent misconduct, will immediately conduct an assessment of the allegations.

6.4.2 When the University's review of the allegation identifies non-research misconduct issues, the Vice President for Research should refer these matters to the proper University or Federal office for action.

6.5.1 In responding to allegations of research misconduct, the Vice President for Research will make diligent efforts to ensure that the following functions are performed:

1. Any allegation assessment, inquiry, or investigation is conducted in a timely, objective, thorough, and competent manner.
2. Reasonable precautions are taken to avoid bias and real or apparent conflicts of interest on the part of those involved in conducting the inquiry or investigation.
3. Immediate notification is provided to ORI or other relevant governmental agency if:
   1. there is an immediate health hazard involved;
   2. there is an immediate need to protect Federal funds or equipment;
   3. there is an immediate need to protect the interests of the person(s) making the allegations or of the individual(s) who is the subject of the allegations, as well as his/her co-investigators and associates, if any;
   4. it is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly;
   5. the allegation involves a public health sensitive issue, e.g., a clinical trial; or,
   6. there is a reasonable indication of a possible Federal criminal violation. In this instance, the University must inform ORI and/or any other relevant governmental agency within 24 hours of obtaining that information.
4. Interim administrative actions are taken, as appropriate, to protect Federal funds and the public health, and to ensure that the purposes of the Federal financial assistance are carried out.

6.6.1 Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the Vice President for Research will immediately assess the allegation to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant an inquiry, whether PHS support or applications for funding or other relevant governmental agencies are involved, and whether the allegation falls under the definition of research misconduct.

6.7.1 Following the preliminary assessment, if the Vice President for Research determines that the allegation provides sufficient information to allow specific follow-up, and falls under the definition of research misconduct, the Vice President for Research will notify and review the preliminary assessment with the Provost. With concurrence from the Provost, the Vice President for Research and the RIO will immediately initiate the inquiry process. In initiating the inquiry, the Vice President for Research and/or the RIO should identify clearly the original allegation and any related issues that should be evaluated. The purpose of the inquiry is to make a preliminary evaluation of the available evidence and testimony of the respondent, complainant, and key witnesses to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of possible research misconduct to warrant an investigation. The purpose of the inquiry is not to reach a final conclusion about whether misconduct definitely occurred or who was responsible. The findings of the inquiry must be set forth in an inquiry report.

6.7.2 The Vice President for Research will determine whether any other University affiliated organization/institution is also involved in the research thus possibly warranting a joint inquiry. If so, the appropriate affiliated organizational or institutional official should be contacted. Factors to be considered in the decision to conduct a joint inquiry would include source of pay for the investigator, presence or absence of joint appointment, presence or absence of "Without Pay" (WOC) appointments at organizations, source of funding for the research, site where the research was conducted, subject population involved, etc. After consideration and discussion of these factors, the decision on whether a joint investigation is indicated would be made. If a joint investigation is warranted, a decision on which organization has the lead should be made. In most other scenarios with other affiliated organizations, the University would be the lead organization.

6.7.3 As soon as practical after the Vice President for Research determines that an inquiry is required, the Vice President for Research and/or the RIO will:

1. Secure the relevant research records;
2. Notify the President, the Provost, the Office of Legal Affairs, and the respondent;
3. Appoint a person or persons to conduct an initial inquiry; and,
4. Notify ORI if PHS support is involved, and other relevant governmental agencies, if any of the conditions listed above under section 6.5.1 (c) exist.

6.7.4 The Vice President for Research may consult with ORI or other relevant governmental agencies at any time regarding appropriate procedures to be followed.

6.8.1 The Vice President for Research and/or the RIO will notify the respondent in writing of the opening of the inquiry, or this notification may be sent simultaneously with sequestering of records. See "Sequestration of Research Records" below.

6.9.1 If no specific respondent has been identified at this stage of the process, the Vice President for Research and/or the RIO will notify each potential respondent that an inquiry will be undertaken, e.g., each co-author on a questioned article or each investigator on a questioned grant application.

