1.8 Integrity in Research, Scholarly, and Creative Activities

I. Introduction

It is a fundamental responsibility of all members of the University community to maintain the trust of the public in all research, scholarly, and creative activities, hereinafter collectively referred to as research. To preserve the University's reputation for high standards of research integrity, university community members share the responsibility for reporting and addressing any misconduct in research  in a timely and effective manner.

University personnel assure quality and integrity in their research and publications primarily by self-regulation, adherence to professional standards and ethical codes, and reference to the traditions and collegiality that characterize research institutions. Many professional associations have ethical codes and guidelines for the conduct of research; University personnel are expected to comply with all applicable standards. Violations of professional standards and ethical codes and guidelines are a matter for peer review and censure; in some instances, they may become grounds for university disciplinary action as well.

University personnel in leadership or supervisory positions have a special obligation to foster research integrity in their relationships and in their work through examples of fastidious compliance with ethical standards. By virtue of their positions, they are mentors. 

This document articulates university policy on integrity in research and prescribes procedures for impartial fact-finding and fair adjudication of allegations of research misconduct. Its purpose is to promote compliance with the highest scholarly standards and provide for both deterrence and discipline of misconduct.

A variety of practices exist within the University for addressing questions and controversies that may arise concerning the conduct of research. Some questions can be addressed by reasoned discussion or mediation at the level of the University organization closest to the people involved. Incidents that appear to meet the definition of research misconduct as articulated in this policy are to be addressed through the procedures included herein. 

University personnel in leadership or supervisory positions have a responsibility to consult with the Research Integrity Officer (see section II.C) whenever questions arise; to protect whistleblowers and adhere to the Policy 1.15 Whistleblower Policy; and to maintain confidentiality in discussions and mediation to the extent possible. In accordance with the University 1.15 Whistleblower Policy, any member of the ISU community who believes that they are the subject of retaliation or reprisal should contact the appropriate office as designated in the Whistleblower Policy.  

II. Definition of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct that is committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly and that represents a significant departure from  accepted practices of the relevant research community in the proposing, conducting, disseminating, or reporting of research. Honest errors or honest differences in interpretation of data do not constitute research misconduct under this policy.

Research misconduct may be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment under appropriate University procedures. Such serious offenses include the following:

1. Fabrication of Data. Dishonesty in reporting results, ranging from fabrication of data, improper adjustment of results, and gross negligence in collecting or analyzing data to selective reporting or omission of conflicting data for deceptive purposes.
2. Falsification in Research. Deliberately misrepresenting research, or the progress of research; knowingly publishing, presenting or releasing material that will mislead audiences, manipulating or misrepresenting data, selective reporting or omission of conflicting data; purposeful omission of conflicting data with the intent to falsify results; adding the names of other authors without permission; misrepresenting of any information included in grant proposals.
3. Plagiarism. The appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving appropriate credit. This includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another's work that materially mislead the reader regarding the contributions of the author. It does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology. Plagiarism does not include self-plagiarism or authorship or credit disputes, including disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a research project. 
4. Abuse of Confidentiality.  Taking or releasing the ideas or data of others, which were shared with the legitimate expectation of confidentiality, e.g., stealing ideas from others' grant proposals, award applications, or manuscripts for publication when one is a reviewer for granting agencies or journals. 
5. Deliberate Violation of Regulations. Flagrant or repeated failure to adhere to or to secure the required approval for work under research regulations of Federal, State, local or University agencies, including, but not limited to, guidelines for: protection of human subjects; protection of animal subjects; use of recombinant DNA; use of radioactive material; use of hazardous chemicals or biologicals; conduct of classified research.
6. Property Violations. Stealing or intentionally destroying the research-related property of others, such as research papers, supplies, equipment, data, or products of research or scholarship.
7. Retaliation. Taking punitive action against an individual who reported alleged serious integrity in research offenses.
8. Failure to Report Observed Offenses. Covering up or otherwise failing to report known offenses or breaches of research ethics by those persons covered in section II.A that one has observed. It is the responsibility of members of the research community to avoid such misconduct in their own research efforts and to report serious violations to university authorities according to the procedures outlined in this document.

