Since a charge of misconduct, even if unjustified, may damage
an individual’s career, any such issue must be handled in
a prudent and confidential manner. An inquiry or investigation
must be handled promptly and expeditiously with full attention
given to the rights of all individuals involved.
DEFINITIONS
The following definitions apply to this policy:
Research Misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism
in proposing or performing research, abuse of confidentiality
or other practices that seriously deviate from those commonly
accepted within the academic community for proposing, conducting,
and reporting on research, and plagiarism or abuse of confidentiality
in reviewing proposals for a funding agency.
The definition of research misconduct does not include honest
error or differences of opinion or interpretations or judgments
of data. The definition contained in this policy is not intended
to override or contradict provisions of other regulations or policies,
in particular those policies governing human research subjects
and animal welfare. A finding of substantive violation of specific
policies in these areas will also be considered misconduct under
this policy.
Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or
reporting them.
Falsification means 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.
Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person’s ideas,
processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit.
Abuse of Confidentiality means using the ideas and preliminary
data gained from access to privileged information through the
opportunity for editorial review of manuscripts submitted to journals,
and the opportunity for peer review of proposals being considered
for funding by agency panels or by internal committees, the Institutional
Animal Care and Use Committee, and the Human Subjects Committee.
Research means explorations that lead to the discovery and dissemination
of new knowledge, the development of new applications of existing
knowledge, the development of new paradigms for teaching and learning,
and/or the related creative activities in the fine arts. Research
for the purposes of this policy includes all proposals submitted
for funding and the results from such proposals.
Research Record means any data, document, computer file, computer
diskette or tape, or any other written or non-written account
or object that reasonably may be expected to provide evidence
or information regarding the proposed, conducted, or reported
research that constitutes the subject of an allegation of misconduct.
A research record includes, but is not limited to, grant or contract
application, whether funded or unfunded; grant or contract progress
and other reports; laboratory notebooks; notes; correspondence;
videos; photographs; X-ray file; slides; biological materials;
computer programs, files and printouts; manuscripts and publications;
equipment use logs; laboratory procurement records; animal facility
records; human and animal subject protocols; consent forms; medical
chars; and patient research files.
Allegation is an assertion needing to be proved.
Complainant is a person who makes an allegation of research misconduct.
Deciding Official (DO) is the institutional official who makes
the final determinations on allegations of research misconduct
and any responsive institutional actions. The deciding official
for Mesa State is the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
Inquiry is the gathering of information and initial facts to
determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of research
misconduct warrants an investigation.
Investigation is the formal examination and evaluation of all
relevant facts to determine if misconduct has occurred, and, if
so, to determine the responsible person.
Research Integrity Officer (RIO) is the institutional official
responsible for assessing allegations of research misconduct and
determining when such allegations warrant inquiries and for overseeing
inquiries and investigations. At Mesa State, the research integrity
officer is the Director of Sponsored Programs.
Respondent is the person against whom an allegation of research
misconduct is directed or the person whose actions are the subject
of an inquiry or investigation. There can be more than one respondent
in any inquiry or investigation.
Retaliation means any action taken by the college or an employee
of the college that adversely affects the employment or other
institutional status of an individual because the individual has
in good faith made an allegation of scientific misconduct or of
inadequate college response thereto or has cooperated in good
faith with an inquiry or investigation of such allegation.
APPLICABILITY
This policy applies to all Mesa State campuses. This policy applies
to the conduct of research and/or related activities, whether
the research is funded or not; regardless of the field of study;
presentation and/or publication of results; process of applying
for funds; expenditure of project funds; and fiscal reporting
on the use of project funds.
This policy applies to all faculty, students, administrators,
and staff on all of Mesa State campuses. Faculty shall include
all members of the general, part-time, adjunct, and visiting faculty,
including administrators in these ranks. Staff shall include classified
and unclassified employees of Mesa State, as well as temporary
and part-time employees. This policy also applies to any person
affiliated with or under the control of Mesa State such as guest
researchers or collaborators on any Mesa State campus.
Faculty are responsible for emphasizing the importance of ethical
research conduct to staff and students who are under their supervision
and for providing reasonable supervision to minimize the opportunities
for research misconduct. Faculty are also responsible for establishing
policies regarding author names on publications in accordance
with the norms of their discipline, making those policies well
known to students and staff, and conforming to those policies
in their own publications.
