Research Misconduct Review

Submitting Research Misconduct Allegations

The University may become aware of research misconduct allegations in several ways.      

• A potential complainant may meet with the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) or their designee.
• The complainant can file a written allegation with the RIO or Vice President for Research and Innovation (VPR).
• An allegation may be submitted through the University's third-party reporting service, UReport. UReports can be submitted anonymously. These reports are directed to the Research and Innovation Office for resolution and investigation.

The role of the complainant

Whether a case can be reviewed effectively without the involvement of a complainant depends upon the nature of the allegation and the evidence available. Anonymous allegations may be submitted. However, if a case depends upon the specific observations or statements of a particular individual, it may be difficult to proceed without the open involvement of that individual. Every attempt will be made to maintain anonymity if requested by the complainant, but this cannot be guaranteed.

Conflicts of interest

The RIO has the responsibility and authority to evaluate all potential, perceived, or actual personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest. The RIO will perform an initial screening for any potential conflicts of interest that may exist between the respondent(s), complainant(s), or witnesses and any individual responsible for carrying out any part of the research misconduct proceeding. This includes all panel members and staff for an inquiry or investigation. 

During a research misconduct proceeding in which a review panel is appointed, each panel member will be reviewed for conflicts of interest. Any conflicts issues raised will be noted in the inquiry or investigation report.

A conflict of interest could mean:

• co-authoring a book, paper, or grant proposal with any of the individuals directly involved with the misconduct case (complainant or respondent) within the past seven years;
• professional or personal relationship with any of these individuals, e.g., current or former students or mentor, direct supervisory or subordinate relationship, direct collaborator within the past seven years;
• professional differences of opinion with any of the involved individuals that might reasonably be expected to affect objectivity in considering the case;
• financial ties to the involved individuals; or
• other reasons that might affect the ability of the individuals to make fair and impartial judgments.

If the RIO has a conflict of interest with a respondent or complainant, the VPR refers the case to the Deputy RIO or a designee from outside the unit in which the case originated.

Admission of research misconduct by respondent

If the RIO and/or panel close a proceeding at assessment, inquiry, or investigation on the basis that the respondent has admitted to committing research misconduct, the appropriate agencies, deans/department heads, and Institutional Deciding Official (IDO) must be notified.

A respondent's admission of research misconduct must be made in writing and signed by the respondent. An admission must specify the falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism that occurred and which research records were affected. The admission statement must meet all elements required for a research misconduct finding.

If the proceeding is subject to Office of Research Integrity (ORI) review, this admission must be provided to ORI before the University closes its research misconduct proceeding. The RIO or panel must also provide a statement to ORI describing how they determined that the scope of the misconduct was fully addressed by the admission and confirmed the respondent's culpability. After consulting with University on its basis for closing a case, the ORI may conduct an oversight review of the institution's handling of the case and take appropriate action including:

1. Approving or conditionally approving closure of the case;
2. Directing the institution to complete its process;
3. Directing the institution to address deficiencies in the institutional record;
4. Referring the matter for further investigation by HHS; or
5. Taking a compliance action.

Multiple respondents 

If an institution identifies additional respondents during an assessment, inquiry, or investigation, the institution is not required to conduct a separate assessment, inquiry, or investigation for each new respondent. However, each additional respondent must be provided notice of and an opportunity to respond to the allegations that pertain to them. Each respondent will receive a separate assessment, inquiry, and/or investigation reports.

Accessibility

The Research Integrity and Compliance Program will work with all respondents, complainants, and witnesses to provide interpretation services or documentation translation if English is not their primary language and/or other reasonable accommodations for disabilities.

Detrimental research practice

During a research misconduct review, it may become evident that the allegation is a detrimental research practice, rather than research misconduct, or that the respondent engaged in detrimental research practices in addition to research misconduct. 

The RIO may, at any point in the review process, determine that the respondent engaged in a detrimental research practice, in consultation with the IDO. This may mean that the RIO will close out the research misconduct review. The RIO may recommend corrective actions, disciplinary actions, or refer the matter to be further reviewed under the Administrative Policy: For-Cause Investigations Related to Research Compliance Concerns.

