Research Compliance and Tech Transfer

Procedures for UM Policy 400: Research Misconduct

Note: These procedures are in compliance with 42 C.F.R. Part 93 (2024) and apply to any matters brought to the University after October 30, 2026.

Contents

• 100.00 Introduction 
• 200.00 Applicability 
• 300.00 Definitions 
• 400.00 Standards 
• 500.00 Roles, Rights, and Protections 
• 600.00 Receiving and Assessing an Allegation 
• 700.00 Inquiry 
• 800.00 Investigation 
• 900.00 Decision 
• 1000.00 Final Decision and Appeal 
• 1100.00 Records 
• 1200.00 Other Matters 
• 1300.00 Reporting to ORI 
• 1400.00 Department of Defense Requirements 

100.00 Introduction 

The University of Montana expects honesty, rigor, and transparency in all research and creative work. It responds promptly, thoroughly, and fairly to every allegation of research misconduct. It works to foster a research environment that promotes research integrity and the responsible conduct of research, discourages research misconduct, and deals promptly with allegations or evidence of possible research misconduct. The University will inform its institutional members about this policy and procedures and its commitment to following it, and will make this policy and procedures publicly available. 

100.01 Purpose 

These procedures explain how the University assesses allegations of research misconduct, conducts inquiries and investigations, makes decisions, and reports to sponsors. It is written to comply with the federal research misconduct rule for Public Health Service (PHS) funding, 42 C.F.R. Part 93 (2024) (“Part 93”). The PHS is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Section 1400 adds requirements for research funded by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). 

100.02 Ground Rules 

These procedures will normally be followed. A particular case may call for a variation when that is in the best interests of the University and any involved funding agency. Any variation must ensure fair treatment of the respondent. For matters involving PHS support, no variation may be inconsistent with 42 C.F.R. Part 93. Any significant variation should be approved in advance by the Vice President for Research and Creative Scholarship. 

Deadlines are counted in calendar days. If a deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, it is extended to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday. 

100.03 The Process at a Glance 

The process has four stages. A case can end after the assessment or after the inquiry if the criteria for going forward are not met. 

200.00 Applicability 

200.01 What Is Covered 

These procedures apply to allegations of research misconduct involving all research conducted at UM, regardless of funding source.   

200.02 Other Research and Creative Activities 

These procedures also apply to allegations involving other research and creative activities of the University, regardless of the source of support. 

These procedures do not replace 42 C.F.R. Part 93. In a matter involving PHS support, Part 93 controls if these procedures differ from it. These procedures also do not replace any other regulation or award requirement that governs research misconduct involving non-PHS support, and the University will comply with those requirements as well. Section 1400 covers DoD. 

200.03 Who Is Covered 

A respondent may be any institutional member. This includes faculty, staff, students, postdoctoral and other fellows, volunteers, visiting scholars, consultants, and others who are employed by, are agents of, or are affiliated by contract or agreement with the University. 

200.04 Six-Year Limit 

For allegations involving PHS support, these procedures apply only to research misconduct that occurred within six years of the date HHS or the University received the allegation. There are two exceptions: 

• Subsequent use. The limit does not apply if the respondent continues or renews the alleged misconduct by using, republishing, or citing the portions of the research record alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized, for the respondent’s potential benefit. If misconduct appears subject to this exception but the RIO decides it is not, the RIO documents that decision and keeps the documentation under Section 1100. 
• Public health or safety. The limit does not apply if ORI, or the University after consulting ORI, determines that the alleged misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public. 

200.05 What Is Not Research Misconduct 

Honest error and differences of opinion are not research misconduct. Other concerns, such as authorship or credit disputes or failure to follow other University policies, are handled under other applicable University policies. 

300.00 Definitions 

The following definitions apply in these procedures. 

“Allegation” means a disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of an institutional or HHS official. 

“Complainant” means an individual who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct. 

“Evidence” means anything offered or obtained during a research misconduct proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact. Evidence includes documents, whether in hard copy or electronic form, information, tangible items, and testimony. 

“Good faith” means (a) as applied to a complainant or witness, having a reasonable belief in the truth of one’s allegation or testimony, based on the information known to the complainant or witness at the time (an allegation or cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding is not in good faith if made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for information that would negate the allegation or testimony); and (b) as applied to an institutional or committee member, cooperating with the proceeding by impartially carrying out assigned duties to help the University meet its responsibilities under Part 93 (a member does not act in good faith if the member’s acts or omissions during the proceeding are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved). 

“Inquiry” means preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding that meets the criteria and follows the procedures of Part 93, as carried out under Section 700. 

“Investigation” means the formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record that meets the criteria and follows the procedures of Part 93, as carried out under Section 800. 

“Preponderance of the evidence” means proof by evidence that, compared with evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely true than not. 

“Research misconduct” means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. 

1. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. 
2. 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.
3. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving appropriate credit. (a) Plagiarism includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another’s work that materially misleads the reader regarding the contributions of the author. It does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology. (b) Plagiarism does not include self-plagiarism or authorship or credit disputes, including disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a research project. Self-plagiarism and authorship disputes do not meet the definition of research misconduct. 
4. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. 

