Policy and Procedures on Alleged Misconduct in
Research and Other Scholarly Activities
University of Maine
Approved: September 17,1999
Revised: April 14,2006
-
Preamble
-
Definitions
-
Appointments
-
Description of
Process
I. Preamble
A. Statement of Policy
The University of
Maine is committed to fostering an environment in which the highest
ethical standards in the conduct of research and other scholarly
activities are expected. The primary responsibility for maintaining
such standards of honesty in the pursuit and dissemination of
knowledge rests with the faculty, collaborating staff members, and
students. Any individual who is found guilty of willful "Misconduct"
as defined below is subject to disciplinary action by the University
of Maine.
Every individual
engaged in research and other scholarly activities is expected to be
fully aware of the regulations and ethics guidelines governing
his/her discipline. A faculty member or his/her collaborator(s)
(including other faculty, staff, and students) should disclose
immediately what they believe in good faith to be an instance of
misconduct, as identified below.
Any allegation of
"misconduct in research and other scholarly activities" (henceforth
"Misconduct") that is made against a member of the faculty or staff
or against his/her collaborator(s) requires a prompt, thorough and
fair review. The University will take reasonable steps to ensure an
impartial and unbiased review to the maximum extent practicable,
including precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for
carrying out any part of the research misconduct proceeding do not
have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of
interest with those involved with the inquiry or investigation. The
following procedures are intended to assure these objectives. Within
the University community, many unusual employment situations do not
have the traditional line of command, i.e.,
staff-faculty-chairperson-dean-vice president. Consequently, the
guidelines developed below will necessarily have to be modified
under certain circumstances.
Back to Top
II. Definitions
A. Misconduct in
Research and Other Scholarly Activities
'Misconduct' or
'Misconduct in Research and Other Scholarly Activities' means
fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that
seriously deviate fi-om those that are commonly accepted within the
scholarly community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research
and other scholarly activities. It does not include honest error or
honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data.
Inquiry -
An information-gathering and initial fact-finding process to
separate allegations of misconduct deserving of further
investigation from those which are hvolous, unsubstantiated or
mistaken.
Investigation -
A formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to
determine if an instance of misconduct has taken place.
Complainant -
An individual who comes forward with an allegation of misconduct.
Respondent -
An individual against whom misconduct is alleged.
Federal agency -
Federal agency shall include any federal agency with regulations
pertaining to allegations that misconduct has occurred in research
supported by federal funds. For example, the Office of Research
Integrity (ORI), a component of the Public Health Service, monitors
individual investigations into alleged or suspected scientific
misconduct in research or research-training, applications for
research or research training, or related research activities that
are supported by funds received from the Public Health Service (PHs)
of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The
National Science Foundation (NSF), under the supervision of the
Division of Audit and Oversight (DAO) in the Office of Budget, Audit
and Control, monitors investigations into allegations of scientific
misconduct in research supported by an NSF award.
Back to Top
III.
Appointments
A. Misconduct Policy
Officer
1. The Vice President
for Research, or other senior administrator if so designated by the
President, shall serve as the Misconduct Policy Officer. The Vice
President for Academic Affairs and Provost, or other senior
administrator if so designated by the President, shall serve as
alternate in instances of allegations that might pose a conflict of
interest for the Misconduct Policy Officer.
2. Responsibilities
-
To provide education
and counseling to the University community on matters related to
scientific misconduct.
-
To disseminate and
interpret the University's policies on scientific misconduct.
-
To counsel
confidentially any individual who comes forward with an allegation
of misconduct.
-
To seek to assist in
the resolution of each such allegation through the institutional
processes appropriate to the particular case.
-
To work with the
complainant in the development of a specific, formal, written
complaint in the event that the allegation is to be handled
through these procedures.
-
To appoint all
Inquiry Boards.
-
To maintain all
records of all complaints, inquiries, and investigations.
-
To serve ex officio
(without vote) on Inquiry Boards and Ad Hoc Review Panels.
