SA���ʴ�ý

I.   POLICY STATEMENT. 

SA���ʴ�ý (“College”) is committed to upholding the highest standards of rigor in research and scholarship. The College is committed to fostering an environment that promotes research integrity and the responsible conduct of research, discourages research misconduct, and deals promptly with allegations or evidence of possible research misconduct.

All institutional members, faculty, staff, and students, are expected to conduct research with honesty, rigor, and transparency. Each institutional member is responsible for contributing to an organizational culture that establishes, maintains, and promotes research integrity and the responsible conduct of research.

SA���ʴ�ý strives to reduce the risk of research misconduct, support all good-faith efforts to report suspected misconduct, promptly and thoroughly address all allegations of research misconduct, and seek to rectify the research record and/or restore researchers’ reputations, as appropriate. To foster this environment, the College is committed to establishing mechanisms for reporting alleged research misconduct; responding promptly and appropriately to allegations of research misconduct; and establishing protocols for handling and securing the institutional record and evidence of possible research misconduct as outlined in the policy and procedures below. 

The following procedures under this Policy conform to the (42 CFR Part 93, “the PHS regulation”). The College utilizes the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) policies and procedures as its standard for research integrity and when responding to allegations of research misconduct. However, if a project is funded by a non-PHS federal agency or private sponsor, the College will comply with the specific regulations or reporting requirements of that sponsor.

For definitions of terms used in this section and elsewhere, see the Definitions section.

II.  APPLICABILITY. 

This policy applies to all faculty, staff, and students involved in funded or unfunded research activities associated with the College. The Research Integrity Officer is responsible for informing faculty, staff, and students of the College’s policy with regard to research misconduct.

These policies and procedures apply to research misconduct occurring within six years of the date the College or external funding or oversight agency receives an allegation of research misconduct, subject to the following exceptions:

• The six-year time limitation does not apply if the respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct that occurred before the six-year period through the use of, republication of, or citation to the portion(s) of the research record alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized, for the potential benefit of the respondent (“subsequent use exception”). For alleged research misconduct that appears subject to this subsequent use exception, but SA���ʴ�ý determines is not subject to the exception, the College will document its determination that the subsequent use exception does not apply and will retain this documentation for the later of seven years after completion of the institutional proceeding or the completion of any HHS proceeding.
• The six-year time limitation also does not apply if HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI) or SA���ʴ�ý, following consultation with ORI, determines that the alleged research misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public.

III.  DEFINITIONS.  

Accepted practices of the relevant research community. This term means those practices established by commonly accepted professional codes or norms within the overarching community of researchers and institutions, and established by 42 CFR Part 93 and by PHS funding components.

Allegation. This term is a disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of the College or HHS official.

Assessment. Assessment means a consideration of whether an allegation of research misconduct appears to fall within the definition of research misconduct; appears to involve research, research training, or activities related to that research or research training; and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. The assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation.

Complainant. Complainant means an individual who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct.

Evidence. Evidence means anything offered or obtained during a research misconduct proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact. Evidence includes documents, whether in hard copy or electronic form, information, tangible items, and testimony.

Fabrication. Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

�󲹱�����fic���پ��Dz�. 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.

Funded research. Funded research means any research, scholarship, creative activity, or other project conducted by SA���ʴ�ý faculty, staff, or students that is financially supported, in whole or in part, by external sponsors (such as a federal agency, private foundation, or industry partner) or internal College funds.

Good faith. (a) Good faith 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. (b) Good faith as applied to the College or committee member means cooperating with the research misconduct proceeding by impartially carrying out the duties assigned for the purpose of helping the College meet its responsibilities under 42 CFR Part 93 and/or this policy. The College 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.

Inquiry. Inquiry means preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding that meets the criteria and follows the procedures of this policy and/or § 93.307 through § 93.309.

Institutional Deciding Official. Institutional Deciding Official means the College official who makes final determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any institutional actions. The same individual cannot serve as the Institutional Deciding Official and the Research Integrity Officer. At Occidental, the Institutional Deciding Official shall be the Dean of the College.

Institutional member. 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 the College. 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.

Institutional record. The institutional record comprises: (a) The records that the College compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the institution did not consider or rely on; (b) a single index listing all the research records and evidence that the institution compiled during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the institution did not consider or rely on; and (c) a general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.

Intentionally. To act intentionally means to act with the aim of carrying out the act.

Investigation. Investigation means the formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record that meets the criteria and follows the procedures of this policy and/or §§ 93.310 through 93.317.