6.10.1 To the extent it has not already been done at the allegation stage, the University must, on or before the date on which the respondent is notified or the inquiry begins, whichever is earlier, promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester them in a secure manner. Where the research records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number or users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments.

6.10.2 Research records produced under grants and cooperative agreements are the property of the University, and employees cannot interfere with the University's right of access to them. Under contracts, certain research records may belong to PHS or another funding agency, but the University will be provided access to contract records in the custody of the University for purposes of reviewing misconduct allegations.

6.10.3 The Vice President for Research and/or the RIO should notify the respondent that an inquiry is being initiated simultaneously with the sequestration so that the respondent can assist with location and identification of the research records. The Vice President for Research and/or the RIO should obtain the assistance of the respondent's supervisor and legal counsel in this process, as necessary. If the respondent is not available, sequestration may begin in the respondent's absence. The respondent should not be notified in advance of the sequestration of research records to prevent questions being raised later regarding missing documents or materials and to prevent accusations against the respondent of tampering with or fabricating data or materials after the notification. In addition to securing records under the control of the respondent, the Vice President for Research and/or the RIO may need to sequester records from other individuals, such as co-authors, collaborators, or complainants. A copy of each sequestered record will be provided to the individual from whom the record is taken within as soon as reasonably possible.

6.10.4 The Vice President for Research and/or the RIO will lock records and materials in a secure place. The persons from whom items are collected may be provided with a copy of any item. Where feasible, that person will have access to his or her own original items under the direct and continuous supervision of a University official. This will ensure that a proper chain of custody is maintained and that the originals are kept intact and unmodified.

6.11.1 The Vice President for Research is responsible for conducting or designating others to conduct the inquiry. The person or persons designated to conduct the inquiry will obtain the necessary expert and technical advice to consider properly all research issues.

6.12.1 The Vice President for Research and/or the RIO will take reasonable steps to ensure that those conducting the inquiry and any expert consultants have no bias or personal or professional conflict of interest with the respondent, complainant, or the case in question. In making this determination, the Vice President for Research and/or the RIO will consider whether the individual (or any members of his or her immediate family):

1. Has any financial involvement with the respondent or complainant;
2. Has been a co-author on a publication with the respondent or complainant;
3. Has been a collaborator or co-investigator with the respondent or complainant;
4. Has been a party to a scientific controversy with the respondent or complainant;
5. Has a supervisory or mentor relationship with the respondent or complainant;
6. Has a special relationship, such as a close personal friendship, kinship, or a physician/patient relationship with the respondent or complainant; or,
7. Falls within any other circumstance that might appear to compromise the individual's objectivity in reviewing the allegations.

6.12.2 The Vice President for Research and/or the RIO will notify the respondent of the proposed person or persons to conduct the inquiry within ten (10) business days. If the respondent submits a written objection to anyone appointed based on bias or conflict of interest within five (5) business days, the Vice President for Research will immediately determine whether to replace the challenged member or expert with a qualified substitute.

6.12.3 The person or persons conducting the inquiry and any expert consultants will agree in writing to observe the confidentiality of the proceeding and any information or documents reviewed as part of the inquiry. Outside of the official proceedings of the inquiry they may not discuss the proceedings with the respondent, complainant, witnesses, or anyone not authorized by the Vice President for Research to have knowledge of the inquiry.

6.12.4 The Vice President for Research and/or the RIO Office, in consultation with the legal counsel, will provide staff assistance and guidance to the person or persons conducting the inquiry and the experts on the procedures for conducting and completing the inquiry, including procedures for maintaining confidentiality, conducting interviews, analyzing data, and preparing the inquiry report.

6.12.5 Charge

6.12.6 General Approaches to Conducting the Inquiry

6.12.7 General Approach to Conducting an Interview

6.12.8 Inquiry Report

6.12.9 Referral to Other Officials or Agencies

6.13.1 The investigation should begin thirty (30) business days after determining that an investigation is warranted, and all aspects of the investigation completed within 120 business days from when the investigation started.