Assessment

Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO will assess it to determine if the allegation warrants an inquiry. An inquiry is warranted if the allegation:

• falls within the definition of research misconduct, and
• Is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified.

An inquiry must be conducted if the allegation meets these criteria. If the allegation does not meet these criteria, but does warrant further institutional review, the assessment will be closed by the RIO and referred to an appropriate committee, such as the Student Behavior Committee, the Institutional Review Board (IRB), the Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), the Biosafety Committee (IBC), or Human Resources.

During the assessment, the RIO may elect to discuss the allegations with the Respondent. If this occurs, the RIO will also sequester research records in accordance with the Appendix: Protocol for Handling Physical Evidence in Research Misconduct Cases prior to or concurrently with notification to the Respondent of the allegations.

An assessment report is completed by the RIO and includes details pertaining to why an inquiry was or was not warranted. The assessment report will be provided to the respondent, when appropriate, and will be kept on file in the Research and Innovation Office in compliance with University policies, Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, and, when applicable, ORI regulatory requirements.

The RIO will notify the IDO of the outcome of all assessments. 

Inquiry

The inquiry will be conducted if it is determined that it is warranted during the assessment when the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct, and it is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified.

An inquiry's purpose is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine whether an allegation warrants an investigation. An inquiry does not require a full review of the evidence related to the allegation.

Sequestration of research records and other evidence

The RIO and/or delegate will collect the evidence in accordance with the Appendix: Protocol for Handling Physical Evidence in Research Misconduct Cases. An attorney from the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) may also be involved in this process. The RIO will inform the respondent of the obligation to provide all the evidence relevant to the allegation. Whenever possible, the RIO must obtain research records or other evidence:

1. Before or at the time the institution notifies the respondent of the allegation(s);
2. and whenever additional items become known or relevant to the inquiry or investigation.

Notice to the respondent

At the time of or before beginning an inquiry, the RIO will make a good faith effort to notify in writing the presumed respondent, if any. If the inquiry subsequently identifies additional respondents, the RIO must notify them. Only allegations specific to a particular respondent are to be included in the notification to that respondent. If additional allegations are raised, the respondent(s) must be notified in writing of the additional allegations raised against them. The notice will include the following information:

1. The respondent will be given the opportunity to provide any documentation or names of individuals who might help clear the claim against the respondent.
2. The respondent may seek the assistance of an advisor (legal counsel or another individual) at any point, if assistance has not already been sought.

Conducting an inquiry

Who is Responsible for Conducting the Inquiry

1. The RIO: The RIO will decide if the inquiry will be conducted by the RIO or a panel.
2. Inquiry Panel: If the RIO decides that a panel shall conduct the inquiry, the RIO will convene a panel of individuals who have the appropriate scientific, scholarly, or artistic expertise on the issues in question.
   1. The RIO may consult with the Dean of the respondent’s unit for panel suggestions. While normally the inquiry panel will be composed of faculty members only, at least one member of the panel should be from the same employment category as the respondent ([e.g., faculty (94xx), graduate students and professional trainees (95xx), P&A (96xx, 93xx, 97xx), or civil service]).
   2. Members of the panel may be chosen from within or outside of the University.
   3. The inquiry panel will have an odd number of members, preferably three. The RIO identifies one member as chair.
   4. The RIO will verify that panel members do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the complainant, respondent, or other key individuals in the process (see: Conflicts of Interest section).
   5. The RIO informs the respondent of the proposed composition of the panel and gives the respondent five days to object to any of the panel members on conflict of interest grounds. If the respondent objects to the panel composition on conflict of interest grounds, the RIO will consider their objection and make a final determination about the panel composition.
      1. The RIO will provide the panel with a charge for the inquiry. The OGC is available to advise the panel on the appropriate protocol and practices that should be followed.

Timely Inquiry

The inquiry must be completed within 90 days of its initiation unless circumstances warrant a longer period. If the inquiry takes longer than 90 days to complete, the inquiry report must document the reasons for exceeding the 90-day period.

