[Faculty Handbook Category #1]
I. Introduction
This policy establishes the procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct in research that is supported by, or for which support is requested from, the Public Health Service (PHS). The PHS regulations at 42 C.F.R. Part 93 applies to any research, research-training, or research-related grant or cooperative agreement with PHS. This policy and associated procedures apply to all individuals at St. Olaf College who are engaged in research that is supported by or for which support is requested from PHS.
The policy and associated procedures will be followed when an allegation of possible research misconduct is received by an Institutional Officer.
II. Definitions
The following definitions apply throughout this policy:
A. Allegation means a disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of an institutional or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) official.
B. Assessment means a preliminary review of readily available information to determine whether an allegation falls within the PHS definition of research misconduct and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified.
C. Complainant means an individual who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct.
D. Conflict of Interest means the real or apparent influence of one person’s personal, professional or financial interests with the interests of another person, where potential bias may occur due to the prior or existing personal, professional, or financial interests.
E. 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.
F. Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
G. 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.
H. Good faith as applied to a complainant or witness means 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. (b) Good faith as applied to an institutional or committee member means cooperating with the research misconduct proceeding by impartially carrying out the duties assigned for the purpose of helping an institution meet its responsibilities under 42 CFR Part 93. An institutional or committee member does not act in good faith if their acts or omissions during the research misconduct proceedings are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.
I. Institutional Deciding Official means the institutional official who makes final determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any institutional actions. The same individual cannot serve as the Institutional Deciding Official and the Research Integrity Officer. In most instances, the Institutional Deciding Officer will be the Provost or her/his designee.
J. Inquiry means preliminary information gathering and fact-finding to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of research misconduct warrants an investigation.
K. Investigation means the formal development of a factual record and examination and evaluation of that record leading to a decision as to whether research misconduct has occurred, and, if so, to determine the responsible persons recommendations for appropriate actions.
L. Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person’s 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
M. PHS regulation means the Public Health Service regulation establishing standards for institutional inquiries and investigations into allegations of research misconduct, which is set forth at 42 C.F.R. Part 93, entitled “Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct”.
N. PHS support means PHS funding, including grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements or applications therefore.
O. Recklessly means to propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.
P. Research Integrity Officer means the institutional official responsible for administering the institution’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct in compliance with the PHS regulation. In most instances, the RIO will be the Associate Provost or her/his designee.
Q. Research Misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, in proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research misconduct also includes other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data.
R. Research record means the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry, including but not limited to, research proposals, laboratory records, both physical and electronic, progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal reports, journal articles, and any documents and materials provided by respondent to HHS or an Institutional Officer in the course of a research misconduct proceeding. A research record includes, but is not limited to, grant or contract applications, whether funded or unfunded; grant or contract progress and other reports; laboratory notebooks; notes; correspondence; videos; photographs; X-ray film; slides; biological materials; computer files and printouts; manuscripts and publications; equipment use logs; laboratory procurement records; animal facility records; human and animal subject protocols; consent forms; medical charts; and patient research files.
S. Respondent means the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or the person whose actions are the subject of a research misconduct proceeding.
III. Purpose of Policy on Research Misconduct
A. These policies and Procedures are intended to:
1. Comply with the PHS regulations promulgated at 42 C.F.R. § 93;
2. Foster a research environment that promotes the responsible conduct of research, research training, and activities related to that research or research training;
3. Discourage research misconduct and respond promptly and appropriately to allegations and evidence of research misconduct;
4. Take reasonable steps to protect positions and reputations of good faith complainants, witnesses and committee members and protect them from retaliation by respondents or others;
5. Take all reasonable and practical steps to ensure the cooperation of respondents and other institutional members with research misconduct proceedings; and
6. Ensure that allegations of research misconduct are addressed in a thorough, competent, objective, and fair manner.
7. Ensure cooperation with ORI, including timely reporting and record retention.
IV. Rights and Responsibilities
A. Research Integrity Officer (RIO)
The Associate Provost will serve as the Research Integrity Officer, who will have primary responsibility for implementation of the procedures set forth in this document to ensure that allegations of research misconduct are addressed in a thorough, competent, objective and fair manner.