-
To communicate with
Federal agency in accordance with federal law whenever allegations
involve research supported by federal funds.
-
To communicate with
the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost at all stages
of the process, including whenever the Officer reports to federal
funding agencies.
B. Committee on
Scientific Misconduct
1. The Faculty Senate
will appoint a six member Committee on Scientific Misconduct.
Membership will be limited to tenured faculty selected to represent
a range of disciplines. Initially, two persons each will be
appointed for terms of one, two, and three years. Subsequently, two
members will be appointed annually for three-year terms.
2. Responsibilities
a. For any specific
allegation or set of allegations, a three-member Inquiry Board of
the Committee on Scientific Misconduct, appointed by the
Misconduct Policy Officer, will conduct the inquiry in accordance
with the procedures set forth below to determine if an
investigation is warranted.
b. If an
investigation is warranted, the Inquiry Board shall recommend that
the Misconduct Policy Officer charge the appropriate Dean with
appointing an Ad Hoc Review Panel to conduct a full investigation.
C. Ad Hoc Review Panel
1. When the Inquiry
Board recommends a formal investigation, the appropriate Dean will
appoint a Review Panel of five academically qualified members from
within the University. At least two shall be from disciplines
closely related to that of the respondent. Under limited
circumstances, scholars from other institutions who are recognized
experts in the discipline of the respondent may be requested to
serve as consultants or experts to the Panel. The respondent will
have the opportunity to challenge the appointment of proposed panel
members and to suggest substitutes to the Dean for good cause shown.
Good cause may include, but not be limited to, circumstances in
which the respondent believes the proposed member(s) to be
unqualified to review the allegations due to bias or lack of
relevant expertise in the field in question. Final decision on the
composition of the Review Panel will be made by the Dean.
2. All faculty members
of the Committee on Scientific Misconduct shall be excluded from
serving on the Ad Hoc Review Panel in order to assure the
independence of the inquiry and investigative phases of the process.
Back to Top
IV. Description of Process
The entire process
shall be governed by the guidelines set forth in
Sections V1 and VII
of these procedures.
A. Complaint
Any person(s) who
perceives that misconduct has occurred shall report the alleged
misconduct to the Misconduct Policy Officer, who shall immediately
discuss with the complainant the perceived misconduct and the
procedures for inquiries and investigations.
To the extent allowed
by law, the University shall maintain the identity of complainants
securely and confidentially and shall not disclose any identifying
information, except to: (1) those who need to know in order to carry
out a thorough, competent, objective, and fair research misconduct
proceeding; and (2) Federal agency (if applicable) as it conducts
its review of the research misconduct proceeding and any subsequent
proceedings.
Anonymity of the
complainant may be preserved if the Misconduct Policy Officer, after
reviewing the allegation and available information, determines that
it is necessary to protect the complainant and that the identity of
the complainant is not necessary to the inquiry. In this event, the
complainant would be the University. There may also be instances
where the University is the complainant because the identity of the
complainant is unknown but the evidence of misconduct is
substantial.
The complainant or
Misconduct Policy Officer on behalf of the University shall initiate
the process by completing a statement of the allegation or other
evidence of possible misconduct, and by signing and dating the
complaint. The complaint shall contain the allegation of misconduct
and the reasons and bases for suspecting misconduct by a member* of
the University, and shall be provided to the Misconduct Policy
Officer in the event that the complaint is completed by the
complainant.
*In the event that a
student is accused of misconduct as defined in this policy, the
Misconduct Policy Officer shall provide a copy of the complaint to
the Student Conduct Code Officer. The academic honesty procedures
described in the student handbook shall apply.
