Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson (RMCC) Before an Allegation is filed, the RMCC:

Complainant seeks informal advice. Has ten (10) days to inform RMCC if going to file allegation.

Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson (RMCC)Before an Allegation is filed, the RMCC:gives informal advice to any person seeking advice about suspected research misconduct;

shall refer the matter to appropriate offices or officials if such a matter does not involve research misconduct but does involve some other kind of policy violation;

may file an allegation on his/her own if a complainant seeking such informal advice decides not to file and there is sufficient cause and evidence to warrant inquiry.

COMPLAINANT FLOWCHART

KeyComplainant = the person making the allegationDean = Dean of the Respondent’s DepartmentDO = Deciding OfficialOIG = Office of Inspector GeneralORI = Office of Research IntegrityRespondent = the accusedRM = Research MisconductRMC = Research Misconduct CommitteeRMCC = Research Misconduct Committee ChairpersonRMP = Research Misconduct Policy

ComplainantComplainant = the person alleging Research Misconduct.Confidentiality: all individuals involved in the case are expected to maintain and preserve privacy consistent with the law for all parties to the procedures (including respondent(s), complainant(s), the Research Misconduct Committee members, Deciding Official, and witness(es)). During the investigation, all University personnel with information regarding the allegations will afford the affected individual(s) (including respondents, complainants, and research subjects) confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible. Personnel acting pursuant to the Research Misconduct process will not disclose complainant's identity to respondent. However, anonymity cannot be guaranteed. Though the University limits disclosure of complainant’s identity to those who need to know to the extent possible, the University cannot stop respondent from learning complainant’s identity by inference (e.g. if there are only so many people in a position to posses the knowledge necessary to make an allegation).

Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson (RMCC)If there is a conflict of interest with the RMCC, allegation should be submitted to the Dean of the department of the accused (Respondent). If the Dean is conflicted out, the Complainant should submit the allegation to the Senior VP for Academic Affairs, Colleen Hegranes.

Complainant files written allegation

may file allegation on own

Informal ConsultationRMCC and Dean (of the Department of the Respondent) informally consult with Complainant and notifies him/her of the Research Misconduct Policy process.

Complainant.May comment on Inquiry Report w/in 5 days of notice

Inquiry ReportAfter the Informal Consultation and notice is given, the RMCC and the Dean submit the Inquiry Report to the Deciding Official (DO).

The RMCC and Dean should attempt to complete the report in 30 days.

The RMCC notifies the Respondent and Complainant of the Inquiry Report by giving them copies of the Inquiry Report and waiting 5 days for them to comment. Any identifying information regarding complainant must be redacted from respondent's copy.

Deciding Official (DO), Colleen Hegranes

Determines whether sufficient evidence of possible Research Misconduct to justify an investigation.

If No Reasonable Basis for Investigation, notifies Respondent and Complainant.

If Complainant requests re-review in writing within 5 days of notice of closure, may re-open investigation within 30 days of appeal. If re-opens investigation, gives notice to Respondent and Complainant.

Inquiry Report submitted to the Deciding Official by RMCC and Dean

Research Misconduct Committee Chair (RMCC)

Receives and considers any written objection to an RMC Member for bias or conflict of interest if filed by Complainant or Respondent w/in 5 days of Respondent receiving notice of RMC membership list. The Research Misconduct Committee Chair will determine whether to replace the challenged member with a qualified substitute.

If DO decides investigation warranted, then, within thirty (30) days, Investigation begins and RMCC appoints Research Misconduct Committee

ComplainantThe RMCC will notify complainant of the names of the members of the Research Misconduct Committee.

Complainant may submit to the RMCC a written objection of any member of the committee based on an active conflict of interest (e.g. a Committee member is an academic advisor or faculty member in a student complainant's major, or a department chair within a faculty member's department, etc.) within five (5) days of receiving the notification.

Preliminary Investigation ReportRMC Drafts the Preliminary Investigation Report which reviews all the info considered by the RMC, states detailed evidence that supports or refutes each allegation in the charge, and states a conclusion on whether each allegation is Research Misconduct.