Cases of research misconduct involving students are subject to
the normal disciplinary rules governing students, but may be reviewed,
as appropriate, under this policy.
RESPONSIBILITY TO REPORT MISCONDUCT
Any student, faculty, staff or other person may make a complaint
of misconduct.
All employees or individuals associated with Mesa State should
report observed, suspected, or apparent research misconduct to
the RIO, appropriate dean, or Vice President for Academic Affairs.
If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls
within the definition of research misconduct, he/she may contact
the RIO to discuss the suspected misconduct informally. If the
circumstances described by the individual do no meet the definition
of research misconduct, the RIO will refer the individual or allegation
to other offices or officials with responsibility for resolving
the problem.
PROCEDURES FOR REVIEWING RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
Complaint
Reports of alleged misconduct may be made in writing directly
to the RIO or the appropriate dean who will inform the DO and
the RIO (if she/he is not notified) of the substance of the allegations.
These reports should include specific evidence of the alleged
misconduct.
The DO will inform the respondent of the complaint.
A preliminary and informal evaluation of the complaint will be
made by the dean (or the RIO if the dean is the respondent), who
may form a committee or consult in confidence with others, as
appropriate, before passing on the matter. This evaluation should
be completed within ten (10) working days after the dean (or RIO)
is notified of the complaint.
If the dean (or the RIO) finds there are no reasonable grounds
for the allegation, and the RIO and the DO concurs, the complaint
will be dismissed. A written report stating the reasons for the
dismissal shall be maintained, but will not be made a part of
the record of the respondent. The complainant, who shall be notified
of the dismissal by the RIO, may appeal a decision for the dismissal
directly to the DO.
If, after evaluation, the dean believes a complaint warrants
further review, the dean should refer the case directly to the
RIO who will request that the DO sequester all relevant information.
The respondent will then be notified and shall be given a copy
of the procedures for review of research misconduct. The department
chair/division director will also be notified.
Inquiry
The purpose of an inquiry is to determine whether an allegation
or apparent instance of misconduct warrants a full investigation
or requires that special action be taken pending resolution of
the allegation or apparent misconduct. The inquiry will determine
whether the allegation of misconduct appears to be well founded,
the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, the scope of the alleged
incident, and the relevance of any other information that is available.
An inquiry should be completed within sixty (60) working days
after a written allegation is made. In some complex cases, this
deadline may be extended by agreement of all parties.
To the extent possible, inquiries (and resultant investigations)
will be conducted in a confidential manner so as to protect the
affected parties. Although a person participating directly in
the conduct of an inquiry or investigation must be qualified to
evaluate the situation, no such person may have a personal interest
in the matter or its outcome.
At the school level, the inquiry will be conducted by an ad hoc
committee of at least three (3) tenured faculty members holding
the rank of full professor chosen by the dean (unless the dean
is the respondent) in consultation with the RIO. If the inquiry
is interdisciplinary or made at the college level, the RIO will
appoint an ad hoc committee of at least three (3) tenured faculty
members holding the rank of full professor from the college at
large, and the same procedures for inquiry will be followed.
The inquiry committee will review the merits of the allegation(s)
and recommend a course of action to the RIO, including whether
a full investigation should be conducted. The inquiry committee
may have access to documents, key witnesses and other evidence
relating to the alleged misconduct and may interview the complainant
and the respondent. It shall not, however, attempt to reach a
decision on the merits of the complaint.
The inquiry committee must prepare a written inquiry report.
It must include: the name and title of the committee members;
the allegation(s); the research support involved (if any); a list
of the research records reviewed; summaries of any interviews;
a description of the evidence in sufficient detail to demonstrate
whether an investigation is warranted or not; and the committee’s
determination as to whether an investigation is recommended and
whether any other actions should be taken if an investigation
is not recommended.
After receiving the written report of the inquiry committee,
the RIO will determine whether to dismiss the case or to proceed
with an investigation. The respondent, complainant, dean and departmental
chair/division director will be notified in writing of the RIO’s
decision.
If a decision to investigate is rendered, the procedure for investigation
in this policy will be implemented.