B. Inquiry
Within ten (10)
working days of the receipt of a complaint during the academic year,
and as soon as practical during the summer period, the Misconduct
Policy Officer shall select a three-member Inquiry Board from
membership of the Committee on Scientific Misconduct, appoint a
chairperson, and charge the Board with conducting an inquiry to
assess the allegation to determine if: (1) it meets the definition
of research misconduct as defined in this Policy; (2) it involves
either federally supported research, applications for federal
research support or research records; and (3) the allegation is
sufficiently credible and specific, so that potential evidence of
research misconduct may be identified. At this time, the Misconduct
Policy Officer shall also notify the respondent, in writing, that a
complaint of suspected misconduct has been made and that an Inquiry
Board has been appointed. The Misconduct Policy Officer shall also
provide the respondent with a copy of the complaint and provide him
or her with the names of the members of the Inquiry Board. If the
inquiry subsequently identifies additional respondents, they shall
be promptly notified in writing. To the extent allowed by law, the
University shall maintain the identity of respondents securely and
confidentially and shall not disclose any identifying information,
except to: (1) those who need to know in order to carry out a
thorough, competent, objective, and fair research misconduct
proceeding; and (2) Federal agency (if applicable) as it conducts
its review of the research misconduct proceeding and any subsequent
proceedings.
In the event that the
allegations relate to Federally funded activities, the Misconduct
Policy Officer shall take interim administrative actions, as
appropriate, to protect the Federal funds and insure that the
purposes of the Federal financial assistance are carried out.
The Inquiry Board
shall meet with the respondent and shall review necessary and
reasonable information to determine if an investigation should be
recommended. The Inquiry Board shall prepare a written report that
includes the complaint and states what evidence was reviewed,
summarizes relevant interviews, and states the conclusions of the
inquiry.
The Inquiry Board
shall take no more than thirty (30) days from establishment of the
Board to conduct its inquiry and to complete its report. If the
Board anticipates that the established deadline cannot be met, a
report, citing the reasons for the delay and progress to date, shall
be submitted to the Misconduct Policy Officer and to the respondent,
and appropriately involved individuals should be so informed. If the
inquiry takes longer than sixty (60) days to complete, the record of
the inquiry shall include an explanation of the reasons for
exceeding the 60-day period.
The Board shall
recommend the initiation of an investigation if it establishes
information which tends to support the allegation of misconduct, if
the inquiry has raised questions about possible misconduct that can
only be resolved by formal investigation, or if the respondent
refuses to cooperate fully with the Board. If an allegation is found
to be unsupported, but submitted in good faith, the Board shall
recommend no further action.
At the conclusion of
the inquiry, the Inquiry Board shall provide a draft copy of the
written report to the Misconduct Policy Officer and to the
respondent. The respondent may file a written response within ten
days of receipt of the Inquiry Board's report. The Inquiry Board
will consider any responses and address the comments before issuing
the final report. The inquiry report shall contain the following
information: (1) The name and position of the respondent(s); (2) A
description of the allegations of research misconduct; (3) The
federally funded support involved, including, for example, grant
numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing
federal support; (4) The basis for recommending that the alleged
actions warrant an investigation; and (5) Any comments on the report
by the respondent or the complainant. The Misconduct Policy Officer
will make a written determination of whether an investigation is
warranted. The Misconduct Policy Officer shall notify the
respondent(s) of the results of the inquiry and attach to the
notification copies of the final inquiry report and these
institutional policies and procedures for the handling of research
misconduct allegations. The Misconduct Policy Officer shall inform
the respondent whether or not there will be further investigation;
if there is a complainant, he or she shall likewise be informed.
In the event that the
allegations relate to Federally funded research and if the Board
determines that an investigation is warranted, the Misconduct Policy
Officer shall notify Federal agency prior to commencement of the
investigation. The Misconduct Policy Officer also shall notify
Federal agency at any time if 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 the respondents(s);
4. It is probable
that the allegation(s) are going to be reported publicly; or
5. There is a
reasonable indication of possible criminal violation. In this
instance the Misconduct Policy Officer shall notify Federal agency
within 24 hours of obtaining the information. The Misconduct
Policy Officer also shall notify Federal agency of any
developments that may affect current or potential federal funding
for the respondent or that Federal agency needs to know to ensure
appropriate use of federal funds and otherwise protect the public
interest.