RMCCRMCC gives a copy of the RMC's Preliminary Investigation Report to Respondent and Complainant. Complainant's identity redacted from Respondent's copy. Informs Respondent and Complainant of the Preliminary Report's confidentiality and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure confidentiality (e.g. requesting signed confidentiality statement or requiring one to go to the Chairperson's office to view the report).

RMC Interviews

ComplainantInterviewed by RMC. May comment on recordings/transcripts of his/her interview within five (5) days of receiving recording or transcript of interview.

ComplainantMay comment in writing on Preliminary Investigation Report within five (5) working days of receiving notice. Submits comments to RMC.

Research Misconduct Committee (RMC).receives and must consider any comments to Preliminary Investigation Report

DO, Colleen Hegranes,

If the decision differs from that of the Research Misconduct Committee, then DO explains in written detail the basis for her different decision. The DO's explanation should be consistent with the definition of Research Misconduct, University policies and procedures, and the evidence reviewed and analyzed by the Committee.

After issuing decision, notifies in writing Respondent and Complainant of the decision.

RMC drafts the complete Investigation Report which, along with Respondent and Complainant comments, is submitted to DO. DO consults with RMCCand then issues decision.

Dean (of the department of the Respondent)

Confidentiality: all individuals involved in the case are expected to maintain and preserve privacy consistent with the law for all parties to the procedures (including respondent(s), complainant(s), the Research Misconduct Committee members, Deciding Official, and witness(es)). During the investigation, all University personnel with information regarding the allegations will afford the affected individual(s) (including respondents, complainants, and research subjects) confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible. Personnel acting pursuant to the Research Misconduct process will not disclose complainant's identity to respondent.

Dean is informed of allegation by Research Misconduct Committee Chair (RMCC)

If the RMCC is conflicted out, the Complainant files directly with the Dean, unless the Dean is conflicted out as well.

Conflict of InterestIf the RMCC is conflicted out, the Dean assumes all the responsibilities of the RMCC. SEE the RMCC Flowchart. If the Dean is conflicted out, the Complainant should file with Senior VP for Academic Affairs, Colleen Hegranes.

RMCC assists

If someone seeks informal advice regarding Research

Misconduct and the Research Misconduct Chair is not

conflicted out, the Dean should refer the inquirer to the Chair.


DEAN FLOWCHART

InquiryThe Inquiry must be completed within sixty (60) calendar days from the day the inquiry is initiated unless circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If the inquiry takes longer than sixty (60) days to complete, the inquiry record must include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the sixty (60)-day period.If the inquiry identifies additional respondents, the RMCC and Dean must notify them.

Informal ConsultationRMCC and Dean informally consult with Respondent and Complainant.

Notify Complainant of:o The Research Misconduct Policy process;

Notify Respondent of:o Nature of the Chargeso Written statement of allegationo Copy of research misconduct policyo Explain research misconduct processo Summary of evidence if allegation based on extensive documentationo Warns Respondent that uncooperative behavior may lead to recommendation that investigation justifiedo Ask for docs/names of who might help clear the claim against Respondento Respondent has supervised access to all evidence held by RMCo Respondent has the responsibility to:

inform the RMCC of his/her preliminary explanation Provide all evidence relevant to the allegation

o Respondent has a right to: Seek counsel (legal or otherwise) Protection from false accusations

Inquiry ReportAfter the Informal Consultation and notice is given, the RMCC and the Dean submit the Inquiry Report to the Deciding Official (DO). The purpose of the Inquiry Report is to determine whether an allegation may be true and eliminate frivolous, unjustified, or clearly mistaken allegations. The Inquiry Report recommends whether further investigation is warranted or a closing of the case. The Inquiry Report must include:

o Name and position of the person(s) against whom the allegations have been made,o General nature of the allegations, o Basis for recommending that the alleged actions warrant an investigation, o Any comments on the report by the respondent or complainant,o And PHS support including, if applicable, grant applications, contracts, publications listing PHS support, and PHS application or grant number(s) involved.

RMCC assists

Inquiry Report Cont’d

If there is an admission of Research Misconduct, the Inquiry Report recommends sanctions and is forwarded to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI).



Inquiry Report. After receiving an allegation of Research Misconduct and conducting an inquiry, the Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson (RMCC) and the Dean of the department of the Respondent submit to the DO an Inquiry Report which recommends whether further investigation warranted by eliminating frivolous, unjustified, or clearly mistaken allegations.