The RIO will appoint the inquiry and investigation committees and ensure that necessary and appropriate expertise is secured to carry out a thorough and authoritative evaluation of the relevant evidence in an inquiry or investigation. In selecting inquiry and investigation committee members, the RIO will take precautions to ensure that committee members do not have conflicts of interest relating to the complainant, respondent, or witnesses.
The RIO will assist inquiry and investigation committees and all institutional personnel in complying with these procedures and with applicable standards imposed by government or external funding sources. The RIO is also responsible for sequestering and maintaining files of all documents, equipment, and other evidence and for the confidentiality and the security of these materials.
The RIO will report to ORI as required by regulation and keep ORI apprised of the status of research misconduct allegations, inquiries, and investigations as required by regulation to ensure appropriate use of Federal funds and otherwise protect the public interest.
B. Complainant
The Complainant will have an opportunity to testify before the inquiry and investigation committees, to review portions of the inquiry and investigation reports pertinent to his/her allegations or testimony, to be informed of the results of the inquiry and investigation, and to be protected from retaliation. Also, if the RIO has determined that the complainant may be able to provide pertinent information on any portions of the draft report, these portions will be given to the complainant for comment.
The complainant is responsible for making allegations in good faith, maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating with an inquiry or investigation.
C. Respondent
The respondent will be informed of the allegations when an inquiry is opened. The respondent will also have the opportunity to be interviewed by and present evidence to the inquiry and/or investigation committees, to review and provide written comment on the draft inquiry and investigation reports and to have these comments reviewed and considered prior to the committee making any final determinations. The respondent will also be notified in writing of the final determination and resulting actions.
The respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating with the conduct of an inquiry or investigation. The respondent is also responsible for avoiding any type of retaliation toward the complainant, any witnesses or the committee members. If the respondent is not found to have engaged in research misconduct, the respondent shall have the right to make reasonable and practical requests to the College to assist in protecting his/her reputation.
D. Witnesses
Witnesses are people whom St. Olaf College has reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation. Witnesses provide information for review during research misconduct proceedings. Witnesses will cooperate with the research misconduct proceedings in good faith and have a reasonable belief in the truth of their testimony, based on the information known to them at the time.
E. Institutional Deciding Official
The Provost will serve as the Institutional Deciding Official (IDO), who makes the final determination of research misconduct findings. The IDO cannot serve as the RIO. The IDO documents their determination in a written decision that includes whether research misconduct occurred, and if so, what kind and who committed it, and a description of the relevant actions St. Olaf College has taken or will take. The IDO’s written decision becomes part of the institutional record.
V. General Policies and Principles
A. Responsibility to Report Research Misconduct
All employees or individuals associated with St. Olaf College should report observed, suspected, or apparent research misconduct in science to the Research Integrity Officer. If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of research misconduct, he or she may consult with the RIO to discuss the suspected misconduct informally. If the circumstances described by the individual do not 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.
B. Protection from Retaliation
Complainant’s witnesses and/or committee members should report any concerns of retaliation to the RIO. The College will take prompt and appropriate action in response to any complaints of retaliation in violation of this policy. If applicable, upon request, the College will take reasonable and practical efforts aimed at protecting or restoring the position and reputation of any complainant, witness or committee member, and counter potential or actual retaliation against them.
Any employees aware of retaliation against a complainant, witness, or hearing committee member should immediately report such concerns to the RIO.
C. Due Process
Inquiries and investigations will be conducted in a manner aimed at ensuring due process to the respondent(s) in the inquiry or investigation to the extent possible without compromising public health and safety, the promotion of integrity of research, and the conservation of public funds.
Institutional employees accused of research misconduct may consult with legal counsel or a non-lawyer personal advisor (who is not a principal or witness in the case) to seek advice and may bring the counsel or personal advisor to interviews to serve in an advisory capacity to the respondent. The College reserves the right to exclude any counsel or advisor who is engaging in conduct the College deems as interfering with the inquiry or investigation.
