UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA

Policies and Procedures Manual

 

Subject of Policy Statement

Effective Date

Policy No.

 

Misconduct in Research

 

Rev:  03/06/07

 

0-301

 

I.     INTRODUCTION

A.           Statement of Purpose

 

The purpose of research within the University of South Florida (USF/University) is to create and disseminate, in the appropriate forum, knowledge from all disciplines represented within the University and to foster an active learning environment for students.  Society expects academic research to reflect an honest attempt to describe research results accurately and without bias.  Validity and accuracy in the proposing, collecting, and reporting of data are essential to the scientific process.  Dishonesty in these endeavors is contrary to the very nature of research, that is, the pursuit of truth.

 

Creating and preserving an environment in which activities that interfere with an honest search for truth are not tolerated is the shared responsibility of every member of the University community.  Each member must be dedicated to maintaining the highest standards in the conduct of research.  It is the responsibility of each researcher to become informed of the ethical principles in effect in the research community and to behave in accord with them.  The Guidelines for the Responsible Conduct of Research, authored by the USF Research Council and available on the Office of Research Web site (www.research.usf.edu) describe a standard of practice for the ethical conduct of all research at the University.

 

Misconduct in scholarly research cannot be prevented by University regulation, University policy, or law, but only by each individual's firm commitment to academic ideals and integrity.  Mentors, project directors, and department and unit heads must impress the importance of such a commitment upon faculty, students, staff, research assistants, and collaborators.

 

The University recognizes that researchers and scholars typically are highly principled.  Misconduct in research is an infrequent occurrence, but, when it does occur, it has the potential to impugn the integrity of the University and the individual researcher and to jeopardize access to external funding for research.  Federal agencies require that institutions engaged in federally sponsored research implement formal policies and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct and advise members of the research community of their responsibility to maintain the highest standards of academic integrity.

 

The procedures set forth herein are consistent with Federal regulation 42 CFR Part 93 and are to be followed in cases of allegations of Research Misconduct at the University.  Their purpose is to protect the safety, welfare, and rights of the University's faculty, staff, and students, and the integrity of the University itself, so that public confidence in the University's research activities is assured.  They provide a guide for investigating allegations of Research Misconduct and for reporting results to federal agencies and Research Sponsors that is prompt, impartial, and confidential.  These procedures describe protections from malicious or unsupported claims, but do not create any substantive or procedural rights or benefits enforceable as law by a party against the University, its agencies, officers, or employees. 

 

B.   Scope

 

This policy applies to any person paid by, under the control of, or affiliated with the University (such as, but not limited to, scientists, trainees, technicians and other staff members, students, fellows, guest researchers, or collaborators) who are engaged in research conducted at or by the University, regardless of the funding source.

 

 

These procedures will normally be followed when an allegation of Research Misconduct is received by a University official.  Particular circumstances in an individual case may dictate variation from the normal procedure when deemed in the best interests of the University.  However, any change from normal procedures must ensure fair treatment to the subject of the Inquiry or Investigation.  Any significant variation should be approved in advance by the Vice President for Research and, if applicable, the highest ranking research administrator at the campus where the alleged Research Misconduct occurred, and must comply with  42 CFR Part 93, if the underlying research is supported by Public Health Service (PHS) funds. Justification for the departure from this process must be documented in the Research Misconduct case file.

 

 

II.    DEFINITIONS

 

A.   “Allegation” means any written or oral statement or other indication of possible Research Misconduct made to a University official.

 

B.    “Complainant” means a person (or persons) making an allegation of Research Misconduct

 

C.    “Fabrication” is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

 

D.   “Falsification” is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research method or result is not accurately represented in the research record.

 

E.  “Inquiry” means information-gathering and initial fact-finding to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of Research Misconduct warrants an Investigation.

 

F.   “Investigation” means the formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts by an Investigation Panel to determine if Research Misconduct has occurred and, if so, to determine the responsible person and the seriousness of the misconduct.

 

G.  “Plagiarism” is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism does not encompass disagreements over order of authorship, rights to publish, or the use of ideas among collaborators.

 

H.  “Preponderance of the Evidence” means the reviewer believes it more likely than not that, based on the information presented to the reviewer, the allegation is true.  If the information presented on a particular issue is, in the opinion of the reviewer, equally balanced, that issue does not represent a preponderance of the evidence.