Deciding Official (DO), Colleen Hegranes, Confidentiality: all individuals involved in the case are expected to maintain and preserve privacy consistent with the law for all parties to the procedures (including respondent(s), complainant(s), the Research Misconduct Committee members, Deciding Official, and witness(es)). During the investigation, all University personnel with information regarding the allegations will afford the affected individual(s) (including respondents, complainants, and research subjects) confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible. Personnel acting pursuant to the Research Misconduct process will not disclose complainant's identity to respondent.

DO Must:

o Determine whether sufficient evidence of possible Research Misconduct to justify an investigation.

o If the DO determines that an investigation is warranted, s/he must put the finding in writing.

o If the Deciding Official determines than an investigation is not warranted, s/he must state so, along with reasons why, in writing. The Deciding Official’s written determination shall be forwarded to the Research Misconduct Committee Chair in order for it to be made part of the records.

o If No Reasonable Basis for Investigation, notifies Respondent and Complainant.

If Complainant requests re-review in writing within 5 days of notice of closure, may re-open investigation within 30 days of appeal. If re-opens investigation, gives notice to Respondent and Complainant

Complainant(person making allegation) may request re-review of decision to close the case.

Notice to RMCCIf Investigation warranted and forwards written determination to RMCC.


DECIDING OFFICIAL (DO), COLLEEN HEGRANES, FLOWCHART

Investigation ReportThe RMCC appoints the Research Misconduct Committee (RMC) which conducts an investigation and drafts the complete Investigation Report which it then Forwards by to DO

DO Must:

After consultation with Research Misconduct Chairperson, issues a decision. If the decision differs from that of the Research Misconduct Committee, then DO explains in written detail the basis for her different decision. The DO's explanation should be consistent with the definition of Research Misconduct, University policies and procedures, and the evidence reviewed and analyzed by the Committee.

After issuing decision, notifies in writing Respondent and Complainant of the decision. Notice to Respondent must not contain complainant's identity.

Decides whether to notify law enforcement agencies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals in which false reports may have been published, collaborators of respondent in work or other relevant parties.

If Research Misconduct found, then decides what disciplinary action to take within 15 days of receiving the report and gives written notice and reasons to Respondent.

If Research Misconduct is not found, the Deciding Official will consult the respondent to determine what actions, if any, should be taken to ensure that the researcher's reputation is protected or restored. The Decisional Official will implement appropriate actions, including issuing statements of exoneration, if required.

Regardless if Research Misconduct found, discuss with Respondent the appropriateness and desirability of notifying other individuals or agencies about the outcome.

Respondent (the accused)Confidentiality: all individuals involved in the case are expected to maintain and preserve privacy consistent with the law for all parties to the procedures (including respondent(s), complainant(s), the Research Misconduct Committee members, Deciding Official, and witness(es)). During the investigation, all University personnel with information regarding the allegations will afford the affected individual(s) (including respondents, complainants, and research subjects) confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible. Personnel acting pursuant to the Research Misconduct process will not disclose complainant's identity to respondent.

Inquiry

If the inquiry identifies additional respondents, the RMCC and Dean must notify them.

Informal ConsultationResearch Misconduct Committee Chairperson (RMCC) and Dean (of the department of the Respondent) informally consult with Respondent.

Notify Respondent of:o Nature of the Chargeso Written statement of allegationo Copy of research misconduct policyo Explain research misconduct processo Summary of evidence if allegation based on extensive documentationo Warns Respondent that uncooperative behavior may lead to recommendation that

investigation justifiedo Ask for docs/names of who might help clear the claim against Respondento Respondent has supervised access to all evidence held by RMC o Respondent has the responsibility to:

Inform the RMCC of his/her preliminary explanation Provide all evidence relevant to the allegation

o Respondent has a right to: Seek counsel (legal or otherwise) on his/her own Protection from false accusations


RESPONDENT FLOWCHART

Respondent's AdmissionIf the Respondent admits Research Misconduct, then s/he is asked to sign a statement attesting to the occurrence and extent of the research misconduct.

Deciding Official (DO), Colleen Hegranes

Determines whether sufficient evidence of possible Research Misconduct to justify an investigation.

