Intranet

Intranet Home | Campus Resources | Committees | Publications | University Forms

Faculty Handbook

Appendix XX—Rules for Responding to Allegations of Scientific Misconduct

Introduction
1. Philosophy The credibility of academic research and scholarship depends critically on the integrity with which it is designed, conducted, documented and communicated. As an institution of higher education committed to the advancement of scholarship, West Texas A&M University is responsible for promoting academic practices that encourage honesty and scientific integrity, and develop rules and procedures for dealing with allegations or other indications of fraud or serious misconduct. All members of the University community, including students, staff, faculty and administrators share the responsibility for developing and maintaining ethical standards of research and scholarship and detecting abuse of these standards. Academic research and scholarship must be conducted under the highest standards of honesty and integrity and all data, procedures, and findings will be properly and thoroughly documented. The credibility and long-term reputation of the faculty, staff and University depend on the encouragement, enforcement and reward of superior ethical standards. Achieving high ethical standards should transcend considerations of finance, personal gain, and short-term individual and institutional recognition. This rule addresses allegations of misconduct in research and scholarship and applies to both nonfunded and funded research, regardless of the funding source.
2. Scope This rule and the associated procedures apply to all individuals at West Texas A&M University engaged in research. The PHS regulation at 42 C.F.R. Part 50, Subpart A applies to any research, research-training or research-related grant or cooperative agreement with PHS. This rule applies to any person paid by, under the control of or affiliated with West Texas A&M University, such as scientists, trainees, technicians and other staff members, students, fellows, guest researchers or collaborators at West Texas A&M University. The rule and associated procedures will normally be followed when an allegation of possible misconduct in science is received by a University official. Particular circumstances in an individual case may dictate variation from the normal procedure deemed in the best interests of West Texas A&M University and PHS. Any change from normal procedures also must ensure fair treatment to the subject of the inquiry or investigation. The president of West Texas A&M University should approve any significant variation in advance.
Definitions
1. Allegation: any written or oral statement or other indication of possible scientific misconduct made to a University official.
2. Complainant: individual(s) who initiates the process described in this regulation by informing a designated official of possible misconduct in research and scholarship.
3. Conflict of interest: the real or apparent interference of one person’s interests with the interests of another person, where potential bias may occur due to prior or existing personal or professional relationships.
4. Deciding official: the institutional official who makes final determinations on allegations of scientific misconduct and any responsive institutional actions. The deciding official will not be the same individual as the research integrity officer and should have no direct prior involvement in the institution’s inquiry, investigation or allegation assessment. In most cases, the deciding official will be the University president.
5. Ethical standards: guidelines for the conduct of research and scholarship that emphasize honesty, accuracy, and completeness in designing, carrying out and reporting academic research.
6. Fabrication: making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
7. Falsification: 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.
8. Good faith allegation: an allegation made with the honest belief that scientific misconduct may have occurred. An allegation is not in good faith if it is made with reckless disregard for or willful ignorance of facts that would disprove the allegation.
9. Inquiry: gathering of information and initial fact-finding to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of scientific misconduct has substance and warrants an investigation.
10. Investigation: the formal development of a factual record, and the examination of that record leading to dismissal of the case or to a recommendation for a finding of misconduct in research and scholarship or other appropriate remedies.
11. ORI: Office of Research Integrity, the office within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) that is responsible for the scientific misconduct and research integrity activities of the U.S. Public Health Service. L. Misconduct in research or scholarship: fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, reviewing or reporting research. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data.
12. PHS: U.S. Public Health Service, an operating component of the DHHS.
13. PHS regulation: Public Health Service regulation establishing standards for institutional inquiries and investigations into allegations of scientific misconduct, which is set forth at 42 C.F.R. Part 50, Subpart A, entitled “Responsibility of PHS Awardee and Applicant Institutions for Dealing With and Reporting Possible Misconduct in Science.”
14. PHS support: PHS grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements or applications.
15. Plagiarism: the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit.
16. Research: includes all basic, applied, and demonstration research in all fields of science, engineering and mathematics. This includes, but is not limited to, research in economics, education, linguistics, medicine, psychology, social sciences, statistics, and research involving human subjects or animals.
17. Research Integrity Officer: the institutional official responsible for assessing allegations of scientific misconduct and determining when such allegations warrant inquiries and for overseeing inquiries and investigations.
18. Research record: any data, document, computer file, computer diskette, or any other written or non-written account or object that reasonably may be expected to provide evidence or information regarding the proposed, conducted or reported research that constitutes the subject of an allegation of scientific 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.
