If, after evaluation of the report submitted pursuant to the
informal inquiry process prescribed in Part II, 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 of the report submitted
pursuant to the informal inquiry process prescribed in Part II, the
Senior Administrator determines in his or her discretion that a
complaint does warrant further review, the Senior Administrator
shall initiate a formal investigation ("investigation") within
thirty (30) days of the completion of the informal inquiry process.
At this time, the Senior Administrator shall inform the accused
that an investigation is being initiated. In addition, the Senior
Administrator shall decide in his or her discretion whether interim
administrative action is appropriate. When a planned investigation
concerns PHSA funded research, the Office of Research Integrity
will be notified by the authorized Institutional Official, on or
before the date that an investigation has been initiated.
The investigation shall be conducted by an ad hoc committee
("committee") selected by the Senior Administrator. The
individual(s) selected to conduct the investigation must be
objective, impartial, and qualified to evaluate the complaint, and
no member of the committee may have been involved in the informal
inquiry process prescribed in Part II. The University will take
every reasonable precaution to prevent real or apparent conflicts
of interest between the person(s) conducting the investigation and
the subject(s) of the investigation. Thus, as part of the selection
process, the University will investigate any potential sources of
real or apparent conflict between the nominee(s) and the accused.
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. 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 investigation.
The committee shall conduct the investigation as soon as possible.
The committee shall provide a full and fair opportunity for the
accused to be informed of and defend against the allegations of the
complaint. In any event, the committee shall afford the accused an
opportunity to respond to the allegations of the complaint, both
orally and in writing, and to provide information for consideration
by the committee.
The committee shall create a detailed record of the investigation
and prepare a written report with full documentation of such
investigation including, but not limited to, review of grant or
contract files, reports, scholarly publications, manuscripts, and
other documents including research data and proposals,
publications, correspondence, and memoranda of telephone
conversations; inspection of laboratory or clinical facilities and
materials; and, whenever reasonably possible, interviewing of
parties with an involvement in or knowledge of the matter. With
regard to any interviews conducted, complete summaries or
transcripts of these interviews may, in the discretion of the
committee, be prepared, provided to the interviewed individual for
comment or revision, and included as part of the investigation.
If the allegations in the complaint are not substantiated by the
investigation, the reasons for this conclusion must be adequately
documented. If the allegations in the complaint are substantiated
by the investigation, the reasons for this conclusion must be
adequately documented, and the committee shall recommend to the
Senior Administrator appropriate administrative and disciplinary
action against the accused which may include, but not be limited
to, the following:
- In cases involving PHSA funded research, notification to the
Office of Research Integrity of the findings of the investigation
and appropriate restitution of funds as may be required.
- Withdrawal of all pending abstracts and publications emanating
from the scientific misconduct in question and notification to the
editors of journals in which previous abstracts and papers have
- Notification to other institutions and sponsoring agencies with
which the individual has been affiliated if there is reason to
believe that the validity of previous research may be
- Appropriate action under Part Eleven of the University
Statutes, where such action is justified by the seriousness of the
substantiated scientific misconduct.
The accused shall be given a copy of the report of the
investigation and afforded an opportunity to comment on the report
to the committee. 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 committee 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.
A complete record of the investigation together with the report of
such investigation shall be maintained and forwarded to the Senior
Administrator by the committee.
If, after evaluation of the report submitted by the committee, the
Senior Administrator determines in his or her discretion that the
accused has not engaged in scientific misconduct, then the Senior
Administrator shall dismiss the complaint. If, after evaluation of
the report submitted by the committee, the Senior Administrator
determines in his or her discretion that the accused has engaged in
scientific misconduct, then the Senior Administrator shall
determine the appropriate administrative and disciplinary action to
be taken against the accused.
The investigation process should be completed in its entirety
within ninety (90) days after the appointment of the committee.
However, if the investigation process takes longer to complete, the
record of such investigation shall include documentation of the
reasons for such failure. For PHSA funded research, ORI regulations
require that the entire investigation process be completed within
one hundred twenty (120) days after the initiation of such
investigation. This includes conducting the investigation,
preparing the report of findings, making the report available for
comment by the accused, determining any administrative and
disciplinary action to be taken against the accused, determining an
appeal by the accused as prescribed in Part IV, and submitting the
report to ORI. Extensions of such time may be requested as
permitted by the ORI. In any event, specific ORI requirements, with
regard to extensions, timing provisions, or otherwise, will be
followed by the committee and communicated to the accused. Wherever
ORI is not involved, the committee may extend the time period in
their discretion by notice of such fact to the accused, and the
accused may request an extension of such time in writing directed
to the committee, and the committee may extend such period in their
discretion by notice of such fact to the accused.
If, for any reason, the University plans to terminate an
investigation involving 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 ORI.
Throughout the investigation 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 investigation
process will be kept confidential and will not be disclosed except
as is necessary to facilitate a complete and comprehensive
investigation, or as is required under Part V. If the alleged
scientific misconduct is not substantiated by the investigation,
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.
If new evidence is brought to the attention of the Senior
Administrator after the completion of the investigation process,
the Senior Administrator may determine in his or her discretion
that the matter be referred back to the committee or that a new
committee be appointed to reopen the investigation.
Consistent with the procedures prescribed herein, the Senior
Administrator and/or the committee 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