The University applies this definition to creative activities as well as to research, so that references in these procedures to research misconduct include fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting creative activities and works. 

For purposes of these procedures, the definitions found in 42 C.F.R. Part 93 apply in addition to the definitions above. In a matter involving PHS support, Part 93 controls if a definition here differs from it. To the extent the Part 93 definitions are restricted to PHS research, the University adopts them to apply to all research misconduct, regardless of funding source. “ORI” as used in these procedures means the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity. 

“Research record” means the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry. Data or results may be in physical or electronic form. Examples include research proposals, raw data, processed data, clinical research records, laboratory records, study records, laboratory notebooks, progress reports, manuscripts, abstracts, theses, records of oral presentations, online content, lab meeting reports, and journal articles. 

“Respondent” means the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding. 

“Research Integrity Officer (RIO)” means the institutional official, designated in Section 500.02, who is responsible for administering the University’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct in compliance with Part 93. 

400.00 Standards 

400.01 What the University Must Show 

A finding of research misconduct requires that: 

1. there be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; 

1. the misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and 

1. the allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 

400.02 Burden of Proof 

The University has the burden of proof for making a finding of research misconduct. The respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, any affirmative defense raised and any mitigating factor relevant to a decision to impose administrative actions. 

The committee and the Deciding Official must give due consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the respondent. 

400.03 Missing or Destroyed Records 

A respondent’s destruction of research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where the University shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the respondent intentionally or knowingly destroyed the records after being informed of the allegations. 

A respondent’s failure to provide research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where the respondent claims to possess the records but refuses to provide them on request. 

500.00 Roles, Rights, and Protections 

500.01 Confidentiality 

The University limits disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses, to the extent possible, to those who need to know. The University decides who needs to know on a case-by-case basis. It does so consistent with a thorough, competent, objective, and fair proceeding, with Article II, Section 9 of the Montana Constitution (the right to know), and with other applicable law. Those who need to know may include institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions. 

This limit ends when the University makes a final determination of research misconduct findings. The University must disclose identities to ORI during an ORI review. 

Except as other law requires, the University keeps confidential any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified. It shares them only with those who need to know to carry out the proceeding. 

Nothing in this section prevents the University from managing published data or acknowledging that data may be unreliable. 

500.02 Research Integrity Officer 

The Vice President for Research and Creative Scholarship normally serves as the RIO. The RIO is responsible for carrying out these procedures. The RIO must be well qualified to handle the procedural requirements and sensitive to the demands on those who perform research or creative work, those who are accused of misconduct, and those who report apparent misconduct in good faith. The RIO may not also serve as the Deciding Official. 

The RIO may designate another institutional official (a “designee”) to carry out the assessment and to conduct the inquiry. A designee acts for the RIO and must meet the conflict-of-interest standard in Section 500.03. A designee may not be the Deciding Official. The RIO remains responsible for the proceeding and decides whether an inquiry leads to an investigation. 

The RIO: 

• assesses allegations (personally or through a designee) and decides whether an inquiry leads to an investigation; 
• appoints inquiry committees (when one is used) and investigation committees and secures the expertise they need;
• secures and keeps all documents and evidence, and keeps them confidential;
• assists committees and University personnel in complying with these procedures and with sponsor requirements;
• reports to ORI and other sponsors as required, and keeps the funding agency informed of developments that may affect current or potential funding for the people involved; and
• cooperates with HHS during any proceeding or compliance review, addresses deficiencies or additional allegations in the institutional record if ORI directs, and helps administer any HHS administrative action imposed on an institutional member. 

500.03 Fair Process and Conflicts of Interest 

The University will respond to each allegation of research misconduct in a thorough, competent, objective, and fair manner. It will take precautions to ensure that no one responsible for any part of the proceeding, including the RIO, the Deciding Official, committee members, and experts, has an unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest with the complainant, respondent, or witnesses. 

500.04 Institutional Certifying Official 

The Institutional Certifying Official is the Vice President for Research and Creative Scholarship. This official assures, initially and annually thereafter, that the University has written policies and procedures that comply with Part 93 and that it follows them. The official also certifies the content of the University’s annual report to ORI and ensures it is submitted as required. The RIO gives the Institutional Certifying Official the information needed to complete the report. 

500.05 Deciding Official 

The Deciding Official is the Provost. The Deciding Official receives the investigation report and the written comments of the respondent (and of the complainant, if the complainant was given the chance to comment). The Deciding Official consults with the RIO and other officials as needed and decides whether research misconduct occurred and what institutional actions to take (see Section 900). 

The University President has delegated to the Deciding Official the authority to make the University’s final determinations on allegations of research misconduct and to decide the institutional actions to be taken. 

The Deciding Official acts only as the adjudicating official, after the investigation is complete. The Deciding Official does not take part in the assessment, inquiry, or investigation. 

