Misconduct Proceedings

The designated official.

Upon receiving an allegation of misconduct in research, scholarship or creative work, the designated officer reviews the allegation to determine whether:

1. the allegation falls within the definition of misconduct in research, scholarship or creative work provided in this regulation;
2. the allegation is sufficiently credible and specific to warrant an inquiry; and
3. federal funding is involved.

The inquiry can be conducted by the designated officer or a committee appointed by the designated officer.

The inquiry must be completed within 60 calendar days of its initiation unless circumstances clearly warrant a longer period.

The respondent will be informed as soon as is practicable that an inquiry has been initiated and, in any event, no later than five working days after the inquiry has begun. The respondent shall be given a copy of the inquiry report. If the respondent chooses to comment on the report, his or her comments shall be made a part of the record.

To the extent possible, consistent with the requirements of due process, the identity of complainants, who wish not to be identified as initiators of the complaint, will be kept confidential and will not be released to the respondent. If a complainant wishes to request not to be identified as the initiator of the complaint in the course of the inquiry or investigation, he or she must notify the designated officer of such fact simultaneously with the filing of the complaint.

However, such confidentiality may not be possible or desirable throughout the entire course of a proceeding under this regulation. Where the interests of due process would require that a complainant's name be given to the respondent, and such interests could not be fairly treated by any other means, the designated officer may elect to do so after notifying the complainant.

The designated officer or the committee, as applicable, shall prepare a written report stating what evidence was reviewed, summarizing relevant interviews and including any conclusions reached as a result of the inquiry. A determination of whether an investigation is warranted will then be made.

An investigation committee shall be appointed by the CEO or designee. The committee shall have at least three members, one or more of whom is a faculty member in the same discipline as the respondent (in the case of faculty members), or a staff member whose discipline and job responsibilities are substantially similar to those of the respondent (in the case of staff members).

An investigation shall normally be completed within 180 calendar days of its initiation. This includes conducting the investigation, preparing the report of findings, making that report available for comment by the respondent, imposing any recommended sanctions and submitting the report to any funding agency as may be required by regulation or statute. Extensions of such time may be requested as permitted by any funding agency. If no funding agency is involved, the CEO or designee may extend the time period by notice of such fact in writing delivered to the respondent. The respondent may request an extension of such time by means of a written request directed to the CEO or designee.

The investigation committee’s findings and any recommended sanctions shall be forwarded to the respondent. The respondent may comment on all or any part of such findings and recommended sanctions within 10 calendar days of the date the respondent was notified of the committee’s decision. After receipt of the respondent’s comments, the committee’s report of findings, any recommended sanctions, and the respondent’s comments shall be forwarded to the CEO or designee.

A finding of misconduct in research, scholarship or creative work requires that: (a) there be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; (b) the misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly or recklessly; and (c) the allegation be established by a preponderance of the evidence.

Institutions are required by the regulations to impose sanctions on those found guilty of research misconduct. The regulations do not proscribe specific sanctions.

Sanctions can include:

• Taking appropriate steps to correct the research record.
• Issuing letters of reprimand.
• Imposing certification requirements to ensure compliance with the terms of a grant.
• Suspension or termination of a grant; and/or personal suspension or debarment.
• Restitution of funds.

Agencies also may issue additional sanctions beyond those of the institution. If criminal or civil fraud violations have occurred, the agency will refer the findings to the appropriate organization for review.