Policy and Procedures for Review of Alleged Unethical Research Practices

(Storrs and the Regional Campuses-approved by Board of Trustees 10/12/90; rev 4/27/98)

The University of Connecticut is committed to maintaining the integrity of scholarship and investigative research and to fostering a climate conducive to such scientific integrity. The University believes that its research activities are conducted in a responsible and ethical fashion. Therefore, unethical research practices are a major breach of contract between the faculty or staff member involved and the University. Consequently, formal procedures have been established to investigate alleged unethical practices. These procedures incorporate the requirements of the relevant collective bargaining units; they do not supersede nor set up alternatives to established procedures for resolving other kinds of misconduct, such as, but not limited to, fiscal improprieties, issues concerning the ethical treatment of human or animal subjects, or criminal matters.

Definition of unethical research practices

Though the concept "integrity in research" embraces a wide range of issues and practices, this policy defines research misconduct as fraudulent or markedly irregular practices in research conduct and in the collection, analysis and reporting of data; including 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.

Primary responsibility for inhibiting misconduct and safeguarding the integrity of research should be exercised by the research community. This responsibility includes: examination of allegations of misconduct, investigation of substantiated allegations, and the imposition of sanctions when appropriate.

Procedures for Initial Inquiry ("Fact-Finding") with Regard to Allegations of Unethical Research Practices

Administrative Responsibility

The Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Education (currently Gregory Anderson, Whetten Graduate Center, Unit 1006, (860)486-3619) is the "Misconduct Policy Officer" for the University Storrs and regional campuses.

Allegations

An allegation of unethical research practices involving any faculty or staff member can be communicated, preferably in writing, by any person to the Vice Provost. Alternatively, such allegations may be brought first to the attention of the faculty member responsible for the individual whose actions are being questioned, such as the research supervisor, the Principal Investigator, the department head. (In non-departmentalized schools or where a school or department does not have these procedures, it should follow procedures bearing as much similarity to these as is reasonable.) If the alternative course is followed, the department head should always be notified immediately of the allegation(s), and if the complaint cannot be handled at the departmental level, the department head shall promptly refer the allegation(s) to the Vice Provost without conducting any inquiry or investigation. The Vice Provost will take the necessary interim actions to protect the agency's funds and insure that the purpose of the financial assistance is carried out. In circumstances where the complaint can be handled at the departmental level, it is the responsibility of the person initially receiving the complaint to notify the Vice Provost and the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Human Resources prior to imposing any sanctions.

Responsibilities of the Vice Provost

Upon receiving the allegation(s), the Vice Provost will seek assistance in its resolution through whatever institutional processes may be appropriate to the particular case, such as referral to the department head outlined above, the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Human Resources, the State Auditor, or the Institutional Review Boards for Human or Animal Subjects. If the Vice Provost determines that the concern is properly addressed through policies and procedures designed to deal with misconduct in research, the inquiry and investigation procedures should be discussed with the individual who has questions about the integrity of a research project. If the individual chooses not to make a formal allegation, but the Vice Provost believes there is sufficient cause to warrant an inquiry, the matter should be pursued; in such a case, there is no "complainant" for the purposes of this document.

Notification Requirements

Upon initiation of the inquiry, the Vice Provost will notify the respondent within a reasonable time of the charges and the process that will follow. The identity of the complainant will be kept confidential during the inquiry phase to the extent permissible by law. The Vice Provost is responsible for disseminating the information to the appropriate individuals in a safe and secure manner and the respondent is obliged to cooperate by providing material necessary to conduct the inquiry. Lack of cooperation may result in an immediate investigation (see Ad Hoc Investigation Committee).

Preliminary Inquiry Committee

If the Vice Provost determines that the allegation requires investigation, the Vice Provost shall refer the complaint to an ad hoc Preliminary Inquiry Committee, members of which may be chosen from within or outside of the University. In choosing a Committee, the Vice Provost shall be careful of conflict of interest and the parties invited to serve on such a Committee should be asked to reveal any relationship to the parties or bias to the matter. (Members of the Committee who have an irresolvable conflict of interest in a given case should not be permitted to be involved in any aspect of the Committee's handling of that case.) It is important that the Committee have appropriate expertise to assure a sound knowledge base from which to work.

Maintenance of Confidentiality

Strict confidentiality should be diligently maintained throughout the initial inquiry (fact-finding) process, and only those persons with a need to be informed shall be told of the allegation(s) and the process underway. No funding agency will be informed until completion of the fact--finding phase of the inquiry. The person making the allegation(s), to the extent permitted by law, shall remain anonymous throughout the initial inquiry (fact-finding) process to all but the members of the Committee and those to whom the allegation was first brought. If the Committee determines that further action is required, continued anonymity cannot be guaranteed. If, however, the Vice Provost determines that other factors outweigh the need for confidentiality, such as a potential for significant risks to the health and safety of individuals or overriding concerns in dealing with granting agencies, some release of information may be necessary. Any intentional release or breach of confidentiality should be discussed with all of the parties concerned.