Knowingly. To act knowingly means to act with awareness of the act.

Plagiarism. Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words, or through the use or assistance of other persons, entities, or tools, including artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools, without giving appropriate credit. (a) Plagiarism 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 commonly used methodology. (b) Plagiarism 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. Self-plagiarism and authorship disputes do not meet the definition of research misconduct.

Preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence means proof by evidence that, compared with evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely true than not.

Recklessly. To act recklessly means to propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.

Research Integrity Officer. The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) refers to the institutional official responsible for administering the institution’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct in compliance with 42 CFR Part 93. At Occidental, the Research Integrity Officer shall be the Director of Sponsored Research.

Research misconduct. Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, whether committed by an individual directly or through the use or assistance of other persons, entities, or tools, including artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools, in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

Research record. Research record means the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from research. 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. Respondent means the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding.

Retaliation. Retaliation means an adverse action taken against a complainant, witness, or committee member by the College 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.

Unfunded research. Unfunded research means any research, scholarship, creative activity, or other project conducted by SA���ʴ�ý faculty, staff, or students conducted without any dedicated financial budget, i.e., that is not financially supported, in whole or in part, by external sponsors (such as a federal agency, private foundation, or industry partner) or internal college funds.

IV.  POLICY.

A.        Roles, Rights, and Responsibilities in Proceedings

1.         SA���ʴ�ý

a.         General responsibilities

To the extent possible, the College will (1) inform all institutional members about these policies and procedures, (2) make these policies and procedures publicly available, and (3) limit disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses while conducting the research misconduct proceedings to those who need to know.

The college will instruct all involved parties about the strict confidentiality of the proceedings and instruct all parties not to disclose any information to unauthorized individuals. This limitation on disclosure no longer applies once the College has made a final determination of research misconduct findings.

The College will respond to each allegation of research misconduct in a thorough, competent, objective, and fair manner. To prevent conflicts of interest, the College will require all administrators, including the Research Integrity Officer and Institutional Deciding Official, and potential committee members to sign formal disclosures declaring any personal, professional, or financial ties to the parties. The College will take all reasonable and practical steps to ensure the cooperation of respondents and other institutional members with research misconduct proceedings, including, but not limited to, their providing information, research records, and other evidence. The College will issue non-retaliation directives to all involved parties and monitor for signs of retaliation.

The College agrees to cooperate with HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI) during any research misconduct proceeding or compliance review, where applicable, including addressing deficiencies or additional allegations in the institutional record if directed by ORI and to assist in administering and enforcing any HHS administrative actions imposed on institutional members. The College may also take steps to manage published data or acknowledge that data may be unreliable.

To ensure regulatory compliance, the Research Integrity Officer will oversee proceedings, and the College will require them to take mandatory training on research misconduct.

b.         Responsibilities during and after a research misconduct proceeding

Except as may otherwise be prescribed by applicable law, the College will maintain confidentiality for any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified and will limit disclosure to those who need to know to carry out a research misconduct proceeding. The College will ensure that the institutional record contains all required elements, i.e., research records that were compiled and considered during the proceedings, assessment documentation, and inquiry and/or investigation reports.

The College will provide information related to the alleged research misconduct and proceedings to ORI upon request and transfer custody or provide copies of the institutional record or any component of it and any sequestered evidence to HHS, regardless of whether the evidence is included in the institutional record. Disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses while the College is conducting the research misconduct proceedings is limited to those who need to know, which the College will determine consistent with a thorough, competent, objective, and fair research misconduct proceeding, and as allowed by law. Those who need to know may include institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions.

c.         Responsibilities to the complainant(s)

The College will provide confidentiality consistent with 42 CFR Part 93 for all complainants in a research misconduct proceeding. The College will also take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the research misconduct proceeding do not have potential, perceived, or actual personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the complainant(s). The College agrees to take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of complainants and to protect these individuals from retaliation by respondents and/or other institutional members.

d.         Responsibilities to the respondent(s)

As with complainants, the College will provide confidentiality consistent with 42 CFR Part 93 to all respondents in a research misconduct proceeding. The College will take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the research misconduct proceeding do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the respondent.

