CHAPTER THREE: 3230
EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION CONCERNING FACULTY AND
This section, mandated by federal funding requirements, defines scientific
misconduct and outlines the procedures by which alleged misconduct is
investigated and, if demonstrated, how it is sanctioned. It was added to the Handbook in July of 1989 and revised in very
minor subsequently. It was completely rewritten and considerably amplified in
July 1999. In July of 2008 C-1 and E-3 were revised to consolidate
university committee function and structure language into FSH 1640 Committee
Directory. Unless otherwise noted, the
text is as of July 1999. Further information may
be obtained from the vice president for research and economic development (208-885-6689). [rev. 7-99, ed.
C. Rights and Responsibilities
D. General Policies and Principles
E. Conducting the Inquiry
F. The Inquiry Report
G. Conducting the Investigation
H. The Investigation Report
I. Requirements for Reporting to ORI
When Funding from the DHHS is Involved
J. Institutional Administrative Actions
K. Other Considerations
L. Record Retention
A-1. General Statement of
a. Science rests on a foundation of mutual trust. To an extraordinary degree, that trust is thoroughly justified. But scientists are subject to all human frailties and temptations,
including at times the temptation to engage in scientific misconduct. Though such misconduct is thought to be rare, once misconduct is
suspected it must be dealt with quickly and forcefully in order to sustain the
atmosphere of trust necessary for science.
b. Not only must individual scientists behave in a trustworthy manner,
scientists must also take collective responsibility for detecting,
investigating, and judging scientific misconduct. This is not an easy task for an enterprise founded on integrity; trust
must not be replaced with suspicion. However,
when there is ample reason to suspect misconduct, that information should be
brought to the attention of persons responsible for ensuring that scientists
connected with their institution are behaving responsibly. To that end, the University of Idaho has established a policy on
scientific misconduct, has designated an officer responsible for receiving
allegations of scientific misconduct, and has created a process for resolving
c. A crucial element of any policy on scientific misconduct that is to be
fair and effective is a process that will distinguish instances of genuine and
serious misconduct from insignificant deviations from acceptable practices,
technical violations of rules, simple carelessness, and other such minor
infractions. It is the intent of this policy to allow such distinctions to
be made in a manner that minimizes disruption and protects the conscientious,
honest scientist from false or mistaken accusations.
A-2. Scope. This policy
applies to all individuals at UI engaged in research, including sponsored
research. This policy as a
requirement of federal law specifically applies to research supported by or for
which support has been requested from the Public Health Service of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
B-1. Allegation means any written or oral statement or other indication of possible scientific misconduct made to a UI official. [ed. 7-00]
B-2. Complainant means a person who makes an allegation of scientific
B-3. Conflict of interest means the real or apparent interference of one
personís interests with the interests of another person, where potential bias
may occur due to prior or existing personal or professional relationships.
B-4. Deciding Official means the UI official who makes final
determinations on allegations of scientific misconduct and any responsive
institutional actions. The provost
is the deciding official for purposes of this policy.
B-5. Good faith allegation means an allegation made with the honest belief
that scientific misconduct may have occurred. An allegation is not in good faith if it is made with reckless disregard
for or willful ignorance of facts that would disprove the allegation.
B-6. Inquiry means gathering information and initial fact-finding to
determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of scientific misconduct
warrants an investigation.
B-7. Investigation means the formal examination and evaluation of all
relevant facts to determine if misconduct has occurred, and if so, to determine
the responsible person and the seriousness of the misconduct.
B-8. ORI means the Office of Research Integrity, the office within the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) that is responsible for the
scientific misconduct and research integrity activities of the U.S. Public
B-9. PHS regulation means the Public Health Service regulation
establishing standards for institutional inquiries and investigations into
allegations of scientific misconduct, which is set forth at 42 C.F.R. Part 50,
Subpart A, entitled ďResponsibility of PHS Awardee and Applicant Institutions
for Dealing With and Reporting Possible Misconduct in Science.Ē
B-10. Research Integrity Officer means the UI official responsible for
assessing allegations of scientific misconduct and determining when such
allegations warrant inquiries and for overseeing inquiries and investigations. The Research Integrity Officer will be a UI official who is well
qualified to handle the procedural requirements involved and is sensitive to the
varied demands made on those who conduct research, those who are accused of
misconduct, and those who report apparent misconduct in good faith. The
vice president for research and economic development is the research integrity officer for UI.
