Research Misconduct Policy and Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct

An organization, company, or bureau that provides some service for another entity, or with which the University has a contractual relationship related to Research. Examples of Agencies include but are not limited to: federal/state government, companies, publishing companies, collaborators, foundations, or other universities.

Disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of an institutional or U.S. DHHS official.

A person or persons who in good faith make an allegation of research misconduct. The allegation must be brought directly to the attention of the University or HHS official.

UNC Greensboro faculty, staff, students, guest researchers, collaborators, and consultants.

Making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

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.

As applied to a complainant or witness means having a reasonable belief in the truth of one’s allegation or testimony, based on the information known to the complainant or witness at the time. An allegation or cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding is not in good faith if made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for information that would negate the allegation or testimony. As applied to an institutional or committee member, means cooperation with the research misconduct proceeding by impartially carrying out the duties assigned for the purpose of helping an institution meet its responsibilities. An institutional or committee member does not act in good faith if their acts or omissions during the research misconduct proceedings are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.

A preliminary evaluation of the available evidence and testimony of the Respondent(s), Complainant, and key witnesses to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant an Investigation of possible Research Misconduct.

Institutional Deciding Official (IDO) means the institutional official who makes final determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any institutional actions. The same individual cannot serve as the IDO and the Research Integrity Officer. The IDO documents their determination in a written decision that includes whether research misconduct occurred, and a description of the action taken. This document becomes part of the institutional record.

Institutional member and members means an individual (or individuals) who is employed by, is an agent of, or is affiliated by contract or agreement with an institution. Institutional members may include, but are not limited to, officials, tenured and untenured faculty, teaching and support staff, researchers, research coordinators, technicians, postdoctoral and other fellows, students, volunteers, subject matter experts, consultants, or attorneys, or employees or agents of contractors, subcontractors, or sub-awardees.

The records the University compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the University did not consider or rely on. These records include, but are not limited to: 1) documentation of the assessment; 2) if an inquiry is conducted, the inquiry report (other than drafts of the report) and all records considered or relied on during the inquiry; 3) if an investigation is conducted, the investigation report (other than drafts of the report) and all records considered or relied on during the investigation, including but not limited to research records, the transcripts of each interview ,and information the respondent provided to the institution; 4) decisions by the Institutional Deciding Official; 5) the complete record of any institutional appeal.

To act deliberately with the aim of carrying out the act.

Evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if Research Misconduct has occurred and, if so, to determine the responsible person(s) and the seriousness of the Research Misconduct.

To act with awareness of the act.

Use of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. It includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another’s work that materially misleads the reader regarding the contributions of the author. It does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a common methodology. Plagiarism also does not include self-plagiarism or authorship or credit disputes, including disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a research project.

Proof by information that, compared with that opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not.

Propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.

Systematic experiment, study, evaluation, demonstration, or survey designed to develop or contribute to knowledge (basic research) or specific knowledge (applied research) by establishing, discovering, developing, elucidating, or confirming information or underlying mechanisms related to biological causes, function, or effects; diseases; treatments; or related matters to be studied. For purposes of this policy, Research includes all academic and scholarly fields (the arts, basic and applied sciences, liberal arts, and social science). It also includes research involving human or animal subjects.

Institutional Official (usually the Director of the Office of Research Compliance and Integrity), designated by the Vice Chancellor for Research and Engagement (VCRE). The RIO is responsible for administering the institution’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct in compliance with 42 CFR Part 93.

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

Research misconduct proceeding means any actions related to alleged research misconduct taken, including allegation assessments, inquiries, investigations, Office of Research Compliance and Integrity (ORCI) oversight reviews, and appeals.

The record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from the scientific inquiry. Data or results may be in physical or electronic form. Examples of items, materials, or information that may be considered part of the research record include, but are not limited to, research proposals, raw data, processed data, clinical research records, laboratory records, study records, laboratory notebooks, progress reports, manuscripts, abstracts, theses, records of oral presentations, online content, lab meeting reports, and journal articles.

Respondent means the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding.

Retaliation means an adverse action taken against a complainant, witness, or committee member by an institution or one of its members in response to (a) a good faith allegation of research misconduct or (b) good faith cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding.

Witnesses are people whom the University has reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation. Witnesses provide information for review during research misconduct proceedings. Witnesses will cooperate with the research misconduct proceedings in good faith and have a reasonable belief in the truth of their testimony, based on the information known to them at the time.

The RIO or another designated official may conduct the inquiry in lieu of a committee. This individual may utilize one or more subject matter experts to assist them. Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO or another designated official will promptly assess the allegation to determine whether the allegation (a) is within the definition of research misconduct, (b) is within the applicability criteria of the regulation at § 93.102, and (c) is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. If the RIO or another designated official determines that the requirements for an inquiry are met, they shall document the assessment, promptly sequester all research records and other evidence, and promptly initiate the inquiry. If the RIO or another designated official determines that requirements for an inquiry are not met, the University will keep sufficiently detailed documentation of the assessment to permit a later review by HHS ORI of the reasons why an inquiry was not conducted. The institution will keep this documentation and related records in a secure manner for seven years and provide them to HHS ORI upon request.

The respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of evidence, affirmative defenses raised. Respondent’s destruction of research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where a preponderance of evidence establishes that the respondent intentionally or knowingly destroyed records after being informed of the research misconduct allegations. The respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of evidence, affirmative defenses raised. The respondent’s failure to provide research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where the respondent claims to possess the records but refuses to provide them upon request. The respondent will not be present during the witnesses’ interviews but will be provided a transcript of the interview after it takes place. The respondent will have opportunities to (a) view and comment on the inquiry report, (b) view and comment on the investigation report, and (c) submit any comments on the draft investigation report to the University within 30 days of receiving it. If admitting to research misconduct, the respondent will sign a written statement specifying the affected research records and confirming the misconduct was falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism; committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.

Committee members (and consortium members where applicable) are experts who act in good faith to cooperate with the research misconduct proceedings by impartially carrying out their assigned duties. Committee and consortium members will have relevant scientific expertise and be free of real or perceived conflicts of interest with any of the involved parties.
Committee or consortium members or anyone acting on behalf of the University will conduct research misconduct proceedings consistent with this policy. They will determine whether an investigation is warranted, documenting the decision in an inquiry report. During an investigation, committee or consortium members participate in recorded interviews of each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent(s). They will also determine whether the respondent(s) engaged in research misconduct and document the decision in the investigation report. They consider respondent and/or complainant comments on the inquiry/investigation report(s) and document that consideration in the investigation report.
An investigation into multiple respondents may convene with the same investigation committee or consortium members or anyone acting on behalf of the University, but there will be separate investigation reports and separate research misconduct determinations for each respondent. Committee or consortium members may serve for more than one investigation, in cases with multiple respondents. Committee members may also serve for both the inquiry and the investigation.