19. Respondent: the person against whom an allegation of scientific misconduct is directed or the person whose actions are the subject of the inquiry or investigation. There can be more than one respondent in any inquiry or investigation. The term also includes students except as set out below:
  - If the alleged misconduct relates to course related requirements, West Texas A&M University’s procedure for handling allegations of academic misconduct shall be applied, unless the alleged misconduct relates to federally funded research, either by an active federal research project or the use of data that was compiled in whole or in part with federal funds in which case the procedures set out in this regulation apply.
  - If the alleged misconduct relates to the student’s degree requirements outside of course-related requirements, the allegation shall be forwarded to the research integrity officer for handling in accordance with West Texas A&M University’s procedures, unless the alleged misconduct relates to federally funded research, either by an active federal research project or the use of data that was compiled in whole or in part with federal funds in which case the procedures set out in this regulation apply.
20. Retaliation: any action that adversely affects the employment or other institutional status of an individual that is taken by the University or an employee because the individual has in good faith, made an allegation of scientific misconduct or of inadequate institutional response thereto or has cooperated in good faith with an investigation of such allegation
21. Scientific misconduct or misconduct in science: means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting or reporting research. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data.
22. Whistleblower: a person who makes an allegation of scientific misconduct.
Rights and Responsibilities
1. Research Integrity Officer The president of West Texas A&M University will appoint the research integrity officer who will have primary responsibility for implementation of the procedures set forth in this document. The research integrity officer will be a University official who is well qualified to handle the procedural requirements involved and is sensitive to the varied demands made on those who conduct research, those who are accused of misconduct and those who report apparent misconduct in good faith.
  1. Specific duties of this officer are:
    - securing the necessary and appropriate level of expertise to carry out a thorough and authoritative evaluation of the relevant evidence in any inquiry or investigation;
    - taking precautions to ensure impartiality of those involved in the inquiry or investigation;
    - defining the scope of the investigation in accordance with the terms of this regulation, any applicable rules of the University, and any state or federal laws, policies or regulations which may be applicable;
    - preparing and maintaining all documentation gathered or generated during the inquiry and investigation. This includes maintaining sufficiently detailed documentation of an inquiry that was not followed by an investigation to permit a later assessment of the reasons for determining that an investigation was not warranted. Such records shall be maintained in a secure manner for a period of at least three years after termination of the inquiry;
    - in the case of research conducted with outside funds, taking interim administrative actions, as appropriate, to protect such funds and ensure that the purposes of the financial assistance are carried out. Sponsors shall be informed about the status of investigations in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the funding entity; and
    - when required, notifying the appropriate outside entities of the outcome of an inquiry or investigation.
    - report to ORI as required by regulation and keep ORI apprised of any developments during the course of the inquiry or investigation that may affect current or potential DHHS funding for the individual(s) under investigation or that PHS needs to know to ensure appropriate use of Federal funds and otherwise protect the public interest.
  2. In cases involving funds provided by the Public Health Service, or any organizational unit thereof, the research integrity officer shall notify the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), in accordance with 42 CFR Part 50, when, on the basis of an initial inquiry, the University determines that an investigation is warranted, or prior to the decision to initiate an investigation if any of the following conditions exist:
    - there is an immediate health hazard involved;
    - there is an immediate need to protect federal funds or equipment;
    - there is an immediate need to protect the interests of the complainant or respondent, and/or co-investigators and associates, if any;
    - it is probable that the alleged incident will be reported publicly; and/or
    - there is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violations, in which case the institution shall notify ORI within 24 hours of obtaining that information.
  3. In cases involving funds provided by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the research integrity officer shall notify the Office of the Inspector General with NSF in accordance with 45 CFR Part 689 when, on the basis of an initial inquiry, the institution determines that an investigation is warranted, or prior to the decision to initiate an investigation if any of the following conditions exist:
    - public health or safety is at risk;
    - NSF’s resources, reputation or other interests need protecting;
    - there is a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law;
    - research activities should be suspended;
    - federal action may be needed to protect the interests of a subject of the investigation or of others potentially affected; or
    - the scientific community or the public should be informed.
2. Whistleblower
  The whistleblower will have an opportunity to testify before the inquiry and investigation committees, to review portions of the inquiry and investigation reports pertinent to his/her allegations or testimony, to be informed of the results of the inquiry and investigation and to be protected from retaliation. Also, if the research integrity officer has determined that the whistleblower may be able to provide pertinent information on any portions of the draft report, these portions will be given to the whistleblower for comment. The whistleblower is responsible for making allegations cooperating with an inquiry or investigation.
