Research Misconduct: Policy and Procedures

[The following was approved on April 15, 1991, with amendments on September 18, 2002, in accordance with provisions set forth in SIU Board of Trustees 2 Policies C.]

Introduction
This policy defines research misconduct and describes the procedures for handling allegations of research misconduct at Southern Illinois University Carbondale (excluding the School of Medicine, which shall be subject to its duly promulgated policy and procedures applicable to misconduct in research). The policy applies to everyone involved in funded or unfunded research activities at SIUC, including students.

The university strongly encourages anyone with concerns about impropriety in a research project to communicate those concerns through appropriate channels. If they cannot be communicated directly to the researchers involved, or if such action has an unsatisfactory result, the procedures outlined in this document provide a recourse.

The policy defines research misconduct as an act of deception, distinct from error. Researchers have the responsibility both to report apparent occurrences of misconduct and to take steps to correct the scientific record when they discover error. In many cases, however, a person may not be able to determine whether the problem he or she perceives with a research project constitutes misconduct or error. The people listed in this document to whom formal allegations should be brought can provide guidance in ambiguous situations.

The responsibility to pursue an allegation of research misconduct belongs to the university and must be carried out fully to resolve questions regarding the integrity of the research. Even in the absence of a specific complaint, the university should be alert to questionable research practices that might raise legitimate suspicion of research misconduct.

In the event of a case of alleged misconduct, all persons involved in the proceedings are expected to cooperate fully and to conduct themselves in an ethical manner. They have an obligation to strive for fairness and objectivity, with ample respect for the care needed in reviewing allegations of misconduct and the harm that can result from unfounded allegations. They should focus on the substance of the issues and not allow personal conflicts between colleagues to obscure the facts.

Definition of Research Misconduct
The key to defining research misconduct is intent. Research misconduct is an act of deception; it is different from error or from honest differences in interpretation of data. The term "misconduct" includes the following:

  1. Falsification of data: ranging from fabrication to deceptively selective reporting, including the purposeful omission of conflicting data with the intent to falsify results;
  2. Plagiarism: representation of another's work as one's own;
  3. Misappropriation of others' ideas: the unauthorized use of privileged information (such as violation of confidentiality in peer review), however obtained;
  4. Formally presented findings based on any other research practices that seriously deviate from those that are reasonable and commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research.

Process for Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct
The review process for cases of alleged misconduct consists of two phases: an inquiry and, if it is determined from the inquiry that it is warranted, an investigation. Procedures for both phases are described below. Also described are procedures for reporting to the funding agency (where applicable) and taking interim administrative action when serious circumstances call for immediate precautions. There are also provisions for appealing a determination of research misconduct.

In order to address all allegations of research misconduct expeditiously, the university has formed a standing committee, the University Committee on Research Misconduct. The committee will consist of 5 tenured faculty members appointed by the Provost and Vice Chancellor. Committee representation should reflect the broad range of academic disciplines at the university. Committee members will serve for 2 years; terms will be staggered to further allow for continuity. The committee will interpret the university's policy on research misconduct and will initiate and carry out inquiries and investigations.

Allegations may be reported to the chair of the committee, the Dean of the Graduate School, or the Director of Research Development and Administration for discussion and possible referral to the committee. Any of these persons may counsel confidentially any individual who comes forward with an allegation of misconduct. Some concerns brought to their attention may not fall within the scope of the policies and procedures developed to address misconduct, and in such cases they will refer the matter to whatever institutional processes may be appropriate to the particular case. If they determine that the concern does fall under the jurisdiction of the University Committee on Research Misconduct, they will discuss the inquiry and investigation procedures with the individual who has questions about the integrity of a research project (the complainant). If the individual chooses to make a formal allegation, the matter will be brought before the committee as soon as possible. If the individual chooses not to make a formal allegation but the administrator or committee chair believes there is sufficient basis for conducting an inquiry, the matter will be referred to the committee for appropriate action.