If No Reasonable Basis for Investigation, notifies Respondent and Complainant.

If Complainant requests re-review in writing within 5 days of notice of closure, may re-open investigation within 30 days of appeal. If re-opens investigation, gives notice to Respondent and Complainant.

Inquiry Report submitted to the Deciding Official by RMCC and Dean


o the name and position of the person(s) against whom the allegations have been made,o the general nature of the allegations, o the basis for recommending that the alleged actions warrant an investigation, o any comments on the report by the respondent or complainant,o and PHS support including, if applicable, grant applications, contracts, publications listing PHS support, and PHS application or grant number(s) involved.




Respondent.May comment on Inquiry Report w/in 5 days of notice

Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson (RMCC).Redacts complainant's identity from any material given to Respondent.

Before the investigation begins, notifies in writing the Respondent of:o Research project involvedo Specific allegationso Definition of Research Misconducto Identity of federal funds involvedo List of names of RMC memberso Opportunity for

Challenges to the RMC members for bias or conflict of interest Counsel's assistance Respondent to be interviewed Present evidence Comment on draft investigation report

o Respondent's obligation to cooperateo Provision protecting complainant against retaliationo Copy of the inquiry report (with complainant's identity redacted)o Copy of the University’s Research Misconduct policies and procedureso Either a copy or a reference to Title 42 Part 93 of the Code of Federal Regulations o Any new subject matter if RMCC determines such notice is necessaryo Any new allegations of research misconduct within a reasonable amount of time of

decision to pursue allegations

Receives and considers any written objection to an RMC Member for bias or conflict of interest if filed by Respondent w/in 5 days of Respondent receiving notice of RMC membership list. The Research Misconduct Committee Chair will determine whether to replace the challenged member with a qualified substitute.

Notifies any additional respondents if RMCC determines such notice is necessary

Gives the RMC's Preliminary Report's conclusion to Respondent and Complainant. Informs

Respondent and Complainant of the Preliminary Report's confidentiality and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure confidentiality (e.g. requesting signed confidentiality statement or requiring one to go to the Chairperson's office to view the report).

If DO decides investigation warranted, then, within 30 days of such determination, RMCC appoints Research Misconduct Committee and gives notice to Respondent.

Preliminary Investigation ReportResearch Misconduct Committee (RMC) drafts

the Preliminary Investigation Report which reviews all the info considered by the RMC, states detailed evidence that supports or refutes each allegation in the charge, and states a conclusion on whether each allegation is Research Misconduct.

RMCCRMCC gives a copy of the RMC's Preliminary Investigation Report to Respondent and Complainant. Complainant's identity redacted from Respondent's copy. Informs Respondent and Complainant of the Preliminary Report's confidentiality and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure confidentiality (e.g. requesting signed confidentiality statement or requiring one to go to the Chairperson's office to view the report).

RespondentMay comment in writing on Preliminary Investigation Report within five (5) working days of receiving notice. Submits comments to RMC.

Research Misconduct Committee (RMC).receives and must consider any comments to Preliminary Report

RMC drafts a complete Investigation Report which , along with Respondent and Complainant comments, issubmitted to DO. DO consults with RMCCand then issues decision.

Respondentmay submit to the RMCC an objection for bias/conflict of interest (e.g. a Committee member is an academic advisor or faculty member in a student complainant's major, or a department chair within a faculty member's department, etc.) of an RMC member in writing within five (5) days of receiving notice.

RMC Interviews

RespondentInterviewed by RMC. May comment on recordings/transcripts of his/her interview within five (5) days of receiving recording or transcript of interview.

RMCC informs al parties that all inform cannot be released unless and until allegations result in a finding of Research Misconduct and final discipline is imposed; or as required by federal or state law.

DO, Colleen Hegranes, If the decision differs from that of the Research Misconduct Committee, then DO explains in written detail the basis for her different decision. The DO's explanation should be consistent

with the definition of Research Misconduct, University policies and procedures, and the evidence reviewed and analyzed by the Committee.

After issuing decision, notifies in writing Respondent and Complainant of the decision.

If Research Misconduct found, then decides what disciplinary action to take within 15 days of receiving the report and gives written notice and reasons to Respondent.

