Georgia College & State University Research Misconduct Policy and Procedures, Study notes of Business

Download Georgia College & State University Research Misconduct Policy and Procedures and more Study notes Business in PDF only on Docsity! 1 Approved: July 1, 2010 Modified: June 15, 2017 Updated March 25,2022 POLICY ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT I. Statement of Policy Georgia College & State University is committed to the integrity required of academic discovery and the dissemination of knowledge. All members of the Georgia College & State University community are expected to adhere to the highest scholarly and ethical standards as they relate to research, instruction, and evaluation. Georgia College & State University takes allegations of research misconduct seriously and actively works to address such reports. The impact of research misconduct can be harmful to the greater community, the University, those involved with the research, and the integrity of research as a whole. Therefore, the following procedures shall be followed in responding to all allegations of research misconduct in order to foster an environment that discourages misconduct in all research endeavors. II. Applicability of Policy This statement of policy and procedures has two purposes. First, it is intended to carry out Georgia College & State University’s federally mandated responsibilities under the Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct, 42 CFR Part 93, as well as Georgia College & State University’s responsibilities under regulations issued by other funding sources, for example, the NSF at 45 CFR 689. In such cases, the requirements of this policy as well as any additional regulatory requirements must be followed. Second, this policy will be used, at the discretion of the Provost, to respond to any allegation of research misconduct in the form of falsification or fabrication committed by any individuals at Georgia College & State University, regardless of funding source. It also may be used to respond to allegations of research misconduct in the form of plagiarism. In all such cases, Georgia College & State University may modify the requirements of this policy as it deems appropriate, given the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Nothing in this policy limits Georgia College & State University’s ability to investigate all matters of concern in the conduct of research, even if the matter is not within the definition of research misconduct set forth in this policy. This policy shall apply to all persons who, at the time of the alleged research misconduct, were employed by, were an agent of, or were affiliated by contract, agreement, application or proposal with Georgia College & State University. III. Definitions1 Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. Falsification is 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. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. 2 Approved: July 1, 2010 Modified: June 15, 2017 Updated March 25,2022 Misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. Requirements for findings of research misconduct. A finding of research misconduct requires that: (a) There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; (b) The misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and (c) The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Complainant is a person who reports an allegation of misconduct. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) oversees and directs Public Health Service (PHS) research integrity activities on behalf of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) with the exception of the regulatory research integrity activities of the Food and Drug Administration. Respondent is the subject of the allegation. Research Integrity Officer (RIO) is the institutional official responsible for: (1) assessing allegations of research misconduct to determine if they fall within the definition of research misconduct, are covered by 42 CFR 93, and warrant an inquiry on the basis that the allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence in research misconduct may be identified; (2) overseeing inquiries and investigations; and (3) the other responsibilities described in this policy. Preponderance of the Evidence means proof by information that, compared with that opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not. IV. Responsible Office Georgia College & State University’s Research Integrity Officer (RIO), who is appointed by the Provost, will ensure procedural compliance, in consultation with Georgia College & State University’s general counsel, with applicable law, regulations, and the process set out in this policy. The RIO, or his/her designee, shall be the point of contact with all government agencies or other outside parties, and maintain documentation of such correspondence. The RIO may receive communications through any means including but not limited to Ethics & Compliance Reporting Hotline (1-877-516-3432) or website: https://gcsu.alertline.com/gcs/welcome. V. Policy Details A. Rights and Responsibilities The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) has primary responsibility for implementation of this policy and the following procedures regarding allegations of research misconduct. The RIO is responsible for: 1. Taking 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 evidence (§93.300(f)); 2. Carrying inquiries and investigations through to completion and to pursue diligently all significant issues (§93.316); 3. Working with other university officials to take all reasonable and practical steps to protect or 5 Approved: July 1, 2010 Modified: June 15, 2017 Updated March 25,2022 Interim Administrative Actions and Notifying ORI of Special Circumstances Upon a report of research misconduct, and throughout the research misconduct proceedings, the RIO will review the situation to determine if there is any threat of harm to the public health, federal funds and equipment, or the integrity of the PHS supported research process. If the project is/was supported by PHS or the respondent has a pending grant application that has been submitted to PHS, the RIO shall notify the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) immediately if he/she has reason to believe that any of the following conditions exist: 1. Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects; 2. Health and Human Services (HHS) resources or interests are threatened; 3. Research activities should be suspended; 4. There is a 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. The research misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely and HHS action may be necessary to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved; or 7. The research community or public should be informed. Additionally, upon a report of research misconduct, the RIO may take appropriate interim action to protect the integrity of the research and the safety of those involved. Interim action might include additional monitoring of the research process and the handling of federal funds and equipment, reassignment of personnel or of the responsibility of the handling of federal funds and equipment, additional review of research data and results or delaying publication. Optional Jurisdiction The RIO may refer an allegation to another institution for relevant proceedings if the research in question was conducted primarily at that institution, or to an appropriate federal agency, if the research in question was conducted by several institutions or if some other special circumstances make it impractical for Georgia College & State University to conduct the inquiry or investigation. C. Conducting the Assessment Once an allegation of research misconduct is received, the RIO will immediately assess the allegation to determine whether it falls within the definition of research misconduct, within Sec. 93.102; and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. If the allegation meets the definition, an inquiry will commence. The assessment period should be brief. The RIO will determine whether the allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. D. The Inquiry Report The purpose of the inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the available evidence to determine whether to conduct an investigation. Notices 6 Approved: July 1, 2010 Modified: June 15, 2017 Updated March 25,2022 At the time of the inquiry, the RIO will notify the respondent in writing of the specific allegations and of the initiation of the inquiry. The RIO will also provide both the respondent and the complainant with a copy of this policy. If the respondent at this time, or any other interim stage, admits the allegations to be true, the matter shall be considered for appropriate action under this policy, if permitted by procedural requirements of the sponsoring agency. At this time, the RIO will take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceedings, inventory the records and evidence and sequester them in a secure manner. The RIO may consult with ORI for advice and assistance in this regard. The RIO will also appoint the Inquiry Committee members. The Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee will consist of three faculty/staff members who do not have a conflict of interest with those involved with the inquiry and should include individuals with the appropriate scientific expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation. The committee will be appointed by the RIO. The RIO will not serve on the Inquiry Committee. The Provost, in consultation with the Inquiry Committee, may add or replace members of the committee as needed to ensure the timely completion of the inquiry and the committee’s competence to review the allegations. The RIO will be responsible for making available to the Inquiry Committee appropriate administrative and clerical assistance to facilitate a prompt and thorough inquiry and the preparation of an appropriate report. The Inquiry Committee, in consultation with the RIO, will conduct interviews with the complainant, respondent, and witnesses, examine research records and other evidence, consult experts in the field, if necessary, and take any other such steps as deemed necessary for determining whether an investigation is warranted. An investigation is warranted if the committee determines the following: 1. There is reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct and is within the scope of the university’s jurisdiction; and 2. The allegation may have substance, based on the committee’s review during the inquiry. The Inquiry Committee is responsible for preparing the Inquiry Report that meets the requirements of 42 CFR 93.309(a). The Inquiry Report shall include: 1. The name and position of the respondent; 2. A description of the allegations of research misconduct; 3. A summary of the inquiry process; 4. The financial support for the research in question, including, for example, grant numbers, grant applications, contracts and publications; 5. A list of the research records and evidence reviewed; 6. The basis for recommending or not recommending that the allegations warrant an investigation; 7. Any comments on the draft report by the respondent or complainant. The Inquiry Report should be reviewed by Georgia College & State University’s general counsel for legal sufficiency. Appropriate modifications shall be made in consultation with the RIO and Inquiry Committee. 7 Approved: July 1, 2010 Modified: June 15, 2017 Updated March 25,2022 The draft Inquiry Report shall be provided to the respondent within 60 business days of the initial inquiry, unless the RIO determines that circumstances clearly warrant a longer period, in which case, the reason for the extension will be documented. The RIO will include a copy of the draft Inquiry Report for comment and a copy of this policy. The respondent has 10 business days to provide comments. Any comments that are submitted will be attached to the final Inquiry Report. Based on the comments submitted, the Inquiry Committee may revise the draft report as appropriate and prepare it in final form. The Inquiry Committee will provide the final report to the RIO. Inquiry Decision The RIO will provide the Provost with the final Inquiry Report. The Committee will make the determination in writing to the RIO and Provost whether an investigation is warranted. Within 30 business days of the Provost’s decision that an investigation is warranted, the RIO will provide the ORI with the written decision and a copy of the Inquiry Report if the project is/was supported by PHS or the respondent has a pending grant application that has been submitted to PHS. Should an investigation not be warranted, the RIO shall secure and maintain for seven (7) years after the termination of the inquiry all documentation obtained during the inquiry. E. The Investigation The purpose of the investigation is to develop a factual record by inspecting the allegations in detail and examining the evidence in depth, leading to recommended findings on whether research misconduct has been committed, by whom, and to what extent. Notices The RIO, on or before the commencement of the investigation, must notify respondent in writing of the allegations to be investigated, and if the project is/was supported by PHS or the respondent has a pending application that has been submitted to PHS notify the ORI of the decision to begin the investigation and provide the ORI with a copy of the Inquiry Report. In cases of federally sponsored research, the relevant sponsoring agency or agencies shall also be notified by the RIO before the investigation is initiated. The RIO will also notify the complainant, if known, whether or not a formal investigation is warranted. The complainant may request at least those portions of the Inquiry Report and the determination that addresses the complainant’s role and information given in connection with the inquiry. The Investigation Committee The Investigation Committee will consist of five faculty/staff members who do not have a conflict of interest with those involved with the investigation and should include individuals with the appropriate scientific expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation. The committee will be appointed by the RIO. The RIO will not serve on the Investigation Committee. When necessary, the RIO may select committee members from outside the institution with the necessary expertise in the field or to avoid conflicts of interest. The Provost, in consultation with the Investigation Committee, may add or