III. General Provisions

1. Applicability. This policy applies to all research by, at, and on behalf of Illinois State University, whether by university administrators, faculty, staff, students, or collaborators. In this policy, the person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is made will be referred to as the Respondent, and the person bringing the allegations will be referred to as the Initiator. 
2. Time Limitation. This policy applies to allegations received by the university within six years of the alleged research misconduct. 
3. Evidentiary Standards:

        1. Standard of Proof. Preponderance of the evidence.

        2. Burden of Proof. The University has the burden of proof for making a                finding of research misconduct.

        The Respondent has the burden of going forward with and providing, by a preponderance of the evidence, all affirmative defenses raised. In determining, whether the institution has carried the burden of proof, the RIO shall give consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest errors or difference of opinion presented by the respondent. 

The Respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, any mitigating factors relevant to a decision to impose administrative actions after a research misconduct proceeding. 

 D. Oversight Authority. The Associate Vice President for Research (AVPR) has primary responsibility for fostering research integrity and for disseminating information about integrity requirements in research practices and activities. The AVPR serves as the Institutional Certifying Official and the Provost serves as the Institutional Deciding Official for HHS- funded research misconduct requirements. 

 E. Research Integrity Officer. The AVPR will appoint a Research Integrity Officer (RIO) who will be primarily responsible for the correct observance of the policies and procedures set forth in this document. The RIO will be a tenured faculty member or an administrative officer who is qualified to handle procedural requirements and is sensitive to the varied demands to which those who conduct research must respond.

  F. Confidentiality. Confidentiality during research misconduct proceedings is to be maintained to the extent permitted by law and disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses is limited, to the extent possible, to those who need to know, as determined by the University, consistent with a thorough, competent, objective, and fair research misconduct proceeding, and as allowed by law. All persons involved in administering these procedures will make diligent efforts to protect the academic reputations of persons who, in good faith, report suspected misconduct in research and persons against whom are made allegations that are determined to be unfounded. Retaliation against reporters of suspected research misconduct is prohibited. Except as may otherwise be prescribed by applicable law, confidentiality must be maintained for any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified; disclosure is limited to those who need to know to carry out a research misconduct proceeding. Protection of confidentiality does not preclude disclosures that are necessary in the process of handling allegations of misconduct, are in the public interest, are a component of disciplinary actions and/or other appropriate action(s) in the resolution of allegations of misconduct, or are otherwise required by law. These may include disclosures to funding agencies, institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions. 

  G. Academic Freedom.  It shall be a prime concern of all people who implement this policy and these procedures to protect the principles of academic freedom and tenure that are fundamental to the academic enterprise. Academic freedom affords no license for misconduct in the research activities described in section III. 

  H. Malicious Charges.  Bringing unfounded charges motivated by malice constitutes a violation of the purposes and standards for ethical conduct that are the foundation of this document. Where relevant, the Inquiry Team's Report and the Investigation Panel's Report (see sections IV.D. and IV.F.) will each state explicitly whether there was a reasonable basis in fact and honest belief for making charges. If either report should determine that the making of the original charges or the testimony of any person was maliciously motivated, that finding shall be communicated to the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost (Provost), who will determine whether further review is necessary. 

IV. Procedures

 A. General. The procedure for handling allegations of misconduct in research is separated into three stages: an Assessment to determine whether an allegation warrants an inquiry, an Inquiry to determine whether there is sufficient credible evidence to justify an investigation; and, in those instances in which the Inquiry yields sufficient evidence, an Investigation to make definitive findings of fact and reach conclusions as to whether a Respondent has committed research misconduct.

