VII. Policy on Misconduct in Sponsored Research

A. Introduction

The conduct of scholarly activity requires intellectual honesty and integrity. Integrity in the conduct of scholarly activity is essential and must be maintained. Although instances of misconduct are rare, when they do occur they can be destructive of the standards we attempt to instill in our students, of the esteem in which academic research in general is held by the public, and of the financial support of the government and other sponsors for academic research. The importance of integrity in research cannot be overemphasized.

This Policy provides the basis for uniform procedures for dealing with instances of alleged or apparent misconduct in research and the responsibilities for such actions.

This Policy is written and approved in accordance with Public Health Service regulation 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart A.

B. Applicability

The University of Tampa’s definition of research misconduct, and procedures for investigating and reporting allegations of misconduct, conform to the definitions and regulations of those federal funding agencies that have policies on this subject. UT policy is applicable to:

research proposed, conducted or reported at UT by UT-related individuals, i.e., those with an appointment or official affiliation with UT, including faculty, academic staff, students, postdoctoral scholars, visiting scholars who make significant use of university research resources (including participation in any sponsored project awarded to UT, and those with any other UT teaching and/or research titles such as adjunct clinical or consulting appointments;
research proposed, conducted or reported elsewhere by such UT-related individuals as part of their UT-related duties or activities; and
at the discretion of the University, to research proposed, conducted or reported where such research is claimed, cited or implied to have been done at UT, or where a UT appointment or official affiliation is claimed, cited or implied in connection with the research.

C. Definitions

Research Misconduct
"Research misconduct" is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results, or the failure to comply with governmental regulations.
- Fabrication means making up data or results, and recording or reporting them.
- Falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
- Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
- Failure to comply means a material failure to comply with governmental or university regulations that apply to the research.
- there is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community;
- the misconduct is committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly;
- the allegation is proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
Inquiry
An inquiry consists of preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding to determine whether an allegation or an apparent instance of misconduct has substance. The outcome of an inquiry is a determination as to whether or not an investigation is to be conducted.
Investigation
An investigation is a formal examination and evaluation of relevant facts to determine whether or not misconduct has taken place.
Complainant
The individual who is making the allegation of research misconduct.
Respondent
The individual who is the subject of an allegation of research misconduct.

D. Funding Agency Requirements

Some federal funding agencies have their own policies regarding research misconduct, and require notification to the agency in the event of such an allegation or investigation. Where required, this notification will be made by the director of sponsored programs. While funding agencies recognize that the primary responsibility for the prevention and detection of misconduct, and for the conduct of inquiries and investigations, rests with the awarded institution, a number of agencies have retained the right to initiate their own investigations at any time.

E. Individual Reporting of Possible Misconduct

Any individual who believes an act of research misconduct has occurred or is occurring should notify the dean of the college to which the faculty member conducting the research belongs. Reporting such concerns in good faith is a service to the University and to the larger academic community, and will not jeopardize anyone's employment. UT will undertake reasonable efforts to protect complainants who make allegations of misconduct in good faith and others who cooperate in good faith with inquiries and investigations of such allegations. UT prohibits retaliation of any kind against a person who, acting in good faith, reports or provides information about suspected or alleged misconduct.

F. Presenting Allegations of Misconduct

To initiate the process, an allegation must be made by the complainant in writing. The allegation must include a description of the alleged misconduct, should be detailed and specific, and include any supporting documentation or evidence available to the complainant.

The University requires the complainant, if a member of the University community, to make known his or her identify. The University may take steps to preserve the anonymity of the complainant if the dean, after reviewing the allegation and available information, determines that the identity of the complainant is not necessary to the inquiry. In rare instances, the identity of the complainant may be unknown to the University and evidence of the misconduct is substantial. In such a case, the University may pursue the inquiry and investigation.

G. Confidentiality

The processes and procedures regarding misconduct in research are intended to be kept confidential to the extent possible by all parties, including the complainant, respondent and any other University staff or faculty who may be involved, consistent with the need to carry out the inquiry or investigation or to comply with legal requirements., Only those directly involved in a preliminary assessment, inquiry or investigation or with a need to know should be made aware that the process is being conducted or have any access to information obtained during its course.