D. Confidentiality
St. Olaf will strive, to the extent possible, to protect the confidentiality of respondents, complainants, and any research subjects who are identifiable in any records or evidence. Disclosure of the identity of any such individual will be limited, to the extent possible on a need-to-know basis.
E. Evidentiary Standard/Burdens of Proof
Allegations of research misconduct must be proved by a preponderance of evidence. The College has the burden of proof in making a determination of research misconduct. The destruction, absence of, or respondent’s failure to provide records adequately documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where the preponderance of evidence shows that the respondent’s conduct significantly departed from accepted practices of the relevant research community, and the respondent intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
- Destroyed research records;
- Failed to maintain records that could have been maintained; or
- Failed to timely produce records that were available to the respondent.
F. Cooperation with Inquiries and Investigations
Institutional employees will cooperate with the RIO and other Institutional Officers in the review of allegations and the conduct of inquiries and investigations. Employees have an obligation to provide complete, accurate, and relevant evidence to the RIO or other Institutional Officers on misconduct allegations.
G. Preliminary Assessment of Allegations
Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO will immediately assess the allegation to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant an inquiry, whether PHS support or PHS applications for funding are involved, and whether the allegation falls under the PHS definition of research misconduct.
If the RIO or another institutional official determines that the allegation meets these three criteria, they will promptly: (a) document the assessment and (b) initiate an inquiry and sequester all research records and other evidence. The RIO or other institutional official must document the assessment and retain the assessment documentation securely for seven years after completion of the misconduct proceedings. If the RIO or another institutional official determines that the alleged misconduct does not meet the criteria to proceed to an inquiry, they will write sufficiently detailed documentation to permit a later review by ORI of why the College did not proceed to an inquiry and securely retain this documentation for seven years.
The RIO will also assess whether there are any appropriate interim measures that the College should take to protect public health, Federal or College funds and equipment, or the integrity of the PHS support research process.
H. Maintenance and Custody of Research Records and Evidence
The College will strive to maintain adequate records of all proceedings relating to allegations of research misconduct and take steps to collect and preserve evidence utilized for such proceedings.
Either prior to or at the time the College notifies the respondent of the allegation, inquiry or investigation, the College will promptly take steps to obtain custody of all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the proceeding and any additional research records or evidence that is discovered during the course of the proceeding. The College will also inventory the evidence and records and sequester them in a secure manner. Alternative storage methods may be utilized where records or evidence is shared by other users, where deemed appropriate, the respondent will be given copies of or supervised access to the research records.
Unless later deemed irrelevant, the records that the College secures for proceedings under these policies and procedures will be retained in a secure manner for at least 7 years (unless instructed by HHS to transfer the documents to HHS or HHS has advised the College in writing that it no longer needs to retain the records).
If documents or records are deemed irrelevant, the College will retain documentation of this determination for the same 7-year period. Any final reports and all records in support of the report will also be retained for the 7-year period.
VI. Conducting the Inquiry
A. Initiation and Purpose of the Inquiry
Following the preliminary assessment, if the RIO determines that the allegation provides sufficient information to allow specific follow-up, involves PHS support, and falls under the definition of research misconduct, he or she will initiate the inquiry process. At the time of or before initiating the inquiry, the College will make a good faith effort to notify the respondent in writing. If the respondent is unknown at the time of the inquiry or if additional respondents are identified the College will provide written notice.
The purpose of the inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine whether to conduct an investigation. It is not a full evidentiary review. An investigation will be deemed warranted if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the allegations fall within the definition of research misconduct; involves PHS supported activities; and the preliminary evidence suggests that the allegations may have substance.
In initiating the inquiry, the RIO should identify clearly the original allegation and any related issues that should be evaluated.
The College will strive to complete the inquiry within 90 calendar days of its initiation. If the College determines that a longer period of time is necessary, the inquiry record will include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the 90-day period.