Procedures of the Preliminary Inquiry Committee

The purpose of the Committee in conducting the initial inquiry (fact-finding) is solely to determine whether reasonable grounds exist for conducting a more detailed investigation of the allegation(s). The Committee shall review the allegation(s) and the known facts, and may interview any persons having relevant information, including the person making the allegation(s), the researchers in question, their supervisors, and those assisting in the research. The faculty or staff member against whom the allegation is made shall be informed of the allegation and the fact that it has been referred to a Committee. The faculty or staff member against whom the allegations were made shall be permitted union representation. (If the individual chooses to be represented by an attorney, he/she must secure a waiver in writing from the union that must be presented to the Department of Human Resources before the attorney will be permitted to appear.)

Findings of the Preliminary Inquiry Committee

The Committee shall complete its inquiry within 60 days from the date of its formation and report one of three possible recommendations to the Vice Provost:

I. The complaint should be dismissed as the allegation is without grounds or significance. If the recommendation is for dismissal of the complaint, the Committee must provide justification so as to preclude the premature ending of the investigation.

II. The alleged misconduct is not significant and can be dealt with by procedures outlined in the collective bargaining contracts. If the Committee recommends that the matter be dealt with in this manner, the Vice Provost will consult with the appropriate department head to determine what procedures are applicable.

III. A more detailed investigation is warranted. If the committee concludes that a more thorough investigation is warranted, it shall recommend such an investigation to the Vice Provost.

Regardless of the Committee's conclusions, it shall prepare a report summarizing its findings and conclusions and submit the report and its recommendations to the Vice Provost. The report will state what evidence was reviewed, summarize relevant interviews, and include the conclusions of the Committee. The individual(s) against whom the allegation was made shall be given a copy of the inquiry report. If they comment on that report, their comments may be made part of the record at the individual's discretion. If the inquiry takes more than 60 days to complete, the record of the inquiry shall include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the 60 day period.

Funding Agency Notification

If the results of the initial inquiry support the need for a more detailed investigation, the Office of Scientific Integrity or other granting agency will be informed immediately. The Vice Provost will report in writing to the Director, Office of Scientific Integrity, Public Health Service or other appropriate granting agency, on or before the date the investigation begins. At a minimum, the notification will include the name of the person(s) against whom the allegations have been made, the general nature of the allegation, and the granting agency's application or grant number(s) involved. Information provided through the notification will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by law, and will not be disclosed as part of the peer review and Advisory Committee review processes, but may be used by the agency in making decisions about the award or continuation of funding.

The University will notify the Office of Scientific Integrity or other granting agency if it ascertains, at any stage of the inquiry or investigation, that any of the following conditions exist:

1. There is an immediate health hazard involved;
   
2. There is an immediate need to protect Federal funds or equipment;
   
3. There is an immediate need to protect the interests of the person(s) making the allegations or of the individual(s) who is the subject of the allegations as well as his/her co-investigators and associates, if any;
   
4. There is the probability that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly;
   
5. There is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violation. In that instance the University will inform the Office of Scientific Integrity or other granting agency within 24 hours of obtaining the information. The Office of Scientific Integrity will notify the Office of the Inspector General.

If the situation requires such immediate action for the reasons specified above, the Vice Provost is authorized to notify the Office of Scientific Integrity or granting agency even prior to referring the complaint to the Committee. In such extraordinary circumstances, it is expected that the Vice Provost will solicit the advice of the head of the department involved and the chair of the appropriate Committee prior to taking action.

If the Committee finds that the allegation is not substantiated and does not warrant an investigation, the written report of the Committee shall be maintained in confidence by the Vice Provost, and the process shall be deemed completed.

Procedures for Investigation of Allegation of Unethical Research Practices

Administrative Responsibility

Upon receiving a recommendation for an investigation of alleged unethical research practices, the Vice Provost shall notify the Research Advisory Council. The Research Advisory Council will select nine individuals from whom five senior faculty members will eventually be chosen to serve as an ad hoc Committee to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation of the allegation(s) of unethical research practices. The Vice Provost and the respondent are each allowed to veto two names, in that order, from the list presented by the Research Advisory Council. This Committee shall elect a chairperson from its membership. The membership of the ad hoc Committee shall consist of faculty members who have sufficient expertise to analyze the specific research and publications (if any) involved. Other members may include department chairs or other faculty of nonvolatile departments. None of the members of the ad hoc Committee shall have any personal responsibility for, or involvement in, the research under investigation. The Assistant Vice Provost shall provide staff support.

Notification of Involved Parties

At this time, the following parties shall be notified that an investigation is being undertaken: all parties concerned including the researcher(s) in question and the person making the allegation(s), all collaborators or supervisors of the researcher(s) under review, the Principal Investigator for the research, the department head, University administration (including the Office of the Assistant Attorney General and Human Resources) and the granting agency. All those informed will be reminded of the need to continue to maintain confidentiality during the investigation.