6.13.2 The purpose of the investigation is to explore in detail the allegations, to examine the evidence in depth, and to determine specifically whether research misconduct has been committed, by whom, and to what extent. The investigation will also determine whether there are additional instances of possible research misconduct that would justify broadening the scope beyond the initial allegations. This is particularly important where the alleged research misconduct involves clinical trials or potential harm to human subjects or the general public or if it affects research that forms the basis for public policy, clinical practice, or public health practice. The findings of the investigation will be set forth in an investigation report.

6.13.3 The Vice President for Research and/or the RIO will immediately sequester any additional pertinent research records that were not previously sequestered during the inquiry. This sequestration should occur before or at the time the respondent is notified that an investigation has begun. The need for additional sequestration of records may occur for any number of reasons, including the University's decision to investigate additional allegations not considered during the inquiry stage or the identification of records during the inquiry process that had not been previously secured. The procedures to be followed for sequestration during the investigation are the same procedures that apply during the inquiry.

6.13.4 The Vice President for Research and/or the RIO will notify the respondent as soon as reasonably possible after the determination is made to open an investigation. The notification should include:

1. A copy of the inquiry report;
2. The specific allegations;
3. The sources of government funding if applicable;
4. The definition of research misconduct;
5. The procedures to be followed in the investigation, including the appointment of the investigation committee and experts;
6. The opportunity of the respondent to be interviewed, to provide information, to be assisted by counsel, to challenge the membership of the committee and experts based on bias or conflict of interest, and to comment on the draft report;
7. The fact that ORI will perform an oversight review of the report regarding PHS issues; and,
8. An explanation of the respondent's right to request a hearing before the HHS Departmental Appeals Board if there is an ORI finding of misconduct under the PHS definition.

6.13.5 The Vice President for Research is responsible for conducting or designating others to conduct the investigation.

6.13.6 The investigation, whether conducted by a committee or an individual, will follow each procedural step set forth below.

6.13.7 Charge to the Committee and the First Meeting

6.13.8 Developing an Investigation Plan

6.13.9 General Approaches to Conducting the Investigation

During the investigation, the committee will take the following steps:

6.13.10 Reviewing the Evidence

The investigation committee will obtain and review all relevant documentation and perform or cause to be performed necessary analyses of the evidence, including scientific, forensic, statistical, or other analyses as needed. Also, the committee should pursue diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation.

6.13.11 Conducting Interviews

The investigation committee will conform to the following guidelines:

6.13.12 If the respondent admits to the misconduct, he or she should be asked immediately to sign a statement attesting to the occurrence and extent of the misconduct, acknowledging that the statement was voluntary and stating that the respondent was advised of his or her right to seek the advice of counsel. The committee should consult with the Office of Legal Affairs on the specific form and procedure for obtaining this statement. The admission may not be used as a basis for closing the investigation unless the committee has adequately determined the extent and significance of the misconduct and all procedural steps for completion of the investigation have been met. The committee may ask the Vice President for Research or Office of Legal Affairs to consult with ORI or other relevant governmental agencies when deciding whether an admission has adequately addressed all the relevant issues such that the investigation can be considered completed. The investigation should not be closed unless the respondent has been appropriately notified and given an opportunity to comment on the investigative report. If the case is considered complete, it should be forwarded to the Vice President for Research as the Deciding Official with recommendations for appropriate University actions.

6.13.13 Committee Deliberations

6.13.14 The Investigation Report

6.14.1 Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the Vice President for Research will make the final determination whether to accept the investigation report, its findings, and the recommended University actions. If this determination varies from that of the investigation committee, the Vice President for Research will explain in detail the basis for rendering a decision different from that of the investigation committee. The Vice President for Research’s explanation should be consistent with definition of research misconduct, the University's policies and procedures, the evidence reviewed and analyzed by the investigation committee. The findings of the investigation committee and the Vice President for Research’s final determination regarding the report will be provided to the Provost. The Provost will review and assess the final determination made by the Vice President for Research and make a recommendation to the President on the final determination of the consequences for the respondent if the determination of research misconduct was made. The Provost could also request additional fact-finding or analysis. The Vice President for Research’s determination on the misconduct committee report together with the report constitutes the final investigation report.