500.06 Respondent 

The respondent will: 

• be told of the allegations in writing at or before the start of an inquiry; 
• be interviewed during an investigation, and may be interviewed during an inquiry;
• have the chance to review and comment on the draft inquiry and investigation reports; 
• where appropriate, receive copies of, or supervised access to, the research records that were secured; and
• have honest error and differences of opinion considered (Section 400.02). 

The respondent may consult a lawyer or a personal adviser who is not a principal or witness in the case. The University may notify the respondent in writing of the final decision and resulting actions. If no finding of research misconduct is made, the respondent may ask for help protecting or restoring his or her reputation (Section 500.10). 

The respondent must: 

• cooperate with the inquiry and investigation and provide records and information when asked; 
• give the written response and the records certificate required by Sections 700.04 and 700.05;
• keep all research records and not destroy, change, or move them;
• keep the matter confidential; and
• not retaliate against anyone involved. 

500.07 Complainant 

The complainant will be protected from retaliation. The complainant will be interviewed during an investigation and may be interviewed during an inquiry. 

The University may, but is not required to, tell the complainant the outcome of the inquiry, share relevant portions of the inquiry report for comment, and share the draft investigation report or relevant portions of it. If the University gives notice or report portions to one complainant, it will give the same to all complainants in the case, to the extent possible. 

If an investigation committee needs the complainant’s testimony, anonymity may be lost. The complainant must make allegations in good faith, cooperate with the inquiry or investigation, and keep the matter confidential. 

500.08 Committee Members 

Committee members act in good faith by impartially carrying out their assigned duties to help the University meet its responsibilities under Part 93. They have relevant expertise and no unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the complainant, respondent, or witnesses. They keep the identities of respondents, complainants, and witnesses confidential and document their decisions in the inquiry or investigation report. 

In an investigation, committee members consider the comments of the respondent and complainant on the draft reports and document that consideration in the investigation report. They may serve on both the inquiry and the investigation. In a matter with more than one respondent, they may serve on more than one investigation, but each respondent gets a separate report and a separate determination. 

500.09 Witnesses 

Witnesses are people the University has reasonably identified as having information about any relevant aspect of the inquiry or investigation. They are expected to cooperate in good faith and to have a reasonable belief in the truth of their testimony, based on the information known to them at the time. 

The University will keep witnesses’ identities confidential as described in Section 500.01, will take precautions against conflicts of interest involving them, and will take all reasonable and practical steps to protect their positions and reputations and to protect them from retaliation. 

500.10 Protecting Reputations and Preventing Retaliation 

Complainants, witnesses, and committee members. The University will not tolerate retaliation. It will take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of good faith complainants, witnesses, and committee members, and to protect them from retaliation by respondents and other institutional members. This applies whether or not misconduct is found. The RIO monitors how these people are treated and reviews any alleged retaliation. Anyone who sees or experiences retaliation should report it to the RIO immediately. After an investigation, the Deciding Official decides, after consulting the complainant, what steps (if any) are needed to restore the complainant’s position or reputation. 

Respondents. If no finding of research misconduct is made, the University will make all reasonable and practical efforts to protect or restore the respondent’s reputation, if the respondent asks and as appropriate. Depending on the circumstances, the RIO may consider telling those who knew of the proceeding the outcome, publicizing the outcome in forums where the allegation was publicized, or removing references to the allegation from the respondent’s personnel file. The Deciding Official must approve any such action first. 

Allegations not made in good faith. If it is relevant, the Deciding Official decides, after consulting the RIO and the investigation committee, whether the complainant’s allegations were made in good faith. If they were not, the Deciding Official decides whether to take administrative action against the complainant. An allegation not made in good faith may also expose the complainant to outside legal action. 

600.00 Receiving and Assessing an Allegation 

600.01 How to Report a Concern 

Employees and others associated with the University should report observed or suspected research misconduct to the RIO. An allegation may be made orally and anonymously. At any time, an employee may talk confidentially with the RIO about a concern and will be counseled on how to report it. Anyone unsure whether a concern is research misconduct may contact the RIO for an informal discussion. If the concern does not meet the definition, the RIO will refer the person or the allegation to the office responsible for resolving the problem. 

600.02 The Assessment 

When the RIO receives an allegation, the RIO (or the RIO’s designee) will promptly assess it, using readily accessible information, to decide whether it: 

1. falls within the definition of research misconduct; 
2. is within the scope of these procedures (Section 200) and, for PHS matters, within the applicability criteria of 42 C.F.R. § 93.102; and 
3. is sufficiently credible and specific that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. 

600.03 If All Three Criteria Are Met 

The RIO will document the assessment, promptly secure all research records and other evidence (Section 700.03), and promptly start an inquiry. 

600.04 If The Criteria Are Not Met 

The RIO will keep documentation of the assessment that is detailed enough to let ORI later review why an inquiry was not conducted. This documentation is kept under Section 1100. A formal written assessment report is not required. 

700.00 Inquiry 

700.01 Purpose of the Inquiry 

An inquiry is an initial review of the evidence to decide whether an allegation warrants an investigation. It does not require a full review of the evidence. It does not decide whether research misconduct occurred or who was responsible, and it cannot make findings, including whether any misconduct was intentional, knowing, or reckless. 

