(a)
Any complaint of alleged or apparent scientific misconduct, as
defined in Part I, should be brought immediately to the attention
of the Chair of the Science Advisory Committee or, in his/her
absence or disqualification, the Associate Provost for Online
Learning (both referred to as the "Senior Administrator").
(b)
If, after evaluation, the Senior Administrator determines in his or
her discretion that a complaint does not warrant further review,
the Senior Administrator shall dismiss the complaint. If, after
evaluation, the Senior Administrator determines in his or her
discretion that a complaint does warrant further review, the Senior
Administrator shall initiate an informal inquiry ("inquiry"). At
this time, the Senior Administrator shall inform the accused of the
allegations of the complaint and that an inquiry is being
initiated.
(c)
The inquiry shall be conducted by either an individual or an ad hoc
committee selected by the Senior Administrator. The individual(s)
selected to conduct the inquiry must be objective, impartial, and
qualified to evaluate the complaint. The University will take every
reasonable precaution to prevent real or apparent conflicts of
interest between the person(s) conducting the inquiry and the
subject(s) of the inquiry. Thus, as part of the selection process,
the University will investigate any potential sources of real or
apparent conflict between the person(s) selected to conduct the
inquiry and the subject(s) of the inquiry. Moreover, the Senior
Administrator shall notify the accused of the names of the
individual(s) selected to conduct the investigation. If the accused
elects to do so, he or she shall, in writing and within five (5)
days of his or her receipt of the names of the individuals selected
to conduct the investigation, raise such objections to the Senior
Administrator. The Senior Administrator will review the objections.
If the objections are found to have merit by the Senior
Administrator, those individual(s) to whom the objections pertain
will be barred from any participation in the inquiry process.
(d)
The individual(s) selected to conduct the inquiry shall conduct
such inquiry as soon as possible. Such individual(s) shall afford
the accused an opportunity to comment on the allegations in the
complaint and prepare a written report with full documentation of
such inquiry, including the evidence reviewed and a summary of any
interviews conducted. With regard to any interviews conducted,
complete summaries or transcripts of these interviews may, in the
discretion of the individual(s) selected to conduct the inquiry, be
prepared, provided to the interviewed individual for comment or
revision, and included as part of the inquiry. The report shall
recommend a course of action to the Senior Administrator including
whether or not the allegations in the complaint are sufficiently
substantive so as to warrant a formal investigation as prescribed
in Part III. If the inquiry establishes that a formal investigation
is not necessary, the reasons for this conclusion must be
adequately documented. If the inquiry establishes that a formal
investigation is necessary, the reasons for this conclusion must be
adequately documented.
(e)
The accused shall be given a copy of the report of the inquiry and
afforded an opportunity to comment on the report to the
individual(s) selected to conduct the inquiry. If the accused
elects to comment on the report, he or she shall, in writing and
within seven (7) days of his or her receipt of the report, notify
the individual(s) selected to conduct the inquiry of his or her
intention to do so. If the accused elects to comment on the report,
his or her comments shall be made a part of the record.
(f)
A complete record of the inquiry together with the written report
of such inquiry shall be maintained and forwarded to the Senior
Administrator by the individual(s) selected to conduct the
inquiry.
(g)
The inquiry process should be completed in its entirety within
sixty (60) days after receipt of the complaint by the Senior
Administrator. However, if the inquiry process takes longer to
complete, the record of such inquiry shall include documentation of
the reasons for such delay. If, for any reason, the University
plans to terminate an inquiry concerning PHSA funded research
without completing all the above requirements, a report of such
planned termination, including a description of the reasons for
such termination shall be made to the Office Of Research
Integrity.
(h)
Throughout the inquiry process and to the extent reasonably
possible, all reasonable steps will be taken to preserve and
protect the reputation and rights of both the accused and the
complainant. To the extent reasonably possible, the inquiry process
will be kept confidential and will not be disclosed, except as is
necessary to facilitate a complete and comprehensive inquiry, or as
is required under Part V. If the alleged scientific misconduct is
not substantiated by the inquiry, every reasonable effort will be
made by the Senior Administrator to restore the reputation and
integrity of the accused. Furthermore, if it is determined that the
allegations in the complaint were made in bad faith, appropriate
action against the complainant should be taken by the Senior
Administrator.
(i)
If new evidence is brought to the attention of the Senior
Administrator after the completion of the inquiry process but prior
to the institution of a formal investigation, if any, as prescribed
in Part III, the Senior Administrator may determine in his or her
discretion that the matter be referred back to the individual(s)
selected to conduct the inquiry or that new individual(s) be
appointed to reopen the inquiry.
(j)
Consistent with the procedures prescribed herein, the Senior
Administrator and/or the individual(s) selected to conduct the
inquiry shall have at any time the authority to supplement and
clarify applicable procedures, provided that adequate notice is
given to the individuals affected by such actions.