In the event that the
inquiry concludes that an investigation is not warranted, the
Misconduct Policy Officer shall maintain a sufficiently detailed
documentation of the inquiry to permit a later assessment of the
reasons for determining that an investigation was not warranted.
Such records shall be maintained in a secure manner for a period of
at least seven years after the termination of the inquiry, and
shall, upon request, be provided to authorized personnel of relevant
Federal agency.
In all cases, the
Misconduct Policy Officer is responsible for investigating and
recommending appropriate action for any additional outcomes of the
inquiry. If the Board finds that allegations have not been made in
good faith, the Misconduct Policy Officer shall initiate or
recommend disciplinary action against the complainant in accordance
with appropriate University policies. If the confidentiality of the
proceedings is breached, the Misconduct Policy Officer shall
initiate or recommend disciplinary action against the breaching
individual in accordance with appropriate University policies. If
the confidentiality of the proceedings is breached, the Misconduct
Policy Officer shall initiate or recommend actions to minimize the
damage. If the complainant suffers acts of retaliation, the
Misconduct Policy Officer shall initiate or recommend disciplinary
action against the individual or individuals engaging in such acts,
in accordance with appropriate University policies.
Formal Investigation
If the Misconduct
Policy Officer rules that a formal investigation be conducted, the
appropriate Dean shall explicitly charge the Review Panel and
provide it with all material already at hand. The Review Panel shall
commence the investigation within 30 days of completion of the
inquiry.
The Review Panel
shall: (1) Use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is
thorough and sufficiently documented and includes examination of all
research records and evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the
merits of the allegations; (2) Interview each respondent,
complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably
identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of
the investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent,
and record or transcribe each interview, provide the recording or
transcript to the interviewee for correction, and include the
recording or transcript in the record of investigation; (3) Pursue
diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are
determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of
additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue
the investigation to completion; and (4) Otherwise comply with the
requirements for conducting an investigation in this Policy.
The respondent shall
be given a copy of the charge to the Review Panel, including the
allegations to be investigated, and invited to provide written
comments, which comments shall be among the materials considered by
the Review Panel and included in its report. In addition, the
respondent shall be obliged to provide the Review Panel with other
requested material relevant to the alleged infraction. For
scientific misconduct, this might include:
1. A list of all
persons connected with the work.
2. Copies of
relevant grant applications and work progress reports.
3. All requested
relevant research notebooks, journals, and other records.
4. Copies of
relevant abstracts and papers, published or pending.
5. Copies of all
correspondence and memoranda of telephone calls.
The Review Panel is
authorized to conduct a hearing and to interview anyone who could
contribute relevant information. The respondent shall cooperate with
the Review Panel. The Review Panel will notify the respondent
sufficiently in advance of the scheduling of his/her interview in
the investigation, so that the respondent may prepare for the
interview and arrange for the attendance of legal counsel, if the
respondent wishes. If the misconduct is substantiated, the
investigation shall determine the seriousness of the offense and the
extent of any adverse effects resulting from the misconduct.
The Review Panel
should complete its formal investigation and send its draft written
report to the Dean in no more than twenty (20) working days during
the academic year (or as soon as is practical during the summer
recess). At the same time, a copy of the report shall be sent to the
respondent, along with a copy of (or supervised access to) the
evidence on which the report is based and his/her written comments
invited, such comments to be sent to the Dean within thirty (30)
working days.
Comments will be
considered by the Dean and by the Misconduct Policy Officer in their
subsequent deliberations, and be made part of the record of the
investigation.
Upon a 315th vote of
the Review Panel and prior to completion of the report, the Panel
may widen the investigation to include other projects with which the
respondent is or has been involved where the investigation thus far
(1) suggests a substantive link between the project under
investigation; (2) establishes that the same research team was or
may have been involved in other projects; (3) indicates a pattern or
practice of misconduct; or (4) reveals other appropriate
circumstances under which review should be expanded. The Panel shall
communicate, in writing, this increased effort to the Misconduct
Policy Officer and the respondent. The expanded investigation must
be completed within 60 calendar days from the commencement of the
initial investigation.