If Research Misconduct is not found, the Deciding Official will consult the Respondent to determine what actions, if any, should be taken to ensure that the researcher's reputation is protected or restored. The Decisional Official will implement appropriate actions, including issuing statements of exoneration, if required.

Regardless if Research Misconduct found, discuss with Respondent the appropriateness and desirability of notifying other individuals or agencies about the outcome.

RESEARCH MISCONDUCT COMMITTEE (RMC) FLOWCHART

Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson (RMCC)appoints members of Research Misconduct Committee. RMCC may remove members for bias/conflicts of interest if a request for removal filed by Respondent, Complainant, or a Committee Member.

Research Misconduct Committee (RMC)


If a member of the Committee believes that she or he has a conflict of interest with the respondent or complainant, she or he may file a written request stating her/his reasons to recuse herself or himself from the Committee with the Committee Chairperson. The Chairperson then determines whether to approve the request.

The RMC is a fact-finding entity with significant influence on the decision maker.

Committee has odd # of members and may be composed of scientists, subject matter experts, administrators, lawyers, or other qualified persons from inside or outside the University. The Committee shall be comprised of and limited to: two (2) persons from the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs Advisory Committee, one (1) person from the Institutional Review Board, one (1) person from the Faculty Grievance Committee, one (1) person who is a staff member, and one (1) student.

In making its ultimate recommendation of whether there was Research Misconduct, the RMC:o Places the Burden of Proof on the University to support its conclusions and findings

by a preponderance of the evidence;o Considers whether falsification, fabrication, misappropriation or plagiarism

occurred in the proposing, conducting, or reporting of research or whether and why there was a serious deviation from accepted practices in the research community at the time the alleged misconduct was committed;

o Considers whether there is sufficient evidence of intent and the prohibited act. To be research misconduct, such actions must depart from the accepted practices of the relevant;

o

KeyComplainant = the person making the allegationDean = Dean of the Respondent’s DepartmentDO = Deciding OfficialOIG = Office of Inspector GeneralORI = Office of Research IntegrityPHS = Public Health Service (e.g. NIH, FDA, CDC, etc.)Respondent = the accusedRM = Research MisconductRMC = Research Misconduct CommitteeRMCC = Research Misconduct Committee ChairpersonRMP = Research Misconduct Policy

Research Misconduct Committee (RMC) Cont’d

o research community and be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. Evidence of research misconduct includes :

respondent having research records and destroying them; having the opportunity to maintain the records but not doing so; or maintaining records and failing to produce them in a timely manner;

o Considers whether the Respondent presented substantial evidence of honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data such that RM cannot be proven by preponderance of the evidence

First Meeting & InterviewsThe RMC holds its first meeting with the Chairperson. Then the RMC conducts interviews for which:

o Documents and research data are reviewed and questions prepared in advance of the meeting;

o The Committee appoints one person to lead each interview;

o The Committee deliberates over any significant questions arising during the interview via a recess without the interviewee present;

o Each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation is interviewed;

o The interview is tape-recorded and transcribed;o Each witness has the opportunity to respond to

inconsistencies between his/her testimony, evidence, or other testimony subject to reasonable steps to maintain confidentiality of testimony of the Respondent

and other witnesses ; ando Recordings or transcripts of each interview are

given to each respective interviewee who may then comment on them.

The Committee gives summaries or transcripts of each interview to each respective interviewee who may comment.

Interviewees may comment on recordings/transcripts of each's interview within five (5) days of receiving recording or transcript of interview

Investigation Report Then the RMC drafts the Preliminary Investigation Report which:o reviews all information considered by the Committee;o states detailed evidence that supports or refutes each allegation in the charge;

ando states a conclusion on whether each allegation constitutes Research Misconduct.