The College will bear the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, for making a finding of research misconduct. The College will make all reasonable, practical efforts, if requested and as appropriate, to protect or restore the reputation of respondents against whom no finding of research misconduct is made.

e.         Responsibilities to committee members

The College will ensure that a committee, consortium, or person acting on the College’s behalf conducts research misconduct proceedings in compliance with the PHS regulation. The College will take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of good-faith committee members and to protect these individuals from retaliation.

f.          Responsibilities to the witness[es]

The College will provide confidentiality consistent with 42 CFR Part 93 for all witnesses. The College will take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the proceedings do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the witnesses. The College will also take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of witnesses and to protect these individuals from retaliation.

2.         Complainant

The complainant is the person who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct. The complainant brings research misconduct allegations directly to the attention of an institutional or HHS official through any means of communication. The complainant will make allegations in good faith, as it is defined in the PHS regulation, as having a reasonable belief in the truth of one’s allegation or testimony, based on the information known to the complainant at the time.

3.         Respondent

The respondent is the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding. The respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of evidence, affirmative defenses raised. The 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’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.

4.         Witnesses

Witnesses are people whom SA���ʴ�ý 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.

B.        Assessment

An assessment’s purpose is to determine whether an allegation warrants an inquiry. An assessment is intended to be a review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation. The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) is the institutional official responsible for administering SA���ʴ�ý’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct in compliance with the PHS regulation.

Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO will promptly assess the allegation to determine whether the allegation (a) falls within the definition of research misconduct, and (b) is credible and specific enough to identify and sequester potential evidence.

If the RIO determines that the allegation meets these three criteria, the RIO will promptly: (a) document the assessment and (b) initiate an inquiry and sequester all research records and other evidence. If the RIO determines that the alleged misconduct does not meet the criteria to proceed to an inquiry, the RIO will write sufficiently detailed documentation to permit a later review of why SA���ʴ�ý did not proceed to an inquiry The College will keep this documentation and related records in a secure manner for seven years.

C.        Inquiry

An inquiry is warranted if the allegation (a) falls within the definition of research misconduct, and (b) is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. An inquiry’s purpose is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine whether an allegation warrants an investigation. An inquiry does not require a full review of all related evidence. SA���ʴ�ý will complete the inquiry within 90 days of initiating it unless circumstances warrant a longer period, in which it will sufficiently document the reasons for exceeding the time limit in the inquiry report.

1.         Sequestering Evidence and Notifying the Respondent

Before or at the time of notifying the respondent(s), SA���ʴ�ý will obtain the original or substantially equivalent copies of all research records and other evidence that are pertinent to the proceeding, inventory these materials, sequester the materials in a secure manner, and retain them for seven years. The College has a duty to obtain, inventory, and securely sequester evidence that extends to whenever additional items become known or relevant to the inquiry or investigation.

Records will be gathered by asking complainant(s), respondent(s), and witness[es] to provide documents. Records may also be obtained from (1) College-owned resources (such as computers, clouds, systems, and software) with the support of ITS, (2) publicly available resources (such as the internet, journals, books, and other forms of publications), or (3) any other persons or entity who has custody or possession of relevant records. Records will be sequestered using a secure storage system with the support of ITS.

Except as may otherwise be prescribed by applicable law, confidentiality must be maintained for any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified. All human subjects data will be de-identified before being provided to the committee members. Confidentiality of sensitive evidence that is held by individual departments or divisions (such as Human Resources, Civil Rights and Title IX, and the Human Subjects Research Review Committee) will be maintained consistent with any department-specific policies, to the extent feasible. Disclosure will be limited to those who need to know to carry out a research misconduct proceeding.

At the time of or before beginning the inquiry, SA���ʴ�ý will make a good-faith effort to notify the presumed respondent(s), in writing, that an allegation(s) of research misconduct has been raised against them, the relevant research records have been sequestered, and an inquiry will be conducted to decide whether to proceed with an investigation. If additional allegations are raised, the College will notify the respondent(s) in writing. When appropriate, the College will give the respondent(s) copies of, or reasonable supervised access to, the sequestered materials.

If additional respondents are identified, SA���ʴ�ý will provide written notification to the new respondent(s). All additional respondents will be given the same rights and opportunities as the initial respondent. Only allegations specific to a particular respondent will be included in the notification to that respondent.

2.         Convening the Committee and Ensuring Neutrality

SA���ʴ�ý will ensure that all inquiry committee members understand their commission, keep the identities of respondents, complainants, and witnesses confidential, and conduct the research misconduct proceedings in compliance with this policy. In lieu of a committee, the College may task the RIO or another designated institutional official to conduct the inquiry, provided this person utilizes subject matter experts as needed to assist in the inquiry. Committee members are experts who act in good faith to cooperate with the research misconduct proceedings by impartially carrying out their assigned duties. Committee members will have relevant expertise and be free of real or perceived conflicts of interest with any of the involved parties.