Even if the subject of the allegations (the respondent) leaves the university before the case is resolved, the university will continue the examination of the allegations in accordance with this policy. If there is a finding of misconduct, the university will notify the institution with which the subject of the investigation is currently affiliated. Furthermore, the university will cooperate with other institutions' processes to resolve such questions.

A. Inquiry

  1. Purpose: An inquiry, the first step of the review process, may be initiated by an allegation of misconduct or by information obtained from other sources, such as review of reports. Whenever an allegation or other information involving the possibility of misconduct is brought before it, the University Committee on Research Misconduct will initiate an inquiry. In the inquiry, factual information is gathered and expeditiously reviewed to determine if an investigation of the charge is warranted. An inquiry is not a formal hearing; it is designed to separate allegations deserving of further investigation from frivolous, unjustified, or clearly mistaken allegations.
  2. Structure: The committee must ensure that it has the academic expertise necessary to judge the allegations being made. Therefore, it may call in on- or off-campus consultants as necessary to assist in reviewing a case. If a member of the committee has a real or apparent conflict of interest with a given case, that member will not participate in the review process for the case. In such a case, the committee will recommend to the Provost and Vice Chancellor, an ad hoc member to substitute.  Inquiry proceedings require a majority of the committee in attendance.
  3. Process: To initiate an inquiry, the committee convenes and notifies the respondent of the basis of the inquiry and the process that will follow. Notification will be made in writing and copies will be securely maintained and held confidential in the office of Research Development and Administration.

    To the greatest extent possible, the inquiry proceedings will be kept confidential in order to protect the rights of all parties involved. Whether a case can be reviewed effectively without the involvement of the complainant in the committee proceedings depends upon the nature of the allegation and the evidence available. Cases that depend specifically upon the observations or statements of the complainant cannot proceed without the involvement of that individual in the committee proceedings; other cases that can rely on documentary evidence may permit the complainant to remain anonymous to the committee.

    The respondent is obligated to cooperate in providing the material necessary to conduct the inquiry and will be so informed by the committee when the inquiry is initiated. Uncooperative behavior may result in immediate implementation of a formal investigation and appropriate institutional sanctions. The respondent will be given an opportunity to comment on the allegations during the inquiry and to respond to a draft copy of the inquiry findings. If he or she comments on that report, the comments will be made part of the final inquiry record.

    Inquiries should be resolved expeditiously. The date the committee convenes to consider an allegation or evidence of misconduct marks the beginning of the time period allowed for conducting the inquiry. The inquiry phase must be completed and the final written report of the findings submitted to the Provost and Vice Chancellor within 60 days of initiation of the inquiry, unless circumstances clearly warrant a longer period, or within a shorter time period if so specified by a funding agency. If the committee anticipates that the established deadline cannot be met, it shall submit to the vice chancellor a report citing the reason(s) for the delay and describing progress to date; it shall also inform the respondent and other involved individuals. Further, the record of inquiry must include documentation of the reason for exceeding the 60-day period.

  4. Findings of the Inquiry: The completion of an inquiry is marked by a determination of whether or not an investigation is warranted, and by submission of the written report of the inquiry findings to the Provost and Vice Chancellor. The report shall state what evidence was reviewed, summarize relevant interviews, and describe the process and conclusion of the inquiry. It shall be sufficiently detailed to permit a later assessment of the reasons supporting the inquiry finding. The report and all other inquiry records will be retained in a confidential and secure file in the office of Research Development and Administration for at least 3 years after the completion of the inquiry. The respondent and the complainant will be informed by the committee whether or not the allegations will be subject to an investigation. The respondent will be given a copy of the final report of the inquiry.

    In the case of allegations found to warrant an investigation, the Provost and Vice Chancellor will notify the director(s) of any funding agencies sponsoring the research in question that an investigation will be conducted (see next section). In addition, the committee will notify the respondent's department chair and dean (if applicable) of the impending investigation.

    If an allegation is found to be unsupported but has been submitted in good faith, no further formal action, other than informing all parties involved in the inquiry, shall be taken. The records and findings of the inquiry, including the identity of the respondent, will be held confidential to the greatest extent possible to protect the parties involved. In such cases the university will undertake diligent efforts to protect the complainant against retaliation. Individuals engaging in acts of retaliation will be subject to disciplinary action and/or grievance proceedings.