3. Respondent
  The respondent will be informed of the allegations when an inquiry is opened and notified in writing of the final determinations and resulting actions. The respondent will also have the opportunity to be interviewed by and present evidence to the inquiry and investigation committees, to review the draft inquiry and investigation reports, and to have the advice of counsel. 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 scientific misconduct, he or she has the right to receive institutional assistance in restoring his or her reputation.
4. Deciding Official
  The deciding official will receive the inquiry and/or investigation report and any written comments made by the respondent or whistleblower on the draft report. The deciding official will consult with the research integrity officer or other appropriate officials and will determine whether to conduct an investigation, whether misconduct occurred, whether to impose sanctions or whether to take other appropriate administrative actions. The deciding official at West Texas A&M University shall be the University president or designee.
Policies and Principles
1. Responsibility to Report Misconduct
  All employees or individuals associated with West Texas A&M University should report observed, suspected or apparent misconduct in science to the research integrity officer. If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of scientific misconduct, he or she may call the research integrity officer to discuss the suspected misconduct informally. If the circumstances described by the individual do not meet the definition of scientific misconduct, the research integrity officer will refer the individual or allegation to other offices or officials with responsibility for resolving the problem. At any time, an employee may have confidential discussions and consultations about concerns of possible misconduct with the research integrity officer and will be counseled about appropriate procedures for reporting allegations.
2. Protecting the Whistleblower
  The research integrity officer will monitor the treatment of individuals who bring allegations of misconduct or of inadequate institutional response thereto and those who cooperate in inquiries or investigations. 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 West Texas A&M University and will review instances of alleged retaliation for appropriate action. Employees should immediately report any alleged or apparent retaliation to the research integrity officer. Also, the University will protect the privacy of those who report misconduct in good faith to the maximum extent possible. For example, if the whistleblower requests anonymity, the institution will make an effort to honor the request during the allegation assessment or inquiry within applicable policies and regulations and state and local laws, if any. The whistleblower will be advised that if the matter is referred to an investigation committee and the whistleblower’s testimony is required, anonymity may no longer be guaranteed. West Texas A&M University undertakes diligent efforts to protect the positions and reputations of those persons who, in good faith, make allegations.
3. Protecting the Respondent Inquiries and investigations will be conducted in a manner that will ensure fair treatment to the respondent(s) in the inquiry or investigation and confidentiality to the extent possible without compromising public health and safety or thoroughly carrying out the inquiry or investigation. West Texas A&M University employees accused of scientific misconduct may consult with legal counsel or a non-lawyer personal adviser (who is not a principal or witness in the case).
4. Cooperation with Inquiries and Investigations West Texas A&M University employees will cooperate with the research integrity officer and other University officials in the review of allegations and the conduct of inquiries and investigations. Employees have an obligation to provide relevant evidence to the research integrity officer or other University officials on misconduct allegations.
5. Preliminary Assessment of Allegations Upon receiving an allegation of scientific misconduct, the research integrity officer will immediately assess the allegation to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant an inquiry, whether PHS support or PHS applications for funding are involved and whether the allegation falls under the PHS definition of scientific misconduct.
The Investigation and Report
1. Inquiry An inquiry may be begun upon the receipt by the research integrity officer of a written complaint alleging information that, if true, would constitute misconduct in research and scholarship as defined by this regulation. The research integrity officer may initiate an inquiry based upon information that is sufficiently credible to justify such action. The respondent will be informed as soon as is practicable that an inquiry has been initiated and in any event no later than five working days after the inquiry has begun.
  1. Confidentiality in proceedings carried out under this regulation is encouraged in the interest of fairness to all parties concerned. To the extent possible, consistent with the requirements of due process, the identity of complainants who wish not to be identified as initiators of the complaint will be kept confidential and will not be released to the respondent. If a complainant wishes to request not to be identified as the initiator of the complaint in the course of the inquiry or investigation, he or she must notify the research integrity officer of such fact simultaneously with the filing of the complaint. Such confidentiality may not, however, be possible or desirable throughout the entire course of a proceeding under this regulation. Where the interests of due process would require that a complainant’s name be given to the respondent, and such interests could not be fairly treated by any other means, the research integrity officer elect to do so after notifying the complainant.
  2. If the respondent is employed by more than one Texas A&M University System component, the research integrity officer receiving the original complaint shall notify the research integrity officer of the other component(s), and they shall determine which component(s) shall be responsible for dealing with the complaint. In the event that the components are unable to determine which will handle the case, they shall request that the deputy chancellor make such determination. The designated official shall keep the component(s) that does not handle the complaint informed of the progress of the complaint. For the purposes of this regulation, any action taken against a respondent by the System component that handles the complaint shall apply with equal force to such individual with regard to his or her employment status with any other System component(s).