If the Panel
anticipates that the investigation cannot be completed within the
deadline, the Panel shall advise the Misconduct Policy Officer and
the respondent. In the case of federally funded research, if the
Panel determines that it will not complete the investigation in 120
days, the Misconduct Policy Officer shall request an extension from
Federal agency in accordance with federal law.
The Panel's final
report shall: (1) Describe the nature of the allegations of research
misconduct; (2) Describe and document the federal support,
including, for example any grant numbers, grant applications,
contracts, and publications listing federal support; (3) Describe
the specific allegations of research misconduct considered in the
investigation; (4) Include the institutional policies and procedures
under which the investigation was conducted; (5) Identify and
summarize the research records and evidence reviewed, and identify
any evidence taken into custody, but not reviewed; (6) Describe any
relevant records and evidence NOT taken into custody and explain
why; (7) Provide a finding as to whether research misconduct did or
did not occur for each separate allegation of research misconduct
identified during the investigation, and if misconduct was found, (i)
identify it as falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism and whether
it was intentional, knowing, or in reckless disregard, (ii)
summarize the facts and the analysis supporting the conclusion and
consider the merits of any reasonable explanation by the respondent
and any evidence that rebuts the respondent's explanations, (iii)
identify the specific federal support; (iv) identify any
publications that need correction or retraction; (v) identify the
person(s) responsible for the misconduct, and (vi) list any current
support or known applications or proposals for support that the
respondent(s) has pending with non-federal agencies; (7) Include and
consider any comments made by the respondent and complainant on the
draft investigation report; and (8) the sanctions recommended, if
any. A 315th vote of the Panel finding that the allegation(s) is
substantiated is necessary for imposition of any sanctions.
Within ten (10)
working days from receipt of the Panel's report, the Dean shall
forward the report and the respondent's comments, if any, to the
Misconduct Policy Officer who shall notify other appropriate persons
as to the findings of the Review Panel. If the allegations are
substantiated, the Dean shall recommend to the Misconduct Policy
Officer an appropriate course of action. The Misconduct Policy
Officer shall determine the final outcome, including the imposition
of any sanctions, and shall notify the respondent. The respondent
shall have ten (10) working days in which to submit an appeal: see
Section V.
If the allegations of
misconduct are substantiated, the respondent will be subjected to
disciplinary action, which may include, but is not limited to,
termination, and the respondent may also be expected personally to
make restitution as appropriate under the circumstances of the case.
If the allegations of misconduct are not substantiated, the
Misconduct Policy Officer shall undertake diligent efforts, as
appropriate, to restore the reputation of the respondent.
If the respondent is
being supported by extramural sponsored funds, the Misconduct Policy
Officer shall consult with the Vice President for Academic Affairs
and Provost and may at his/her discretion notify the sponsor and
apprise the sponsor of the progress of the investigation. A copy of
any such notification shall be sent to the respondent. In the case
of federally funded research, the Misconduct Policy Officer shall
notify Federal agency of the final outcome of the investigation and,
as required by Federal regulation, provide Federal agency with a
copy of the complete Investigation report. In the event that the
inquiry or investigation is terminated before completion, the
Misconduct Policy Officer shall notify Federal agency in accordance
with federal law.
The Misconduct Policy
Officer shall notify the editor(s) of journals that are considering
or have published abstracts and papers emanating from research
determined to be the product of substantiated misconduct.
Institutions and
sponsoring agencies with which the respondent has been affiliated
should be notified by the Misconduct Policy Officer if there is a
reason to question the validity of previous research or scholarship.
The Misconduct Policy
Officer shall prepare and maintain the documentation to substantiate
the investigation's findings. This documentation is to be made
available to authorized personnel of the relevant Federal agency upon request.