B-11. Research record means any data, document, computer file, computer
diskette, or any other written or non-written account or object that reasonably
may be expected to provide evidence or information regarding the proposed,
conducted, or reported research that constitutes the subject of an allegation of
scientific misconduct. A research
record includes, but is not limited to, grant or contract applications, whether
funded or unfunded; grant or contract progress and other reports; laboratory
notebooks; notes; correspondence; videos; photographs; X-ray film; slides;
biological materials; computer files and printouts; manuscripts and
publications; equipment use logs; laboratory procurement records; animal
facility records; human and animal subject protocols; consent forms; medical
charts; and patient research files.
B-12. Respondent means the person against whom an allegation of scientific
misconduct is directed or the person whose actions are the subject of the
inquiry or investigation. There can be more than one respondent in any inquiry or
B-13. Retaliation means any action that adversely affects the employment or
other institutional status of an individual that is taken by UI or a UI employee
because the individual has in good faith, made an allegation of scientific
misconduct or of inadequate institutional response thereto or has cooperated in
good faith with an investigation of such allegation.
B-14. Scientific misconduct or misconduct in science means fabrication,
falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those
that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing,
conducting, or reporting research. It
also means any material failure to comply with federal requirements that
uniquely relate to the conduct of research. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations
or judgments of data.
C. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
C-1. Research Integrity
a. The vice president for research and economic development will serve as the Research Integrity
Officer with primary responsibility for implementation of the procedures set
forth in this document. [ed. 9-10]
b. The Research Integrity Officer will assist the inquiry and investigation
boards and all institutional personnel in complying with these procedures and
with applicable standards imposed by government or external funding sources. The Research Integrity Officer is also responsible for maintaining files
of all documents and evidence and for the confidentiality and the security of
C-2. Complainant. The complainant will have an opportunity to testify before
the inquiry and investigation boards, to review portions of the inquiry and
investigation reports pertinent to his/her allegations or testimony, to be
informed of the results of the inquiry and investigation, and to be protected
from retaliation. Also, if the
Research Integrity Officer has determined that the complainant may be able to
provide pertinent information on any portions of the draft report, these
portions will be given to the complainant for comment. The complainant is responsible for making allegations in good faith,
maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating with an inquiry or investigation.
C-3. Respondent. The respondent will be informed of the allegations when an
inquiry is opened and notified in writing of the final determinations and
resulting actions. The respondent
will also have the opportunity to be interviewed by and present evidence to the
inquiry and investigation boards, to review the draft inquiry and investigation
reports, and to have the advice of counsel at the respondentís own expense. The respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and
cooperating with the conduct of an inquiry or investigation. If the respondent is not found guilty of scientific misconduct, he or she
has the right to receive institutional assistance in restoring his or her
C-4. Deciding Official. The
provost is the deciding official and has the following responsibilities. The provost will receive the inquiry and/or investigation report and any
written comments made by the respondent or the complainant on the draft report. The provost will consult with the Research Integrity Officer or other
appropriate officials and will determine whether to conduct an investigation,
whether misconduct occurred, whether to impose sanctions, or whether to take
other appropriate administrative actions [see section J].
D. GENERAL POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES.
D-1. Responsibility to Report Misconduct. All employees or individuals associated with UI should report observed,
suspected, or apparent misconduct in science to the Research Integrity Officer. If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the
definition of scientific misconduct, he or she may call the Research Integrity
Office at (208) 885-6689 to discuss the suspected misconduct informally. If the circumstances described by the individual do not meet the
definition of scientific misconduct, the Research Integrity Officer will refer
the individual or allegation to other offices or officials with responsibility
for resolving the problem. [ed. 9-10]
a. The Research Integrity Officer will take action if any individual who
brings allegations of misconduct or of inadequate institutional response
thereto, or those who cooperate in inquiries or investigations are retaliated
against in the terms and conditions of their employment or other status at UI
and will review instances of alleged retaliation for appropriate action.