The RMC considers any comments made by the Respondent and Complainant, who have 5 days to comment in writing on the Preliminary Report, and then drafts the complete Investigation Report which may include:o Background, Chronology of events, Funding agency if applicable;o Overview of investigatory process;o Overview of investigation ;o Conclusion;o Recommended actions; oro Attachments (copies of all significant documents references in the report)

The following information must be included in the Investigation Report:o Allegations. Describe the nature of the allegations of research misconduct;o PHS support. Describe and document the PHS support, including, for example, any

grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS support;o Institutional charge. Describe the specific allegations of research misconduct for

consideration in the investigation;o Policies and procedures. If not already provided to ORI with the inquiry report,

include the institutional policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted;

o Research records and evidence. Identify and summarize the research records and evidence reviewed, and identify any evidence taken into custody but not reviewed;

o Statement of findings. For each separate allegation of research misconduct identified during the investigation, provide a finding as to whether research misconduct did or did not occur, and if so—

Identify whether the research misconduct was falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism, and if it was intentional, knowing, or in reckless disregard;

Summarize the facts and the analysis which support the conclusion and consider the merits of any reasonable explanation by the respondent; Identify the specific PHS support; Identify whether any publications need correction or retraction; Identify the person(s) responsible for the misconduct; and List any current support or known applications or proposals for

support that the respondent has pending with non-PHS Federal agencies; and

o Comments. Include and consider any comments made by the respondent and complainant on the draft investigation report.

Investigation Report Cont’d

The Committee then forwards the complete Investigation Report along with Respondent and Complainant's Comments to the Decisional Official

The RMC then forwards the Investigation Report to the respondent. If there are multiple Respondents, then the Committee forwards all relevant parts of the report to each relevant Respondent.

Complainant (person making allegation) & Respondent (the accused)May comment in writing on Preliminary Report within five (5) working days of receiving notice. Submits comments to RMC.

Deciding Official (DO)

Respondent(s)

RESEARCH MISCONDUCT COMMITTEECHAIR (RMCC) FLOWCHART

Complainant (person making allegation) seeks informal advice. Has ten (10) days to inform RMCC if going to file allegation.

Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson (RMCC)Confidentiality: all individuals involved in the case are expected to maintain and preserve privacy consistent with the law for all parties to the procedures (including respondent(s), complainant(s), the Research Misconduct Committee members, Deciding Official, and witness(es)). During the investigation, all University personnel with information regarding the allegations will afford the affected individual(s) (including respondents, complainants, and research subjects) confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible. Personnel acting pursuant to the Research Misconduct process will not disclose complainant's identity to respondent.

Before an Allegation is filed, the RMCC:gives informal advice to any person seeking advice about suspected research misconduct;

shall refer the matter to appropriate offices or officials if such a matter does not involve research misconduct but does involve some other kind of policy violation;

may file an allegation on his/her own if a complainant seeking such informal advice decides not to file and there is sufficient cause and evidence to warrant inquiry.

Complainant files written allegation


ANNUAL REPORTThe RMCC must file an annual report with the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) which contains information specified by ORI on the institution's compliance with §93 of Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson (RMCC)If there is a conflict of interest with the RMCC, allegation should be filed with the Dean of the department of the accused (Respondent). If the Dean is conflicted out, the Complainant should file with the Senior VP for Academic Affairs, Colleen Hegranes.

Confidentiality: all individuals involved in the case are expected to maintain and preserve privacy consistent with the law for all parties to the procedures. During the investigation, all University personnel with information regarding the allegations will afford the affected individual(s) confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible.

RMCC's ongoing responsibilities include:o Document all activity once allegation receivedo Assure all involved privacy will be maintained to maximum extent possibleo On or before the date the Respondent is notified of the allegations, locate secure, and inventory all originals of all data and materials if relevant to caseo Maintain record of inquiry for at least seven (7) years apart from o Respondent's personnel fileo Take reasonable steps to minimize damage to reputations due to inaccurate reports if privacy breached

RMCC notifies:o The appropriate Deano IACUC if vertebrate animals are involvedo IRB if human subjects are involved

Dean (of Dept of Respondent)

assists

InquiryThe Inquiry must be completed within sixty (60) calendar days from the day the inquiry is initiated unless circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If the inquiry takes longer than sixty (60) days to complete, the inquiry record must include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the sixty (60)-day period.

On or before the date of the Informal Consultation with the Respondent, the RMCC notifies the Director of Human Resources of:o that an Inquiry under the Research Misconduct Policy has begun; o the name of the respondent and complainant; ando the confidentiality of the respondent and complainant's identity

If the inquiry identifies additional respondents, the RMCC and Dean must notify them.

