Academic Staff Senate
Document Final
August 21, 2000
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MILWAUKEE
ACADEMIC STAFF
RESEARCH MISCONDUCT POLICY
|
SUMMARY: The proposed policy addresses
conduct of an Academic Staff member that has the potential to affect the
integrity of the research endeavors and establishes procedural safeguards
for handling allegations of research misconduct. The proposed policy addresses
conduct subject to administrative action and applies only to research misconduct
as defined in the policy. It does not supersede government policies and
procedures for addressing other matters, such as the ethical treatment
of human or animal research subjects used in research, nor does it supersede
criminal or civil law. It does not limit institutional policies and prerogatives
in addressing other forms of misconduct, including those that might occur
in the course of conducting research, including the misuse of public funds. |
I. |
DEFINITIONS |
|
A. |
Misconduct: Research misconduct
includes fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, violations of requirements
for the protection of human or animal subjects, and 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 unintentional error or honest differences in interpretations or
judgements about data.
Retaliation of any kind against a person
who reported or provided information about suspected or alleged misconduct
and who has not acted in bad faith will not be tolerated. Retaliation means
any action that adversely affects the employment or other institutional
status of an individual that is taken by an institution 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. |
|
B. |
Research Integrity Officer (RIO):
The Associate Provost for Research and Dean of the Graduate School (Dean),
or his/her designee, serves in this capacity at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
(UWM). The Dean is responsible for overseeing the implementation of these
policies and procedures, conducting preliminary inquiries upon receipt
of allegations, and submitting required reports and recommendations. At
the same time, the Dean is responsible for respecting the sensitive nature
of the demands made on those who conduct research, those who are accused
of misconduct, and those who report misconduct in apparent good faith.
The Research Integrity Officer can consult at any time during this process
with University Legal Counsel. |
|
C. |
Complainant: Any person who makes
an allegation of scientific misconduct. |
|
D. |
Respondent: The Academic Staff
member 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. |
|
E. |
Inquiry: An inquiry means a confidential
informal preliminary gathering of information and initial fact-finding
to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of scientific misconduct
warrants an investigation. |
|
F. |
Investigation: An investigation
means the formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine
if misconduct has occurred, and, if so, to determine the responsible person
and the seriousness of the misconduct. A fair hearing as defined in section
III. I. of this document will follow any formal investigation. |
|
G. |
Confidentiality: Consistent with
a fair investigation and as allowed by law, knowledge and disclosure of
information about the identity of subjects and informants is limited to
those who need to know for purposes of administering these policies and
procedures. Records maintained during the course of responding to an allegation
of misconduct should be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information
Act to the extent permitted by law and regulation. |
|
H. |
Designated Recipients: Designated
recipients include the Chancellor, Provost and Vice Chancellor, Dean, principal
investigator and co-principal investigator in any cases in which they are
not named as respondent or complainant and if applicable, relevant federal
agencies. |
|
I. |
Academic Staff Research Misconduct
Review Committee (ASRMRC): An ad hoc committee of the academic staff,
authorized by the Academic Staff Committee and chaired by an academic staff
member appointed by the Academic Staff Committee (ASC). These individuals
must be qualified academic staff from within the UW System Review and with
a 50% or greater appointment. The appointed chair must have at least a
50 percent UWM appointment in a position in an employment category similar
to the respondent, defined in III.F. |
|
J. |
Time Limits: The time limits as
specified number of days shall be considered to be working days under this
policy. |
II. |
STATEMENT OF INTENT |
|
It is the intent of the University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee to foster a research environment that discourages
misconduct in all research and that deals forthrightly with allegations
of research misconduct. The policies and procedures established for the
investigation of research misconduct are designed to protect both the respondent
and the complainant(s) from detrimental effects, including loss
of reputation, until the investigation is completed and the findings made
public. This policy does not annul or replace any existing policy or set
of procedures outlined in the UWM Academic Staff Personnel Policies and
Procedures. |
III. |
PROCEDURES |
|
A. |
If not already resolved by administrators
at the departmental, school, college, divisional or unit level, a complaint
alleging research misconduct shall be forwarded in writing to the Research
Integrity Officer (RIO), as the Chancellor's designee to receive allegations,
pursuant to UWS 11 & 13. The complaint is considered filed and becomes
official on the date it is received by the Research Integrity Officer. |
|
B. |
Preliminary Inquiry: The RIO shall be
responsible for conducting an immediate inquiry into an allegation or other
evidence of possible misconduct. The preliminary inquiry shall be considered
informal and confidential; it shall be conducted in a manner that protects
the privacy of both the respondent and the complainant(s) to the maximum
extent possible. If requested by either party, the identity of the respondent
and the complainant will be kept confidential throughout the preliminary
inquiry. The preliminary inquiry is conducted to determine whether there
is probable cause to believe that research misconduct has occurred and,
if so, whether a full investigation is warranted. The preliminary inquiry
must be completed and the report (see below) filed with designated recipients
within 60 days of receipt of the allegation, unless extraordinary circumstances
clearly warrant a longer period of inquiry, in which case, a written statement
of the extraordinary circumstances must be included in the report. |
|
C. |
Report of Preliminary Inquiry: A written
report shall be prepared, which states the evidence reviewed, including
testimonial evidence, and the findings and conclusions of the inquiry.