If a decision not to investigate is rendered, all the information
assembled in the course of the inquiry will be maintained in confidence
to permit a later assessment of the reason for determining that
an investigation was not warranted.
If the complainant disagrees with a decision of the RIO to dismiss
the case, the complainant may appeal to the DO in writing within
ten (10) days of being notified of the RIO’s decision. The
DO then will review the case and make a final determination as
to appropriate action.
Investigation
The purpose of an investigation is to examine thoroughly an allegation
of research misconduct, to examine the evidence in depth, and
to determine whether such misconduct has taken place, by whom,
and to what extent.
If the RIO determines to proceed with an investigation, she/he
will appoint a committee of at least three (3) tenured faculty
members holding the rank of full professor to investigate the
complaint. When appropriate, the RIO may appoint experts from
outside the college to serve on the committee. The RIO will notify
the respondent of the proposed committee membership within seven
(7) working days of notifying the respondent, complainant, dean
and department chair/division director that an investigation will
be conducted. If the respondent submits a written objection to
an appointed member of the committee based on bias or conflict
of interest, the RIO will immediately determine whether to replace
the challenged member with a qualified substitute. The written
objection must be submitted by the respondent within three (3)
working days of receipt of the notification of the committee’s
composition. Granting agencies supporting the research work under
investigation also will be notified by the RIO that an investigation
is taking place, as may be required by the agency. Specific agency
requirements, such as the time within which certain steps are
to be taken, will be observed and will be communicated by the
RIO to the investigating committee and to the subject of the complaint.
The investigation will include but not be limited to review of
grant or contract files, reports, scholarly publications, manuscripts,
and other documents; inspection of laboratory or clinical facilities
and/or materials; interviews of parties with an involvement in
or knowledge about the case; submission of a formal written report
of the committee findings, including the responses of the respondent.
All of these activities must be completed in a timely fashion.
The respondent will be given a copy of the complaint, the report
of the inquiry committee, and the charge to the investigating
committee by the RIO. The respondent also will be kept informed
by the investigating committee chairperson of the progress of
the investigation, and will be given the opportunity to respond
to the complaint in writing and to provide information for consideration
by the committee.
The investigating committee will focus on matters limited to
the charge given to it by the RIO. However, the investigating
committee may review previous research efforts of the affected
personnel, or records of complaints of research misconduct, if
germane to the investigation.
Neither the college nor the respondent may have legal counsel
present at the meetings of the committee, except at the express
invitation of the committee. Should legal counsel be invited,
the invitation will be extended to both parties. When invited,
legal counsel may observe but shall not participate in the proceedings.
With the prior approval of the investigating committee, the respondent
may be accompanied by a non-attorney colleague.
The investigating committee will prepare a written draft report
and provide a copy of such report to the respondent, who may review
and comment, offer corrections, accept its conclusion, or deny
the allegations. The respondent’s comments must be received
by the investigating committee chair within ten (10) working days
of his/her receipt of the report. The final report of the committee,
after being reviewed for legal sufficiency by college counsel,
will be transmitted to the RIO along with any minority reports
and responses by the respondent. The committee’s report will
respond to the charge given by the RIO and will assess the validity
of the allegations.
The report of the investigating committee and its attachments
along with the recommendation of the RIO will be forwarded by
the RIO to the DO for review and disposition. If the DO finds
that the subject of the complaint has not engaged in research
misconduct, the DO will dismiss the complaint. If the DO finds
that the subject of the complaint has engaged in research misconduct,
the DO may initiate college procedures leading to possible sanctions.
These actions may include, but not be limited to:
withdrawal or correction of all pending and/or published abstracts
and papers emanating form the work where research misconduct was
found;
removal of the responsible person from the particular project,
letter of reprimand, special monitoring of future work;
restitution of funds to sponsoring agency as appropriate;
probation, suspension, salary reduction or initiation of steps
leading to possible rank reduction or termination of employment
as outlined in Section X of the State Colleges in Colorado Handbook
for Professional Personnel.
The DO will inform the respondent, the complainant, the RIO,
the dean, and the departmental chair/division director of his/her
decision.
Other Responsibilities
At the conclusion of the investigation, or at any other time
required by an involved granting agency, the RIO will notify the
granting agency of the facts of the case, the conclusions rendered,
and the disposition of the matter by the college.