B. Sequestration of the Research Records
After determining that an allegation falls within the definition of misconduct in science and involves PHS programs, the RIO must ensure that all original research records and materials relevant to the allegation are immediately secured. Alternative storage methods may be utilized where records or evidence are shared by other users.
C. Appointment of the Inquiry Committee
The RIO, in consultation with other Institutional Officers as appropriate, will appoint an inquiry committee and committee chair within 10 calendar days of the initiation of the inquiry. The inquiry committee should consist of individuals who do not have real or apparent conflicts of interest, are unbiased, and have the necessary expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation, interview the principals and key witnesses, and conduct the inquiry. These individuals may be scientists, subject matter experts, administrators, lawyers, or other qualified persons, and they may be from inside or outside the College.
The RIO will notify the respondent of the proposed committee membership in 10 calendar days. If the respondent submits a written objection to any appointed member of the inquiry committee or expert based on bias or conflict of interest within 7 calendar days, the RIO will determine whether to replace the challenged member or expert with a qualified substitute.
At the committee’s first meeting, the RIO will review the charge with the committee, discuss the allegations, any related issues, and the appropriate procedures for conducting the inquiry, assist the committee with organizing plans for the inquiry, and answer any questions raised by the committee. The RIO and institutional counsel will be present or available throughout the inquiry to advise the committee as needed.
E. Inquiry Process
The inquiry committee will normally perform a preliminary interview of the complainant, the respondent, and key witnesses as well as perform a preliminary examination of relevant research records and materials. Then the inquiry committee will evaluate the evidence and testimony obtained during the inquiry. After consultation with the RIO and/or institutional counsel, the committee members will decide whether there is sufficient evidence of possible research misconduct to recommend further investigation.
VII. The Inquiry Report
A. Elements of the Inquiry Report
At the conclusion of the inquiry, regardless of whether an investigation is warranted, the inquiry committee, RIO, or other designated official will prepare a written inquiry report. The contents of a complete inquiry report will include the following information: 1) Name and position of respondent and complainant(s); 2) a description of the research misconducted obligations; 3) the PHS support involved (e.g., grant numbers, grant applications, contracts and publications listing PHS support); 4) the composition of the inquiry committee, if used, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise; 5) an inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted; 6) transcripts of interviews, if transcribed; 7) inquiry timeline and procedural history; 8) any scientific or forensic analyses conducted; 9) the basis for recommending an investigation; 10) the basis on which any allegation(s) do not merit further investigation; 11) any comments on the report provided by the complainant or respondent; 12) any institutional actions implemented, including internal communications or external communications with journals or funding agencies; and 13) documentation of potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion.
If the College determines that an investigation is not warranted, detailed documentation of this decision will be kept for at least 7 years along with the related documents.
B. Comments on the Draft Report by the Respondent and the Complainant
The RIO will provide the respondent with a copy of the draft inquiry report for comment and rebuttal and will provide the complainant, if he or she is identifiable, with an opportunity to comment on those portions of the draft inquiry report that address the complainant’s role and opinions in the investigation.
1. Confidentiality
The RIO may establish reasonable conditions for review to protect the confidentiality of the draft report.
2. Receipt of Comments
Within 7 calendar days of their receipt of the draft report, the complainant and respondent will provide comments, if any, to the inquiry committee. Any comments that the complainant or respondent submits on the draft report will become part of the final inquiry report and record. Based on the comments, the inquiry committee may revise the report as appropriate.
C. Inquiry Decision by RIO
The RIO will review the final inquiry report and will make the determination of whether findings from the inquiry provide sufficient evidence of possible research misconduct to justify conducting an investigation. The inquiry is completed when this determination is made.
The College will notify the respondent whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted. The notice will include a copy of the inquiry report and provide the respondent with information about the PHS regulations promulgated at 42 C.F.R. § 93 and these policies and procedures.