6.14.2 If relevant, the Vice President for Research will determine whether the complainant's allegations of research misconduct were made in good faith. If the Vice President for Research determines an allegation was not made in good faith, the Provost will review and determine if any recommendation for administrative action against the complainant should be made to the President.

6.14.3 When a final decision on the case has been reached, the Vice President for Research and/ or the RIO will notify the respondent in writing. In addition, the Vice President for Research will determine whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals in which falsified reports 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 Vice President for Research is responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification requirements of ORI, and all other relevant governmental agencies.

6.15.1 After comments have been received and the necessary changes have been made to the draft report, the Vice President for Research should transmit the final report with attachments and any appeals, including the respondent's comments, to ORI or other relevant governmental agencies, as applicable. In addition, the final University action must:

1. State whether the University found research misconduct, and if so, who committed the misconduct.
2. State whether the University accepts the investigation’s findings.
3. Describe any pending or completed administrative actions against the respondent.

6.15.2 Time Limit for Completing the Investigation Report

6.16.1 The University will take appropriate administrative actions against individuals when an allegation of misconduct has been substantiated.

6.16.2 If the Provost determines that the alleged research misconduct is substantiated by the findings, he or she will recommend to the President the appropriate actions to be taken with regard to the respondent. The Provost may consult with the department Chair, Dean, Vice President for Research, and the Office of Legal Affairs, prior to making a recommendation to the President for University administrative action. The actions may include, but are not limited to:

1. Withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the research where research misconduct was found.
2. Initiation of disciplinary or termination procedures pursuant to the established due process procedures of the University and the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System.

6.17.1 The termination of the respondent's University employment, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation of possible research misconduct has been reported, will not preclude or terminate the misconduct procedures.

6.17.2 If the University finds no misconduct and ORI or other relevant governmental agency concurs, after consulting with the respondent, the Vice President for Research will undertake reasonable efforts to restore the respondent's reputation. Depending on the particular circumstances, the Vice President for Research should consider notifying those individuals aware of or involved in the investigation of the final outcome, publicizing the final outcome in forums in which the allegation of research misconduct was previously publicized, or expunging all reference to the research misconduct allegation from the respondent's personnel file. Any University actions to restore the respondent's reputation must first be approved by the Provost.

6.17.3 If the respondent, without admitting to the misconduct, elects to resign his or her position prior to the initiation of an inquiry, but after an allegation has been reported, or during an inquiry or investigation, the inquiry or investigation may proceed. If the respondent refuses to participate in the process after resignation, the 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.

6.17.4 Regardless of whether the University or ORI or other relevant governmental agency determines that research misconduct occurred, the Vice President for Research will undertake reasonable efforts to protect complainants who made allegations of research misconduct in good faith and others who cooperate in good faith with inquiries and investigations of such allegations. Upon completion of an investigation, the Provost will determine what steps, if any, are needed to restore the position or reputation of the complainant. The Vice President for Research is responsible for implementing any steps the Provost approves. The Vice President for Research will also take appropriate steps during the inquiry and investigation to prevent any retaliation against the complainant.

6.17.5 If the Vice President for Research determines an allegation was not made in good faith, the Provost will make a recommendation to the President regarding any administrative action that should be taken against the complainant.

6.17.6 University officials will take interim administrative actions, as appropriate, to protect Federal funds and ensure that the purposes of the Federal financial assistance are carried out.

6.18.1 The Vice President for Research will keep the complete file on all misconduct inquiries and investigations regardless of funding, including the records of any inquiry or investigation and copies of all documents and other materials furnished, for at least seven (7) years after completion of the case, or if ORI or other relevant governmental agency has advised the institution in writing that it no longer needs to retain the records. ORI or other relevant governmental agency personnel will be given access to the records upon request.