700.02 Starting the Inquiry and Notifying the Respondent 

At or before the start of the inquiry, the RIO will make a good faith effort to notify the presumed respondent, if any, in writing. The notice will say that an allegation of research misconduct has been made, that the relevant research records have been or will be secured, and that an inquiry will decide whether an investigation is warranted. The date of that notice is the date the inquiry is initiated. If there is no presumed respondent, the inquiry is initiated on the date the RIO opens it. 

If the inquiry identifies additional respondents, the RIO will notify them in writing. A separate inquiry for each is not required, but each must be given notice of, and the chance to respond to, the allegations, and each has the same rights as the first respondent. The notice to each respondent includes only the allegations specific to that respondent. If additional allegations are raised, the affected respondents will be notified in writing and have 14 calendar days to respond as described in Section 700.04. 

700.03 Securing the Research Records 

The RIO must promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain all research records and other evidence needed for the proceeding, including physical objects, inventory them, and secure them. Access is only through the RIO. Copies may be secured in place of originals, including copies from instruments shared by several users, if the copies are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value. 

Whenever possible, the RIO obtains the records before or when the respondent is notified, and again whenever additional items become known or relevant. Where appropriate, the respondent receives copies of, or supervised access to, the secured records. The RIO may consult ORI or the involved federal agency for advice. 

700.04 Response from the Respondent 

Within 14 calendar days of receiving the notice of the allegations, the respondent must give the RIO a detailed written response, unless the RIO grants an extension. The response must address the substance of the allegations in detail and refer to the research records that support it, so that the RIO can readily understand the respondent’s position and its basis and can find the relevant parts of the records. The response must also identify all relevant research records and explain how they were created and why they matter to the allegations. The respondent must provide any records that have not already been produced. The response period does not extend the 90-day limit in Section 700.10. 

700.05 Certificate Relating to Records 

No later than 14 calendar days after the deadline for the initial written response, the respondent must give the RIO a signed letter that: 

1. explains all efforts made to locate all potentially relevant research records and evidence, including every place the records were located in the past, every place that was searched, and every place the records were found; 
2. declares that all such records that were located have been provided to the RIO; 
3. identifies and describes any such records that cannot be located; and
4. fully and clearly explains where and when any missing records were created and stored, when they were last seen, and why they are missing. 

The respondent’s obligation to identify and provide research records continues throughout the proceeding. 

700.06 Who Conducts the Inquiry 

The RIO may conduct the inquiry personally or through a designee, with subject matter experts to assist as needed, instead of appointing a committee. Or the RIO may appoint an inquiry committee and chair within 10 days of the initiation of the inquiry. A designee and any experts must meet the same conflict-of-interest standard as committee members. 

If a committee is used, its members must have the expertise to evaluate the evidence, be unbiased, and have no unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the complainant, respondent, or witnesses. They may be faculty, subject matter experts, administrators, lawyers, or other qualified people from inside or outside the University. The RIO may tell the respondent who the proposed members are within 10 days. If the respondent submits a written objection within 5 days based on bias or conflict of interest, the RIO will decide whether to replace the member or expert. 

If a committee is used, the RIO gives it a written charge. The charge describes the allegations and related issues, says the purpose is to decide whether an investigation is warranted (and not whether misconduct occurred or who was responsible), requires a written report, and sets a deadline of 45 days from the committee’s first meeting. At the first meeting the RIO reviews the charge and procedures. The RIO and institutional legal counsel are available to advise the committee. 

700.07 Conducting the Inquiry 

The committee, or the RIO or designee conducting the inquiry, reviews the relevant research records and may interview the complainant, the respondent, and key witnesses. Interviews during an inquiry do not have to be recorded or transcribed. If one is transcribed, the transcript goes with the inquiry report. The inquiry does not include exhaustive interviews and analyses. 

An investigation is warranted if (1) there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct and is within the applicability criteria of Part 93, and (2) the preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding indicates the allegation may have substance. 

700.08 The Inquiry Report 

A written inquiry report is required whether or not an investigation is warranted. It must include: 

1. the names, professional aliases, and positions of the respondent and complainant; 
2. a description of the allegations; 
3. the PHS or other federal support involved, such as grant numbers, applications, contracts, and publications listing the support; 
4. the composition of the inquiry committee, if one was used, with names, positions, and expertise;
5. an inventory of the secured research records and other evidence, and how they were secured;
6. transcripts of any transcribed interviews; 
7. a timeline and procedural history; 
8. any scientific or forensic analyses;
9. the basis for recommending an investigation; 
10. the basis on which any allegation does not merit an investigation;
11. any comments on the report from the respondent or complainant; and 
12. any institutional actions taken, including communications with journals or funding agencies. 

The report must also note any potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion. If the inquiry takes longer than 90 days, the report must explain why. Institutional legal counsel reviews the report for legal sufficiency. 

700.09 Comments on the Draft Report 

The RIO gives the respondent a copy of the draft inquiry report to comment on. The respondent has 14 calendar days from receipt. The comments are attached to the final report. The RIO may also give the complainant relevant portions of the draft for comment, and if one complainant receives portions, all do, to the extent possible. The RIO may set reasonable conditions to protect the confidentiality of the draft, and the committee, or the person conducting the inquiry, may revise the report based on comments. 