Both the dean and the provost will advise the respondent and complainant of their right to confidential advice and company of a representative of UT’s AAUP in all proceedings. AAUP’s role is solely advisory to the faculty.

Violations of confidentiality that are not based on the University’s need to carry out the inquiry or to comply with legal requirements may be subject to disciplinary sanction.

H. Procedure for Review

The processes described below should be carried out in a manner that is thorough, competent, objective, fair and appropriately protective of the confidentiality and reputations of all participants. Such assessments, inquiries and investigations should be coordinated with the office of the director of sponsored programs to assure that they are carried out in conformance with applicable regulations (if any) in cases where the research is funded by an external agency.

Preliminary Assessment
Upon receipt of a written allegation, the provost shall immediately be informed.

Within 7 days of the receipt of a written allegation, the dean should assess the information presented to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant an inquiry, and whether the allegation constitutes research misconduct as defined by this policy.

If both of these criteria are met, the dean shall immediately begin an inquiry and shall so inform the provost. If there are any outside funding source(s) for the research that is the subject of the allegation the dean shall also inform the director of sponsored programs.

If the criteria are not met, the Dean shall report in writing to the Provost that the allegation does not warrant any further inquiry or investigation under this policy. The provost shall notify the complainant that the matter is closed.
Inquiry
An inquiry consists of preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding to determine whether an allegation or an apparent instance of misconduct has substance.

The dean’s inquiry is to determine whether a formal investigation is warranted, and will be guided by the following:
1. At the beginning of the inquiry, the respondent shall be informed in writing of the allegations, including the name of the complainant; given a copy of this policy; and be interviewed to comment on misconduct allegations. Contemporaneously, the dean shall inventory and sequester all research records and other evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct investigation. Where appropriate, the respondent shall be given access to or copies of research records.
2. The inquiry is not a legal proceeding, and no party involved in the inquiry may have legal counsel in the inquiry.
3. Any other relevant individuals, including complainant(s), if known, should be interviewed.
4. The dean shall provide the respondent with a draft copy of the inquiry, and the respondent shall be given an opportunity to comment on the findings.
5. The final inquiry report, including a recommendation as to whether or not a full investigation is warranted, must be submitted by the dean to the provost within sixty (60) days of receipt of the allegation. If this time frame is not possible in a particular case, the reasons are to be documented and the provost so informed.
6. The final report and documentation shall include sufficient detail to permit a later assessment of the determination of whether or not a full investigation was warranted. The report should contain the following information: (1) the name and the position of the respondent; (2) a description of the allegations of research misconduct; (3) the external support involved, if applicable, including grants applications, grant numbers, and publications listing the support; (3) the basis for any conclusions including the information reviewed, a summary of the interviews conducted; (4) a statement of the conclusions reached, and whether or not the dean recommends an investigation is warranted for each allegation; and (5) any comments on the report submitted by the respondent.
7. The dean's decision that an investigation is not warranted will be final. The respondent and complainant shall be notified of the final disposition. The respondent shall also receive a copy of the final inquiry report.
8. The final report of the inquiry and all documentation, including notes, transcripts or recordings of interviews, must be maintained by the Provost’s Office for seven (7) years.
Investigation
If the inquiry leads to the conclusion that an investigation is warranted, the provost shall appoint an Investigation Committee. The Investigation Committee shall consist of at least three faculty members. None shall be from the department of the respondent and none should have any involvement with the research under investigation or any known conflict of interest.

The investigation will be guided by the following considerations:
1. The formal investigation should begin within 30 days of the completion of the inquiry and after written notice to the respondent. The investigation is to be completed and the final report sent to the provost within 90 days (from the start of an investigation). If an investigation cannot be completed within this time frame, the provost should be notified as soon as possible. In such cases, it may be necessary for the director of sponsored programs to request an extension of time from federal funding agencies.
2. The investigation is not a legal proceeding, and no party involved may have legal counsel in the investigation.
3. An investigation should normally include an examination of the relevant documentation, including but not limited to relevant research data and proposals, publications, correspondence, and memoranda of telephone calls.
4. Complainants, respondents, and witnesses who may have information related to the matter should be interviewed. Complete written summaries of each interview should be provided to the individual being questioned, and any comments should be appended to the summary, or reflected in a revised summary if the interviewer agrees.
5. All significant issues should be pursued until the Investigation Committee is reasonably certain that it has amassed all necessary and appropriate information.
6. Where specialized expertise is required, the Investigation Committee may consult experts at other institutions.
7. A draft written report of findings shall be made available to the respondent with the opportunity to provide comments for the consideration of those conducting the investigation. Where identified and appropriate, complainants should also receive the portions of the draft report which concern the role or opinions they had in the investigation. Any comments on the draft from the respondent (and from the complainants, if applicable) shall be appended to the final report.
8. In addition to the interview summaries and comments by the respondent and complainant(s) (if applicable) on the draft report, the final written report should include:
  - a description of the policies and procedures followed
  - how and from whom relevant information was obtained
  - the finding and basis for them

