Skip to main content

Reports & Decisions

Deliberation and Findings

Upon conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Panel will deliberate in private to determine whether research misconduct occurred. A finding of misconduct must meet the federal criteria:

  • The conduct represents a significant departure from accepted practices in the relevant research community;
  • The conduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly;
  • The finding is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

 

 

Draft Report and Opportunity for Comment

The Hearing Panel will prepare a draft report that includes:

  • Composition of investigation committee, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
  • A description of the nature of the allegations of research misconduct; including any additional allegation(s) addressed during the research misconduct proceeding.
  • A description & documentation of the research funding/ support, including, for example, any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing federal support;
  • A description of the specific allegations of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation;
  • A brief summary of how the hearing was conducted;
  • A summary of the positions of the complainant and respondent(s);
  • A comprehensive identification and summary of the research records and evidence reviewed and identify any evidence taken into custody but not reviewed; Inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence, except records the institution did not consider or rely on; and a description of how any sequestration was conducted during the investigation. This inventory must include manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied on during the investigation.
  • Transcripts of all interviews conducted.
  • Identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), relevant federal funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, or other research records that allegedly contained the falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material.
  • Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
  • The institutional policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted.
  • Any comments made by the respondent and complainant on the draft investigation report and the investigation committee's consideration of those comments.
  • The panel’s findings and reasoning regarding each allegation; For each separate allegation of research or scholarly misconduct identified during the investigation, provide a finding as to whether misconduct did or did not occur, and if so:
  • Identify whether the research misconduct was falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism, and if it was intentional, knowing, or in reckless disregard;
  • Summarize the facts and the analysis which support the conclusion and consider the merits of any reasonable explanation by the respondent;
  • Identify the specific funding / support;
  • Identify whether any publications need correction or retraction;
  • Identify the person(s) responsible for the misconduct; and
    • List any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending and the funding / sponsoring entities or
  • Reference applicable institutional policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted.
  • A determination of whether research misconduct occurred;
  • Recommended sanctions or administrative actions, where applicable.
  • The draft report will be shared with both the respondent(s) and the complainant. Both may submit written comments within ten (10) businessdays after the conclusion of the hearing, provided that he or she has notified the Presiding Officer of their intention to submit written comments within two (2) business days after the conclusion of the hearing, which comments will be attached and included thereafter with the report. The Hearing Panel will consider such comments and, as appropriate, incorporate responses to such comments in the final written report of the panel. The Hearing Panel and CRO will review and consider all comments before finalizing the report. All submitted comments will be appended to the final report.

 

Final Report Handling

The final written report will:

  • Describe how the hearing was conducted;
  • Provide an accurate summary of the views of the complainant and of the respondent(s); Include the written comments from both the complainant and respondent(s).
  • Summarize the evidence and rationale supporting the findings; Include a comprehensive record of the evidence that was examined and the sources of that evidence,
  • Indicate the facts established by the panel;
  • Recommend any sanctions or administrative actions recommended by the panel (e.g., retraction of publications, correction of the research record, withdrawal of funding proposals, disciplinary measures);
  • Conclusions:
  • If the Hearing Panel finds that research misconduct has not occurred, then the presiding officer shall recommend to the chief research officer that the matter be closed. The CRO 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 misconduct, and to protect against and counter any potential or actual retaliation against the The chief research officer shall undertake, as appropriate, all reasonable and practical efforts to alleviate any diminution of the reputation of any witnesses and any member of the Hearing Panel, and to protect against and counter any potential or actual retaliation against them.
  • If the Hearing Panel finds that research misconduct has occurred, then the panel shall recommend that the Provost impose sanctions orpenalties that reflect the nature and severity of the The chief research officer shall undertake, as appropriate, all reasonable and practical efforts to alleviate any diminution of the reputation of the complainant who has in good faith made the allegation of misconduct, and to protect against and counter any potential or actual retaliation against the complainant. The chief research officer shall undertake, as appropriate, all reasonable and practical efforts to alleviate any diminution of the reputation of any witnesses and any member of the Hearing Panel, and to protect against and counter any potential or actual retaliation against them.
  • If at any point during the investigation, should the respondent admit to misconduct in writing and sufficient substantive evidence supportsthe admission, a settlement with the respondent(s) has been reached, or for any other reason, then the investigation may be closed provided no further action is required other than advanced notifications required by Federal or State
  • The Presiding Officer will transmit the final written report of the Panel, with attachments, to:
  • The complainant;
  • The respondent(s);
  • The Chief Research Officer (CRO);
  • The Provost.
  • Applicable federal or state agencies and funding sponsors, as required.

Notes: The Provost will review the report and make the final institutional decision regarding the case. The respondent(s) has (have) the right toreview the final written report of the Panel and to submit to the Presiding Officer written comments, which comments will be attached and included thereafter with the report. The CRO will ensure appropriate institutional actions are implemented to maintain the integrity of the research record. A complainant who acted in good faith, witnesses, and Panel members are protected against retaliation, and any reputational harm is mitigated. If new information arises that could impact current or prospective public funding, the CRO will notify relevant agencies to protect the public interest.