700.10 The Inquiry Decision 

The committee, or a designee who conducted the inquiry, sends its final report and any comments to the RIO. (If the RIO conducted the inquiry, the RIO prepares the report.) The RIO decides whether an investigation is warranted under Section 700.07. The inquiry is complete when the RIO makes that decision. The decision must be made within 90 days of the initiation of the inquiry, unless circumstances warrant a longer period, in which case the report documents the reasons. 

The RIO will notify the respondent in writing of the decision, give the respondent a copy of the final inquiry report and a copy of, or reference to, Part 93 and these procedures, and remind the respondent to cooperate if an investigation is opened. The RIO may also notify the complainant and will notify the appropriate University officials. 

If an investigation is warranted, the RIO sends ORI the inquiry report within 30 days of the decision, and the investigation must begin within 30 days of the decision. The RIO cannot extend the 30-day start. 

If an investigation is not warranted, the RIO keeps detailed documentation of the inquiry that would let ORI later review the reasons. These records are kept under Section 1100. 

700.11 Time Limit for Committee Reports 

An inquiry committee normally finishes and gives its report to the RIO no more than 45 calendar days after its first meeting, unless the RIO approves an extension for good cause. The reason is recorded. The respondent may be told of the extension. If the RIO or a designee conducts the inquiry, no committee deadline applies. In all cases the 90-day limit in Section 700.10 applies. 

800.00 Investigation 

800.01 Purpose of the Investigation 

An investigation formally develops a factual record, examines it, and leads either to a decision not to make a finding of research misconduct or to a recommendation for a finding, including recommended remedies. The investigation must pursue diligently all significant issues and leads that are relevant, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue to completion. This matters most where the allegation involves clinical trials, potential harm to human subjects or the public, or research that forms the basis for public policy, clinical practice, or public health practice. 

800.02 Starting the Investigation 

An investigation must begin within 30 days after the decision that one is warranted, and must be completed within 180 days. 

Before the investigation committee begins its work, the RIO will notify the respondent in writing of the allegations to be investigated, including any not addressed in the inquiry. The date of that notice is the date of initiation of the investigation. The RIO notifies ORI as described in Section 1300.01. 

800.03 Securing Additional Records 

The RIO will promptly obtain and secure any additional pertinent research records and other evidence not secured during the inquiry. This should happen before or when the respondent is notified that the investigation has begun, and again whenever new items become known. The same procedures apply as in the inquiry (Section 700.03). 

800.04 The Investigation Committee 

The RIO appoints an investigation committee and chair within 10 days of notifying the respondent that an investigation is planned, or as soon after as practicable. The committee should have at least three members who are unbiased, have the necessary expertise, and have no unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the complainant, respondent, or witnesses. Members may come from inside or outside the University and may include members of the inquiry committee. 

The RIO may tell the respondent who the proposed members are within 5 days. If the respondent submits a written objection stating a reason, the RIO will decide whether to replace the member or expert. 

800.05 Charge and First Meeting 

The RIO gives the committee a written charge. It describes the allegations and related issues from the inquiry, defines research misconduct, and names the respondent. It directs the committee to evaluate the evidence and testimony of the respondent, complainant, and key witnesses and decide, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether research misconduct occurred and, if so, to what extent, who was responsible, and how serious it was. For each allegation, the committee decides whether the misconduct was fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, whether it was intentional, knowing, or reckless, and whether the other requirements for a finding have been met. 

At the first meeting, the RIO, with institutional legal counsel, reviews the charge, the inquiry report, and the procedures and standards for the investigation, including confidentiality and the need for a specific investigation plan. The committee receives a copy of these procedures and, where federal funding is involved, the applicable federal regulations. 

800.06 Additional Allegations and Respondents 

If new information would substantially change the subject matter of the investigation or points to additional respondents, the committee tells the RIO. The RIO will notify the respondent in writing of any new allegation within a reasonable time after deciding to pursue it, and will notify any additional respondents and give them the chance to respond. The respondent has 14 calendar days to respond in writing to a new allegation, following Section 700.04, and to certify the records search for it under Section 700.05. New allegations are handled within the investigation and do not go back to the inquiry stage. A separate inquiry for each additional respondent is not required, but each respondent gets a separate report and a separate determination. 

800.07 Interviews 

During the investigation, the committee must interview each respondent, each complainant, and any other available person reasonably identified as having relevant information, including witnesses the respondent identifies. Interviews must follow these rules: 

• Every interview must be recorded and transcribed. The University records and transcribes interviews using Microsoft Teams, except where Section 1400.11 requires a different method. Transcripts are not redacted to remove identifying information. 
• Exhibits shown to the interviewee are numbered and referred to by number. 
• The interviewee may review the transcript and correct it. 
• Corrected transcripts and numbered exhibits are included in the institutional record. 
• The respondent is not present at witness interviews but receives a transcript of each. 