VIII. Conducting the Investigation
A. Timing
The College will commence the investigation within 30 days after determining that an investigation is warranted. The College will strive to complete all aspects of the investigation within 180 days after its commencement, including conducting the investigation, preparing the report of findings, providing a draft report for comment and sending the final report to ORI. In the event the College deems it necessary to extend the investigation beyond 180 days, the College will seek an extension from ORI in writing.
B. Purpose of the Investigation
The purpose of the investigation is to explore the allegations in a thorough, competent, objective and fair manner, to examine the evidence in depth, and determine whether research misconduct has been committed and by whom. The investigation will also determine whether there are additional instances of possible misconduct that would justify broadening the scope beyond the initial allegations. The findings of the investigation will be set forth in an investigation report.
The RIO will notify the ORI on or before the date the investigation begins and provide the inquiry report described above in Section VII.A.
C. Notification of Respondent and Sequestration of the Research Records
College will provide written notice to the respondent of the allegations to be investigated within 30 days of determining that an investigation is warranted and before the investigation begins. If new allegations arise during the investigation, the College will provide written notice of these allegations within a reasonable amount of time of deciding to pursue an investigation into them.
To the extent this has not already been done, the RIO will immediately sequester any additional pertinent research records that were not previously sequestered during the inquiry. This sequestration should occur before or at the time the respondent is notified that an investigation has begun or whenever additional items become known or relevant to the investigation. The need for additional sequestration of records may occur for any number of reasons, including the institution’s decision to investigate additional allegations not considered during the inquiry stage or the identification of records during the inquiry process that had not been previously secured. The procedures to be followed for sequestration during the investigation are the same procedures that apply during the inquiry.
D. Appointment of the Investigation Committee
The RIO, in consultation with other Institutional Officers as appropriate, will appoint an investigation committee and the committee chair within 10 calendar days of the notification to the respondent that an investigation is planned or as soon thereafter as practicable. The investigation committee should consist of at least three individuals who do not have real or apparent conflicts of interest, are unbiased, and have the necessary expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegations, interview the principals and key witnesses, and conduct the investigation. These individuals may be scientists, administrators, subject matter experts, lawyers, or other qualified persons, and they may be from inside or outside the institution. Individuals appointed to the investigation committee may also have served on the inquiry committee.
The RIO will notify the respondent of the proposed committee membership within 7 calendar days. If the respondent submits a written objection to any appointed member of the investigation committee or expert, the RIO will determine whether to replace the challenged member or expert with a qualified substitute.
E. Charge to the Committee and the First Meeting
1. Charge to the Committee
The RIO will define the subject matter of the investigation in a written charge to the committee that describes the allegations and related issues identified during the inquiry, defines research misconduct, and identifies the name of the respondent. The charge will state that the committee is to use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough and sufficiently documented, and will evaluate all of the research records and evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegations. The committee will also be charged to pursue diligently all significant issues and leads relevant to the investigation and continue the investigation to completion. In conducting its review of the evidence, the investigation committee will interview each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been identified as having information related to the investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent(s). All witness interviews will be recorded or transcribed and the recording or transcription will be given to the witness for review and correction.
During the investigation, if additional information becomes available that substantially changes the subject matter of the investigation or would suggest additional respondents, the committee will notify the RIO, who will determine whether it is necessary to notify the respondent of the new subject matter or to provide notice to additional respondents.
2. The First Meeting
The RIO will convene the first meeting of the investigation committee to review the charge, the inquiry report, and the prescribed procedures and standards for the conduct of the investigation, including the necessity for confidentiality and for developing a specific investigation plan. The investigation committee will be provided with a copy of these instructions.
F. Investigation Process
The investigation will normally involve examination of all documentation including, but not necessarily limited to, relevant research records, computer files, proposals, manuscripts, publications, correspondence, memoranda, and notes of telephone calls. Whenever possible, the committee should interview the complainant(s), the respondents(s), and other individuals who might have information regarding aspects of the allegations.
IX. The Investigation Report
A. Elements of the Investigation Report
The final report submitted to ORI must describe the policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted, describe how and from whom information relevant to the investigation was obtained, state the findings, and explain the basis for the findings. The report will include the actual text or an accurate summary of the views of any individual(s) found to have engaged in misconduct as well as a description of any sanctions imposed and administrative actions taken by the institution.