Regardless of conclusion, a copy of the preliminary inquiry report shall
be given to the respondent and the complainant. The respondent has the
right to make, within 15 working days, a written response or comment, which
shall be made part of the record. |
|
D. |
Determination of Need for Investigation:
If the RIO, on the basis of the preliminary inquiry, determines that a
full investigation is warranted, he/she shall promptly so inform the Chancellor
and Provost and Vice Chancellor in writing. |
|
E. |
Referral to Academic Staff Committee:
Upon notification by the Chancellor that investigation is warranted, the
ASC shall constitute the Academic Staff Research Misconduct Committee. |
|
F. |
Constitution of the Academic Staff Research
Misconduct Review Committee: Upon notification, the ASC, after consultation
with other institutional officials as appropriate, will appoint five members
to the Academic Staff Research Misconduct Review Committee (ASRMRC), designating
one of the committee members as chair within ten (10) days of the initiation
of the investigation. The ASRMRC should consist of individuals who do not
have real or apparent conflicts of interest in the case, are unbiased,
and have the necessary and appropriate expertise to evaluate the evidence
and issues related to the allegation, interview the principals and key
witnesses, and conduct the investigation The ASC will appoint alternative
persons, if necessary, to replace any selected persons who decline to serve
or who are disqualified or who disqualify themselves from the hearing on
research misconduct before the Committee.
Any person on the ASRMRC who may have a
conflict of interest, either real or apparent, shall be replaced with another
member. If the chair is disqualified, a fifth member shall be chosen according
to the specifications above. The Committee, as constituted, shall conduct
an investigation as specified below.
The ASC will notify the respondent of the
proposed committee. |
|
G. |
Charge to the Committee and First Meeting:
The RIO will define the subject matter of the investigation in a written
charge to the ASRMRC that describes the allegations and related issues
identified during the inquiry, defines scientific misconduct, and identifies
the name of the respondent. The charge will state that the committee is
to evaluate the evidence and testimony of the respondent, and key witnesses
to determine whether, based on preponderance of the evidence, scientific
misconduct occurred and, if so, to what extent, who was responsible, and
its seriousness.
During the investigation, if additional
information becomes available that substantially changes the subject matter
of the investigation or would suggest additional respondents, the Committee
will notify the RIO. The RIO will determine whether it is necessary to
notify the respondent of the new subject matter or to provide notice to
additional respondents. |
|
H. |
Investigation: |
|
|
1. |
Purpose of the Investigation: The purpose
of the investigation is to explore in detail the allegations, to examine
the evidence in depth, and to determine specifically whether misconduct
has been committed, by whom, and to what extent. |
|
|
2. |
Process: In conducting any investigation
and hearing, the ASRMRC shall secure necessary expert testimony as appropriate
to conduct a thorough and authoritative evaluation of the relevant evidence.
Whenever possible, the committee should interview the complainant, respondent(s),
and other individuals who might have information regarding aspects of the
allegations. Interviews of the respondent(s) should be tape recorded or
transcribed. All other interviews should be transcribed, tape recorded,
or summarized. Summaries or transcripts of the interviews should be prepared,
provided to the interviewed party for comment or revision, and included
as part of the investigation file. The findings of the investigation will
be set forth in an investigative report. |
|
|
3. |
Time Line: The ASRMRC shall commence an
investigation within 20 days of the date upon which the Committee was constituted.