 

I.  “Questionable Research Practices” means practices that do not constitute Research Misconduct or unacceptable research practices, but that require attention because they could erode confidence in the integrity of research at the University.

 

J.  “Research,” as used herein, includes all basic, applied, and demonstration research in all fields in which research is conducted, including, but not limited to, science, medicine, education, engineering, mathematics, statistics, and humanities.  This includes research involving human subjects or animals.

 

K.  “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.  In any Inquiry or Investigation that involves research sponsored by a federal agency that uses a definition of Research Misconduct that is different from the one in this Section II.K., the University will be obligated to use that agency’s definition for purposes of the University’s responsibilities to that agency, as directed by the Research Integrity Officer.

 

L.  “Research Record” means any data, document, computer file, computer diskette, or any other written or non-written account or object that reasonably may be expected to provide information regarding the proposed, conducted, or reported research that constitutes the subject of an allegation of Research Misconduct.  A research record includes, but is not limited to; grant or contract applications, whether funded or unfunded; grant or contract progress and other reports; laboratory notebooks; notes; correspondence; videos; photographs; x-ray film; slides; biological materials; computer files and printouts; manuscripts and publications; equipment use logs; laboratory procurement records; animal facility records; human and animal subject protocols; consent forms; medical charts; and patient research files.

 

M.  “Research Sponsor” means the agency, institution, or organization, if any, that sponsored the research that is at issue in an Inquiry or Investigation.

 

N.  “Respondent” means a person (or persons) accused of Research Misconduct.

 

O.  “Retaliation” means an adverse action taken against a Complainant, witness, or committee member by this University or one of its University officials in response to (1) a good faith allegation of Research Misconduct, or (2) good faith cooperation with a Research Misconduct proceeding.

 

P.   “Standing Committee for Research Misconduct” means the faculty committee, whose membership is endorsed by the USF Faculty Senate Committee on Committees and appointed by the Vice President for Research, that oversees the Investigation portion of the Research Misconduct process.  The duties of the Standing Committee include appointing the Investigation Panel; orienting the Investigation Panel to the Investigation process; delivering the charge to the Investigation Panel to investigate the allegations; reviewing the Investigation Panel’s work; accepting (or rejecting) the Investigation Panel Report; requesting follow-up from the Investigation Panel; convening a new Investigation Panel, when necessary; summarizing and commenting on the Investigation Panels’ findings and procedures in a separate report; and communicating all findings and recommendations to the Vice President for Research.

 

Q. “Sufficient” means that there is some substance to the allegation.  The use of this term is intended to separate serious allegations deserving further evaluation through this process from frivolous, unjustified, or clearly mistaken allegations. 

 

R.  “Unacceptable Research Practices” means practices that do not constitute Research Misconduct, but do violate applicable laws, regulations, or other governmental requirements or University regulations and policies, of which the Respondent has received notice or of which the Respondent reasonably should have been aware.

 

 

III.   RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

 

A.  Complainant

The Complainant will have an opportunity to be interviewed by and present information to the individual or committee conducting the Inquiry and the Investigation Panel, to review portions of the Inquiry and Investigation Reports pertinent to his or her allegations or statements, and to be informed of the initiation and results of the Inquiry and Investigation. 

 

The Complainant is responsible for making allegations in “good faith,” maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating with an Inquiry or Investigation.  A “good faith” allegation means that the Complainant made the allegation with a belief in the truth of the allegation (which a reasonable person in the Complainant’s position would have done) based upon the information known to the Complainant at the time the allegation was made.  Good faith encompasses, among other things, an honest belief, the absence of malice and the absence of design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage.  The University prohibits retaliation against a Complainant who has made an allegation of Research Misconduct in good faith. 