3.         Determining Whether an Investigation Is Warranted

The inquiry committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official will conduct a preliminary review of the evidence. Committee members will conduct an assessment and determine whether an investigation is warranted, documenting the decision in an inquiry report. In the process of fact-finding, the inquiry committee may interview the respondent and/or witnesses.

An investigation is warranted if (a) there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct; and (b) preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding from the inquiry indicates that the allegation may have substance.

The inquiry committee will not determine if research misconduct occurred, nor assess whether the alleged misconduct was intentional, knowing, or reckless; such a determination is not made until the case proceeds to an investigation.

4.         Documenting the Inquiry

At the conclusion of the inquiry, regardless of whether an investigation is warranted, the inquiry committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official will prepare a written inquiry report. The contents of a complete inquiry report will include:

1. The names, professional aliases, and positions of the respondent and complainant(s).
2. A description of the allegation(s) of research misconduct.
3. Details about the PHS or other funding (if applicable), including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS or other support.
4. The composition of the inquiry committee, if used, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
5. An inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted.
6. Transcripts of interviews, if transcribed.
7. Inquiry timeline and procedural history.
8. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
9. The basis for recommending that the allegation(s) warrant an investigation.
10. The basis on which any allegation(s) do not merit further investigation.
11. Any comments on the inquiry report by the respondent or the complainant(s).
12. Any institutional actions implemented, including internal communications or external communications with journals or funding agencies.
13. Documentation of potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion.

5.         Completing the Inquiry

SA���ʴ�ý will give the respondent a copy of the draft inquiry report for review and comment. The College will give due consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the respondent. The College may, but is not required to, provide relevant portions of the report to a complainant for comment.

SA���ʴ�ý will notify the respondent of the inquiry’s final outcome and provide the respondent with copies of the final inquiry report, the PHS regulation (if applicable), and these policies and procedures. The College may, but is not required to, notify a complainant whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted. If the College provides notice to one complainant in a case, it must provide notice, to the extent possible, to all complainants in the case.

6.         If an Investigation Is Not Warranted:

If the inquiry committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official determines that an investigation is not warranted, SA���ʴ�ý will keep sufficiently detailed documentation to permit a later review of why the College did not proceed to an investigation and store these records in a secure manner for at least seven years after the termination of the inquiry.

7.         If an Investigation Is Warranted:

If the inquiry committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official determines that an investigation is warranted, SA���ʴ�ý must: (a) within a reasonable amount of time after this decision, provide written notice to the respondent(s) of the decision to conduct an investigation of the alleged misconduct, including any allegations of research misconduct not addressed during the inquiry; and (b) within 30 days of determining that an investigation is warranted, provide ORI with a copy of the inquiry report if applicable.

On a case-by-case basis, SA���ʴ�ý may choose to notify the complainant that there will be an investigation of the alleged misconduct but is required to take the same notification action for all complainants in cases where there is more than one complainant.

D.        Investigation

The purpose of an investigation is to formally develop a factual record, pursue leads, examine the record, and recommend finding(s) to the IDO, who will make the final decision, based on a preponderance of evidence, on each allegation and any institutional actions. As part of its investigation, the College will pursue diligently all significant issues and relevant leads, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion. Within 30 days after deciding an investigation is warranted, SA���ʴ�ý will notify ORI of the decision to investigate (if applicable) and begin the investigation.

1.         Notifying the Respondent and Sequestering Evidence

SA���ʴ�ý will notify the respondent(s) of the allegation(s) within 30 days of determining that an investigation is warranted and before the investigation begins. If any additional respondent(s) are identified during the investigation, the College will notify them of the allegation(s) and provide them an opportunity to respond. If the College identifies additional respondents during the investigation, it may choose to either conduct a separate inquiry or add the new respondent(s) to the ongoing investigation. The College will obtain the original or substantially equivalent copies of all research records and other evidence, inventory these materials, sequester them in a secure manner, and retain them for seven years after its proceeding or any HHS proceeding, whichever is later.

2.         Interim Administrative Actions

The College may take interim administrative actions as determined by the appropriate governing  authority and process for each constituent body.