1. Procedural Responsibility of Research Integrity Officer (RIO). The RIO will have primary responsibility for compliance with procedures and notice requirements mandated by applicable laws and regulations or by external sponsors of research. The RIO also will assist Inquiry Teams, Investigating Panels, and all University personnel to comply with these procedures and with applicable standards imposed by government or external funding sources, including any administrative, investigative, due process, or hearing requirements that may be required with respect to a particular external funding source. During the course of an Inquiry and an Investigation, the RIO will provide information about the status of the proceedings to, and respond to inquiries from the appropriate individual(s) (e.g., Department Chairperson/School Director; Principal Investigator of a sponsored project), the Respondent, and the funding agency (if applicable).
   
   The RIO will maintain a file of all documents and evidence, and is responsible for the confidentiality and the security of the file. All information and items furnished will be made available to any Inquiry Team or Investigation Panel that may be appointed.
2. Conflict of Interest - Federal regulations, state laws and University policies recognize that researchers may have financial and other types of interests in research sponsors and/or in entities with business interests closely related to their research. The term "conflict of interest in research" refers to situations in which financial, familial or other personal considerations may compromise, or have the appearance of biasing a researcher's professional judgment in designing, conducting or reporting research. If any administrator or other involved party has a conflict of interest that impacts the ability of the individual to serve on an Inquiry Team, Investigation Panel or in another role, that individual will be replaced for that case. A person who has such a conflict is responsible for informing the RIO; if the RIO has such a conflict, the RIO will inform the AVPA. The Provost will assign responsibilities to a dean or appropriate unit supervisor, in cases involving central administration personnel.
3. Obligations and Rights of the Respondent During Formal Proceedings. The obligations and rights of the Respondent during these proceedings include:
   1. The obligation of full cooperation in providing and preserving information and materials relevant to the Inquiry of the allegations. A Respondent's knowing or intentional destruction or causing the destruction of research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct. A Respondent's failure or refusal to provide research records in their possession or control pertaining to the research in question is evidence of research misconduct. 
   2. The obligation to refrain from retaliation against the Initiator.
   3. The right to submit an Agreed Statement of Facts during the Inquiry.
   4. The right to receive a written notice of the identity of the people appointed to the Inquiry Team and Investigation Panel once appointed. 
   5. The right to challenge any Inquiry Team or Investigation Panel member within five (5) business days of the written notification of the member's appointment.
   6. Should the matter proceed with an Investigation, the right to receipt of a written statement of the Investigation Panel's charge (the focus of the Investigation). If additional information emerges during the Investigation the Respondent shall be informed promptly in writing.
   7. The right of the Respondent to be represented and accompanied by  private legal counsel at their own expense at any interview or hearing for the sole purpose of providing advice to the Respondent. The role of the Respondent's advisor/counsel is non-participatory. The Respondent may not consider University legal counsel as their individual advisor or private legal counsel for proceedings under this Policy. The Respondent must inform the RIO of the intent to be accompanied by legal counsel. The presence of legal counsel at these meetings without sufficient notice may trigger a postponement of the meeting.
   8. The right to review and respond to the Inquiry Report and to the Investigation Panel Report.
4. Multiple Respondents.  When additional respondents are identified during an inquiry or investigation, a separate inquiry or investigation is not required for each respondent. Each additional respondent will receive notice of an opportunity to respond to the allegations consistent with this section. 
5. Multiple Institutions. If the alleged research misconduct involves multiple institutions, ISU may work closely with the other affected institutions to determine whether a joint research misconduct proceeding will be conducted. If so, the cooperating institutions will choose an institution to serve as the lead institution. In a joint research misconduct proceeding the lead institution will obtain research records and other evidence pertinent to the proceeding, including witness testimony, from the other relevant institutions. By mutual agreement, the joint research misconduct proceeding may include committee members from the institutions involved. The determination of whether further inquiry and/or investigation is warranted, whether research misconduct occurred, and the institutional actions to be taken may be made by the institutions jointly or tasked to the lead institution. 
6. Timeliness and Discretion to modify process for Good Cause. All procedures prescribed in this document should be conducted expeditiously. After consultation with the RIO and the Respondent (if feasible), the Provost may extend any of the time periods and make other reasonable alterations of the procedures set forth in this policy for good cause, provided that the changes do not infringe upon a Respondent's rights or ability to defend against the allegations. 

B. Initiation of Formal Procedures. Any member of the University community who becomes aware of misconduct in research is obligated to report the incident or practice, and provide all relevant information or evidence.  The report may be made to the Chair, Director, or appropriate supervisor of the unit in which the person alleged to have committed the misconduct (that is, the Respondent) holds principal appointment, or to the RIO. The individual who received the report will formally notify the other parties (Chair, Director, or unit supervisor), in writing (including email), within one (1) business day of receiving the report of the allegation. In addition to reports received, if the RIO becomes aware of misconduct situations that may be in violation of this policy, the RIO shall refer the matter to an appropriate University official to determine if formal procedures under this policy should be initiated.

1. Transmission of Report of Allegation. Unless the Chair, Director or appropriate unit supervisor in which the person alleged to have committed the misconduct determines that a report or allegation of misconduct in research is clearly frivolous or mistaken, or should be referred to another body (for example, Academic Freedom, Ethics, and Grievance Committee (AFEGC), University Hearing Panel in Student Conduct and Community Responsibilities (SCCR)), the RIO shall begin the Institutional Assessment. 
2. Institutional Assessment. Within ten (10) business days after transmission of the report of  the allegation, the RIO, will determine whether the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct and whether the evidence is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. If so, an inquiry is warranted, the RIO will proceed with an Inquiry as described in section IV.C. The RIO will document the assessment, notify the Respondent, in writing, of the allegations and of the Respondent's rights and obligations, and promptly sequester all research records and other evidence. 
3. Sequestration of research records and other evidence. The RIO will promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain all research records and other evidence, which may include copies of the data or other evidence, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value, needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding; inventory the research records and other evidence; and sequester them in a secure manner. Where the research records or other evidence are located on or encompass scientific instruments shared by multiple users, the RIO may obtain copies of the data or other evidence from such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value to the instruments. Whenever possible, the RIO will obtain the research records or other evidence: 
   1. 1. Before or at the time the institution notifies the respondent of the allegations; and
      2. Whenever additional items become known or relevant to the inquiry or investigation.

          Where appropriate, the Respondent will be given copies of, or reasonable supervised access to, the research records that are sequestered. 

  4. Dismissal. If the RIO decides that the allegation does not fall within the definition of research misconduct or that there is not sufficient credible evidence to warrant an Inquiry, the RIO will dismiss the allegations and notify all parties in writing (including the Respondent, the Dean or appropriate unit supervisor, the Complainant, and all persons who have been interviewed or otherwise informed of the charge) of the nature and disposition of the allegations, the rights and responsibilities of the Respondent and of the sequestration of records, if applicable. The RIO's decision may be appealed once within ten (10) business days to the AVPR, whose decision shall be final. At this point the matter may be referred to other campus constituencies responsible for appropriate action. 

 5. Interim Administrative Action. At any time after an allegation of research misconduct has been made and before final disposition of the case, the RIO or the Dean or appropriate unit supervisor, with the approval of the Provost or appropriate University official, may take interim administrative action required to protect the health and safety of research subjects or patients, to protect the interests of students and colleagues, to preserve evidence, or to protect resources. Any interim action should be devised and taken to create minimal interference with the regular activities of the Respondent and others, and in accordance with university policies and procedures.

6. Criminal Activities. If any criminal activity is suspected during a research integrity Inquiry or Investigation, appropriate notifications to applicable law enforcement or oversight authorities shall be made by the RIO or other involved parties; however, the Inquiry or Investigation should not be suspended, unless requested by law enforcement.

7. Termination of University Employment. The termination of university employment of the Respondent, by resignation or otherwise, after initiation of procedures under the Policy shall not terminate misconduct procedures, except by written agreement of the Provost and the Respondent. Inquiries and Investigations may be conducted, and appropriate internal and external notifications of the proceedings and their outcomes will be made.

C. Inquiry. The purpose of an Inquiry is to determine whether there is sufficient credible evidence of research misconduct to warrant an Investigation.

1.  Conducting the Inquiry. The Inquiry Team may interview witnesses or respondents who would provide additional information for review. An inquiry does not require a full review of the evidence related to the allegation. Findings of research misconduct, including the determination of whether the alleged misconduct is intentional, knowing, or reckless, cannot be made at the Inquiry stage.   
2. Appointment of Inquiry Team. The RIO, in consultation with the Dean or appropriate unit supervisor, will appoint an Inquiry Team consisting of three (3) individuals who have no conflicts of interest in the case, are unbiased, and have appropriate qualifications to serve on the Inquiry Team within twenty (20) business days of the RIO's decision to proceed to Inquiry. This timeline can be extended by the AVPR should circumstances warrant an extension. Whenever feasible, the Inquiry Team shall consist of one (1) faculty member or administrative professional from the unit in which the Respondent holds a primary appointment, or in which the activity in question has been conducted, and one (1) faculty member or administrative professional from elsewhere within the University. For the third member, a faculty member from elsewhere in the University may be appointed. In all cases, the Inquiry Team shall include at least one (1) faculty member. Any exception to the designated composition of the Inquiry Team shall be made only for good cause and with the approval of the Provost.
3. Notification of Respondent. Once the Inquiry Team has been appointed, the RIO shall notify the Respondent in writing regarding the identity of the members of the Inquiry Team, and of the opportunity to challenge the composition of the Inquiry Team. The Inquiry Team will receive a copy of this notification.
4. Challenge . To challenge the appointment of any Inquiry Team member, including replacement Inquiry Team members, the Respondent must deliver a written objection to the RIO within five (5) business days of the written notification of the appointment of any Inquiry Team member, that any of the persons appointed to the Inquiry Team fails to meet the criteria stated in section IV.C.2. The RIO shall consult with the Dean or appropriate unit supervisor. If the objection is reasonable, the RIO has twenty (20) business days to replace the challenged person with another person who meets the stated criteria.
   
   The decision of the RIO and Dean or appropriate unit supervisor, whether the challenge is reasonable, shall be final. The RIO will notify the Respondent of the decision.
   
   If at any time the RIO or the Dean or appropriate unit supervisor becomes aware that a member of the Inquiry Team does not meet the criteria stated in section IV.C.2, a replacement will be appointed within twenty (20) business days.
5. Agreed Statement of Facts. At any point after receipt of the notification of the allegations and prior to the submission of the Inquiry Report, the Respondent may submit a written statement to the Inquiry Team that the Respondent agrees with the facts alleged. The statement must meet the requirements that the conduct be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community, and the misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. The Inquiry Team may either continue its Inquiry or recommend an Investigation in lieu of continuation of the Inquiry. The Agreed Statement of Facts may serve as the Inquiry Report at the discretion of the Inquiry Team.
6. RIO Assistance to Inquiry Team . Once the Inquiry Team is finalized, the RIO will communicate the allegations to the Inquiry Team. The RIO should advise the Inquiry Team during the initial inquiry, review the allegations, and describe appropriate procedures for conducting the Inquiry. The RIO should be present throughout the Inquiry to advise the Inquiry Team. The RIO cannot be a member of the Inquiry Team.

D.  Inquiry Report

1. Time Limit for Inquiry Report. The Inquiry Team shall complete the Inquiry and submit its Report in writing no more than ninety (90) calendar days after the challenge interval is completed. If the AVPR approves an extension of the Report time limit, the reason for the extension will be entered in the Report, and the Respondent will be notified of the extension.
2. Contents of Inquiry Report. The Report of the Inquiry Team shall be drafted with the assistance of the RIO. The Report shall contain both findings of fact and descriptions of the evidence upon which the findings are based. The Report will also contain recommendations as to whether there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct and whether sufficient credible evidence of misconduct to warrant a full-scale Investigation. Potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion must be noted in the Report. If the Report recommends that an Investigation be conducted, it may propose subject matter to be included in the Investigation.
3. Distribution of Inquiry Report. The Inquiry Team will deliver the Report to the Dean or appropriate unit supervisor and to the RIO. The RIO will deliver a copy of the Report to the AVPR and to the Respondent and will retain a copy for the file.
4. Comment by Respondent. The Respondent may, within ten (10) business days of receipt of a copy of the Report, file written comments on the Report with the AVPR.          
5. Decision by AVPR. If the Inquiry Report states that the matter meets the criteria for Investigation, the matter shall proceed with Investigation within ten (10) business days after the Respondent's comment period has ended. The RIO will notify the Respondent in writing to remind them of their obligations and rights, and will also include any additional allegations that arose during the Inquiry. In addition, the RIO will notify the Complainant, appropriate campus administrators, including the President, the Provost, the Dean, and the Chair, Director, or supervisor of the unit in which the Respondent holds primary appointment; appropriate collaborators of the Respondent in the work; appropriate external funding agencies; and appropriate governmental offices. 

If the Inquiry Report states that the matter does not meet the criteria for Investigation, the AVPR, in consultation with the Respondent's Dean, Chair/Director/unit supervisor, Inquiry Team, and RIO, shall determine whether to dismiss the case or take other appropriate action. The RIO will notify all parties in writing (including all persons who have been interviewed or otherwise informed of the charge) of the disposition of the Inquiry or other action. 

E. Investigation: The purpose of an Investigation is to conduct a full review of the evidence related to the allegation, to make findings of fact by a preponderance of the evidence as to  the existence of research misconduct, and, where it is determined that research misconduct occurred, to consider disciplinary actions and/or other appropriate actions.

1. Investigation Time Limits. The Investigation Panel and RIO shall complete all aspects of the Investigation (conducting the Investigation, preparing the draft Investigation Report for each Respondent, providing the draft Investigative Report to each Respondent for comment, transmitting to external agencies the institutional record with Final Investigation Report and Decision of the Deciding Official, if required) within one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days after the decision to proceed with the Investigation was made. 
2. Focus of the Investigation. The AVPR, after reviewing the Report of the Inquiry Team, shall define the focus of the Investigation in a written charge to the Investigation Panel. If during the Investigation, additional information that changes the focus of the Investigation should come to the attention of the Panel, the Investigation Panel will notify the AVPR. The AVPR will determine whether the Investigation Panel should continue its investigation with the original focus, or with altered focus or whether to initiate a new Investigation based upon the altered focus.
3. Appointment of Investigation Panel. Within ten (10) calendar days after the Respondent has been notified that an Investigation will be conducted, the AVPR, after consulting with the RIO, shall appoint an Investigation Panel consisting of persons who have no personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest in the case, are unbiased persons, and have appropriate qualifications to serve on the Investigation Panel. A Panel shall consist of three (3) persons. A Panel for a tenure-track or tenured faculty Respondent shall consist of three (3) tenure-track and/or tenured faculty members, including one (1) faculty member from the Respondent’s unit, one (1) faculty member from elsewhere in the University, and whenever feasible, one (1) faculty member from outside the University. A Panel for any other individual Respondent shall include one (1) individual from the unit in which the Respondent holds primary appointment, one (1) faculty member from elsewhere in the University, and whenever feasible, one (1) peer professional (faculty or otherwise) from outside the University. No member of the Inquiry Team may serve on the Investigation Panel. The University faculty member who is not from the unit in which the Respondent holds primary appointment will chair the Investigation Panel.
4. Notification to Respondent. Once the Investigation Panel is appointed, the RIO will provide written notice to the Respondent articulating the focus of the Investigation, naming the Investigation Panel members, and reiterating the right to challenge.
5. Challenge. To challenge an appointment of any Investigation Panel member including any replacement members, on the grounds that the person does not meet the criteria stated in section IV.E.2., the Respondent must deliver a written objection to the RIO within five (5) business days of the written notification of the appointment, for transmission to the AVPR. If the objection is reasonable, the AVPR shall replace the person with one who meets the stated criteria.
   
   The decision of the AVPR whether the challenge is reasonable shall be final. The RIO will notify the Respondent of the decision.
   
   If at any time, the AVPR becomes aware that a panelist does not meet the criteria for membership of the Investigation Panel or presents a conflict of interest as defined in section IV.A.2., the AVPR may replace that person with an appropriate member who meets the stated criteria.
6. RIO Assistance to Investigation Panel. During the initial review of the allegations, the RIO should advise the Investigation Panel of the report of the Inquiry Team, the focus of the Investigation, and the prescribed procedures. The RIO should be present at all meetings throughout the Investigation to advise the Investigation Panel as to available and appropriate investigatory methods, to assure procedural compliance, and to provide staff support to the Investigation Panel. The RIO cannot be a member of the Investigation Panel.
7. Conduct of Investigation
   1. 1. Documentation. The Investigation Panel shall use diligent efforts to ensure that the Investigation is thorough and sufficiently documented and includes examination of all research records and other evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegation(s).
      2. Ensuring a fair Investigation.  The Investigation Panel shall take reasonable steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased investigation to the maximum extent practicable. 
      3. Interviews. During the Investigation, the Investigation Panel must interview each Respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the Respondent. The interviews must be recorded and transcribed. Any exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview must be numbered and referred to by that number in the interview. A transcript of the interview must be made available to the relevant interviewee for correction. The transcript(s) with any corrections and numbered exhibits must be included in the record of the investigation. The Respondent must not be present during the witnesses' interviews, but must be provided a transcript of the interview. 
      4. Pursuit of Leads. The Investigation Panel must diligently pursue all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion. If additional allegations are raised, the Respondent(s) must be notified in writing of the additional allegations made against them.

F. Report of the Investigation Panel

1. Investigation Report Draft. The Report shall describe, in general terms, the investigative process. The Report shall make an explicit finding of fact with respect to each allegation included in the Investigation Panel's charge, and list the evidence relevant to that finding. The Report shall then state the Panel's conclusions as to whether, by a preponderance of evidence, any of the proven allegations constitutes research misconduct.
   
   If the Investigation Panel’s Report concludes that one or more instances of Research Misconduct have been substantiated, the Report shall recommend what disciplinary actions and/or other appropriate actions, if any, should be imposed upon the Respondent. Disciplinary actions recommended should be consistent with Faculty ASPT Policies, other applicable University Policy, or collective bargaining agreement in accordance with the Respondent’s role within the University.

 2. Comments by the Respondent. A copy of the draft Report be given to the Respondent along with a copy of, or supervised access to the research records and other evidence that the Investigation Panel considered or relied on. The Respondent must submit any comments on the draft report within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the draft report.

 3. Final Investigation Report. The final Report shall be prepared within ten (10) calendar days after receiving the Respondent's comments. The final Report must be in writing and include:

1.  A description of the nature of the allegation(s) of research misconduct, including any additional allegation(s) addressed during the research misconduct proceeding. 
2.  A description and documentation of any sponsor support, including grant numbers, proposals, contracts, and publications. 
3.  A description of the specific allegation(s) of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation of the respondent. 
4.  The composition of the Investigation Panel, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise. 
5.  An inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence, except records the institution did not consider during the investigation. The inventory must include manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied on during the investigations.
6.  Transcripts of all interviews conducted. 
7.  Identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, or other research records that allegedly contained falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material, if applicable. 
8.  Any scientific or forensic analysis conducted. 
9.  Any comments made by the respondent and complainant on the draft investigation report and the Investigation Panel's consideration of those comments. 
10.  A statement for each seperate allegation of whether the Panel recommends a finding of research misconduct. If the Panel recommends a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the Report must include, for that allegation:

                         i.  The identification of the individual(s) who committed the                                         research misconduct.   