 

A Complainant who makes an allegation in “bad faith” may be vulnerable to individually pursued legal claims by the Respondent, as well as subject to disciplinary or other sanctions as provided by this policy.  A bad faith allegation means that the Complainant has made an allegation that is known to be false, or the Complainant is reckless as to the truth of the allegation, as in where the allegation is so completely unsupported by any detectible amount of credible information such as to be considered frivolous in nature.  Bad faith encompasses, among other things, malicious intent and a lack of respect for the confidentiality of the proceedings, such as where disclosure is made to a person or persons not reasonably believed to be necessary to the resolution of the allegation.  A Complainant who brings an allegation later determined to be in bad faith will not be entitled to anonymity to the extent provided by this policy and will not enjoy “whistleblower” status for purpose of the protections afforded by law for persons who bring allegations in good faith. 

 

Once a Complainant has made a formal allegation of Research Misconduct, the Complainant must be treated as any other witness in the proceeding.  The Complainant is not a "party," does not control or direct the process, does not act as a decision maker, and does not have unqualified access to the available documents or research records.

 

B.  Respondent

 

The Respondent will be informed of the allegations when an Inquiry is opened and notified in writing of the final determination and resulting action.  The Respondent will also have the opportunity to be interviewed by and present information to the individual or committee conducting the Inquiry and/or Investigation Panel, to review the draft Inquiry and Investigation Reports, and to be accompanied by a lawyer or any other person when appearing at a meeting of the Investigation Panel.  The role of such lawyer or other person is as an advisor only, and the advisor may speak to and consult with the Respondent, but may not serve as an advocate or question witnesses, Inquiry Committee members, or Investigation Panel members, or otherwise participate in the proceedings.  If the Respondent wishes to have a lawyer present, he or she shall give the Investigation Panel advance notice in writing.  If the Respondent chooses to have a lawyer as personal advisor, the Respondent shall bear the burden of any associated expense.

 

If the Respondent does not wish to have a lawyer or advisor, it is important to note that the Research Integrity Officer is a trained administrator who is available to guide the Respondent through the Inquiry and Investigation processes, answer questions about this policy, and to ensure that the Respondent is aware of his or her rights. 

 

The Respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating with the conduct of an Inquiry or Investigation.  If the Respondent is not found guilty of Research Misconduct, the University may assist the Respondent in mitigating any actual or perceived damage to the Respondent’s reputation in the research community, depending on the circumstances. 

 

C.  Research Integrity Officer

 

The Research Integrity Officer has responsibility for implementing institutional policies and procedures governing Research Misconduct allegations.  The Research Integrity Officer will be a University administrator who is well qualified to handle the procedural requirements involved and who is sensitive to the varied demands made on those who conduct research, those who are accused of Research Misconduct and those who report apparent Research Misconduct in good faith.

 

The Research Integrity Officer will assist the Vice President for Research, the individual conducting the initial Inquiry, the Standing Committee for Research Misconduct, the Investigation Panel, the Complainant, the Respondent, and any other individuals or University personnel involved in the Research Misconduct process, in complying with this policy, the procedures, and the applicable standards imposed by government or external Research Sponsors.  The Research Integrity Officer will organize and manage the Inquiry and Investigation processes and will attempt to ensure that confidentiality is maintained to the extent permissible by law during and after the Inquiry and Investigation process.  The Research Integrity Officer is also responsible for maintaining files of all documents and research records and for the confidentiality and the security of the files. 

 

If allegations involve research that is funded by the Public Health Service (PHS), the Research Integrity Officer will inform the Vice President for Research and assist with required notifications to the Office of Research Integrity, as required by PHS Regulation 42 CFR Part 93.  The Research Integrity Officer will also inform the Vice President for Research about required notification to Research Sponsors upon substantiation of an allegation of Research Misconduct pursuant to this policy, or at any other point in the Investigation process, if the Vice President for Research determines that the Research Sponsor needs to know in order to ensure the appropriate use of federal funds and to otherwise protect the public interest. 

 

D.  Standing Committee for Research Misconduct

 

The Standing Committee for Research Misconduct is appointed by the Vice President for Research and is comprised of six faculty members from different colleges or areas within the University.  The members of the Standing Committee serve for staggered terms, with two of the members appointed for one year, two for two years, and two for three years.  Membership terms are renewable.  The Vice President for Research designates the Chair of the Committee.