B. Comments on the Draft Report
1. Respondent
The RIO will provide the respondent with a copy of the draft investigation and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the evidence on which the report is based and provide the respondent an opportunity for comment and rebuttal. The respondent will be allowed 30 calendar days to review and comment on the draft report. The respondent’s comments will be attached to the final report. The findings of the final report will take into account the respondent’s comments in addition to all the other evidence.
2. Complainant
The RIO will provide the complainant, if he or she is identifiable, with those portions of the draft investigation report that address the complainant’s role and opinions in the investigation. Comments by the Complainant, if any, must be submitted within 30 days of the date on which the complainant was given the draft investigation report. The report should be modified, as appropriate, based on the complainant’s comments.
3. Confidentiality
In distributing the draft report, or portions thereof, to the respondent and complainant, the RIO will inform the recipient of the confidentiality under which the draft report is made available and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure such confidentiality. For example, the RIO may request the recipient to sign a confidentiality statement or to come to his or her office to review the report.
C. Institutional Review and Decision
Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the Institutional Deciding Officer (IDO) will make the final determination whether to accept the investigation report, its findings, and the recommended institutional actions. If this determination varies from that of the investigation committee, the IDO will explain in detail the basis for rendering a decision different from that of the investigation committee in the institution’s letter transmitting the report to ORI. The IDO’s explanation should be consistent with the PHS definition of research misconduct, the institution’s policies and procedures, and the evidence reviewed and analyzed by the investigation committee. The IDO may also return the report to the investigation committee with a request for further fact-finding or analysis. The IDO’s determination, together with the investigation committee’s report, constitutes the final investigation report for purposes of ORI review.
When a final decision on the case has been reached, the IDO will notify both the respondent and the complainant in writing. In addition, the IDO will determine whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals in which falsified reports may have been published, collaborators of the respondent in the work, or other relevant internal or non-St. Olaf parties should be notified of the outcome of the case. The IDO is responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification requirements of funding or sponsoring agencies.
D. Transmittal of the Final Investigation Report to ORI
After comments have been received and the necessary changes have been made to the draft report, the investigation committee will issue a final institutional investigative report with attachments, including the respondent’s and complainant’s comments. The final institutional investigation report will be in writing and include:
- A description of the nature of the allegations of research misconduct and the specific allegations reviewed and considered in the investigation;
- A description and documentation of PHS support, including, for example, any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts and publications listing PHS support;
- A description of the specific allegation(s) of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation of the respondent;
- A copy of the policies and procedures under which the investigation took place;
The composition of the inquiry committee, if used, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter of expertise; - The identity and summary of the research records and evidence reviewed and the identity of any evidence taken into custody but not reviewed;
- A discussion of the relevant research records and records of the College’s research misconduct investigation, including the transcripts/recordings of all interviews, that will be maintained by the College and made available to ORI upon request;
- Identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), PHS funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, or other research records that contain the allegedly falsified, fabricated or plagiarized material;
- Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted;
- A statement of the College’s findings as to whether research misconduct occurred for each separate allegations and if so,
- Whether the research misconduct was falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism, and whether it was intentional, knowing or in reckless disregard;
- A summary of the facts and analysis which supports the conclusion and a discussion of the merits of any explanation by the respondent;
- The PHS support involved;
- An identification of any publications needing correction or retraction;
- The identity of any persons(s) responsible for the misconduct; and
- Any current or applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with any non-PHS Federal agencies.
- An identification and discussion of any comments made by the respondent and complainant to the draft investigation report.
The final institutional investigative report and the IDO’s conclusions based upon the report will be provided to ORI along with a discussion of any pending or completed administrative actions against the respondent.