800.08 Conducting the Investigation 

The RIO and the committee will use diligent efforts to make the investigation thorough, sufficiently documented, and impartial and unbiased to the maximum extent practicable. It includes examining all research records and other evidence relevant to the merits of the allegations, such as research records, computer files, proposals, manuscripts, publications, correspondence, memoranda, and notes of telephone calls. 

800.09 The Investigation Report 

The committee prepares a draft report for each respondent. Each report must include: 

1. a description of the nature of the allegations, including any additional allegations addressed; 
2. a description and documentation of the PHS or other federal support, such as grant numbers, applications, contracts, and publications listing the support; 
3. a description of the specific allegations considered for that respondent; 
4. the composition of the committee, with names, positions, and expertise;
5. an inventory of the secured research records and other evidence, except records the University did not consider or rely on, with a description of how they were secured, including manuscripts and funding proposals considered or relied on; 
6. transcripts of all interviews;
7. identification of the specific papers, manuscripts, funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, or other research records alleged to contain falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material; 
8. any scientific or forensic analyses; 
9. if not already provided to ORI, these procedures and any other policies and procedures used; 
10. any comments by the respondent and complainant on the draft report and the committee’s consideration of them; 
11. for each separate allegation, a statement whether the committee recommends a finding of research misconduct; and 
12. a list of any current support, or known applications or proposals for support, the respondent has pending with PHS and non-PHS federal agencies. 

For each allegation where the committee recommends a finding, the report must also identify who committed the misconduct; whether it was fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism; whether it was intentional, knowing, or reckless; whether the other requirements for a finding have been met; a summary of the facts and analysis, including the merits of any explanation by the respondent; the specific PHS support; and whether any publications need correction or retraction. If the committee does not recommend a finding, the report must give a detailed rationale. 

800.10 Comments on the Draft Report 

Respondent. The RIO gives the respondent the draft report and, at the same time, a copy of or supervised access to the research records and other evidence the committee considered or relied on. The respondent has 30 days from receipt to submit comments. The comments are attached to the final report, and the committee considers them. 

Complainant. The RIO may give the complainant a copy of the draft or relevant portions. If so, the complainant has 30 days from receipt to comment. 

Legal review and confidentiality. Institutional legal counsel reviews the draft for legal sufficiency. The RIO tells recipients the draft is confidential and may set reasonable conditions, such as a signed confidentiality statement or review at the RIO’s office. 

800.11 Time Limit 

The investigation must be completed within 180 days of its initiation. That period includes conducting the investigation, preparing the draft report for each respondent, the comment period, the Deciding Official’s decision, and transmitting the institutional record to ORI or the involved federal agency. 

If the investigation will take longer, the RIO must ask ORI in writing for an extension. The request explains the delay, reports progress, estimates the completion date, and describes the steps remaining. If granted, the RIO files periodic progress reports as ORI asks. The investigation report must document the reasons for exceeding 180 days. 

900.00 Decision 

900.01 Deciding Official Review 

The Deciding Official decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether to accept the investigation report, its findings, and the recommended institutional actions. If the Deciding Official’s decision differs from the committee’s, the written decision must explain the basis in detail, consistent with the definition of research misconduct in these procedures and the evidence the committee reviewed. The Deciding Official may return the report to the committee for further fact-finding or analysis. 

900.02 The Written Decision 

The Deciding Official issues a written decision. It states whether the University found research misconduct and, if so, what kind (fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism) and who committed it. It describes the relevant institutional actions taken or to be taken, including any sanctions. The written decision becomes part of the institutional record. 

900.03 If Misconduct Is Found 

The Deciding Official, after consulting the RIO and, as appropriate, the University President, decides the institutional actions. These may include: 

• withdrawal or correction of pending or published abstracts and papers from the research involved; 
• removal of the responsible person from the project, a letter of reprimand, special monitoring of future work, probation, suspension, salary reduction, or steps toward rank reduction or termination of employment; and 
• restitution of funds, as appropriate. 

900.04 If No Misconduct Is Found 

The proceeding is closed. The respondent may ask for help protecting or restoring his or her reputation (Section 500.10). 

900.05 Notifications 

After a final decision, the RIO may notify the respondent and complainant in writing. The Deciding Official decides whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, licensing boards, journal editors, collaborators, or other relevant parties should be told the outcome. The RIO ensures that all sponsor notification requirements are met. 

1000.00 Final Decision and Appeal 

1000.01 Final Decision 

The determination of the Deciding Official with respect to a finding of research misconduct and corrective actions is binding. The Deciding Official’s decision is the final decision of the University on whether research misconduct occurred, and that research misconduct decision is not subject to review. The appeal of any disciplinary determination will be handled in accordance with the applicable faculty, student, or staff personnel policy or collective bargaining agreement. 

1000.02 Notice to ORI of an Appeal 

If a respondent appeals the University’s findings or institutional actions, the RIO will promptly notify ORI. If the institutional record has not yet been sent to ORI, the University will wait until the appeal is concluded, then send the record with the complete appeal record. If it has already been sent, the University will send ORI the complete appeal record when the appeal is concluded. 