Informal ConsultationRMCC and Dean informally consult with Complainant and notifies him/her of:o The Research Misconduct Policy process

Inquiry

RMCC and Dean informally consults with Respondent and notifies him/her of:o Nature of the Chargeso Written statement of allegationo Copy of research misconduct policyo Explain research misconduct processo Summary of evidence if allegation based on extensive documentationo Warns Respondent that uncooperative behavior may lead to recommendation that investigation justifiedo Ask for docs/names of who might help clear the claim against Respondento Respondent has supervised access to all evidence held by RMCo Respondent has the responsibility to:

Inform the RMCC of his/her preliminary explanation Provide all evidence relevant to the allegation

o Respondent has a right to: Seek counsel (legal or otherwise) Protection from false accusations

If the Respondent admits Research Misconduct, then s/he is asked to sign a statement attesting to the occurrence and extent of the research misconduct.

Dean assists


o the name and position of the person(s) against whom the allegations have been made,o the general nature of the allegations, o the basis for recommending that the alleged actions warrant an investigation, o any comments on the report by the respondent or complainant,o and PHS support including, if applicable, grant applications, contracts, publications listing PHS support, and PHS application or grant number(s) involved.



The RMCC notifies the Respondent and Complainant of the Inquiry Report by giving them copies of the Inquiry Report and waiting 5 days for them to comment. Any identifying information regarding complainant should be redacted from respondent's copy. Any identifying information regarding complainant must be redacted from respondent's copy.

Respondent (the accused) and Complainant (person making allegation)May comment on Inquiry Report w/in 5 days of notice.

DO, Colleen Hegranes,The RMCC submits the Inquiry Report to the Deciding Official (DO).

Office of Research Integrity (ORI)Any admission of Research Misconduct is forwarded to ORI.

If the University plans to terminate an inquiry or investigation for any reason, the Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson shall submit a report of such planned termination, including a description of the reasons for such termination, to the ORI, which will then decide whether further investigation should be undertaken.

RMCC receives decision from DO.If DO decides Inquiry does not justify investigation, RMCC notifies the Director of Human Resources.

RMCCBefore the investigation begins, notifies in writing the Respondent of:o Research project involvedo Specific allegationso Definition of Research Misconducto Identity of federal funds involvedo List of names of RMC memberso Opportunity for:

Challenges to the RMC members for bias or conflict of interest Counsel's assistance Respondent to be interviewed Present evidence Comment on draft investigation report

o Respondent's obligation to cooperateo Provision protecting complainant against retaliationo Copy of the inquiry report (with complainant's identity redacted)o Copy of the University’s Research Misconduct policies and procedureso Either a copy or a reference to Title 42 Part 93 of the Code of Federal Regulations o Any new subject matter if RMCC determines such notice is necessaryo Any new allegations of research misconduct within a reasonable amount of time of decision

to pursue allegations

If after the inquiry, the Deciding Official determines that an investigation is warranted, then, no later than the date on which the investigation begins, the Research Misconduct Committee Chair must give written notice to the ORI and provide a written finding by the Deciding Official and a copy of the inquiry report. The Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson shall report promptly to the head of the appropriate funding agency incidents of alleged or apparent misconduct that are judged to warrant investigation.

If the DO determines that an investigation is warranted, then Investigationmust begin within 30 days of such determination

RMCC Cont’d The RMCC must notify ORI of any facts that may be relevant to protect public health, Federal funds and equipment, or the integrity of the PHS supported research process. If ORI requests any of the following, the RMCC shall provide such material:o The institutional policies and procedures under which the inquiry was conducted;o The research records and evidence reviewed, transcripts or recordings of any interviews,o and copies of all relevant documents; ando The charges for the investigation to consider.

Notifies ORI if any of the following arise:o The health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect

human or animal subjects; o HHS resources or interests are threatened; o Research activities should be suspended; o There is a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law; o Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research

misconduct proceeding; o The institution believes the research misconduct proceeding may be made public o prematurely so that HHS may take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved; and o The research community or public should be informed.

Appoints members to the Research Misconduct Committee (RMC) which has an odd # of members. The Committee shall be comprised of and limited to: two (2) persons from the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs Advisory Committee, one (1) person from the Institutional Review Board, one (1) person from the Faculty Grievance Committee, one (1) person who is a staff member, and one (1) student.