b. Employees should immediately report any alleged or apparent retaliation
to the Research Integrity Officer.
c. Also UI will protect the privacy of those who report misconduct in good
faith to the maximum extent possible. UI
is required to undertake diligent efforts to protect the positions and
reputations of those persons who, in good faith, make allegations
D-3. Protecting the Respondent. Inquiries
and investigations will be conducted in a manner that will ensure fair treatment
to the respondent(s) in the inquiry or investigation and confidentiality to the
extent possible without compromising public health and safety or thoroughly
carrying out the inquiry or investigation. Institutional employees accused of scientific misconduct may, at their
own expense, consult with legal counsel or a non-lawyer personal adviser (who is
not a principal or witness in the case) to seek advice and may bring the counsel
or personal adviser to interviews or meetings on the case.
D-4. Cooperation with Inquiries and Investigations. UI employees will cooperate with the Research Integrity Officer and other
UI officials in the review of allegations and the conduct of inquiries and
investigations. Employees have an
obligation to provide relevant evidence to the Research Integrity Officer or
other UI officials on misconduct allegations.
D-5. Preliminary Assessment of Allegations. Upon receiving an allegation of scientific misconduct, the Research
Integrity Officer will immediately assess the allegation to determine whether
there is sufficient evidence to warrant an inquiry, and whether the allegation
falls under the definition of scientific misconduct.
E. CONDUCTING THE INQUIRY.
E-1. Initiation and Purpose of the Inquiry. Following the preliminary assessment, if the Research Integrity Officer
determines that the allegation provides sufficient information to allow specific
follow-up, and falls under the definition of scientific misconduct, he or she
will immediately initiate the inquiry process. In initiating the inquiry,
the Research Integrity Officer 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
scientific 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.
E-2. Sequestration of the Research Records. After determining that an allegation falls within the definition of
misconduct in science the Research Integrity Officer must ensure that all
original research records and materials relevant to the allegation are
E-3. Appointment of the Inquiry Board. When the Research Integrity Officer determines that an inquiry should
proceed, he or she informs the respondent and the chair of the SMC (see
FSH 1640.77) that a
complaint of scientific misconduct has been received. The SMC chair appoints three faculty members from the
SMC to conduct an
inquiry. No member of this Inquiry Board may have a primary
appointment in the respondentís department. This board conducts an inquiry to determine whether an investigation is
warranted. The Inquiry Board should
consist of individuals who do not have real or apparent conflicts of interest in
the case, are unbiased, and have the necessary expertise to evaluate the
evidence and issues related to the allegation, interview the principals and key
witnesses, and conduct the inquiry. [rev. 7-08]
E-4. Charge to the Board and the First Meeting. The Research Integrity Officer will prepare a charge for the inquiry
board that describes the allegations and any related issues identified during
the allegation assessment and states that the purpose of the inquiry is to make
a preliminary evaluation of the evidence and testimony of the respondent,
complainant, and key witnesses to determine whether there is sufficient evidence
of possible scientific misconduct to warrant an investigation. The purpose is not to determine whether scientific misconduct definitely
occurred or who was responsible. At
the boardís first meeting, the Research Integrity Officer will review the
charge with the board, discuss the allegations, any related issues, and the
appropriate procedures for conducting the inquiry, assist the board with
organizing plans for the inquiry, and answer any questions raised by the board. The Research Integrity Officer and institutional counsel will be present
or available throughout the inquiry to advise the board as needed. [ed. 7-00]
E-5. Inquiry Process. To
maintain confidentiality, all meetings of the Inquiry Board are closed to
everyone whose attendance has not been specifically requested by the Board. The Inquiry Board will normally interview the complainant, the respondent
and key witnesses as well as examining relevant research records and materials. Then the inquiry board will evaluate the evidence and testimony obtained
during the inquiry. After
consultation with the Research Integrity Officer, the board members will decide
whether there is sufficient evidence of possible scientific misconduct to
recommend further investigation. The
scope of the inquiry does not include deciding whether misconduct occurred or
conducting exhaustive interviews and analyses.