1100.00 Records 

1100.01 The Institutional Record 

After the Deciding Official’s decision, the RIO assembles the institutional record in a logical order. It includes: 

• the documentation of the assessment; 
• if an inquiry was conducted, the inquiry report and all records (other than drafts) considered or relied on, including research records, transcripts of any transcribed interviews, information the respondent provided to the University, and the documentation of any decision not to investigate; 
• if an investigation was conducted, the investigation report and all records (other than drafts) considered or relied on, including research records, the transcripts of each interview, and information the respondent provided to the University; 
• the Deciding Official’s decision, including the written decision; 
• the complete record of any appeal; 
• a single index of all research records and evidence the University compiled, except records it did not consider or rely on; and
• a general description of the records that were secured but not considered or relied on. 

1100.02 Keeping the Records 

The RIO keeps the institutional record and all secured evidence, including physical objects whether or not they are part of the institutional record, in a secure manner for seven years after the proceeding is complete or after any HHS proceeding on the allegation under subparts D and E of Part 93 is complete, whichever is later. The exception is where custody has moved to HHS or ORI advises otherwise in writing. The same seven-year period applies to assessments and inquiries that did not lead to an inquiry or investigation. 

On request, the University will give ORI, the involved federal agency, or other authorized federal personnel access to the records, and will transfer custody of, or provide copies of, the institutional record, any component of it, and any secured evidence to HHS. 

1200.00 Other Matters 

1200.01 Interim Protective Actions 

At any time, University officials will take appropriate interim administrative actions to protect federal funds and ensure that the purposes of federal financial assistance are carried out. 

1200.02 Resignation or Termination 

The Respondent’s termination of employment, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation is reported, does not end the proceeding. If a respondent resigns without admitting misconduct, the inquiry or investigation continues. If the respondent refuses to take part after resigning, the committee will use its best efforts to reach a conclusion and will note the lack of cooperation and its effect in the report. 

1200.03 Multiple Institutions 

When research was conducted at more than one institution, the institutions may agree to a joint proceeding and choose a lead institution. The lead institution obtains research records and other evidence from the others, including witness testimony. By agreement, committees may include members from each institution, and the institutions may make the determinations jointly or assign them to the lead institution. 

1200.04 Committees, Consortia, and Other Persons 

Any committee, consortium, or other person acting for the University must conduct the proceeding in compliance with Part 93. The University must address any potential, perceived, or actual personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest between those members and the complainant, respondent, or witnesses. 

1200.05 Other Standards of Conduct 

The University may apply standards of conduct that differ from the Part 93 standards for research misconduct. A finding by ORI, an HHS settlement, or the absence of either does not affect institutional findings or actions under the University’s own standards. 

1300.00 Reporting to ORI 

This section applies to matters involving PHS support. Section 1400 covers DoD. 

1300.01 Starting an Investigation 

The University must report in writing to ORI its decision to begin an investigation, on or before the date the investigation begins. The report is accompanied by the inquiry report described in Section 700.08, which must reach ORI within 30 days of the decision. 

1300.02 On Request and After the Decision 

When ORI asks, the University will promptly provide the policies and procedures used, the research records and evidence reviewed, and copies of all relevant documents. After the Deciding Official’s decision, and after any appeal ends, the University sends ORI the institutional record. Any significant departure from these procedures is explained in reports to ORI. 

1300.03 Special Circumstances 

At any time during a research misconduct proceeding, the RIO must notify ORI immediately if there is reason to believe that any of these conditions exist: 

1. the health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects; 
2. HHS resources or interests are threatened;
3. research activities should be suspended;
4. there is reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law; 
5. federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the proceeding; or
6. HHS may need to take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved. 

1300.04 Completing the Process; Admissions and Settlements 

The University will carry inquiries and investigations through to completion and will pursue diligently all significant issues and credible allegations of research misconduct. If the University plans to close a case at any stage because the respondent admitted misconduct or a settlement was reached, the RIO will notify ORI in advance. 

An admission must be in writing and signed by the respondent. It must state the specific fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism and the research records affected, and it must meet every element required for a finding (Section 400.01). Before closing the case, the University must give ORI the admission and a statement explaining how it determined that the admission fully addresses the scope of the misconduct and confirms the respondent’s culpability. ORI may then conduct an oversight review and approve closure, direct the University to complete its process, or take other action. 

1400.00 Department of Defense Requirements 

This section applies in addition to the rest of these procedures. If these procedures and the terms of a DoD award differ, the award controls, and otherwise the University follows whichever requirement is more stringent. 

1400.01 When This Section Applies 

This section applies to any allegation that relates to a proposal submitted to DoD for funding consideration, or to research or advanced technology development activities supported in whole or in part by a DoD award, whether a grant, cooperative agreement, contract, or other agreement (a “DoD matter”). It implements DoD Instruction 3210.7, Research Integrity and Misconduct, as incorporated in the award terms. 

