(A)
Definition
(1)
As defined in the
code of Federal Regulations, title 42, part 50, subpart A: misconduct in
scientific and scholarly research: "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."
(2)
There are three
components to be considered in the event of an allegation of scientific
misconduct. Those are the reporting of allegations, inquiry and investigation,
and the disposition of findings.
(B)
Reporting of
allegations
An allegation of misconduct in
scientific or scholarly research within a department shall be reported to the
chair or director of that department in writing signed by the complainant. The
signed, written allegation will then be forwarded to the provost. Where the
allegation is made against a department chair or program director, the written
allegation shall be signed by the complainant and will be forwarded directly to
the provost. The university has an ethical obligation to assure those who bring
forth an allegation of misconduct that confidentially will be exercised and to
offer them protection from retaliation. At the same time, it is important that
the university recognizes the serious effect such allegations may have on the
career and reputation of the accused researcher. Therefore, it is in the best
-interest of all parties that proceedings be handled in confidence, yet within
the boundaries of state and federal law regarding open records. In the event of
an inquiry into possible misconduct, it is also the responsibility of the
university to protect federal and state funds and to insure that the proper
purpose of that funding is carried out. The provost will be authorized to
initiate and document appropriate administrative action to provide that
assurance.
(C)
Inquiry and investigation
(1)
Pre-inquiry. The
provost will conduct a pre-inquiry review to assist the complainant to
formulate as clearly as possible the exact nature of the allegation and to
determine if an allegation has any reasonable basis before beginning a formal
process of review. In those cases involving allegations that pose threats to
the health or welfare of human subjects or other involved persons, a
pre-inquiry review may be omitted. Following informal review with the
respondent, if the provost determines that the allegation is frivolous, has no
merit or does not fall under the definition of misconduct in research, the
complainant and respondent will be notified of that decision.
(2)
Inquiry: If the
pre-inquiry does not dispose of the allegations the provost will conduct an
inquiry to gather information to determine the validity of the claim of
misconduct. The accused investigator will be provided a copy of the allegations
within three working days after receipt of the complaint by the provost. The
inquiry should be completed within thirty days of receipt of the allegation.
When circumstances warrant (unavailable witnesses or evidence), the inquiry
period may be extended by the provost for an additional thirty days. Any
inquiry into the allegation of misconduct must result in a written report that
includes a summary of all evidence reviewed, summaries of any relevant
testimony, and a conclusion of the findings. Copies of the report must be given
to the accused researcher who will then be given the opportunity to make
comments. Those comments will be added as an amendment to the report. If the
inquiry determines that no basis exists for further investigation, the party
making the allegation, the researcher, the dean, and/or department head will be
informed in writing. The office of the provost will keep records of the
inquiry, separate from the personnel files of the involved parties and the
records will be maintained for a minimum of three years.
(3)
Investigation: In
the event that an inquiry produces evidence of possible misconduct, the provost
will appoint a committee to conduct an investigation. The committee will
consist of at least three scholars who have been screened for any real or
apparent conflicts of interest with the activity and party in question. The
committee will include members whose credentials of education and experience
qualify them to make technical or scholarly judgments about the allegations.
The accused investigator may recommend to the provost qualified members for
this committee. The investigative committee may include individuals from
outside the university. The investigation will commence within thirty days of
the conclusion of the inquiry and shall include the examination of all relevant
information and records and may include testimony if necessary. The committee
may secure expert assistance to assist in evaluating the evidence with prior
approval of the provost. The accused researcher will be given the opportunity
to respond to the allegation. Within ninety days, the findings of the committee
shall be presented to the provost and to the researcher in question in a
written report that shall include any recommendations based upon those
findings. Upon receipt of the report, the provost will issue a decision on the
misconduct allegation.
(D)
Disposition
(1)
The office of the
provost will notify the appropriate funding agency or agencies and the office
of scientific integrity (OSI) when an investigation is initiated. When a
decision has been reached the agency or agencies and the OSI will be notified
of the outcome of the investigation. During the course of the investigation,
the office of the provost will keep OSI informed of any significant
developments that may occur. If the decision is made that no misconduct has
occurred, the investigation will be closed and the accused researcher and the
person who made the allegation will be notified. Measures will be taken by the
university to restore the reputation of the researcher when the investigation
is complete.
(2)
If the conclusion is that scientific or scholarly
misconduct has occurred, the provost will determine the course of action to be
taken, which may include appropriate administrative sanctions up to and
including termination from employment. Any administrative sanctions will
conform to the requirements of applicable collective bargaining agreements. If
reasonable indications of possible criminal misconduct exist, the office of
scientific inquiry will be notified within twenty-four hours of the finding.
The accused investigator will be given an opportunity to comment on the
findings of the inquiry before recommendations are made. Appeals may be made as
provided for by the applicable collective bargaining agreement.
Notes
Ohio Admin. Code 3362-2-13
Effective:
5/10/2006
Promulgated Under:
111.15
Statutory
Authority: 3362.03
Rule
Amplifies: 3362.03