    Unsupported allegations not brought in good faith shall lead to disciplinary action against the complainant.

B. Procedures for Reporting to the Funding Component

The agency sponsoring a research project in which misconduct is suspected shall be notified by the Provost and Vice Chancellor in writing as soon as the decision has been made to undertake an investigation, and no later than on the date the investigation begins. Agency guidelines for such situations shall be followed. In the case of PHS grants, notification is made to the Director of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI).

The university also will notify the funding agency at any stage of an inquiry or investigation if it is ascertained that any of the following conditions exist:

  1. there is an immediate health and/or environmental hazard involved;
  2. there is an immediate need to protect federal funds or equipment;
  3. there is an immediate need to protect the interests of the person making the allegations or of the individual who is the subject of the allegations as well as his/her co-investigators and associates, if any;
  4. it is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly.

In the case of PHS grants, if the inquiry indicates possible criminal violation, the Office of Research Integrity must be notified within 24 hours of obtaining that information.

C. Interim Administrative Action

After the university has notified the funding agency that an investigation is warranted, or that any of the conditions listed in the preceding section exist, the agency may take interim action to protect the rights of involved parties, to protect the welfare of human or animal subjects of research, etc. Such action can range from minor restrictions, requests for assurances, or deferral of a continuation grant application all the way to suspension of the grant.

Interim administrative action also may be taken by the university in the event that any of the conditions listed in the preceding section exist. Interim action does not constitute a finding, but is a precautionary measure necessitated by serious circumstances. The Provost and Vice Chancellor may take such action when justified by the need to protect federal funds; the health and safety of research subjects and patients; research data, records, materials, or other information that may be the subject of an inquiry or investigation; or the interests of students, colleagues, or the general public. Such action can range from minor restrictions to suspension of the activities of the respondent. Interim administrative action should be taken in full awareness of how it might affect the individuals and the ongoing research within the university.

D. Investigation

  1. Purpose: The University Committee on Research Misconduct will initiate an investigation only after it has made an inquiry finding that an investigation is warranted. An investigation is the formal examination and evaluation of all pertinent facts to determine whether misconduct has occurred. Among other things, the investigation shall look carefully at the substance of the inquiry findings and examine all relevant evidence. The investigation findings and recommendations are advisory. They will be submitted to and reviewed by the Provost and Vice Chancellor, who will make the final determination on the case.

    To the greatest extent possible, the investigation proceedings will be kept confidential. However, it should be noted that complete confidentiality cannot be assured during an investigation, which is a much more formal, wide-ranging proceeding than an inquiry.

  2. Structure: Any committee member who has a close professional or personal affiliation with the complainant or the respondent in a given case shall not participate in the investigation of that case. The committee shall request that the Provost and Vice Chancellor appoint an ad hoc member to substitute for any nonparticipating member. Investigation proceedings require a majority of the committee in attendance.

    Committee members shall be unbiased, have appropriate academic backgrounds for judging the issues being raised, and have no real or apparent conflicts of interest with the case being investigated. The composition of the committee may be challenged for cause by the respondent or by the complainant (if any); the chair of the committee will decide the validity of a challenge for cause. In the event the chair is challenged for cause, the vice chancellor will decide the validity of the challenge.

    As in an inquiry, the committee may call in on- or off-campus consultants as necessary to assist it in the investigation.

  3. Process: Upon completing an inquiry and finding that an investigation is warranted, the University Committee on Research Misconduct will initiate the investigation within 30 days of the date on which its report was submitted to the vice chancellor.