The investigation and hearing must be completed,
disciplinary action (if necessary) recommended, and report filed with the
funding agency within 120 days of commencement. |
|
I. |
Fair Hearing: Whenever it
is decided to utilize formal fact-finding procedures, the concerned academic
staff member shall be assured of a fair hearing. This includes the right
to present testimony or evidence in the academic staff member's behalf,
to cross-examine witnesses, and to be represented by any person of the
academic staff member's choice. Prior to convening the fair hearing, the
Chair of the ASMRC may request that the Chancellor provide the ASMRC with
legal counsel. The Chair of the ASRMRC shall convene the fair hearing.
The Dean shall have an opportunity to present evidence through the Dean's
designated representative. The provisions for a fair hearing shall include: |
|
|
(1) |
Service of notice of hearing with a specification
of the complaint at least twenty (20) days prior to the hearing. |
|
|
(2) |
A right to the names of the
parties bringing the complaints and of access to any documents which will
be relied upon to support the misconduct allegations. Adjournments shall
be granted to investigate evidence to which a valid claim of surprise is
made. |
|
|
(3) |
A right to be heard in his/her
own defense by all bodies passing judgment. |
|
|
(4) |
A right to counsel, other
representative, or individuals to offer witnesses. |
|
|
(5) |
A right to confront and cross-examine
witnesses against him/her. |
|
|
(6) |
A right to have the hearing
tape recorded. A copy of the tape will be made vailable without cost, upon
request, to the concerned academic staff member. |
|
|
(7) |
Admissibility of evidence
as governed by Wis. Stats. , S227.45. |
|
|
(8) |
A written finding based on
a clear preponderance of the evidence will be provided. |
|
|
(9) |
A finding of fact and recommendations
based on the hearing record. |
|
|
(10) |
A right to either a public
or a closed hearing at the discretion of the respondent. |
|
|
(11) |
The right to prompt consideration
and deliberation by the committee. |
|
J. |
Committee Review and Decision:
In determining if a report of misconduct and recommendations for disciplinary
action shall be reported to the Chancellor, Provost and Vice Chancellor
and RIO, at least three (3) members of the ASRMRC must concur that misconduct
occurred. When this condition is not met, no misconduct shall be reported.
The vote shall be reported to the Chancellor, Provost, Vice Chancellor
and RIO. If a member of the ASRMRC disqualifies himself/herself after the
hearing has commenced, no new member shall be added. |
|
K. |
Report of Investigation, Findings,
and Recommendations: A written report shall be prepared and transmitted
to the Chancellor. A copy of this report shall be given to the designated
recipients and the respondent. The respondent shall have the right to make
written objections on the record within fifteen (15) days of receipt of
the report. The Chancellor shall have fifteen (15) days from receipt of
written objections to determine if he or she wishes to reject, modify or
accept the original findings. The entire appeal process will be completed
within thirty (30) days from the original receipt of the findings and recommendations.
The Chancellor shall inform the designated
recipients and the ASRMRC of his/her decision within fifteen (15) days
of receipt of the appeal deadline. |
IV. |
DEAN'S ADMINISTRATIVE PREROGATIVE |
|
During the course of any inquiry
or investigation, the Dean shall have the prerogative to take interim administrative
actions, as appropriate, to protect Federal funds and insure that the purposes
of the Federal financial assistance are protected. |
V. |
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS |
|
A. |
Public Health Service Grants |
|
|
1. |
Any time it becomes apparent that any
one of the following circumstances exists, the Dean is required to report
such circumstances to the funding agency: |
|
|
|
a. |
when a preliminary inquiry indicates that
an investigation is warranted; |
|
|
|
b. |
when there is an immediate health hazard; |
|
|
|
c. |
when there is an immediate need to protect
Federal funds or equipment; |
|
|
|
d. |
when there is an immediate need to protect
the interests of the complainant(s) or the respondent; or |
|
|
|
e. |
when it is probable that the allegations
will be reported publicly. |
|
|
2. |
Whenever there is reasonable cause to
believe that criminal violations have occurred, the Dean is required to
report such to the funding agency within 24 hours of receipt of the information
supporting such belief. |
|
B. |
National Science Foundation Grants:
Any time it becomes apparent that an allegation of misconduct warrants
an investigation (as defined in I.F., above), the Dean is required to report
that conclusion to the funding agency. |
|
C. |
Grants from Other Extramural Agencies:
Regulations and requirements for reporting research misconduct to other
extramural funding sources will be incorporated into this policy, as they
are announced by the agency. |
Approved: July 11, 2000
Document Amended: August 21, 2000 |