3.         Convening an Investigation Committee

The IDO will convene an Investigation Committee, which will include at least one faculty member and will have at most four members. The committee will be composed entirely of individuals with research experience and should have at least one member with relevant experience in the field where the alleged misconduct took place. Retired faculty are eligible to serve on an Investigation Committee, and all non-retired faculty members on the committee will be tenured. Students are eligible to serve on an Investigation Committee at the discretion of the IDO. If there was an Inquiry Committee then members of the Inquiry Committee are eligible to serve on the Investigation Committee, but not required to do so.

After vetting investigation committee members for conflicts of interest and appropriate expertise, the College will convene the committee and ensure that the members understand their responsibility to conduct the research misconduct proceedings in compliance with this policy and/or the PHS regulation.

The investigation committee will conduct interviews, pursue leads, and examine all research records and other evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegation(s). The College will use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough, sufficiently documented, and impartial and unbiased to the maximum extent practicable. The College will notify the respondent in writing of any additional allegations raised against them during the investigation.

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). Personal legal counsel are not permitted to attend interviews.

The committee or consortium members will also determine whether or not the respondent(s) engaged in research misconduct and document the decision in the investigation report. They will also  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 SA���ʴ�ý, 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.

4.         Conducting Interviews

SA���ʴ�ý will interview each respondent, complainant(s), 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. Personal legal counsel are not permitted to attend interviews. The College will number all relevant exhibits and refer to any exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview by that number. The College will record and transcribe interviews during the investigation and make the transcripts available to the interviewee for correction. The College will include the transcript(s) with any corrections and exhibits in the institutional record of the investigation. The respondent will not be present during the witnesses’ interviews, but the College will provide the respondent with a transcript of each interview, with redactions as appropriate to maintain confidentiality.

5.         Documenting the Investigation

SA���ʴ�ý will complete all aspects of the investigation within 180 days. The College will conduct the investigation, prepare the draft investigation report for each respondent, and provide the opportunity for respondents to comment. The College will document the IDO’s final decision and,  if applicable, transmit the institutional record (including the final investigation report and IDO’s decision) to ORI. If the investigation takes more than 180 days to complete, the College will ask ORI in writing for an extension (if applicable) and document the reasons for exceeding the 180-day period in the investigation report.

The investigation report for each respondent will include:

1. Description of the nature of the allegation(s) of research misconduct, including any additional allegation(s) addressed during the research misconduct proceeding.
2. Description and documentation of the PHS or other support if applicable, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS or other support. This documentation includes known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with PHS and non-PHS Federal agencies.
3. Description of the specific allegation(s) of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation of the respondent.
4. Composition of the investigation committee, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
5. Inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence, except records the College did not consider or rely on. This inventory will include manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied on during the investigation. The inventory will also include a description of how any sequestration was conducted during the investigation.
6. Transcripts of all interviews conducted.
7. Identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), PHS or other funding applications (if applicable), progress reports, presentations, posters, or other research records that contain the allegedly falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material.
8. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
9. A copy of these policies and procedures.
10. Any comments made by the respondent and complainant(s) on the draft investigation report and the committee’s consideration of those comments.
11. A statement for each separate allegation of whether the committee recommends a finding of research misconduct.

If the committee recommends a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the investigation report will present a finding for each allegation. These findings will (a) identify the individual(s) who committed the research misconduct; (b) indicate whether the misconduct was falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism; (c) indicate whether the misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; (d) identify any significant departure from the accepted practices of the relevant research community and that the allegation was proven by a preponderance of the evidence; (e) summarize the facts and analysis supporting the conclusion and consider the merits of any explanation by the respondent; (f) identify the specific PHS or other support (if applicable); and (g) state whether any publications need correction or retraction.

If the investigation committee does not recommend a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the investigation report will provide a detailed rationale for its conclusion.

The investigation committee should also provide a recommendation of sanctions, in accordance with College policies.

6.         Completing the Investigation

SA���ʴ�ý will give the respondent a copy of the draft investigation report and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the research records and other evidence that the investigation committee considered or relied on. The respondent will submit any comments on the draft report to the College within 30 days of receiving the draft investigation report. If SA���ʴ�ý chooses to share a copy of the draft investigation report or relevant portions of it with the complainant(s) for comment, the complainant’s comments will be submitted within 30 days of the date on which they received the report. The College will add any comments received to the investigation report.

7.         IDO Review of the Investigation Report

The Institutional Deciding Official (IDO) makes the final determination of research misconduct findings. The IDO will review the investigation report and make a final written determination of whether the College found research misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct. The IDO documents their determination in a written decision that includes whether research misconduct occurred, and if so, what kind and who committed it, and a description of the relevant actions SA���ʴ�ý has taken or will take. In this statement, the IDO will include a description of relevant institutional actions taken or to be taken. The IDO’s written decision becomes part of the institutional record.