X. Requirements for Reporting to ORI
A. The College’s decision to initiate an investigation must be reported in writing to ORI, on or before the date the investigation begins. At a minimum, the notification should include the name of the person(s) against whom the allegations have been made, the general nature of the allegation as it relates to the PHS definition of research misconduct, and the PHS applications or grant number(s) involved. ORI must also be notified of the final outcome of the investigation and must be provided with a copy of the investigation report.
B. If the College plans to terminate an inquiry or investigation for any reason without completing all relevant processes of these policies and procedures on the basis that the respondent has admitted the allegations of research misconduct, a settlement with respondent has been reached, or for any other reason other than the closing of the matter at the inquiry stage on the basis that an investigation is not warranted, the RIO will notify ORI in advance of the planned termination. After consulting with the College about the basis for closing the matter, ORI may conduct an oversight review and take appropriate action which could include directing the College to complete its process; approving or conditionally approving closure of the matter; referring the matter for further investigation by HHS; or taking a compliance action.
C. The RIO will immediately notify ORI at any stage of the inquiry or investigation if:
1. 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 a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law;
5. there is an immediate need to protect the interests of the person(s) involved in the research misconduct proceeding;
6. the College believes the research misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely so that HHS may take measures to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved; and
7. the research community or public should be informed.
XI. Institutional Administrative Actions
St. Olaf College will take appropriate administrative actions against individuals when an allegation of research misconduct has been substantiated.
If the IDO determines that the alleged misconduct is substantiated by the findings, he or she will decide on the appropriate actions to be taken. The actions may include but are not limited to:
- withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the research where research misconduct was found.
- removal of the responsible person from the particular project, letter of reprimand, special monitoring of future work, probation, suspension, salary reduction, or initiation of steps leading to possible rank reduction or termination of employment;
- restitution of funds as appropriate.
XII. Other Considerations
A. Termination of Institutional Employment or Resignation Prior to Completing Inquiry or Investigation
The 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, without admitting to the misconduct, elects to resign his or her position prior to the initiation of an inquiry, but after an allegation has been reported, or during an inquiry or investigation, the inquiry or investigation will proceed. If the respondent refuses to participate in the process after resignation, the committee will use its best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the allegations, noting in its report the respondent’s failure to cooperate and its effect on the committee’s review of all the evidence.
B. Restoration of the Respondent’s Reputation
If the institution finds no misconduct and ORI concurs, after consulting with the respondent, the RIO will, upon request, undertake reasonable efforts to restore the respondent’s reputation. Depending on the particular circumstances, the RIO should consider notifying those individuals aware of or involved in the investigation of the final outcome, publicizing the final outcome in forums in which the allegation of research misconduct was previously publicized, or segregating and placing under seal any reference to the research misconduct allegation in the respondent’s personnel file. Any institutional actions to restore the respondent’s reputation must first be approved by the RIO.
C. Protection of the Complainant and Others
Regardless of whether the institution or ORI determines that research misconduct occurred, upon request the RIO will undertake reasonable efforts to protect complainants who made allegations of research misconduct in good faith committee members involved in reviewing allegations of research misconduct, and others who cooperate in good faith with inquiries and investigations of such allegations. Upon completion of an investigation, the RIO will determine what steps, if any, are needed to restore the position or reputation of any of these individuals. The RIO will also take appropriate steps during the inquiry and investigation to prevent any retaliation against the complainant or others involved with inquiries or investigations of research misconduct.
D. Allegations Not Made in Good Faith
If relevant, the RIO will determine whether the complainant’s allegations of research misconduct were made in good faith. If an allegation was not made in good faith, the RIO will determine whether any administrative action should be taken against the complainant.
E. Interim Administrative Actions
Institutional Officers will take interim administrative actions, as appropriate, to protect Federal funds and ensure that the purposes of the Federal financial assistance are carried out.
XIII. Record Retention
After completion of a case and all ensuing related actions, the RIO will prepare a complete file, including the records of any inquiry or investigation and copies of all documents and other materials furnished to the RIO or committees. The RIO will keep the file for seven years after completion of the matter. ORI or other authorized HHS personnel will be given access to the records upon request.
Updated 4.29.2026