 

The Standing Committee is responsible for appointing the Investigation Panel when an Inquiry proceeds to an Investigation, for charging the Investigation Panel with investigating the allegation(s), and for reviewing the Investigation Panel’s report.  The Investigation Panel will include a specialist in the Respondent’s area of specialization and a faculty representative from the Respondent’s campus.  The Standing Committee hears the Respondent’s response to the Investigation Panel’s Report and is responsible for accepting or rejecting findings.  The Standing Committee may remand the case to the original Investigation Panel with instructions for further consideration or investigation, or may appoint new Investigation Panel members for a de novo review.

 

The Standing Committee issues its own Report summarizing the review of the Investigation Panel Report, describing how and from whom relevant information was obtained, the findings, and an accurate summary of the views of the Respondent; recommendations for corrective or disciplinary action may be included, but are not binding.  The Standing Committee Report is transmitted by the Standing Committee Chair to the Vice President for Research for review and referral to the Provost, appropriate Vice President, or other appropriate University official(s) for review and action.   

 

E. Vice President for Research

 

The Vice President for Research is the Authorized Institutional Official recognized by Research Sponsors and registered with the Public Health Service as the USF individual responsible for reporting matters of Research Misconduct to Research Sponsors and oversight agencies, such as the federal Office of Research Integrity.  The Vice President for Research may take interim administrative actions, as appropriate, to protect federal funds and to ensure that the purposes of the federal financial assistance are carried out.

 

The Vice President for Research serves as an advisor and facilitator in the Research Misconduct process, but is not responsible for determining if facts found during the course of the Inquiry or Investigation constitute Research Misconduct or for determining what, if any, disciplinary action may be taken. 

 

The Vice President for Research, in consultation with the Research Integrity Officer and other appropriate persons, including the highest ranking research administrator at the regional campus if the allegation of Research Misconduct takes place at a regional campus, determines who will conduct the initial Inquiry; charges that person with the Inquiry; receives the Inquiry Report; and at the close of the Inquiry process, if deemed necessary, charges the Standing Committee with overseeing the Investigation; receives and reviews the Standing Committee’s Investigation Report to make certain that proper procedure has been followed; forwards the Inquiry Report and/or Investigation Report to the Provost, appropriate Vice President, or other appropriate University official(s); and recommends administrative sanctions or actions relating to the research activities of the Respondent or other University employee(s) as a result of the Investigation.

 

The Vice President for Research consults with the Research Integrity Officer on matters of procedure and with other individuals familiar with the practices and standards in the relevant field of the research on matters concerning the substance of the Inquiry or Investigation. 

 

 

IV.   GENERAL POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES

 

A.   Responsibility to Report Misconduct

 

Any person suspecting or observing apparent Research Misconduct should report such to the USF Research Integrity Officer or to the administrator responsible for research programs within the college, school or unit where the Respondent is employed/appointed/affiliated.  Any administrator who receives a report of possible Research Misconduct is responsible for forwarding such report to the Research Integrity Officer, USF Division of Research Integrity & Compliance, Office of the Vice President for Research.

 

At any time, an employee may discuss concerns of possible misconduct with the Research Integrity Officer and will be counseled about appropriate procedures for reporting allegations.  If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of Research Misconduct, he or she may contact the Research Integrity Officer to discuss the suspected misconduct informally.  If the circumstances described by the individual do not meet the definition of Research Misconduct, the Research Integrity Officer will refer the individual or allegation to the Office of University Audit and Compliance, the office responsible for identifying the nature of the allegation and referring the matter in whole or in part to other offices or officials to assess and address the allegation.  However, once an allegation of Research Misconduct is reported, even anonymously, the University has a responsibility to evaluate the merits of the allegation.  Therefore, if the circumstances described meet the definition of Research Misconduct, the Research Integrity Officer will be obligated to follow-up, based on the information provided, and to request an Inquiry into the matter, with or without the cooperation of the individual reporting the alleged Research Misconduct. 

 

B.     Protecting the Complainant

 

Regardless of whether the University, through the application of the process set forth in this policy, or the Research Sponsor determines that Research Misconduct occurred, the Research Integrity Officer will undertake reasonable steps to protect individuals who make allegations of Research Misconduct in good faith (honestly and without intent to defraud, seek a competitive or other unfair advantage, and without deception or malicious intent) and others who cooperate with Inquiries and Investigations of such allegations, including monitoring the treatment of such individuals throughout the process.  At a minimum, the Research Integrity Officer will ensure that these persons will not be retaliated against in the terms and conditions of their employment or other status at the University and will refer any instances of alleged retaliation to the appropriate University official for evaluation and action.