I. Restoration of the Respondent’s Reputation

The provost shall make the final determination whether misconduct in research has occurred, based on the report of the Investigation Committee. If UT finds no misconduct, the provost and dean will consult with the respondent and undertake reasonable efforts to restore the respondent's reputation. Depending on the particular circumstances, the dean or provost should consider notifying those individuals aware of or involved in the investigation of the final outcome, publicizing the final outcome in forums in which the allegation of misconduct was previously publicized, or expunging all reference to the misconduct allegation from the respondent's personnel file.

J. Determination of Discipline

If based on the Investigation Committee’s report the provost determines that the alleged misconduct is substantiated by the findings of the investigation, he or she will determine any disciplinary action against the respondent, Discipline for misconduct in research should depend on the facts of the case, and may include but is not limited to reprimand, suspension with or without pay, reassignment of duties, foregoing salary increase and/or benefit improvements, revocation of tenure, if applicable, and termination. Only in the case of revocation of tenure and termination shall there be a right of appeal, as required elsewhere in this Handbook.

The University of Tampa will also take appropriate administrative actions against individuals when an allegation of misconduct has been substantiated. If the provost determines that the alleged misconduct is substantiated by the findings, he or she will decide on the appropriate actions to be taken. The actions include:

Informing in writing the agency (if any) sponsoring the activity;
Informing any publisher of research connected to the misconduct;
Informing in writing the University president;
Withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the activity where misconduct was found;
Restitution of funds as appropriate; and
Other action deemed appropriate by the provost.

K. Allegations not in Good Faith

Allegations of misconduct must be made in good faith (See section 5 of this policy, above). Allegations in bad faith include, but are not limited to, giving false testimony to the inquiry or investigation, disregarding or ignoring facts that would disprove the allegation, allegations that are malicious or intentionally dishonest. When a dean’s inquiry or an Investigation Committee encounters what it believes may be an allegation in bad faith, it should report this to the provost. The provost shall investigate, and will take appropriate action, including the imposition of sanctions on individuals who have made allegations in bad faith.

L. Internal Coordination/Reports to the Director of Sponsored Programs

In order to assure compliance with external notification requirements, the dean must inform the director of sponsored programs if any outside funding source(s) for the research that is the subject of the allegation. The director of sponsored programs shall be informed in a timely manner of

commencement of an inquiry
conclusion of an inquiry
commencement of an investigation
consultation if an investigation will take more than 90 days to complete
conclusion of an investigation.

If termination of an inquiry or investigation before its completion is contemplated for any reason, this should be reported and discussed with the director of sponsored programs.

In addition, the provost is to be advised at once if any of the following circumstances is discovered:

an immediate health hazard, including to human or animal research subjects
an immediate need to protect federal or University funds or equipment
an immediate need to protect the integrity of the research and/or the research misconduct proceeding
an immediate need to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding
likelihood that an alleged incident will be reported publicly
a reasonable indication of a possible criminal violation.

In emergency situations, deans are authorized to take all appropriate actions, including notifying external agencies directly, if conference with the director of sponsored programs is not possible in a timely manner. (See Section 8 , Notification to External Agencies, below.) The director of sponsored programs is also authorized to take all appropriate actions.

The dean shall also take interim action as necessary to protect external funds and the purposes of the grant or contract that may be involved. Such action is administrative and not disciplinary. The dean shall inform the provost and director of sponsored programs of such actions.

