Administrative Procedures for Allegations of Research Misconduct Short Version (see WSU Policy 2101 for Details)

1
Administrative Procedures for Allegations of
Research MisconductShort Version (see WSU
Policy 2101 for Details)

• Draft Proposal for Powerpoint

2
Research Misconduct Policy Review
Senate Executive Committee
Input from
Senate Ad Hoc Subcommittee
College of Engineering and Computer Science
Input from
Faculty Members John M Emmert Colleen A
Finegan Richard H. Bullock Patricia A
Schiml-Webb Peter K Lauf, Chair
College of Science Mathematics
Office of Student Judicial Services
College of Liberal Arts
College of Education Human Servcies
Provost Office Stephen Angle
Administration Jack Bantle William Sellers
Boonshoft School of Medicine
AAUP Liaison Bill Rickert
3
Research Misconduct Policy
I. Definitions of
Covered /Not Covered Principles

• IA. Covered Principles
• 1. Ethical Research Conduct
• Honest and truthful data gathering and
  recording in theoretical and bench research with
  appropriate credit given to sources and
  collaborators
• 2. Research Misconduct
• Deliberate self-serving act of distortion of
  the truth by any institutional member of the
  University (officials, tenured, untenured and
  adjunct faculty, students, graduate assistants,
  technicians), thus harming the process in IA/1.
  
• Specifically Fabrication, falsification, or
  plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing
  research, or in reporting research results.
• IB. Not Covered Principles
• Sexual harassment (see Wright Way Policy
  4001.21)
• Misappropriations of funds (Section 2921.41, Ohio
  Revised Code)
• Failure of compliance with policies governing
  human subjects/lab animals
• Failure to comply with guidelines/conditions of
  external sponsors or university

4

• Research Misconduct Policy II. Definitions of
  Players
• II.1. Complainant, any member (or non-member) of
  the academic community, including students and
  technical personnel making an allegation, true or
  false, of research misconduct against
• II.2. Respondent, any institutional member of the
  University (officials, tenured, untenured and
  adjunct faculty, students, graduate assistants,
  technicians), accused by Complainant of deeds
  listed in I.A.2.
• II.3. Research Integrity Officer (RIO) at WSU VP
  for Research.
• Receives the allegation from II.1. about I.A.2
• Is guarantor of confidentiality of matters
  between II.1. and II.2.
• Initiates Assessment Phase, and then, if
  necessary, Inquiry Phase by naming Inquiry
  Committee (InqC)
• If necessary, opens Investigative Phase by
  naming Investigative Committee (InvC)
• Takes administrative actions as a result of InvC
  vote
• Informs DO see II.4 who reports results of
  InvC to sponsor if required
• Protects Complainant and restores reputation of
  Respondent if not guilty of research misconduct

5

• Research Misconduct Policy II. Definitions of
  Players (continued)
• II.4. Deciding Officer (DO) at WSU Provost
• Is consulted by the RIO at various points in the
  process
• Communicates final decisions to Respondent and
  Complainant notifies sponsor(s) if required
• Initiates administrative actions against
  Respondent if found guilty. These actions affect
  the position of the Respondent in the institution
  and may terminate external support.
• II.5. Inquiry Committee (InqC)
• Is composed of an uneven number (at least 3) of
  members of the academic community
• Receives charge from the RIO purpose is to
  determine if an Investigation is warranted
• Reviews all records, interviews the Complainant,
  Respondent, key witnesses
• Makes final recommendation to the RIO by
  majority vote
• Inquiry must be completed within 60 days

6

• Research Misconduct Policy II. Definitions of
  Players (continued)
• II.6. Investigative Committee (InvC)
• Composed of an uneven number (at least 5) of
  members of the academic community, including a
  veteran technical expert, a faculty familiar with
  the field of allegation and, depending on the
  case, a student.
• Receives charge from the RIO and deals with
  charge primary purpose is to develop a factual
  record by exploring the allegations in detail and
  examining the evidence in depth, leading to
  recommended findings on whether research
  misconduct has been committed, by whom, and to
  what extent
• Reviews all records interviews the Complainant,
  Respondent, key Witnesses
• Makes final recommendation to the RIO by
  majority vote
• Investigation must begin within 30 days of DOs
  decision that an investigation is warranted, and
  be completed within 120 days

7
RMP Procedures Policy 2101. III. Phases of Process
III. 1.Assessment Phase 2101.6.a. Determination
by RIO, with concurrence of DO, whether an an
allegation of research misconduct meets criteria
for being covered by this policy proceed to
Inquiry Phase, if it does III.2. Inquiry Phase
2101.6.ab. - 2101.7.c. Preliminary fact finding
to determine whether an Investigation is
warranted involves the RIO, DO, and Inquiry
Committee III.3. Investigation Phase 2101.8.-
2101.9. RIO sequesters records (if needed),
notifies Respondent, appoints and charges an
Investigation Committee the Investigation
Committee conducts interviews that are
transcribed, pursues all leads, and prepares a
draft report for the RIO the RIO sends report to
Respondent with request for comments, and
submits, with Respondent comments, final report
to DO III.4. Outcomes. DO takes actions as
specified in II.4. leading to either restoration
of Respondents integrity, or administrative
actions against Respondent including personnel
actions and termination of research support by
external funding agencies protects Complainant
against retributions.
.
8
RMP Flow Chart of Phases and Actions
A. Assessment Phase (1 week)
Respondent Academic Member of WSU Research
Misconduct
Complainant (WSU status
or independent) Allegation of misconduct
Research Integrity Officer (RIO) Vice President
for Research Conducts Assessment Phase (1 week)
Does complaint fall within scope of policy? If
no, no further action. If yes, notify DO
1
2
Deciding Officer (DO) Provost Concurs with RIO
3
Proceed if warranted to B.
Inquiry Phase
9
B. Inquiry Phase (total time 60 days)
Inquiry Committee Fact finding interviews
Complainant, Respondent, witnesses Votes and
forwards report of findings and recommendations
to RIO
Research Integrity Officer (RIO) Sequesters
records Notifies Respondent Appoints Charges
Inquiry Committee
4
5
Research Integrity Officer (RIO) Gives Respondent
opportunity to comment on/appeal report Submits,
with Respondents comments, final report to DO
6
Deciding Officer (DO) Determines whether an
Investigation is warranted
7
8
Proceed if warranted to
C. Investigation Phase
10
C. Investigation Phase (total time 120 days)
Research Integrity Officer (RIO) Sequesters
records (if not done earlier) Notifies Respondent
(no later than 15 days after start of
investigation) Appoints Charges Investigation
Committee
Investigation Committee Fact finding interviews
Complainant, Respondent, witnesses (interviews
are transcribed) Votes and forwards report of
findings and recommendations to RIO
8
9
Deciding Officer (DO) Determines appropriate
actions to be taken Notifies Respondent,
Complainant, others as reqd.
Research Integrity Officer (RIO) Gives Respondent
opportunity to comment on/appeal report (30
days) Submits, with Respondents comments, final
report to DO
10