F. THE INQUIRY REPORT.
F-1. Elements of the Inquiry Report. A written inquiry report must be prepared that states the name and title
of the board members and experts, if any; the allegations; a summary of the
inquiry process used; a list of the research records reviewed; summaries of any
interviews; a description of the evidence in sufficient detail to demonstrate
whether an investigation is warranted or not; and the boardís determination as
to whether an investigation is recommended and whether any other actions should
be taken if an investigation is not recommended. Institutional counsel will review the report for legal sufficiency.
F-2. Comments on the Draft Report by the Respondent.
a. The Research Integrity Officer will provide the respondent with a copy of
the draft inquiry report for comment and rebuttal. The Research Integrity Officer may also furnish the complainant with
those portions of the draft inquiry report that address the complainantís role
and opinions in the investigation.
b. The Research Integrity Officer may establish reasonable conditions for
review to protect the confidentiality of the draft report.
c. Within 14 calendar days of their receipt of the draft report, the
complainant and respondent will provide their comments, if any, to the Inquiry
Board. Any comments that the
respondent submits on the draft report will become part of the final inquiry
report and record. Based on the
comments, the Inquiry Board may revise the report as appropriate.
F-3. Inquiry Decision and
a. Decision by Deciding Official. The
Research Integrity Officer will transmit the final report and any comments to
the provost, who will make the determination of whether findings from the
inquiry provide sufficient evidence of possible scientific misconduct to justify
conducting an investigation. The
inquiry is completed when the provost makes this determination, which will be
made within 60 days of the first meeting of the inquiry board. Any extension of this period will be based on good cause and recorded in
the inquiry file.
b. Notification. The Research Integrity Officer will notify both the
respondent and the complainant in writing of the provostís decision of whether
to proceed to an investigation and will remind them of their obligation to
cooperate in the event an investigation is opened. The Research Integrity Officer will also notify all appropriate UI
officials of the provostís decision.
F-4. Time Limit for Completing the Inquiry Report. The Inquiry Board will normally complete the inquiry and submit its
report in writing to the Research Integrity Officer no more than 60 calendar
days following its first meeting, unless the Research Integrity Officer approves
an extension for good cause. If the
Research Integrity Officer approves an extension, the reason for the extension
will be entered into the records of the case and the report. The respondent also will be notified of the extension.
G. CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION.
G-1. Purpose of the Investigation. The
purpose of the investigation is to explore in detail the allegations, to examine
the evidence in depth, and to determine specifically whether misconduct has been
committed, by whom, and to what extent. The
investigation will also determine whether there are additional instances of
possible misconduct that would justify broadening the scope beyond the initial
allegations. This is particularly
important where the alleged 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
of the Research Records. The
Research Integrity Officer 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 a 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.
G-3. Notification of Federal Granting Agency. When federal funds are involved, the
vice president for research and economic development notifies
the granting agency in writing that an investigation is underway. This notification must occur at or before the time the investigation
begins. The vice president keeps
the funding agency apprised of any developments during the course of the
investigation that may affect current or potential funding for the person(s)
under investigation or that the funding agency needs to know to ensure
appropriate use of federal funds and otherwise protect the public interest.
G-4. Appointment of the Investigation Board. When the Inquiry Board recommends an investigation, the provost appoints
an ad hoc Investigative Board to conduct the investigation. The Investigation Board should consist of at least three individuals who
do not have real or apparent conflicts of interest in the case, are unbiased,
and have the necessary expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to
the allegations, interview the principals and key witnesses, and conduct the
investigation. At least one member
of this board shall not be affiliated with UI. In order to ensure separation of the inquiry and investigative phases of
the process, members of the CSM shall not serve on the Investigative Board.
G-5. Charge to the Board and the First Meeting.