Prepares the charge which describes allegations and any issues found in the inquiry.

Receives and considers any written objection to an RMC Member for bias or conflict of interest if filed by Complainant or Respondent w/in 5 days of Respondent receiving notice of RMC membership list.

Notifies any additional respondents if RMCC determines such notice is necessary.

Notifies the Director of Human Resources that Inquiry has proceeded to Investigation.

If the investigation cannot be finished w/in 120 days of its initiation, files an Interim Report with the ORI and requests an extension from ORI explaining reason for delay, an outline of what needs to be done, and an estimated date of completion.

Gives the RMC's Preliminary Investigation Report's conclusion to Respondent and Complainant. Informs Respondent and Complainant of the Preliminary Report's confidentiality and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure confidentiality (e.g. requesting signed confidentiality statement or requiring one to go to the Chairperson's office to view the report).

Respondentmay file bias/conflict of interest request to the RMCC regarding RMC member in writing and within 5 days of receiving notice of RMC membership.

Complainant may submit a written objection to any member of the committee based on an active conflict of interest (e.g. a Committee member is an academic advisor or faculty member in a student complainant's major, or a department chair within a faculty member's department, etc.) within five (5) days of receiving the notification.

First Meeting of the Research Misconduct Committee

RMCCAt RMC First Meeting:

Reviews the charge with the RMC;

Discusses allegations and procedures for investigation;

Assists the RMC with organizing the investigation; and

Answers questions.

Preliminary Investigation ReportAfter RMC Conducts interviews and investigation,RMC Drafts the Preliminary Investigation Report which reviews all the info considered by the RMC, states detailed evidence that supports or refutes each allegation in the charge, and states a conclusion on whether each allegation is Research Misconduct.

RMCCRMCC gives a copy of the RMC's Preliminary Report to Respondent and Complainant. Complainant's identity redacted from Respondent's copy. Informs Respondent and Complainant of the Preliminary Report's confidentiality and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure confidentiality (e.g. requesting signed confidentiality statement or requiring one to go to the Chairperson's office to view the report).

ComplainantMay comment in writing on Preliminary Report within five (5) working days of receiving notice. Submits comments to RMC.

Research Misconduct Committee (RMC).receives and must consider any comments to Preliminary Investigation Report and drafts the complete Investigation Report which along with Respondent and Complainant's comments is submitted to DO.

DO, in consultation with RMCC, makes decision RMCC

RMCC

After DO makes decision, RMCC:

Ensures compliance with all notice requirements for funding and sponsoring agencies;

Notifies all parties that no information can be released unless and until allegations result in a finding of Research Misconduct and final discipline is imposed except as required by federal or state law;

Maintains Records of Inquiry and Investigation including all documents reviewed by the Investigation Committee (also known as the Research Misconduct Committee), summaries of witness interviews, findings of the Investigative Committee.;

Keeps Records of Inquiry and Investigation for at least seven (7) years after completion of Research Misconduct procedures or any Public Health Service proceeding involving Research Misconduct unless ORI has advised the institution in writing that it no longer needs to retain the records or custody of the records has been transferred to HHS; and

Notifies federal or other funding agencies of outcome of inquiries, that investigation initiated, and the outcome of the investigation.

Notifies the Director of Human Resources of outcome and closing of Research Misconduct proceeding.

Notice to ORIPer Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations § 93.315, the Research Misconduct Committee Chair must:

o Give ORI the Investigation Report;o State whether the University found research misconduct and if so who committed the misconduct;o State whether the institution accepts the investigation’s findings; and o Describe any pending or completed administrative actions against the

respondent(s).

TEMPORARY RESEARCH MISCONDUCT COMMITTEE CHAIR FLOW CHART

Temporary Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson.

If the standing RMCC and Dean of the department under which the allegation arises are both conflicted out, then the Senior Vice President of Academic Affairs, Colleen Hegranes, appoints a temporary RMCC who then assumes all the responsibilities of the RMCC for the duration of the case. SEE RMCC flowchart for duties.


Decisional Officer Sr. VP for Academic Affairs, Colleen Hegranes appoints the Temporary Chair


Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson (RMCC) Before an Allegation is filed, the RMCC:

Documents

Transcript of Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson (RMCC) Before an Allegation is filed, the RMCC: