3.2.8 Misconduct in Research and Other Scholarly Activity

A. Purpose

A.1. Expectations

The University is committed to promoting a research community whose University members faithfully adhere to high ethical standards of honesty and integrity. Misconduct in scholarly activity, as defined in this policy and in applicable federal and state laws and regulations, will not be tolerated and may subject offenders to discipline up to and including termination of employment. The University seeks to adhere to this Policy without inhibiting the productivity and creativity of that community. The University expects faculty and other research personnel to avoid misconduct in science and other scholarly research. Misconduct not only violates the relationship between a researcher and the University but also damages the reputations of those involved and of the entire research and scholarly community. Therefore, it is the responsibility of every research investigator to avoid misconduct and to assure integrity in the collection of data, storage of records, and proper assignment of credit in publication. It is also the responsibility of all researchers and scholars to report instances of misconduct, as well as instances of retaliation against those who, in good faith, bring charges of misconduct in research. The purpose of this Policy is to set defined expectations and consequences for misconduct in research and other scholarly activity in compliance with UTS 118: Dishonest or Fraudulent Activities.

A.2. Scope and Application

Scope. This Policy is intended to carry out the University’s responsibilities under the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Part 93: Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct. This Policy applies to any person paid by, under the control of, or affiliated with the University, by contract or agreement, such as scientists, trainees, technicians, staff members, students, fellows, guest researchers, contractors of the University, or collaborators at the University.
Application. This Policy will be followed when a University official receives an allegation of possible misconduct in research or other scholarly activity (including fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results). Particular circumstances in an individual case may dictate variation from the normal procedure if deemed in the best interest of the University and the research sponsor. Changes from normal procedures must ensure fair treatment of the subject of the allegation. Any significant variation should be approved in advance by the University’s Research Integrity Committee.

B. Persons Affected

This Policy applies to all Employees, contractors and volunteers involved in research.

C. Definitions

Allegation: Any written or oral statement or other communication of possible misconduct in research or other scholarly activity made to the University.
Complainant: A person who in good faith makes an allegation of misconduct.
Conflict of interest: The real or apparent interference of one person's interests with the interests of another person or entity, where the potential bias may occur due to prior or existing personal or professional relationships.
Deciding Official: The University official who makes final determination on allegations of misconduct and any responsive the University administrative actions. The President is the Deciding Official.
Evidence: Any document, tangible item, or testimony offered or obtained during a misconduct proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact.
Good faith allegation: An allegation made with the honest belief that 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.
HHS: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Inquiry: A preliminary information-gathering and initial fact-finding to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of misconduct warrants an investigation.
Investigation: The formal development of a factual record, and examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if misconduct has occurred. If it is determined that misconduct has occurred, the Investigation will determine the responsible person and the seriousness of the misconduct, which may include a recommendation for other appropriate actions, including administrative actions.
Investigation Committee: The committee appointed by the RIO to explore in detail the allegations, to examine evidence in depth, and to determine specifically whether misconduct has been committed, by whom, and to what extent.
Misconduct: Misconduct in research or other scholarly activity includes practices that seriously deviate from ethical standards for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activity, including:
1. Fabrication: Making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
2. Falsification: Manipulating research or scholarly materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research or scholarship is not accurately represented in the record.
3. Plagiarism: The appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
4. Misconduct in research or other scholarly activity does NOT include honest error or differences of opinion.
ORI: Office of Research Integrity in HHS. ORI is responsible for the scientific misconduct and research integrity activities of the PHS.
PHS: Public Health Service is the unit within HHS that includes the Office of Public Health and Science and the following Operating Divisions: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration, Health Resources and Services Administration, Indian Health Services, National Institutes of Health, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and the offices of the Regional Health Administrators.
PHS support: PHS funding, or applications or proposals therefore, for biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training or activities related to that research or training that may be provided through: PHS grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts or sub-grants or subcontracts under those PHS funding instruments; or salary or other payments under PHS grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts.
Preponderance of the evidence: Proof by information that, compared with that opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not.
Research Integrity Committee: A group of University officials appointed by the President to determine and review research integrity Policy. Based on the Research Integrity Officer's preliminary assessment, the Research Integrity Committee will determine if an inquiry is necessary.
Research Integrity Officer (RIO): The University official responsible for overseeing the inquiry and investigation into allegations of misconduct in research or other scholarly activity. The RIO will serve as the Chair of the Research Integrity Committee.
Research record: The record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry including but not limited to research proposals, laboratory records, both physical and electronic, progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal reports, journal articles, and any documents and materials provided to HHS or a University official by a Respondent in the course of the misconduct proceeding.
Respondent: The person or persons against whom an allegation of misconduct is directed or who is subject of a misconduct proceeding. There can be more than one Respondent in any inquiry or investigation.
Retaliation: An adverse action taken against a Complainant, witness, or committee member by the University or one of its members in response to a good faith allegation of misconduct or good faith cooperation with a misconduct proceeding.
University member: All employees, students, contractors, subcontractors, volunteers, and other agenda affiliated by contract or agreement with the University.

D.1. Responsibility to Report Misconduct

Reporting. All University members should report observed, suspected, or apparent misconduct in research or other scholarly activity to the RIO or Vice Chair of the Research Integrity Committee. Any official who receives an allegation of misconduct must report it immediately to the RIO.
Informal discussions. Informal discussion may occur under either of the following circumstances:
1. Unsure of definition. Any individual unsure about whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of “misconduct in research or other scholarly activity” may meet with or contact the Research Integrity Officer on an informal, anonymous and/or hypothetical basis and will be referred to other offices or officials if the circumstances do not meet the definition of misconduct.
2. Possible misconduct. An Employee may have confidential discussions about concerns of possible misconduct at any time with the Research Integrity Officer or Vice Chair of the Research Integrity Committee and will be counseled about appropriate procedures for reporting allegations.

D.2. Confidentiality

Identity of parties. The RIO shall limit disclosure of the identity of Respondents and Complainants to those who need to know in order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective and fair misconduct proceeding.
Research subjects. The RIO shall, except as otherwise prescribed by law, limit the disclosure of any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified to those who need to know in order to carry out a misconduct proceeding.
Confidentiality agreements. The RIO should use written confidentiality agreements or other mechanisms to ensure that the recipient does not make any further disclosure of identifying information.

D.3. Protecting Complainants, Witnesses, and Committee Members

No retaliation. The RIO will monitor the treatment of individuals who bring allegations of misconduct and of those who cooperate in inquiries or investigations to ensure that these persons will not be retaliated against in the terms and conditions of their employment or other status at the University.
Protection of privacy. The University will, to the maximum extent possible, protect the privacy of those who make good faith reports of misconduct. The Complainant will be advised that if the matter is referred to an investigation committee and the Complainant's testimony is required, anonymity may no longer be guaranteed.
Complainant’s rights. In the event of an investigation, the Complainant will have the opportunity to:
1. testify before the Investigation Committee;
2. review portions of the investigation report pertinent to their allegations or testimony;
3. be informed of the results of the investigation;
4. be protected from retaliation; and
5. be given pertinent portions of draft reports for comment if the RIO determines that they may be able to provide relevant information on those portions of the draft.
Complainant’s responsibilities. The Complainant is responsible for making allegations in good faith, maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating fully with any inquiry or investigation. Individuals who make frivolous allegations or bring them in bad faith shall be subject to disciplinary action.
Witnesses’ rights and responsibilities.
1. Rights.
  1. Privacy and protection. Witnesses will be afforded similar protections as Respondents and Complainants with regard to protection from retaliation and privacy.
  2. Review of interviews. Witnesses may receive a transcript or summary of their interviews for review, correction of errors, addition of information, or comments. Interviews with witnesses will be recorded or summarized. Changes to a transcript or summary will be made only to correct factual errors.
2. Responsibilities. Witnesses are responsible for making allegations in good faith, maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating fully with any inquiry or investigation.

D.4. Protecting Respondents

Notification of Respondent. The University is required to make a good faith effort, at the time of or before commencing an inquiry, to inform the Respondent of the allegations and to notify the Respondent in writing of the conclusion of the Research Integrity Committee.
Confidentiality. The University will ensure fair treatment of the Respondent and confidentiality to the extent possible without compromising public health and safety or the ability to thoroughly conduct an inquiry or investigation.
Conflict of interest. No person involved in resolving an allegation of misconduct shall have real or apparent conflicts of interest in the matter.
Respondent’s rights. Further, the Respondent will have the opportunity to:
1. be interviewed as a part of the initial inquiry;
2. to present evidence to the Investigation Committee;
3. review the draft inquiry and investigation reports; and
4. be informed in writing of the results of the inquiry and the investigation.
Additional rights.
1. Counsel. The Respondent may employ outside counsel at their expense at any stage of the proceedings described in this Policy. Counsel may accompany the Respondent in meetings but may NOT ask questions or offer testimony. The role of counsel is limited to that of advisor to the Respondent.
2. Restoration of reputation. The Respondent has the right to receive the University assistance in restoring their reputation if found not to have engaged in misconduct.
Responsibilities. The Respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating with the inquiry or investigation.

D.5. Cooperation with Inquiries and Investigations

University members will cooperate with the RIO, Committee, and other University officials in the review of allegations and the conduct of inquiries and investigations. University members, including Respondents, have an obligation to provide evidence relevant to misconduct allegations to the RIO or other University officials.

D.6. Threat of Harm

General research. Throughout the misconduct proceeding, the RIO will review the situation to determine if there is any threat of harm to public health, federal funds and equipment, or the integrity of the PHS supported or other research process.
PHS-supported research.
1. Interim action. In the event of a threat to PHS-supported research, the RIO will, in consultation with other University officials and ORI, take appropriate interim action to protect against any such threat.
2. Notification to ORI. Immediate notification will be provided to ORI if any of the following conditions exist in PHS-supported research:
  1. health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human (e.g., a clinical trial) or animal subjects;
  2. HHS resources or interests are threatened;
  3. research activities should be suspended;
  4. there is a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law;
  5. federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the misconduct proceeding;
  6. the misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely and HHS action may be necessary to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved; or
  7. the research community or public should be informed.

D.7. NIH Notification

NIH will be notified to assess the impact of research misconduct on the continuation of the research project as originally approved by NIH. If the University determines that a change of scope or a change of PD/PI or other senior/key personnel is required, approval from NIH will be sought (NOT-OD-19-020: Responsibilities of Recipient Institutions in Communicating Research Misconduct to the NIH).

D.8. Evidentiary Standards

Preponderance of evidence. The University or HHS finding of misconduct must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
Burden of proof. The University or HHS has the burden of proof for making a finding of misconduct.
Credible evidence. In determining whether the University or HHS has carried the burden of proof, the finder of fact shall give due consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the Respondent.

D.9. Respondent’s Rights and Responsibilities

Provision of records. The Respondent has a responsibility to furnish any research or other records adequately documenting questioned research or other scholarly activity.
No destruction of records. The destruction, absence of, or Respondent's failure to provide research or other records adequately documenting questioned research or other scholarly activity is evidence of misconduct where the University or HHS establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly had records and destroyed them, had the opportunity to maintain the records and failed to produce them in a timely manner, and that the Respondent's conduct constitutes a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research or scholarship community.
Affirmative defense. The Respondent has the burden of going forward with and the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any and all affirmative defenses raised.
Mitigating factors for administrative actions. The Respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving by a preponderance of the evidence any mitigating factors that are relevant to a decision to impose administrative actions following a misconduct proceeding.

D.10. Preliminary Assessment of Allegations

Notification. Upon receiving an allegation of misconduct in research or other scholarly activity, the RIO will immediately inform the Complainant of this Policy and will bring the allegation to the Research Integrity Committee.
Assessment. The Research Integrity Committee will assess the allegation to determine whether there is a sufficiently credible and specific allegation that, if proved, would meet the definition of misconduct.
Assessment period. The assessment period should be brief. In conducting the assessment, the RIO need NOT interview the Complainant, Respondent, or other witnesses, or gather data beyond any that may have been submitted with the allegation, except as necessary to determine whether the allegation is sufficiently credible and specific to warrant an inquiry.

D.11. Records and Evidence

Sequestration. The RIO may, at or before the time which the Respondent is notified of the allegation, obtain custody of, inventory, and sequester all research records and evidence needed to conduct the misconduct proceeding.
Duty to obtain. The University must take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody and sequester all research records and evidence needed to conduct the misconduct proceeding.
Scientific instruments. Where records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the information or evidence on such instruments so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments.
Property of the University. Research records, including those produced under PHS grants and cooperative agreements, are the property of the University, and Employees cannot interfere with the University’s right to them. Contractually, records may belong to PHS or other funding sources, but the University will be granted access to them.
Persons affected. Research records may be sequestered from other individuals such as co-authors, collaborators, or Complainants.
Receipt issued. A dated receipt identifying the sequestered items should be prepared and a copy given to the person from whom the items were collected.
Copies furnished. Copies of the sequestered items shall be supplied as soon as feasible, if requested, by the person from whom they were collected.
Originals. Access to originals must be under direct and continuous supervision of a University official.
Secure retention. Sequestered records and materials should be locked in a secure place. This will ensure that a proper chain of custody is maintained and that the originals are kept intact and unmodified.

D.12. No Inquiry

Notification of SVP. If the Research Integrity Committee determines that there will be no inquiry, it will first inform the Senior Vice President of Research or the President’s designee.
Notification of Complainant. The Research Integrity Committee will notify the Complainant, in writing, that the allegation does not warrant an inquiry.

D.13. Inquiry

Purpose. The purpose is NOT to determine whether misconduct definitely occurred or who was responsible. The purposes of the inquiry are:
1. to determine if the allegations fall within the scope of this Policy;
2. to determine if the allegations are sufficiently specific to allow follow-up;
3. to make a preliminary evaluation of the available evidence and testimony of the Respondent, Complainant, and essential witnesses; and
4. to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of possible misconduct in research or other scholarly activity to warrant an investigation.
Identification of issues. The RIO will clearly identify the original allegations and any related issues that should be evaluated during the inquiry process.
Time frame of inquiry. The Research Integrity Committee will initiate an inquiry immediately upon receipt of allegations of misconduct that warrant an inquiry and will advise the Senior Vice President of Research that an inquiry is being initiated.
Review of evidence. An inquiry does NOT require a full review of all the evidence related to the allegation.
Notice to Respondent. At the time of or before beginning an inquiry, the RIO must make a good faith effort to notify the Respondent in writing, if the Respondent is known. If the inquiry subsequently identifies additional Respondents, they must be notified in writing.
Sequestration of research records. On or before the date on which the Respondent is notified or the inquiry begins, whichever is earlier, the Research Integrity Officer must take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the records and evidence needed to conduct the misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester them in a secure manner.
Research Integrity Committee.
1. Charge. The RIO will prepare a charge for the Research Integrity Committee that describes the allegations and sets forth the time frame for completion of the inquiry.
2. Inquiry report required. The RIO must inform the committee members that they are responsible for preparing a written report of the inquiry.
3. Appoint experts. The Research Integrity Committee will conduct the inquiry into the allegations and will have the authority to appoint experts as necessary to evaluate specific allegations.
4. Challenge of member or expert. If the Respondent submits a written objection to any member of the Research Integrity Committee or expert based on bias or conflict of interest within five (5) days of receiving notice that an inquiry has been initiated, the Research Integrity Committee will determine whether to replace the challenged member or expert with a qualified substitute.
5. Notification of ORI and Respondent. Within ten (10) days of deciding to initiate an inquiry, the Research Integrity Committee will notify ORI and the Respondent of the pending inquiry.
6. Interviews. The Research Integrity Committee will normally interview the Complainant, the Respondent, and key witnesses, as well as examine relevant records and materials.
7. Evaluation of evidence. The Research Integrity Committee will evaluate the evidence and testimony obtained during the inquiry.
8. Recommendation. The committee members will decide whether there is sufficient evidence of possible misconduct to recommend further investigation.
9. Scope. The scope of the inquiry does NOT include deciding whether misconduct occurred, who was responsible, or conducting exhaustive interviews and analyses.
10. Admission of misconduct. If a legally sufficient admission of misconduct is made by the Respondent, misconduct may be determined at the inquiry stage if all relevant issues are resolved. In the case of PHS-supported research, the University shall promptly consult with ORI to determine the next steps that should be taken.
11. Advice. The Senior Vice President for Research, University counsel, UT System Office of General Counsel, or any legal counsel that may have been arranged will be available throughout the inquiry to advise the Research Integrity Officer, Research Integrity Committee and/or Senior Vice President for Research and should be consulted as needed at all stages when dealing with allegations of misconduct.
Time frame.
1. Inquiry period. The inquiry, including preparation of the final inquiry report and the decision of the President on whether an investigation is warranted, must be completed within sixty (60) calendar days of initiation of the inquiry, unless the RIO determines that circumstances clearly warrant a longer period.
2. Extension.
  1. Reasons. If the RIO approves an extension, the inquiry records must include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the sixty (60) day period.
  2. Notification. The Respondent must be notified of the extension.
Variations. Particular circumstances in an individual case may dictate variation from the normal procedure if deemed in the best interest of the University and research sponsor. Changing from normal procedures must ensure fair treatment to the subject of the allegation. Any significant variation should be approved in advance by the Research Integrity Committee.
Draft inquiry report. A draft inquiry report must be prepared that contains all the following:
1. the name and title of the Respondent, Research Integrity Committee members, and any experts;
2. the allegations;
3. a summary of the inquiry process used;
4. a list of the research records reviewed;
5. summaries of any interviews;
6. a description of the evidence;
7. any PHS support including grant numbers;
8. publications listing any PHS support;
9. any comments on the report by the Respondent or the Complainant; and
10. the Research Integrity Committee's determination as to whether an investigation is recommended.
Notifications.
1. Notice to Respondent. The RIO will provide to the Respondent:
  1. a notice that states whether the inquiry found an investigation to be warranted;
  2. a copy of the draft inquiry report for comment and rebuttal;
  3. a copy of the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Part 93: Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct (for PHS-supported research); and
  4. a copy of this Policy.
2. Notice to Complainant. The University shall notify the Complainant whether the inquiry found an investigation to be warranted and provide relevant portions of the draft inquiry report to the Complainant for comment. A confidentiality agreement is a condition for access to the report.
Final inquiry report.
1. Comments on draft. Within ten (10) calendar days of their receipt of the draft inquiry report, the Complainant and Respondent will provide their comments, if any, to the Research Integrity Committee.
2. Revision. Any comments that the Complainant or Respondent submits on the draft report will become part of the final inquiry report and record. Based on the comments, the inquiry committee may revise the report, as appropriate.
3. Determination on whether to proceed. The Research Integrity Committee will transmit the final report and any comments to the President, who will make the determination of whether findings from the inquiry provide sufficient evidence of possible misconduct to justify conducting an investigation.
  1. Inquiry complete. The inquiry is completed when the President makes this determination.
  2. Notification. The RIO will notify both the Respondent and the Complainant in writing of the President's decision of whether to proceed to an investigation.
  3. No investigation warranted. If the President decides that an investigation is NOT warranted, the RIO shall secure and maintain for seven (7) years after the termination of the inquiry sufficiently detailed documentation of the inquiry to permit a later assessment by ORI for PHS-supported research of the reasons why an investigation was not conducted. For PHS-supported research, these documents must be provided to ORI or other authorized HHS personnel upon request.

D.14. Investigation

Time frame. The investigation must begin within thirty (30) calendar days after the determination by the President that an investigation is warranted.
Purpose. The purpose of the investigation is to do the following:
1. Develop record. Develop a factual record by exploring 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.
2. Determine additional misconduct. Determine whether there are additional instances of possible misconduct that would justify broadening the scope beyond the initial allegations.
Report of findings. The findings of the investigation will be set forth in an investigation report.
University responsibilities.
1. Protection. Necessary steps will be taken to protect the scientific integrity of the project, protect human participants, live vertebrate animals, and the environment.
2. Expenditures. Steps will be taken to ensure proper expenditure of funds and, if appropriate, continuation of the project during the investigation.
3. Notification. ORI and NIH will be notified of the steps taken (NOT-OD-19-020: Responsibilities of Recipient Institutions in Communicating Research Misconduct to the NIH).
Notification of ORI. For PHS-supported research, within thirty (30) calendar days of the President's decision that an investigation is warranted, the RIO will provide ORI with the President's written decision and a copy of the inquiry report. The RIO will provide the following to ORI upon request:
1. University Policies under which the inquiry was conducted;
2. the research records and evidence reviewed, transcripts or recordings or any interviews, and copies of all relevant documents; and
3. the charges to be considered in the investigation.
Notification of Respondent. The Respondent must be notified in writing of the allegations to be investigated. This notification should include the following:
1. a copy of the inquiry report;
2. specific allegations;
3. any PHS funding involved;
4. a copy of the misconduct Policy;
5. the right to be interviewed with or without counsel;
6. the right to comment on the draft investigation report;
7. notification that ORI will perform an oversight review of the report if PHS support is involved; and
8. an explanation of the Respondent's right to request a hearing if PHS support is involved before the HHS Departmental Appeals Board if there is an ORI finding of misconduct under the PHS definition.
Sequestration of additional records. The Research Integrity Committee will immediately sequester any additional pertinent research records that were not previously sequestered during the inquiry. Where the research records or evidence encompasses scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the information or evidence on such instruments. The procedures to be followed for sequestration during the investigation are the same procedures that apply during the inquiry.
Appointment of Investigation Committee.
1. Time frame. The Research Integrity Officer, in consultation with the Senior Vice President for Research or the President’s designee, and the appropriate Division Head, will appoint an Investigation Committee within ten (10) days after the notification to the Respondent that an investigation is planned, or as soon thereafter as is practicable.
2. Composition.
  1. Such committee will be composed of three (3) persons including a committee chair.
  2. At least one (1) faculty member shall be appointed to the committee.
  3. Committee members may be scientists, subject matter experts, administrators, lawyers, or other qualified persons within or outside the University.
  4. Members of the Investigation Committee may also have assisted in the earlier inquiry concerning the allegations.
3. Conflicts of interest. No committee members shall have real or apparent conflicts of interest in the case.
4. Expertise. Committee members shall be unbiased and have the necessary expertise to effectively interview the principals and other witnesses and to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegations.
5. Notification.
  1. The Research Integrity Committee will notify the Respondent of the proposed Investigation Committee membership.
  2. If the Respondent submits a written objection to any appointed member of the Investigation Committee based upon bias or conflict of interest within five (5) days, the Research Integrity Committee will determine whether to replace the challenged member with a qualified substitute.
Charge for Investigation Committee.
1. Description of allegations. The RIO will prepare a charge for the Investigation Committee that describes the allegations and any related issues identified during the inquiry, defines misconduct, and identifies the name of the Respondent.
2. Statement of duties. The charge will state that the Investigation Committee is to do the following:
  1. evaluate the evidence and testimony of the Respondent, Complainant, and witnesses to determine whether, based upon a preponderance of the evidence misconduct occurred; and
  2. if misconduct occurred:
    1. the type, and to what extent;
    2. if it is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant community;
    3. if the Respondent committed the misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
    4. who was responsible.
Additional information. If during the investigation additional information becomes available that substantially changes the subject matter of the investigation or would suggest additional Respondents, the Investigation Committee will notify the Research Integrity Committee, which will then determine whether it is necessary to notify the Respondent of the new subject matter or to provide notice to additional Respondents.
First meeting. The RIO, with the assistance of the Senior Vice President for Research, will convene the first meeting of the Investigation Committee 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 Investigation Committee will be provided with a copy of these instructions and, where PHS funding is involved, a copy of the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Part 93: Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct.
Investigation process.
1. Examination of evidence. The investigation will normally involve examination of all evidence, including but not limited to relevant research records, computer files, proposals, manuscripts, publications, correspondence, memoranda, and notes of telephone calls.
2. Interviews.
  1. Subjects interviewed. The committee, when possible, should interview the Complainant(s), the Respondents(s), and other individuals who might have information regarding aspects of the allegations.
  2. Recorded or transcribed.
    1. Interviews of the Respondent should be tape recorded or transcribed.
    2. All other interviews should be tape recorded, transcribed, or summarized.
    3. Transcripts or summaries of the interviews should be prepared, provided to the interviewed party for comment or revision, and included as part of the investigatory file.
3. Leads pursued. The committee shall pursue all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of any additional instances of possible misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion.
4. Time frame. An investigation typically should be completed within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days of its initiation, with the initiation being defined as the first meeting of the Investigation Committee. This includes:
  1. conducting the investigation;
  2. preparing the report of findings;
  3. making the draft report available to the Respondent for comment; and
  4. submitting the report to the President for final action.
5. Unbiased. The committee shall take reasonable steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased investigation to the maximum extent practical.

D.15. Investigation Report

Contents of investigation report. The Investigation Committee shall prepare a written draft report of its investigation for submission to the President. The report shall contain the following:
1. A description of the nature of the allegation of misconduct, including identification of the Respondent.
2. A description of any PHS support, including any grants, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing such PHS support.
3. Specific allegations of misconduct.
4. The Policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted.
5. How and from whom information relevant to the investigation was obtained.
6. The findings of each allegation, and the basis for the findings.
7. An accurate summary of the views of any person(s) found to have engaged in misconduct.
Statement of findings. The report shall include a statement of findings for each allegation of misconduct. Each statement of findings must:
1. identify whether the misconduct was falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism, and whether it was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly;
2. summarize the facts and the analysis that support the conclusion, and consider the merits of any reasonable explanation by the Respondent, including any effort by Respondent to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that they did not engage in misconduct because of an honest error or a difference of opinion;
3. identify any specific PHS support;
4. identify whether any publications need correction or retraction;
5. identify the person(s) responsible for the misconduct; and
6. list any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the Respondent has pending with non-PHS federal agencies.
Comments on Investigation report.
1. Respondent. The Investigation Committee will provide the Respondent with a copy of the investigation report for comment and rebuttal, and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the evidence on which the report is based.
  1. The Respondent will be allowed thirty (30) calendar days from the date they received the draft report to submit comments to the Investigation Committee.
  2. The Respondent's comments will be attached to the final report, and the findings of the final report shall take into account the Respondent's comments as well as all other evidence.
2. Complainant.
  1. The Complainant may, as decided on a case-by-case basis by the Investigation Committee, also receive a copy of the report, or relevant portions of it, for comment.
  2. The Complainant's comments should be considered by the Investigation Committee and the report modified as appropriate prior to its submission.
3. Confidentiality of report. The Research Integrity Committee will inform the Respondent and Complainant, when providing them with the reports or portions of it, that the report is confidential, and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure that confidentiality.
4. Counsel review. The Investigation Committee's report shall be submitted to the UT System Office of General Counsel via the Office of Legal Affairs for a review of its legal sufficiency prior to its submission to the President.

D.16. Investigation Decision and Notification

Decision.
1. Accept or reject. The President is the Deciding Official and will make the final determination whether to accept the investigation report, its findings, and the recommended actions of the University, or to reject the investigation report.
2. Recommendation. If the President’s decision varies from the recommendations of the Investigation Committee, the President will explain in written detail the basis for rendering a decision or recommendation different from that of the committee. The explanation of the President should be consistent with the definition of misconduct in research or other scholarly activity, the University’s Policies, and the evidence reviewed and analyzed by the Investigation Committee.
3. Reject. The President may reject and return the report to the Investigation Committee with a request for additional fact finding and analysis.
Notification of decision.
1. Respondent and Complainant. The Research Integrity Committee will notify the Respondent and the Complainant in writing of the final decision of the case.
2. ORI. Where PHS-supported research is involved, the President will inform ORI after Respondent and Complainant but before other parties.
3. Other relevant parties. The President will determine whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals in which falsified reports may have been published, collaborators of the Respondent in the work, or other relevant parties should be notified of the outcome of the case.
4. Responsibility. The RIO is responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification requirements of funding or sponsoring agencies, including submissions of the final report to ORI for PHS-supported research or other appropriate agencies.

D.17. Appeal

Discretion of President. At the discretion of the President, the Respondent may appeal the decision, which could result in a reversal or modification of the University’s findings of misconduct.
Time frame. If such an appeal is approved, it must be completed within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days of its filing.
PHS-supported research.
1. Extension for cause. With PHS-supported research, ORI may find good cause for an extension, based upon the University’s written request for an extension.
2. Progress reports. If ORI grants an extension, it may direct the filing of periodic progress reports.
3. Submission to ORI. Unless an extension has been granted, the RIO must, within the one hundred twenty (120) calendar day period for completing the investigation or the one hundred twenty (120) calendar day period for completing the appeal, submit the following to ORI:
  1. a copy of the final investigation report with all attachments and any appeal;
  2. a statement of whether the University accepts the findings of the investigation report or the outcome of the appeal;
  3. a statement of whether the University found misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct; and
  4. a description of any pending or completed administrative actions against the Respondent.
4. Record maintenance.
  1. The RIO must maintain and provide ORI upon request "records of research misconduct proceedings" as defined by the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Section 93.317: Retention and Custody of the Research Misconduct Proceeding Record.
  2. Unless custody has been transferred to HHS or ORI has advised in writing that the records no longer need to be retained, records of misconduct proceedings must be maintained in a secure manner for seven (7) years after either the completion of the proceeding or the completion of any PHS proceeding involving the misconduct allegation.
  3. Additional information. The RIO shall provide any information, documentation, research records, evidence or clarification requested by ORI to carry out its review of an allegation of misconduct or of the University’s handling of such an allegation.

D.18. Completion of Cases

Diligent pursuit. Generally, all inquiries and investigations will be carried through to completion and all significant issues will be pursued diligently.
PHS-supported research.
1. Plans to close case. With PHS-supported research, the RIO must notify ORI in advance if there are plans to close a case at the inquiry, investigation, or appeal stage, on the basis that Respondent has:
  1. admitted guilt;
  2. a settlement with the Respondent has been reached; or
  3. for any other reason.
2. Exceptions. ORI does NOT need to be notified if one of the following applies:
  1. closing of a case at the inquiry stage on the basis that an investigation is not warranted; or
  2. a finding of “no misconduct” at the inquiry stage (which will be reported to ORI).

D.19. Administrative Actions for Misconduct

If the President determines that misconduct is substantiated by the findings, they will decide on the appropriate actions to be taken, after consideration with the RIO. The administrative actions may include:

withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the research where 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 rank reduction or termination of employment;
restitution of funds to the grantor agency, as appropriate; and
other action appropriate to the misconduct.

D.20. Other Considerations

Termination or resignation prior to completion.
1. Proceedings will continue. The termination of the Respondent's employment, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation of possible misconduct has been reported, will NOT preclude or terminate the misconduct proceeding or otherwise limit any of the University’s responsibilities.
2. Before inquiry. If the Respondent, without admitting to the misconduct, elects to resign their position prior to the initiation of an inquiry but after an allegation has been reported, or during an inquiry or investigation, the inquiry or investigation will proceed.
3. Refusal to participate. If the Respondent refuses to participate in the process after termination or resignation, the committee will use its best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the allegations, noting in its report the Respondent's failure to cooperate and its effect on the committee's review of all the evidence.
“No misconduct.”
1. Restore reputation. Following a final finding of “no misconduct,” including ORI concurrence where required, the RIO will, at the request of the Respondent, undertake all reasonable and practical efforts to restore the Respondent's reputation.
2. Potential remedies. Depending on the particular circumstances and the views of the Respondent, the RIO should consider:
  1. notifying those individuals aware of or involved in the investigation of the final outcome;
  2. publicizing the final outcome in any forum in which the allegation of misconduct was previously publicized; and
  3. expunging all references to the misconduct allegation from the Respondent's personnel file.
3. President approval. Any University actions to restore the Respondent's reputation should first be approved by the President.
Protection of Complainant, Witnesses, and Committee.
1. During and after. During the misconduct proceeding and upon its completion, regardless of whether the University or ORI determines that misconduct occurred, the RIO will undertake all reasonable and practical efforts to protect the position and reputation of, or to counter potential or actual retaliation against, any Complainant who made allegations of misconduct in good faith and of any witnesses and/or committee members who cooperated in good faith with the misconduct proceeding.
2. President determines actions. The President will determine, after consulting with the Research Integrity Officer, Complainant, witnesses, and/or committee members what steps, if any, are needed to restore their respective position or reputations or to counter potential or actual retaliation against them.
3. Responsibility. The RIO is responsible for implementing any steps the President approves.
Absence of good faith. If relevant, the President will determine whether the Complainant's allegations of misconduct were made in good faith, or whether a witness or committee member acted in good faith. If the President determines that there was an absence of good faith, they will determine whether any administrative action should be taken against the person who failed to act in good faith.
Time limitations. (Added based on the suggestion from the Federal government [NIH])
1. Six-year limitation. This part applies only to research misconduct occurring within six (6) years of the date HHS or the University receives an allegation of research misconduct.
2. Exceptions to the six-year limitation. Paragraph a. of this section does NOT apply in the following instances:
  1. Subsequent use exception. The Respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct that occurred before the six-year limitation through the citation, re-publication, or other use for the potential benefit of the Respondent of the research record that is alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized.
  2. Health or safety of the public exception. If ORI or the University, following consultation with ORI, determines that the alleged misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public.
  3. “Grandfather” exception. If HHS or the University received the allegation of research misconduct before the effective date of this part.

D.21. Record Retention

The RIO will keep the complete file on all misconduct inquiries and investigations regardless of funding, including the records of any inquiry or investigation and copies of all documents and other materials, for at least seven (7) years after completion of the case. For PHS supported research, ORI or other authorized HHS personnel will be given access to the records upon request.

E. Reference Sources and Authority

F. Review Responsibilities and Dates

The Division Head for this Policy is the Senior Vice President for Research, and this Policy shall be reviewed every three (3) years or sooner, if necessary, by the Division Head or their designee in consultation with the Senior Vice President for Research, Associate Vice President for Research, Associate Vice President for Research Compliance, Clinical Research Medical Director, and the Director of Human Research Protections Program.

APPROVED: 04/2004

AMENDED: 01/2016

REVIEWED: 06/2019

AMENDED: 07/13/2021

REVIEWED: 09/2021

AMENDED: 04/26/2022

AMENDED: 04/19/2024

Up one level

Series 300 Faculty and Academic Policies