If the alleged misconduct is substantiated by the investigation,
the RIO will notify other outside parties as may be appropriate,
including publishers or institutions with whom a party found to
have committed research misconduct is now or has been professionally
affiliated. The DO will consider release of information about
the incident to the public.
If the alleged misconduct is not substantiated by the investigation,
formal efforts will be made to restore fully the reputation of
the respondent. If it is further demonstrated that the charges
were brought under malicious or dishonest circumstances, then
the DO may bring appropriate action against the complainant or
others involved.
The RIO will keep a permanent record of committee reports, exhibits,
minutes of meetings, and other materials. These records will be
protected from release, to the extent allowed by law, if release
would compromise the conduct of an investigation, constitute unwarranted
invasion of privacy, or reveal the content of communications or
recommendations of action to be taken. In the case of sponsored
projects, the RIO is responsible for determining and complying
with reporting requirements; representing the college in all negotiations
with the sponsor; and implementing any administrative actions
that may be directed by the sponsor.
Termination of the respondent’s institutional employment,
by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation of
possible research misconduct has been reported, will not preclude
or terminate the misconduct procedures. If the respondent refuses
to participate in a process after resignation, the committees
will use their best efforts to research a conclusion concerning
the allegations, noting in its reports the respondent’s failure
to cooperate and its effect on the committee’s review of
all the evidence.
Consistent with the procedures described above, those responsible
for the conduct of inquiries and investigations shall have at
any time the authority to supplement and clarify applicable procedures,
provided that adequate notice is given to persons affected by
such actions.
APPEAL OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT FINDING AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS
The decision of the DO, including his/her recommendation regarding
sanctions, shall be binding on the college and the respondent(s)
found to have engaged in research misconduct except that the respondent(s)
may appeal the decision to the President of the college.
An appeal may be taken to the President of the college within
30 days after the date of notification of the DO’s decision
by filing a written notice of appeal with the President. The decision
of the President shall be final.
PROTECTION OF AFFECTED PARTIES
The confidentiality and privacy of all parties involved in a
research misconduct inquiry or investigation shall be respected
insofar as it does not interfere with the college’s legal
obligation to investigate allegations of misconduct and to take
corrective action.
To the extent permitted by law and college policies, the college
will protect the identity of respondent(s) of the inquiry and
investigation.
To the extent permitted by law and college policies, the college
will protect the identity and privacy of those individuals who,
in good faith, report apparent misconduct or furnish information
regarding such alleged misconduct. Retaliation of any kind against
an individual who, in good faith, alleges misconduct or cooperated
with the investigation, is prohibited and the retaliator may be
subject to discipline under college policies.
To the extent permitted by law and college policies, the documents,
records and other information gathered by the RIO, the DO, or
the committees for the inquiry and/or investigation shall be kept
confidential.
The college shall undertake diligent efforts, as appropriate,
to restore the reputations of persons alleged to have engaged
in misconduct when such allegations are not confirmed, and to
protect the positions and reputations of those persons who, in
good faith, report apparent misconduct.
GRANTING AGENCY RIGHTS
Granting agencies, both federal and nonfederal, may also take
action against the respondent(s) and/or the college itself, if
misconduct is established. These actions may include, but are
not limited to, letters of reprimand, suspension of an active
award, debarment from future awards, and/or criminal sanctions.
The granting agencies may choose to proceed in their investigation,
or may decide to act upon the college’s findings.
EDUCATING FACULTY, STAFF AND STUDENTS INVOLVED IN RESEARCH
Efforts should be made by deans and department chairs on an ongoing
basis to inform their research and administrative staff, faculty
members and students of the college’s policies and procedures
for dealing with instances of alleged or apparent misconduct in
research.
This policy will be maintained by the Office of Sponsored Programs
and will be made available to all college employees on the Office
of Sponsored Programs web page. Upon request, the Director of
Sponsored Programs will provide authorized officials of a sponsoring
agency with copies of the college’s policies and procedures
regarding misconduct in research.
Office of Sponsored Programs
Mesa State College
1100 North Avenue
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Phone: (970)-248-1424
Fax: (970)-248-1076