Procedures of the Ad Hoc Investigation Committee

The Office of the Assistant Attorney General Counsel shall be requested to provide legal counsel to the ad hoc Investigation Committee. At the conclusion, records relevant to the investigation shall be sealed. The faculty or staff member(s) against whom the allegation has been made shall be granted all due process rights during the proceedings. Legal principles and other collective bargaining requirements that pertain to the investigation shall be stipulated in advance. The person against whom the allegation have been made will be allowed to be present, accompanied by one person of his or her choice, including union representation. The Committee may confer in executive sessions to organize its work and do its report.

The ad hoc Committee shall conduct a thorough investigation of all relevant facts and circumstances, during which consideration should be given to the review of all research in which the individual under review is involved. The Investigation Committee should seek to determine whether any unethical research practices, as defined above, have taken place. All collaborators or supervisors whose roles in the alleged unethical research practice(s) are questionable should be advised of the progress of the investigation and be afforded the opportunity to respond to any allegations made against them and to provide additional information.

The ad hoc Investigation Committee shall complete its investigation within 120 days from the date of its formation. In the event that the Committee is unable to complete its investigation in 120 days, the Vice Provost will submit a request for extension, if required by Federal regulation, with the appropriate Federal office. Such a request will include an explanation for the delay, an interim report on progress of the investigation, an outline of what remains to be done, and an estimated date of completion of the investigation. Confidentiality should be observed whenever possible unless a request for an open hearing is made by the researcher(s) under review.

Recommendations of the Ad Hoc Investigative Committee

Upon completion of its investigation, the Committee will prepare a report to the Vice Provost summarizing its findings. The Committee report should reach one of three possible general conclusions: No violations of ethical standards have been committed; problems have been identified that require action; or serious infractions have occurred. Whatever conclusion is reached, it shall conform to the disciplinary clause of the collective bargaining contracts. The Committee may also recommend specific actions regarding research programs or publications.

Findings of No Unethical Practices

If the Vice Provost concurs with the Committee findings that no unethical research practices have been committed by the researcher(s) involved, all parties shall then be notified of the Committee's conclusions with a particular emphasis on fully restoring the reputation of the researcher(s) and others under investigation, particularly with the granting agency involved. This effort might include, at the request of the researcher(s) involved, a public statement about the incident designed to make certain that the researcher's professional standing is not diminished. In addition, appropriate action should be taken against any parties whose involvement in leveling unfounded allegations was demonstrated to have been malicious or intentionally dishonest.

Finding of Inappropriate Practices

If the Committee finds evidence of inappropriate practices or other problems, but deems that these problems are not sufficiently serious to merit further review, the Committee may recommend that the problem be dealt with according to the collective bargaining agreements. If the Vice Provost concurs with this recommendation, the Vice Provost will confer with the researcher(s) and department head(s) involved to determine the most appropriate administrative or disciplinary action.

Administrative actions may include retractions or corrections of publications or return of grant funds. The Vice Provost and/or department head may take whatever disciplinary actions are appropriate within his/her delegated authority. A faculty member who feels that the disciplinary actions are without just cause may appeal to the Chancellor and Vice Provost through the grievance procedure. The decision of the Vice Provost may be appealed only in accordance with the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.

Finding of Unethical Research Practices

If the Committee finds evidence of unethical research practices or violations of the University By-Laws or other ethical or legal principles, it shall submit its findings and conclusions in a report to the Vice Provost, along with recommendations for appropriate actions. The Vice Provost shall then advise the researcher(s) involved of the findings and take appropriate administrative and/or disciplinary action. All disciplinary action shall be in accordance with the provisions of Article 27 of the AAUP (American Association of University Professors) Collective Bargaining Agreement. A faculty member may appeal the latter action as indicated above.

If the alleged unethical research practice is substantiated by a thorough investigation, the University will oversee the following actions:

1. The granting agency will be notified of the findings of the investigation, and appropriate restitution of grant funds will be made;
   
2. All pending abstracts and papers emanating from the research found to be unethical will be withdrawn by the author(s) and the editors of journals in which previous abstracts and papers appear will be notified;
   
3. Institutions and granting agencies with whom the researcher(s) previously have been affiliated will be notified if there is reason to believe that the validity of previous research might be questionable;
   
4. Consideration will be given, in consultation with legal counsel, for the release of information about the incident to the public press, particularly when public funds were used to support the unethical research;
   
5. Faculty practices, and University policies and procedures for promoting the ethical conduct of research and investigation allegations of misconduct will be scrutinized and modified in light of the experience gained.

University Responsibility In Case Of Resignation Or Termination

Even if the respondent leaves the University before the case in resolved, the University has a responsibility to continue the examination of the allegations and reach a conclusion. Further, the University will cooperate with the processes of other institutions to resolve such questions.

Record Keeping Requirements For The Public Health Service

The University will make a submission to the Office of Scientific Integrity of an annual assurance which will include aggregate information of allegations, inquiries, and investigations as the Secretary of the Public Health Service may prescribe.

Note: In the event of any discrepancy between the University policies described herein and the policies of Federal agencies that sponsor University research projects, the agency policies will be followed.