Skip to main content

Inquiry

Upon receipt of a determination that a complaint alleging research misconduct involves a research or scholarly activity (see III.A); falls within the definition of research misconduct (see III.B); and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified, the CRO shall within seven (7) days, refer the matter to the Research Misconduct Investigatory Committee (RMIC) to conduct an inquiry.  The purpose of the inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the available evidence to determine whether the allegation warrants a formal investigation. An inquiry does not require a full evidentiary review. The RMIC shall complete their inquiry within 60 days of initiation, maintaining confidentiality (VI), and issuing a final written report to the CRO upon conclusion.  Any need for additional time to complete the inquiry must be documented in writing, the CRO must document the reason(s) and justify the extension in the record. An investigation is warranted if:

  • There is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation involves research and scholarly activities;
  • Falls within the definition of research misconduct (III.A and B);
  • Preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding indicate that the allegation may have substance.

The Research Misconduct Investigatory Committee (RMIC) consists of:

  • The CRO (or Provost appointee) serves as Chair;
  • One faculty member appointed by the Faculty Federation President;
  • One member appointed by the Chair of the Faculty Senate Research Committee or his/her designee;
  • The Research Integrity Officer (ex officio, non-voting)
  • Additional subject-matter experts may be consulted as needed by the CRO or Provost.

Note: No one who has any real, apparent, or potential personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest shall serve on the RMIC. If a RMIC member has such a conflict they must be replaced. Any actual or apparent conflict shall be reviewed by the Director of Institutional Ethics & Compliance (DIEC) & CRO, who will determine the need for replacement. The replacement RMIC member will be appointed by either theProvost, Faculty Federation President, or Faculty Senate President, depending on which member is conflicted.  Parties may object to a member’s appointment due to conflict; the CRO’s determination is final.

  1. Before initiating the inquiry, the CRO shall notify the respondent(s) in writing of:
  • The specific allegation(s) of misconduct;
  • The inquiry which is proceeding;
    • A summary of known evidence;
    • The respondent’s right to submit a written statement and identify witnesses.

Note: If new allegations emerge, additional written notice will be provided.

  • Before initiating the inquiry, the CRO must ensure sequestration of all original research records and evidence relevant to the allegations, including physical and digital materials. The RMIC, acting through the CRO, to the extent it has not already been done at the preliminary review stage, on or before the date on which the respondent is notified or the inquiry begins, whichever is earlier, will promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester them in a secure manner, except that where the research records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments. If research instruments are shared by anumber of users, custody may be limited to copies of the relevant data or evidence on such instruments, may suffice if they retain evidentiary value. Sequestration must be documented, and an inventory maintained.
  • To determine if an allegation warrants an investigation, the RMIC shall:
    • Review the complaint, supporting documents, and any prior assessment;
    • Gather and assess relevant information;
    • Conduct preliminary fact finding by interviewing affected parties (complainant, respondent(s), witnesses, other key individuals, and others in the university community);
    • Maintain confidentiality and limit disclosure to those who need to know.
    • Rule by a majority votes of its members.
  • The RMIC must decide by majority vote whether the allegation meets the criteria to warrant an investigation.
  • Conclusions:
    • If, at any point during the inquiry, the respondent admits to misconduct in writing and sufficient substantive evidence supports the admission, a settlement with the respondent(s) has been reached, or for any other reason, then the inquiry may be closed provided no further action is required other than required notifications to Federal or State agencies (See E Advance Notice of Admissions, Settlementsor Other Action).
    • The RMIC may dismiss the allegation if the criteria are not met and an investigation is not warranted, and the case will be closed. The CRO or RIO shall notify appropriate parties, including agencies as required.
  • If the RMIC finds the matter doesnot satisfy the definition of research misconduct (III.B) but does suggest a prima facie case of scholarly misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, improper authorship, or other non‐federally-defined infractions), it shall so report and forward the final inquiry report to the Provost. The Provost, in consultation with the CRO and RIO, shall determine within 10 business days whether a formal research misconduct investigation and Hearing Panel is warranted.
    • If the criteria are met and the RMIC finds the allegation to have substance, then an investigation is warranted. The committee shall thenrefer the allegation to the CRO and Provost for investigation. The CRO shall initiate an investigation within 5 business days of inquiry completion and notify all required federal agencies in accordance with 42 CFR §93.309.
    • If additional respondents are identified during an inquiry or investigation, the Committee of Inquiry is not required to conduct a separate inquiry for each new respondent. However, each additional respondent will be provided notice of and an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
  • Regardless of the conclusion, the RIO via the RMIC will issue a written report which addresses/includes:
    • Names and positions of the complainant and respondent;
    • Description of each allegation;
    • Outlines federal support (e.g., grant numbers, contracts, related publications), if applicable;
    • Composition of the RMIC, including names and subject matter expertise;
    • Inventory and description of sequestered evidence;
    • Summary of accounts volunteered;
    • Timeline and procedural steps taken;
    • Outline forensic or scientific analyses conducted;
  • RMIC’s recommendation on whether the allegation warrants investigation and the rationale.
  • The report, along with any respondent comments, shall be part of the inquiry record; as applicable.
  • Notifications:
    • If the final decision is to proceed with formal investigation, then the CRO or RIO shall, as required under existing federal and state law or policy (including the 60 day requirement of 42 CFR Part 93, if applicable) and as may be required by the grant or contract terms and conditions of a sponsoring agency, notify any appropriate agency or entity of the alleged research misconduct and the decision to proceed with an investigation no later than on or before the date on which the investigation begins. In addition, the RIO shall continue to safeguard the research records and evidence and to protect agency funds and equipment.
    • If the final decision is not to proceed with an investigation, then the CRO or RIO shall, as required under existing federal and state lawor policy and as may be required by grant or contract terms and conditions of a sponsoring agency, notify any appropriate agency or entity of the outcome of the inquiry. In addition, the CRO or RIO shall undertake, as appropriate, all reasonable and practical efforts to alleviate any diminution of the reputation(s) of the respondent(s) and to alleviate any diminution of the reputation of the complainant who has in good faith made the allegation of research misconduct, and of any member of the RMIC to protect against and counter anypotential or actual retaliation against such
    • A copy of the report will be provided to the respondent(s), the complainant, and to other parties who, because of law or policy (e.g., state or federal agencies), have a right to receive the report.
    • The respondent(s) has (have) the right to submit to the CRO written comments concerning the final report of the RMIC, whichcomments will be attached and included thereafter with the report.