    To the extent feasible, the committee's procedures in conducting the investigation shall be in compliance with any agency guidelines that must be followed if the research is supported by external funding. The investigation may consist of a combination of activities including, but not limited to,

    1. review and copying of relevant research data, proposals, correspondence, memoranda of telephone calls or memoranda to file, and other pertinent documents at the university, at the granting agency, or elsewhere;
    2. review of published materials and manuscripts submitted or in preparation;
    3. inspection of offices, laboratory or clinical facilities, and/or materials;
    4. interviewing of parties with an involvement in or knowledge about the case, including both the complainant and the respondent. Complete summaries of these interviews shall be prepared, provided to the interviewed party for comment or revision, and included as part of the documentary record of the investigation.

    In the course of an investigation, additional information may emerge that justifies broadening the scope of the investigation beyond the initial allegations. The respondent shall be informed when significant new directions of investigation are undertaken.

    The committee shall notify the Provost and Vice Chancellor of any major developments that could warrant interim action or that must be reported to the funding agency. In the latter case, such developments include disclosure of facts that may affect current or potential funding for the individual(s) under investigation or that the funding agency needs to know to ensure appropriate use of federal funds and otherwise protect the public interest. Significant developments during the investigation will be reported in writing by the vice chancellor to the funding agency as necessary, in accordance with agency guidelines.

    After conducting the investigation in accordance with the process outlined above, the committee will develop a preliminary report. The preliminary report shall include at least the following: a description of the policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted; a description of how and from whom or where information relevant to the investigation was obtained; a specific statement of the committee's preliminary investigative findings relative to possible misconduct in research, or the lack thereof, and the basis of those findings; and a statement of the committee's recommendations for resolution of the matter, including recommended sanctions, if any, and the rationale in support thereof. All written materials and other documents forming part of the record, including interview summaries, shall be attached to the preliminary report. Tangible scientific property, e.g., slides, specimens, etc., shall be incorporated into the report by reference and retained in the custody or control of the committee chair.

    A copy of the preliminary report, including all attachments, will be provided to the respondent for the purpose of affording him or her the opportunity to respond. The respondent will be given at least 10 calendar days to respond to the preliminary report. The respondent will be informed that he or she has the right to respond in writing and to request the opportunity to meet with the committee accompanied by an adviser of choice. Should the respondent elect to meet with the committee, he or she will be permitted to make an oral presentation to the committee and to present documentary, testimonial, and rebuttal evidence. A transcript of the meeting will be made available to the respondent.

    Following the conclusion of any such meeting held with the respondent and after receipt of the respondent's written response to the preliminary report, the committee will have the responsibility to carefully review and consider the entire record in the matter, to conduct further investigation if necessary, and to prepare a final investigative report setting forth the detailed findings of the committee (see "Findings of the Investigation" below) and any recommended sanctions. The final report shall parallel the preliminary report in format, and shall include the same categories of information. It shall also include the actual text or an accurate summary of the response of the respondent.

    The committee then will submit the final investigative report to the Provost and Vice Chancellor. The respondent also will receive the final report of the investigation. (When there is more than one respondent, each will receive all those parts of the report that are pertinent to his or her role.) If the identity of the complainant is known to the committee, he or she shall be provided with those portions of the final report that address his or her role and opinions in the investigation.

    The investigation is complete when the vice chancellor has reviewed the report, made a determination on the case, and submitted to the funding agency the final report along with a description of any sanctions to be taken by the university.

    Investigations shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible. An investigation ordinarily shall be completed within 120 days of its initiation (including submission of the final report to the funding agency). However, the nature of some cases may render the deadline difficult to meet. If the committee determines that the full process cannot be completed in 120 days, it must notify the Provost and Vice Chancellor of the reason for the delay and ask for an appropriate extension of time.

    In the case of PHS grants, the following procedure will then apply: the Provost and Vice Chancellor will submit to the Office of Research Integrity a written request for an extension, including an interim report from the committee on its progress to date and an estimate for the date of completion of the report and other necessary steps. Any request for extension must balance the need for a thorough and rigorous examination of the facts and the interests of the respondent and the funding agency in a timely resolution of the matter. If the request is granted, the university will file periodic progress reports as requested by ORI. Non-PHS funding agencies may have other guidelines or regulations to be followed.

    If the deadline cannot be met in an investigation of research that involves no external funding, the committee shall submit an interim report to the Provost and Vice Chancellor.