Charge to the Board. The
Research Integrity Officer will define the subject matter of the investigation
in a written charge to the board that describes the allegations and related
issues identified during the inquiry, defines scientific misconduct, and
identifies the name of the respondent. The
charge will state that the board is to evaluate the evidence and testimony of
the respondent, complainant, and key witnesses to determine whether, based on a
preponderance of the evidence, scientific misconduct occurred and, if so, to
what extent, who was responsible, and its seriousness. During the investigation, if additional information becomes available
that substantially changes the subject matter of the investigation or would
suggest additional respondents, the board will notify the Research Integrity
Officer, who will determine whether it is necessary to notify the respondent of
the new subject matter or to provide notice to additional respondents.
b. The First Meeting. The
Research Integrity Officer will convene the first meeting of the Investigative
Board to review the charge, the inquiry report, and the prescribed procedures
and standards for the conduct of the investigation, including the necessity for
confidentiality and for developing a specific investigation plan. The Investigative Board will be provided with a copy of these
instructions and, where PHS funding is involved, the PHS regulation.
G-6. Investigation Process. The
Investigative Board will be appointed and the process initiated within 30 days
of the completion of the inquiry, if findings from that inquiry provide a
sufficient basis for conducting an investigation. The investigation will normally involve examination of all documentation
including, but not necessarily limited to, relevant research records, computer
files, proposals, manuscripts, publications, correspondence, memoranda, and
notes of telephone calls. Whenever
possible, the board should interview the complainant(s), the respondent(s), and
other individuals who might have information regarding aspects of the
allegations. Interviews of the
respondent should be tape recorded or transcribed. All other interviews should be transcribed, tape recorded, or summarized. Summaries or transcripts of the interviews should be prepared, provided
to the interviewed party for comment or revision, and included as part of the
H. THE INVESTIGATION REPORT.
H-1. Elements of the Investigation Report. The final report must describe the policies and procedures under which
the investigation was conducted, describe how and from whom information relevant
to the investigation was obtained, state the findings, and explain the basis for
the findings. The report will include the actual text or an accurate
summary of the views of any individual(s) found to have engaged in misconduct as
well as a description of any sanctions imposed and administrative actions taken
H-2. Comments on the Draft Report.
a. Respondent. The Research Integrity Officer will provide the respondent
with a copy of the draft investigation report for comment and rebuttal. The respondent will be allowed 14 days to review and comment on the draft
report. The respondentís comments
will be attached to the final report. The
findings of the final report should take into account the respondentís
comments in addition to all the other evidence.
b. Complainant. The Research Integrity Officer may provide the complainant,
if he or she is identifiable, with those portions of the draft investigation
report that address the complainantís role and opinions in the investigation. The report may be modified, as appropriate, based on the complainantís
c. Confidentiality. In
distributing the draft report, or portions thereof, to the respondent and
complainant, the Research Integrity Officer will inform the recipient of the
confidentiality requirements under which the draft report is made available and
may establish reasonable conditions to ensure such confidentiality. For example, the Research
Integrity Officer may request the recipient to sign a confidentiality statement
or to come to his or her office to review the report.
H-3. Institutional Review
a. After comments have been received and the necessary changes have been
made to the draft report, the Investigative Board should transmit the final
report to the provost, through the Research Integrity Officer.
b. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the provost will make the final
determination whether to accept the investigation report, its findings, and the
recommended institutional actions. The
provostís decision should be consistent with the definition of scientific
misconduct, UIís policies and procedures, and the evidence reviewed and
analyzed by the Investigative Board. The
provost may also return the report to the Investigative Board with a request for
further fact-finding or analysis. The
provostís determination, together with the Investigative Boardís report,
constitutes the final investigation report.
c. When a final decision on the case has been reached, the Research
Integrity Officer will notify both the respondent and the complainant in
writing. The Research Integrity
Officer is responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification
requirements of funding or sponsoring agencies. The final decision of the provost is the final decision by UI
and is not subject to appeal within UI or to the regents.
H-4. Time Limit for Completing the Investigation Report. An investigation should ordinarily be completed within 120 days of its
initiation, with the initiation being defined as the first meeting of the
Investigative Board. This includes
conducting the investigation, preparing the report of findings, making the draft
report available to the subject of the investigation for comment, submitting the
report to the provost for approval, and submitting the report to the funding
agency if any.
I. REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTING TO ORI WHEN FUNDING FROM THE DHHS IS INVOLVED.
I-1. The Research Integrity Officer will report to ORI as required by
regulation and keep ORI apprised of any developments during the course of the
inquiry or investigation that may affect current or potential DHHS funding for
the individual(s) under investigation or that PHS needs to know to ensure
appropriate use of federal funds and otherwise protect the public interest.