Inquiry Process

The RIO or inquiry panel will interview witnesses or respondents that would provide additional information for the institution's review. They may consult with subject matter experts as warranted and need to consider only as much information as is necessary to determine whether there is a sufficient basis to proceed to an investigation. The RIO may record the interview. If a transcript is prepared, the transcript will be provided to the interviewee for comment and revision.

The RIO or inquiry panel will review the physical evidence and take oral or written testimony as needed to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of possible research misconduct to warrant a full investigation. During an inquiry, additional information may emerge that justifies broadening the scope of the inquiry beyond the initial allegations. The RIO will inform the respondent if new allegations are discovered during the course of the inquiry.

Inquiry Findings

An investigation is warranted if:

1. There is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the University and (when applicable) federal regulatory definition of research misconduct, and
2. Preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding from the inquiry indicates that the allegation may have substance.

Findings of research misconduct, including the determination of whether the alleged misconduct is intentional, knowing, or reckless, cannot be made at the inquiry stage.

The Inquiry Report

The RIO or inquiry panel produces a draft written report that states what evidence was reviewed, summarizes relevant interviews, and details whether an investigation is warranted. The report will be comprised of the following:

1. The names, professional aliases, and positions of the respondent and complainant;
2. A description of the allegation(s) of research misconduct;
3. All sponsored award support, including, for example, grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications related to the sponsored award;
4. The composition of the inquiry panel or subject matter experts, if used, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise;
5. Inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted;
6. Transcripts of any transcribed interviews;
7. Timeline and procedural history;
8. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted;
9. The basis for recommending that the allegation(s) warrant an investigation;
10. The basis on which any allegation(s) do not merit an investigation;
    1. If there is a determination that an allegation does not merit an investigation because it is an honest error or a difference of opinion, that needs to be noted in the inquiry report.
11. Any comments on the inquiry report by the respondent or the complainant; and
12. Any institutional actions implemented, including communications with journals or funding agencies.

Respondent Draft Report Review and Comment

The draft inquiry report is provided to the respondent who has 15 days to review it and submit a written response. The final inquiry report will include any comments provided by the respondent. 

Determination by Institutional Deciding Official

The RIO will submit the final inquiry report to the IDO. The IDO will determine within 10 business days whether the case will be closed or an investigation initiated. If the IDO decides to close the review at inquiry, the matter is closed with no finding of research misconduct.

The IDO may take actions to correct the scientific record regardless of whether misconduct is found.

Notification of IDO’s Determination

The RIO will notify the respondent whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted.

The RIO may not notify a complainant whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted. The RIO can disclose the status of any research misconduct review (i.e., open or closed). All information contained within the inquiry report is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.

Transmittal of the Inquiry Report to the Appropriate Agency

If the inquiry involves PHS support, the University must provide ORI with a copy of the inquiry report within 30 days of determining that an investigation is warranted. In addition to what is listed above, the University must provide the following information to ORI whenever requested:

1. The institutional policies and procedures under which the inquiry was conducted; and
2. The research records and other evidence reviewed, and copies of all relevant documents.

If the inquiry involves a different agency, the University will submit the inquiry report as required by that agency.

Investigation

The purpose of the investigation is to review the allegations, examine relevant evidence, and determine whether to recommend a finding of research misconduct for each allegation. An investigation must begin within 30 days after deciding an investigation is warranted.

Notice to the respondent 

The RIO will notify the respondent in writing of the allegation(s) within a reasonable amount of time after determining that an investigation is warranted, but before the investigation begins. If additional allegations arise during the investigation, the RIO will give the respondent written notice of any allegation(s) of research misconduct within a reasonable amount of time of deciding to pursue such allegation(s).

Conducting an Investigation

Who is Responsible for Conducting the Investigation

The RIO will determine the members of the investigation panel as outlined in Conducting The Inquiry: Who Is Responsible for Conducting the Inquiry. The investigation may be carried out by the inquiry panel (if there was one in place).

Charge to the Panel

The RIO will provide the panel with a charge letter that outlines the allegations and the responsibilities of the panel for the investigation. Overall, the panel's charge is to generate a report that compiles all the information it considers and makes findings regarding whether the respondent committed research misconduct. The panel will take reasonable steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased investigation to the maximum extent practicable, including participation of persons with appropriate scientific expertise who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest relevant to the investigation.

