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.

1. 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.

2. 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.
3. 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