1400.02 Scope 

In a DoD matter, “research” means all basic, applied, and demonstration research in all fields of science, engineering, and mathematics, including economics, education, linguistics, medicine, psychology, the physical sciences, the social sciences, and statistics, and research involving human subjects or animals, whatever funding appropriation supports it. An allegation may concern a performer or a reviewer of research, including employees, students, visiting scientists, consultants, and others who take part under the award terms. The DoD definition of research misconduct and the requirements for a finding are consistent with Section 400.01. 

DoDI 3210.7 contains no time limit like the six-year limit in Section 200.04. The University will not close a DoD matter because the conduct is old without first consulting the designated DoD official. 

1400.03 Award Terms and the DoD Contact 

When the RIO receives an allegation in a DoD matter, the RIO will, with the sponsored programs office: 

1. review the award terms, including any terms specific to the DoD component that made the award, to find any research misconduct, notification, or reporting requirements and the DoD official to whom notices and reports go. That official may be a Grants Officer, Agreement Officer, Contracting Officer, or other designated official or, for an unawarded proposal, the DoD contact named in the solicitation or proposal (the “designated DoD official”); 
2. record the designated DoD official and the requirements in the case file; and
3. if PHS or another federal agency also funds the research, identify each sponsor’s requirements, notify each as required, and apply the shorter time frame or stricter requirement where they differ. 

1400.04 Who Responds 

The University is responsible for responding to an allegation made directly to it, including the inquiry, investigation, and adjudication, whether the allegation concerns an award or an unfunded proposal. DoD ordinarily refers allegations it receives back to the University. DoD may respond directly if it decides the University cannot conduct a thorough and unbiased inquiry and investigation, that the public interest calls for DoD to do so, or that the matter involves a small organization or individual who cannot reasonably be expected to respond. The University will cooperate fully. 

1400.05 Separation of Roles 

Responsibility for adjudication must be separate from responsibility for inquiry and investigation. As Sections 500.05 and 700.10 provide, the RIO decides whether an inquiry leads to an investigation, and the Deciding Official acts only as the adjudicating official after the investigation is complete. The adjudicating official may be higher in the chain of command or in a different part of the University than the part that conducted the inquiry and investigation. 

1400.06 Notice to DoD After the Inquiry 

If the RIO decides, after the inquiry, that there is sufficient evidence to proceed to an investigation, the RIO will notify the designated DoD official in writing promptly, and within 30 days of the decision, unless the award sets a different time. The notice identifies the allegations and the proposal or award involved. If the DoD official asks, the RIO will also send the inquiry report. This notice is in addition to any report to ORI under Section 1300. 

1400.07 Tell DoD Immediately 

At any time during an inquiry or investigation in a DoD matter, the RIO will immediately notify the designated DoD official, with an explanation, if: 

1. public health or safety is at risk; 
2. the University’s resources or interests are threatened or at risk;
3. research activities are to be suspended because of the matter;
4. there is a possible violation of civil or criminal law;
5. action by the DoD component is needed to protect the interests of those involved;
6. premature public disclosure may compromise the process; or
7. the broader research community or the public should be informed. 

These are in addition to the conditions in Section 1300.03. 

1400.08 Reports After the Investigation 

When the investigation is complete, the RIO will give the designated DoD official the evidentiary record, the investigation report, the recommendations made to the Deciding Official, and the respondent’s written response to those recommendations, if any. The respondent’s comments on the draft report under Section 800.10 count as the written response unless the respondent submits a separate response before the materials are sent. After the Deciding Official decides, the RIO will promptly tell the designated DoD official the University’s final determination and any institutional actions or corrective action plan, unless the award provides otherwise. 

1400.09 Records 

For each DoD matter, the RIO keeps, in addition to the institutional record: a written statement of the original allegation; the formal notice to the respondent; the written outcome of the inquiry and supporting documents; the investigation report, including the evidentiary record; and any statement of recommended corrective actions and any response, including a corrective action plan. DoD requires these records to be kept at least three years after the final decision. The longer University period in Section 1100.02 applies. The University will make these procedures available to DoD for inspection on request. 

1400.10 Protections and Remedies 

Protecting complainants. The University will protect good faith complainants and witnesses from retaliation or harm to their positions or reputations (Section 500.10) and will provide fair and objective procedures. The University will not take reprisal against an employee for a disclosure protected by the federal statute that protects employees of contractors, subcontractors, grantees, and subgrantees from reprisal. Rights under that statute cannot be waived by agreement. 

DoD remedies. If the University does not meet the requirements of a DoD award, DoD may use any available administrative or other remedy, including ending the award or pursuing suspension and debarment of the University. After a finding of research misconduct, DoD may also recommend suspension or debarment of the individual. The University will cooperate in carrying out any such remedy. 

1400.11 Classified, Controlled, or Export-Controlled Information 

If an allegation involves classified information, controlled unclassified information, or export-controlled technology or technical data, the RIO will consult the University’s research security and export control officials before securing, copying, or disclosing records or evidence. The RIO will ensure that securing and storing records, committee and expert access, interviews, transcripts, and transmittal to ORI or DoD comply with the applicable security, handling, and export control requirements. No one will be appointed to a committee, or given records or evidence, unless authorized to have access. If DoD specifies alternate or additional procedures for classified research, the University will follow them.