No matter the outcome
of the investigation, the Misconduct Policy Officer shall undertake
diligent efforts to protect the positions and reputations of persons
who have made allegations of scientific misconduct in good faith.
Back to Top
V. Appeals
The respondent may
file an appeal in writing with the Misconduct Policy Officer. The
appeal must be based solely upon issues of procedural error or new
evidence which could not be made available to the Review Panel. This
appeal shall be filed with the Misconduct Policy Officer within ten
(10) working days of the date of notification of the determination
of the Misconduct Policy Officer. The decision on appeal of the
Misconduct Policy Officer shall be final. If an appeal is upheld,
the process of inquiry/investigation starts anew at the point where
there were procedural errors or where the introduction of new
information is relevant.
Back to Top
VI. Guidelines for the Conduct of an
Inquiry and an Investigation
The procedures for
dealing with allegations of misconduct are guided by the following principles:
A. To protect, to
the maximum extent possible, the privacy of those who in good faith report apparent misconduct.
B. To afford the
respondent confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible,
a prompt and thorough investigation, and an opportunity to comment
on allegations and findings of the inquiry and/or the
investigation.
C. To take
precautions against real or apparent conflicts of interest on the
part of those involved in the inquiry or investigation.
D. To minimize the
number of individuals involved, consistent with securing necessary
and appropriate expertise to carry out a thorough and
authoritative evaluation of the relevant evidence in any inquiry
or investigation.
All University persons
called upon to administer this policy shall exercise diligence to
protect the privacy of the individuals involved. Confidentiality
shall therefore be maintained except as necessary to consult with
persons as required by this policy and except insofar as disclosure
is required by law. All notebooks, journals, and other materials
submitted to the Panel will be held in trust by the Misconduct
Policy Officer.
All reasonable,
practical, and appropriate efforts to protect and restore the reputation of any person alleged to have engaged in research
misconduct, but against whom no finding of research misconduct was
made, if that person or his/her legal counsel or other authorized
representative requests that the University does so.
All reasonable and
practical efforts to protect or restore the position and reputation
of any complainant, witness, or committee member and to counter
potential or actual retaliation against those complainants,
witnesses, and committee members shall be undertaken by the
University. Collaborators named in allegations, against whom no charges are
directed and no action initiated under this policy, are presumed to
be innocent of misconduct except where allegations are lodged
against them as individuals and reviewed under the procedures of
this policy.
After an
investigation, faculty practices and institutional policies and
procedures for promoting the ethical conduct of research and
investigating allegations of misconduct should be reviewed by the
Committee on Scientific Misconduct in light of the experience
gained, and recommendations for improvement should be forwarded to
the President via the Misconduct Policy Officer after consideration
by the Faculty Senate, Deans, and Vice Presidents.
Back to Top
VII. Guidelines for the Confidentiality
of Records
All records,
documents, and the like submitted, generated, or otherwise developed
in connection with proceedings under the policy shall be maintained
confidentially and with the strictest regard for the privacy of all
participants. All such records shall be maintained for a period of
at least seven years after the process is completed under this
policy.
All records,
documents, and the like relative to proceedings that terminate with
a finding of no misconduct shall be maintained confidentially in the
Office of the Misconduct Policy Officer. Such records shall be
sealed, and filed under the name of the individual against whom
allegations were made in a repository created to maintain such
records. Under no circumstances should such records be referenced or
included in the personnel file of the individual against whom
allegations were made. The same procedure shall apply relative to
proceedings that terminate before the completion of the formal
investigation.
All records relative
to proceedings that terminate with a finding of misconduct shall be
maintained unsealed in the Office of the Misconduct Policy Officer.
Access to these files shall be limited to persons to whom access
must be granted to insure compliance with the dictates of the law
and this policy. All access and disclosure requests, and the
responses thereto, shall be documented and maintained as part of the
file.
All persons called
upon to administer this policy shall exercise diligence to assure
compliance with these confidentiality requirements. No disclosure
of, or access to, such records shall be permitted, except as
required by law or as essential to effect this policy.
Back to Administration