  4. Findings of the Investigation: Findings of an investigation may include the following:
    1. Research misconduct was committed;
    2. No misconduct was committed, but serious scientific errors were discovered in the course of the investigation;
    3. No misconduct or serious scientific error was committed.

    The Provost and Vice Chancellor will review the committee report and make a determination on the case. The section below titled "Resolution" details the follow-up action that must be taken after the determination is made.

    The findings and other records of the investigation will be securely and confidentially maintained, in accordance with pertinent federal and state laws, in a file in the office of Research Development and Administration.

    The university will carry its investigation through to completion and will pursue diligently all significant issues. If the university anticipates terminating an inquiry or investigation for any reason without completing all requirements outlined above, a report of such planned termination, including a description of the reasons for such termination, will be sent to all funding agencies involved.

E. Appeal/Final Review

The respondent may file a written appeal of the determination of the vice chancellor with the chancellor of the university in accordance with university grievance procedures. Any appeal should be filed within 30 days after the vice chancellor's determination. (A time extension, where there is appropriate justification, may be requested of the chancellor.) The appeal should be restricted to the body of evidence already presented, and the grounds for appeal should be limited to failure to follow appropriate procedures in the investigation or arbitrary and capricious decision-making. New evidence may warrant a new investigation, in which case the chancellor may reconvene the committee or take other appropriate action.

If the decision of the chancellor affirms the determination of the vice chancellor, the respondent may submit an application for appeal to the Board of Trustees, in accordance with the requirements of the Board's Bylaws. The decision of any Board review is final.

F. Resolution

  1. Finding of No Research Misconduct: All persons and agencies/organizations informed of the investigation must be notified promptly of the finding of no misconduct. Notification will be made by the Provost and Vice Chancellor. The vice chancellor will undertake diligent efforts, as appropriate, to restore the reputation of the respondent when there is a finding of no misconduct.

    If the unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct are found to have been maliciously motivated, appropriate disciplinary action will be taken. If the allegations, however incorrect, are found to have been made in good faith, no disciplinary measures will be taken and efforts will be made to prevent retaliatory actions.

  2. Finding of No Research Misconduct, But Finding of Serious Scientific Error: All persons and agencies/organizations informed of the investigation must be notified promptly of the finding of no misconduct. Notification will be made by the Provost and Vice Chancellor.

    The university will need to consider means to correct the scientific record. In the event that the committee discovers serious scientific errors, it will include in its final report specific recommendations for action, such as notifying editors of journals in which the respondent's research was published, other institutions with which the respondent has been affiliated, collaborators, professional societies, state professional licensing boards (if applicable), etc. The Provost and Vice Chancellor will refer these recommendations to the appropriate administrative official (department chair, dean, or higher administrator) for follow-up action.

    The committee's final report will be sent to affected funding agencies or other organizations as appropriate.

  3. Finding of Research Misconduct: All persons and agencies/organizations informed of the investigation must be notified promptly of the finding of research misconduct. Notification will be made by the Provost and Vice Chancellor.

    In its final report, the committee will recommend necessary actions to correct the scientific record and to notify affected individuals or organizations as specified in F.2 above. The Provost and Vice Chancellor will refer these recommendations to the appropriate administrative official (department chair, dean, or higher administrator) for follow-up action.

    The committee in its report also will recommend specific sanctions to be imposed on the respondent(s), including the reasons therefor. Sanctions can range from a reprimand or removal from the research project to termination of employment. The Provost and Vice Chancellor will then be responsible for disposition of the matter.

    The committee's final report will be sent, as appropriate, to affected funding agencies or other organizations, which may impose their own sanctions or take other action.

NOTE: This document owes a substantial debt to the Framework for Institutional Policies and Procedures to Deal with Fraud in Research, developed by representatives of ten organizations, including the Council of Graduate Schools, the Association of American Universities, and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. The policy complies with U.S. Health Service requirements for grantee institutions for handling cases of alleged misconduct. It will be reviewed periodically and revised as needed.