8.         Internal Appeals Process

If the IDO determines a finding of research misconduct, the respondent may appeal to the IDO on grounds of improper procedure or a capricious or arbitrary decision based on the evidence in the record. New evidence may lead the IDO to call for a new investigation or further investigation, but not to an immediate reversal of the finding. After hearing any appeal and reviewing the case, the IDO should make a decision, or, in appropriate cases, recommend a final disposition to the Board of Trustees. The decision of the Board is final.

9.         Creating and Transmitting the Institutional Record

After the IDO or the Board of Trustees has made a final determination of research misconduct findings, SA���ʴ�ý will add the written decision to the investigation report and organize the institutional record in a logical manner.

The institutional record consists of the records that were compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the College did not rely on. These records include documentation of the assessment, a single index listing all research records and evidence, the inquiry report and investigation report, and all records considered or relied on during the investigation. The institutional record also includes the final decision and any information the respondent provided to the College. The institutional record must also include a general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.

If the respondent filed an appeal, the complete record of any institutional appeal also becomes part of the institutional record. After the IDO or the Board of Trustees has made a final written determination, and any institutional appeal is complete, the College must transmit the institutional record to ORI if applicable.

E.        Other Procedures and Special Circumstances

1.         Multiple Institutions and Multiple Respondents

If the alleged research misconduct involves multiple institutions, SA���ʴ�ý may work closely with the other affected institutions to determine whether a joint research misconduct proceeding will be conducted. If so, the cooperating institutions will choose an institution to serve as the lead institution. In a joint research misconduct proceeding, the lead institution will obtain research records and other evidence pertinent to the proceeding, including witness testimony, from the other relevant institutions. By mutual agreement, the joint research misconduct proceeding may include committee members from the institutions involved. The determination of whether further inquiry and/or investigation is warranted, whether research misconduct occurred, and the institutional actions to be taken may be made by the institutions jointly or tasked to the lead institution.

If the alleged research misconduct involves multiple respondents, SA���ʴ�ý may either conduct a separate inquiry for each new respondent or add them to the ongoing proceedings. The College must give additional respondent(s) notice of and an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

2.         Respondent Admissions

SA���ʴ�ý will promptly notify ORI (if applicable) in advance if at any point during the proceedings (including the assessment, inquiry, investigation, or appeal stage) it plans to close a research misconduct case because the respondent has admitted to committing research misconduct or a settlement with the respondent has been reached. If the respondent admits to research misconduct, the College will not close the case until providing ORI (if applicable) with the respondent’s signed, written admission.  The admission must state the specific fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism that occurred, which research records were affected, and that it constituted a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community. The College must not close the case until giving ORI (if applicable) a written statement confirming the respondent’s culpability and explaining how the College determined that the respondent’s admission fully addresses the scope of the misconduct.

3.         Other Special Circumstances

At any time during the misconduct proceedings, SA���ʴ�ý will immediately notify ORI (if applicable) if any of the following circumstances arise:

1. Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects.
2. HHS resources or interests are threatened.
3. Research activities should be suspended.
4. There is reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law.
5. Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.
6. HHS may need to take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved.

F.         Records Retention

SA���ʴ�ý will maintain the institutional record and all sequestered evidence, including physical objects (regardless of whether the evidence is part of the institutional record), in a secure manner for seven years after the completion of the proceeding or the completion of any HHS proceeding, whichever is later, unless custody has been transferred to HHS.

G.        Compliance & Consequences

All members of the SA���ʴ�ý community are expected to (1) cooperate with any investigation conducted pursuant to this policy, (2) uphold their obligation of confidentiality and non-disclosure, and (3) refrain from any form of retaliation and from destroying, altering, or hiding any relevant research records. The College prohibits retaliation against anyone who makes a good faith allegation of suspected research misconduct, in accordance with its Whistleblower Policy. Any failure to comply with these expectations may result in discipline up to and including termination (for faculty and staff) and referral to student conduct (for students).

V.  POLICY HISTORY.

Responsible Officer(s): Director of Sponsored Research, VP of Academic Affairs

Effective Date: April 13, 2026

Last Revised Date: April 13, 2026

VI.  RELATED POLICIES AND RESOURCES.

Whistleblower Policy

Conflict of Interest Policy

;