If, during an investigation, facts come to light that could affect current or potential funding of the people under investigation, or that may, in the dean's judgment, need to be disclosed in order to ensure proper use of research funds or protection of the public interest, these facts should be reported to the director of sponsored programs as they are learned.

M. Notification to External Agencies

UT will comply with the applicable requirements and regulations of its funding agencies, and will cooperate with those agencies in the agencies' own procedures in regard to research misconduct

Under circumstances not involving federal funding agencies, the provost will make the decision whether information about the charges and their disposition will be disclosed publicly or to specific parties, including the research sponsor. This decision will normally be made upon the conclusion of the final report. However, if required by urgent circumstances, such a disclosure may be made at any time. Absent such urgent need, UT will not make interim reports to outside agencies unless required by external regulation.

In accord with the requirements of federal funding agencies, in cases involving research funded by those agencies, the agency will be informed in the following situations. Except as specifically described at the end of this section, the following notifications to federal funding agencies will be made only by the director of sponsored programs, acting on behalf of the provost:

Commencement of an Investigation
Written notification will be provided to federal funding agencies upon determination that an investigation will be conducted. This notice is to be provided on or before the commencement of the investigation, and must include all information required by the agency. Generally, this notice must include at least the following: name(s) and position(s) of the respondent(s); general nature of the allegation(s); the agency support including any proposal or award numbers; the basis for the recommendation of an investigation; any comments by the respondent. This information will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by law.
Written Request for a Time Extension
Although regulations generally permit 120 days for completion of the investigation and submission of the final report, UT requires the Investigation Committee to consult with the director of sponsored programs if it appears that the final report will take more than 90 days to complete. This allows 30 days for the disciplinary process, if it is decided to pursue one. The final report to the federal funding agency must include a statement about the sanction (if any) imposed by the institution. If the investigation and determination of discipline are likely to take more time than specified by the relevant funding agency's regulations to complete, the director of sponsored programs will so notify the federal funding agency, including reasons for the delay, interim progress reports, the estimated date of completion of the report, and any other necessary information. If an extension is granted, the agency may (if so provided by its regulations) require the submission of periodic interim reports, or the agency may undertake its own investigation prior to the University's completion of its investigation.
Interim Reports
Federal funding agencies must be apprised during an investigation of facts that may affect current or potential funding of the individual(s) under investigation, or that may need to be disclosed in order to ensure proper use of federal funds or protection of the public interest
Early Termination
Federal funding agencies must be notified of any decision to terminate an inquiry or investigation prior to the completion of all relevant requirements. This notice must include the reasons for such action. Some agencies have retained the right to investigate the matter further on their own.
Termination of Institutional Employment or Resignation Prior to Completing Inquiry or Investigation
If an external sponsor requires an investigation into alleged misconduct be concluded and reported, the termination of the respondent's institutional employment, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation of possible misconduct has been reported, will not preclude or terminate misconduct procedures outlined in this Policy. If the respondent, without admitting to the misconduct, elects to resign his or her 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. If the respondent refuses to participate in the process after resignation, the committee will make 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.
Final Outcome
Federal funding agencies will be notified of the final outcome of an investigation involving their funded project(s), and provided with a complete copy of the final report.
Special Emergency Notifications
In addition, federal funding agencies will be informed at any stage of an inquiry or investigation if any of the following is discovered:
- an immediate health hazard, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects
- an immediate need to protect federal or University funds or equipment
- an immediate need to protect the integrity of the research and/or the research misconduct proceeding
- an immediate need to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding
- a likelihood that an alleged incident is going to be reported publicly
- a reasonable indication of possible criminal activity.

N. Record Retention

After completion of a case and all ensuing related actions, the provost will prepare a complete file, including the records of any inquiry or investigation and copies of all documents and other materials furnished as part of the process. The Provost’s Office will keep the file for a minimum of seven years after completion of the case. The funding agency will be given access to the records upon request.

O. Student Academic Integrity Violations

Because this policy is designed primarily to protect the integrity of the public research record, instances of alleged research misconduct by students in practicum-type courses, and in coursework and classroom activities, should be addressed through the Academic Integrity Policy for students rather than through the procedures of this policy. Such determination of applicability or non-applicability should be made in light of the particular facts and circumstances of a student's case.

Up one level

Chapter 6: University Policy Statements