I-2. UIís decision to initiate an investigation must be reported in writing
to the Director, ORI, on or before the date the investigation begins. At a minimum, the notification should include the name of the person(s)
against whom the allegations have been made, the general nature of the
allegation as it relates to the PHS definition of scientific misconduct, and the
PHS applications or grant number(s) involved. ORI must also be notified of the final outcome of the investigation and
must be provided with a copy of the final investigation report described in H-1
above. Any significant variations
from the provisions of UI policies and procedures should be explained in any
reports submitted to ORI. [ed. 7-00]
I-3. If UI plans to terminate an inquiry or investigation for any reason
without completing all relevant requirements of the PHS regulation, the Research
Integrity Officer will submit a report of the planned termination to ORI,
including a description of the reasons for the proposed termination.
I-4. If UI determines that it will not be able to complete the investigation
in 120 days, the Research Integrity Officer will submit to ORI a written request
for an extension that explains the delay, reports on the progress to date,
estimates the date of completion of the report, and describes other necessary
steps to be taken. If the request
is granted, the Research Integrity Officer will file periodic progress reports
as requested by the ORI.
I-5. When PHS funding or applications for funding are involved and an
admission of scientific misconduct is made, the Research Integrity Officer will
contact ORI for consultation and advice. Normally,
the individual making the admission will be asked to sign a statement attesting
to the occurrence and extent of misconduct. When the case involves PHS funds, UI cannot accept an admission of
scientific misconduct as a basis for closing a case or not undertaking an
investigation without prior approval from ORI.
I-6. ORI or other authorized DHHS personnel will be given access to the
records of the investigation upon request.
I-7. The Research Integrity Officer will notify ORI at any stage of the
inquiry or investigation if:
a. there is an immediate health hazard involved;
b. there is an immediate need to protect federal funds or equipment;
c. 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;
d. it is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported
e. the allegation involves a public health sensitive issue, e.g., a clinical
f. there is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violation. In this instance, UI must inform ORI within 24 hours of obtaining that
J. INSTITUTIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS. UI will take appropriate administrative actions against individuals when
an allegation of misconduct has been substantiated. If the provost determines that the alleged misconduct is substantiated by
the findings, he or she will decide on the appropriate actions to be taken,
after consultation with the Research Integrity Officer. The actions may include: withdrawal
or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from
the research where scientific misconduct was found, removal of the responsible
person from the particular project, letter of reprimand, special monitoring of
future work, probation, suspension, salary reduction, initiation of steps
leading to possible rank reduction or termination of employment, and restitution
of funds as appropriate.
K. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.
K-1. Restoration of the Respondentís Reputation. If UI finds no misconduct the Research Integrity Officer will undertake
reasonable efforts to restore the respondentís reputation. Depending on the particular circumstances, the Research Integrity Officer
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 scientific misconduct was previously publicized, or
expunging all reference to the scientific misconduct allegation from the
respondentís personnel file. Any
UI actions to restore the respondentís reputation must first be approved by
K-2. Protection of the Complainant and Others. Regardless of whether UI determines that scientific misconduct occurred,
the Research Integrity Officer will undertake reasonable efforts to protect
complainants who made allegations of scientific 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 Research Integrity Officer is responsible for implementing any steps
the provost approves. The Research
Integrity Officer will also take appropriate steps during the inquiry and
investigation to prevent retaliation against the complainant.
K-3. Allegations Not Made in Good Faith. If relevant, the provost will determine whether the complainantís
allegations of scientific misconduct were made in good faith. If an allegation was not made in good faith, the provost will determine
whether any administrative action should be taken against the complainant.
K-4. Interim Administrative Actions. UI 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.
L. RECORD RETENTION. After
completion of a case and all ensuing related actions, the Research Integrity
Officer will prepare a complete file, including the records of any inquiry or
investigation and copies of all documents and other materials furnished to the
Research Integrity Officer or boards. The
Research Integrity Officer will keep the file for three years after completion
of the case to permit later assessment of the case.
Back to Table of Contents
Forward to 3240