  3. The research integrity officer or a committee appointed by him or her shall conduct the inquiry. The research integrity officer and/or the committee may utilize the services of other individuals and entities in order to make a complete inquiry as to whether evidence exists which would warrant an investigation. The inquiry must be completed within 60 calendar days of its initiation, unless circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. Any extension of this period will be based on good cause and recorded in the inquiry files.
  4. Inquiry Report
    The research integrity officer or the committee, as applicable, shall prepare a written report stating what evidence was reviewed, summarizing relevant interviews, and including any conclusions reached as a result of the inquiry. The respondent shall be given a copy of the inquiry report. If the respondent chooses to comment on the report, his or her comments shall be made a part of the record. If it is determined that an investigation is needed, the president of West Texas A&M University shall be informed of such fact. Simultaneous notice shall be given to The Texas A&M University System’s Office of General Counsel and any funding agencies.
2. Investigation
  All such procedures must be conducted in a manner that ensures fairness and protects the rights of all parties to the greatest extent possible. If the findings of the inquiry provide sufficient basis for conducting an investigation, the University president shall undertake one within 30 calendar days of the receipt of the inquiry report.
  1. Written Notification
    If the deciding official determines that an investigation is necessary, the deciding official will so notify the respondent in writing. The notice shall indicate upon what grounds the determination was made and shall include a copy of any applicable procedures relating to such investigation, including, if appropriate, a copy of this regulation. Either simultaneously with this notice, or as soon thereafter as reasonably possible, the respondent shall be provided with written notice containing the names of the investigating committee members.
3. An investigation committee shall be appointed by the deciding officer.
  - The committee shall have no less than three members.
  - At least one member shall be a faculty member in the same discipline as the respondent (in the case of faculty members) or a staff member whose discipline and job responsibilities are substantially similar to those of the respondent (in the case of staff members).
  The rules of procedure of the committee shall follow those established for the investigation committee.
  - All witness interviews shall be recorded. Transcripts of recorded testimony shall not be made unless requested by either party or by the chair of the investigation committee. Requests for transcripts should identify as nearly as possible the portion of the recording that is specifically sought, and only that portion will be transcribed. The cost of transcription shall be borne by the requesting party. The respondent may be accompanied by counsel of his or her own choosing. Counsel may advise the respondent but may not question witnesses or otherwise take part in the proceedings.
  - The respondent, on the advice of counsel, may submit questions to the committee chair. Respondents are expected to speak for themselves. An attorney from the Office of General Counsel for the System may serve as counsel to the committee.
  - As far as reasonably possible, witnesses shall be allowed to give narrative testimony and shall answer questions from any committee member. Testimony may be received by means of an amplified telephone conversation (e.g., a speakerphone) that permits all persons present at the time to hear and take part in the testimony as if the witness were in the room. It is the responsibility of the chair to see to it that witnesses are given a fair opportunity to be heard and to explain their statements in order to give the committee the benefit of their knowledge regarding the matter under investigation. The rules of civil procedure and evidence as recognized in Texas do not apply to this proceeding. The governing standard for all evidence shall be fundamental fairness.
  - All proceedings of the committee shall be closed.
4. The investigation committee’s findings and any recommended sanctions should be forwarded to the respondent. The respondent may comment on all or any part of such findings and recommended sanctions within 10 calendar days of the date the respondent was notified of the committee’s decision. After receipt of the respondent’s comments, the committee’s report of findings and any recommended sanctions and the respondent’s comments shall be forwarded to the deciding official.
5. An investigation shall normally be completed within 120 calendar days of its initiation. This includes conducting the investigation, preparing the report of findings, making that report available for comment by the respondent, the imposition of any recommended sanctions, and submitting the report to any funding agency as may be required by regulation or statute. Extensions of such time may be requested as permitted by any funding agency. If no funding agency is involved, the deciding official may extend the time period by notice of such fact in writing delivered to the respondent. The respondent may request an extension of such time by means of a written request directed to the deciding official.
6. Other considerations:
  - If the conclusion of an investigation is that the respondent did not commit misconduct in research and scholarship, West Texas A&M University will develop a reasonable plan to restore the respondent’s reputation and research capabilities.
  - West Texas A&M University shall take reasonable steps to protect complainants who make an allegation of misconduct in research and scholarship in good faith.
  - If it is determined that the complainant made allegations of misconduct in research and scholarship in bad faith, the complainant may be subject to disciplinary action.
  - The termination of the respondent’s employment, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation of possible scientific misconduct has been reported, will not preclude or terminate the misconduct procedures.