 

Employees should immediately report any alleged or apparent retaliation to their immediate or next-level supervisor, if feasible, or to the Office of University Audit and Compliance (see USF Policy 0-020 Retaliation, Retribution, or Reprisals Prohibited).

 

The University will also protect the privacy of those who report misconduct in good faith to the extent possible without compromising the investigation.  For example, if the Complainant requests anonymity, the University will make an effort to honor the request during the allegation assessment or Inquiry within applicable policies and regulations and state and local laws.  However, anonymity may not always be able to be preserved.  The Complainant will be advised that, if the matter is referred to the Investigation stage of the process and the Complainant’s statement is required, anonymity may no longer be guaranteed.  If it is determined that an allegation has been brought in bad faith, anonymity will not be preserved.

 

Upon completion of an Investigation, the University may consult with the Complainant to determine what steps, if any, are needed to restore the Complainant’s position or reputation.  Any institutional actions to restore the Complainant’s reputation must be approved by the appropriate University officials.

 

C.     Protecting the Respondent

 

Inquiries and Investigations will be conducted in a manner that will ensure fair treatment of the Respondent in the Inquiry and/or Investigation.  Participants will treat the Respondent with respect and will protect the Respondent’s confidentiality to the extent possible without compromising public health and safety or the thoroughness of the Inquiry or Investigation.  The University will not comment publicly on an Inquiry or Investigation in progress.  Any deviation from these procedures or breaches of confidentiality should be reported to the Research Integrity Officer immediately.

 

Individuals accused of Research Misconduct may consult with legal counsel or a non-lawyer personal advisor (who is not a principal or witness in the case) to seek advice and may bring the counsel or personal advisor to interviews or meetings on the case.  If the Respondent does not wish to have a lawyer or personal advisor, it is important to note that the Research Integrity Officer is a trained administrator who is available to guide the Respondent through the Inquiry and Investigation processes, to answer questions about this policy, and to ensure that the Respondent is aware of his or her rights.

 

If the allegation is not substantiated, the University may consult with the Respondent to identify reasonable steps that may be taken to restore the Respondent's reputation.  Depending on the particular circumstances, reasonable steps may include 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 Research Misconduct was previously publicized, or giving extra publicity to the Respondent’s research.  Any University actions to restore the Respondent's reputation must be approved by the appropriate University officials, including, if applicable, the highest ranking research administrator at the regional campus.  In the event that a determination of questionable or unacceptable research practices or other misconduct has been found that does not meet the definition of Research Misconduct, the University shall consider the circumstances in determining whether any University action to restore the Respondent’s reputation would be advisable. 

 

This process is designed to provide protection against false claims by including an initial Inquiry process to ensure that the information presented to indicate Research Misconduct is substantial prior to proceeding with an Investigation.  Further, Complainants who make allegations in bad faith will be subject to disciplinary action and other sanctions.

 

D.    Cooperation with Inquiries and Investigations

 

Employees are required, as a condition of employment, to cooperate with the processes and procedures of the University, including the Research Misconduct process. Therefore, employees have an obligation to cooperate with and provide relevant information to the Research Integrity Officer and other institutional officials in the review of allegations and the conduct of inquiries and investigations. Employees also have an obligation to cooperate with Research Sponsors and federal or state agencies in the conduct of Inquiries and Investigations, the oversight of the Research Misconduct process, and any follow-up actions.  All other individuals who are affiliated with the University, including students, fellows, guest researchers, and others, are expected to cooperate with these processes and procedures as a condition of their affiliation and as a professional responsibility associated with the privilege of conducting research at the University.

 

E.     Integrity of Proceedings

 

In responding to allegations of Research Misconduct, the Research Integrity Officer and any other University official with an assigned responsibility for handling such allegations will make diligent efforts to ensure that the following functions are performed.

 

1.  Any allegation assessment, Inquiry, or Investigation is conducted in a timely, objective, thorough, and competent manner.

 

2.Reasonable precautions are taken to avoid bias and real or apparent conflicts of interest on the part of those involved in conducting the Inquiry or Investigation.