                         ii.  An indication of whether the misconduct was falsification,                                     fabrication, plagiarism, or another category of misconduct. 

                         iii. An indication of whether the research misconduct was                                            committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.     

                         iv. A statement that the requirements for a finding of research                                 misconduct have been met.       

    k. A summary of the facts and the analysis which support the conclusion and consider the merits of any explanation by the Respondent. 

    l. Identification of any external support. 

    m. Identification of whether any publications need correction or retraction. 

If the Panel does not recommend a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the Report must provide a detailed rationale. If applicable, a list of any current or known applications or proposals for support. 

4. Review by the AVPR and Transmission of Report to the Provost.  The Final Report, after review by the AVPR, shall be transmitted by the RIO to the Provost, along with the comments of the Respondent,  and the AVPR's recommendations, within five (5) calendar days. 

5. Action by the Provost.  The Provost, after consultation with the Dean or appropriate unit supervisor and the AVPR, shall determine what disposition to make of the case. The Provost shall communicate the determination to the Respondent, the AVPR, and the RIO within ten (10) calendar days of the receipt of the report. 

If the Provost concurs with the Investigation Panel's conclusion that misconduct has been proven, the Provost will proceed in accordance with relevant University policies and procedures after the conclusion of any appeals. The Provost may prescribe disciplinary actions and/or other appropriate actions responsive to the alleged misconduct. Any disciplinary action must be in line with the disciplinary articles within Faculty ASPT policies, other applicable University Policy or collective bargaining agreement in accordance with the Respondent's role within the University. The RIO shall notify the Dean or appropriate unit supervisor, and the Chair, Director, or appropriate unit supervisor of disciplinary actions imposed and/or other actions taken. 

If the Provost determines that the allegations have not been proven, the RIO will notify all parties (including all persons who have been interviewed or otherwise informed of the charge) in writing of the disposition of the matter, The RIO will make a request to Human Resources and the department to remove any reference to the matter from the individual's personnel file. 

G. Appeal Process.  The Respondent may appeal the Provost's decision within ten (10 calendar days after receiving the report. The written appeal will explain the basis for the appeal and must be submitted to the RIO for transmission to the Provost and the AVPR. Within ten (10) calendar days, the Provost shall make the final determination on the matter. The Provost is the final adjudicator of all allegations of misconduct in research that arise at the campus level.

H. Notifications. The Provost will, in accordance with applicable law, determine whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals in which deceptive reports may have been published, collaborators of the Respondent in the work, or other concerned parties should be notified of the outcome of a case. The RIO will be responsible for compliance with all requirements for notification of funding or sponsoring agencies. Notifications may also be made to relevant compliance committees (e.g., Institutional Review Board) or University units. 

I. Disposition of File.  After conclusion of a case and all ensuing related actions, the RIO shall prepare a complete file, including the institutional records that were compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, including but not limited to documentation of the assessment; the inquiry report and all records relied on or considered during the inquiry, the investigation report and all records relied on or considered during the investigation; any decisions by the Institutional Deciding Officer; the complete appeal record, an index of all records and evidence relied on or considered; and a general description of the records that the institution sequestered but did not rely on or consider. The RIO shall seal the file and retain it for seven (7) years after completion of the proceeding or the completion of any external agency proceeding involving the research misconduct. Access to the materials in the file shall be available only upon authorization of the Provost for good cause, such as court processes, legally binding demand by an external agency, or the involvement of the same subject matter in subsequent Integrity in Research procedures initiated by or against the Respondent. 

The RIO shall return all original documents and materials to the people who furnished them, when and where appropriate. After seven (7) years, the RIO will destroy the file unless the RIO makes an explicit written finding that there is good reason to retain the file. The RIO will indicate the period during which the file is to be maintained, and will enter that information in the file. The Respondent shall receive either a notice that the file has been destroyed, or a copy of the written finding that the file will be retained.