  - If the respondent, without admitting to the misconduct, elects to resign his or her position prior to the initiation of an inquiry, but after an allegation has been reported, or during an inquiry or investigation, the inquiry or investigation will proceed. If the respondent refuses to participate in the process after resignation, the committee will use its best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the allegations, noting in its report the respondent’s failure to cooperate and its effect on the committee’s review of all the evidence.
7. Advising ORI
  The research integrity officer will report to ORI as required by regulation and keep ORI apprised of any developments during the course of the inquiry or investigation that may affect current or potential DHHS funding for the individual(s) under investigation or that PHS needs to know to ensure appropriate use of Federal funds and otherwise protect the public interest.
8. Transmittal of the Final Report to ORI
  The investigation committee will transmit the final report withattachments, including the respondent’s and whistleblower’s comments, to the deciding official, through the research integrity officer.
Adjudication
1. The deciding official shall render a decision in writing no later than 15 calendar days after the date of receipt of the committee’s report of findings. The deciding official may:
  - uphold all or any part of the findings and sanction(s) recommended by the investigation committee;
  - uphold all or any part of the findings of the investigation committee and impose a lesser sanction(s) than that recommended; or
  - return the matter to the investigating committee for further consideration with instructions regarding the matters to be addressed.
2. In deciding what sanctions are appropriate for committing misconduct in research and scholarship, the deciding official should consider the seriousness of the misconduct, including, but not limited to, the degree to which the misconduct:
  - was intentional, knowing or reckless;
  - was an isolated event or part of a pattern; and
  - had significant impact on the research record, research subjects, other researchers, institutions or the public welfare.
3. If the sanction(s) is less than termination or expulsion, the decision of the deciding official shall be final.
4. If the deciding official chooses to terminate the employment of the respondent, the respondent (if faculty) may appeal as established in accordance with Texas A&M University System Policy 12.01 and West Texas A&M University Faculty Handbook “Non-Renewal of Employment”; or (if nonfaculty) mediation as provided by Texas A&M University System Regulation 32.01.02. If the CEO or designee chooses to expel a student respondent, the student respondent may request a hearing in accordance with the University’s applicable student disciplinary rules.
5. If it is determined that the alleged misconduct is substantiated by the findings, the deciding official may required:
  - withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the research where scientific misconduct was found;
  - removal of the responsible person from the particular project, letter of reprimand, special monitoring of future work, probation, suspension, salary reduction, or initiation of steps leading to possible rank reduction or termination of employment;
  - restitution of funds as appropriate.
Requirements for Reporting to ORI
1. The decision to initiate an investigation must be reported in writing to the director, ORI, on or before the date the investigation begins. At a minimum, the notification should include:
  - name of the person(s) against whom the allegations have been made,
  - general nature of the allegation as it relates to the PHS definition of scientific misconduct, and
  - PHS applications or grant number(s) involved. ORI must also be notified of the final outcome of the investigation and must be provided with a copy of the investigation report. Any significant variations from the provisions of the institutional policies and procedures should be explained in any reports submitted to ORI.
2. If West Texas A&M University terminates an inquiry or investigation for any reason without completing all relevant requirements of the PHS regulation, the research integrity officer will submit a report of the planned termination to ORI, including a description of the reasons for the proposed termination.
3. If West Texas A&M University determines that it will not be able to complete the investigation in 120 days, the research integrity officer will submit to ORI a written request for an extension that explains the delay, reports on the progress to date, estimates the date of completion of the report and describes other necessary steps to be taken. If the request is granted, the research integrity officer will file periodic progress reports as requested by the ORI.
4. When PHS funding or applications for funding are involved and an admission of scientific misconduct is made, the research integrity officer will contact ORI for consultation and advice. Normally, the individual making the admission will be asked to sign a statement attesting to the occurrence and extent of misconduct. When the case involves PHS funds, the institution cannot accept an admission of scientific misconduct as a basis for closing a case or not undertaking an investigation without prior approval from ORI.
5. The final report submitted to ORI must describe the policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted, describe how and from whom information relevant to the investigation was obtained, state the findings, and explain the basis for the findings. The report will include the actual text or an accurate summary of the views of any individual(s) found to have engaged in misconduct as well as a description of any sanctions imposed and administrative actions taken by the institution.
Record Retention
After completion of a case and all ensuing related actions, the research integrity officer will prepare a complete file, including the records of any inquiry or investigation and copies of all documents and other materials furnished to the research integrity officer or committees. The research integrity officer will keep the file for three years after completion of the case to permit later assessment of the case. ORI or other authorized DHHS personnel will be given access to the records upon request.