Timely Investigation

Unless otherwise required by applicable law or regulations, the University must complete all aspects of an investigation within 180 days of beginning it, including conducting the investigation, preparing the draft investigation report for each respondent, providing the draft report to each respondent for comment, and transmitting the institutional record including the final investigation report and decision by the IDO to the appropriate parties. 

If the University cannot complete the investigation within the required time period, the University will request an extension in accordance with applicable law or regulations. If the research is not subject to any applicable law or regulation, the University will ensure that the reasons for exceeding the time period are documented in the investigation report.

Investigation Process

The panel will diligently pursue all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion. If additional allegations are raised, the respondent(s) must be notified in writing of the additional allegations raised against them.

During the investigation, the panel must interview each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent. All interviews during the investigation must be recorded and transcribed. Any exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview must be numbered and referred to by that number in the interview. The transcript of the interview must be made available to the relevant interviewee for correction. The transcript(s) with any corrections and numbered exhibits must be included in the institutional record of the investigation. The respondent must not be present during the witnesses' interviews but must be provided a transcript of the interview.

Investigation Findings

The investigation panel may only conclude that the respondent engaged in research misconduct if they determine that:

1. There was a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
2. The misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
3. The allegation was proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Investigation Report

The investigation panel shall prepare a draft report that includes the following:

1. Description of the nature of the allegation(s) of research misconduct, including any additional allegation(s) addressed during the research misconduct proceeding.
2. All sponsored award support, including, for example, grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications related to the sponsored award;
3. Description of the specific allegation(s) of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation of the respondent.
4. The composition of the inquiry panel including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise;
5. 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.
6. Transcripts of any transcribed interviews with any corrections and numbered exhibits.
7. 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 allegedly contained the falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material.
8. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
9. If not already provided to ORI, the institutional policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted.
10. Any comments made by the respondent and complainant on the draft investigation report and the investigation panel's consideration of those comments.
11. A statement for each separate allegation of whether the investigation panel recommends a finding of research misconduct.
12. If the investigation panel recommends a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the investigation report must, for that allegation:
    1. Identify the individual(s) who committed the research misconduct.
    2. Indicate whether the research misconduct was falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism.
    3. Indicate whether the research misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.
    4. State whether the other requirements for a finding of research misconduct have been met.
    5. Summarize the facts and the analysis which support the conclusion and consider the merits of any explanation by the respondent.
    6. Identify the specific PHS support.
    7. Identify whether any publications need correction or retraction.
13. If the investigation panel does not recommend a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the investigation report must provide a detailed rationale.
14. List of any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with PHS and non-PHS Federal agencies.

Respondent Draft Report Review and Comment

The RIO will give the respondent a copy of the draft investigation report and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the research records and other evidence that the investigation panel considered or relied on. The respondent must submit any written comments on the draft report to the RIO within 30 days of receiving the draft investigation report. The RIO will transmit the report to the IDO.

Determination by Institutional Deciding Official

The RIO will submit the final investigation report to the IDO. The IDO is responsible for making a final determination of research misconduct findings. This determination must be provided in a written decision that includes:

1. Whether the institution found research misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct; and
2. A description of relevant institutional actions taken or to be taken.

Disciplinary Action

For those cases that result in a misconduct finding, the investigation panel may recommend disciplinary action. The IDO will decide whether to recommend discipline to the appropriate dean or supervisor of the respondent's unit, who is responsible for taking disciplinary action. All discipline is subject to Board of Regents policy: Faculty Tenure; other applicable employment rules for non-faculty employees, or appropriate labor agreements. Examples of potential discipline may include:

• oral reprimand with no permanent record;
• letter of reprimand that becomes part of the respondent's permanent record;
• special monitoring of future work;
• removal from a particular project;
• probation;
• suspension;
• salary reduction;
• rank reduction; or
• termination of employment.

Notification of IDO’s Determination

The RIO notifies the respondent in writing of the determinations on the case, including disciplinary action, and the reasons for them. The respondent may be accompanied by an advisor. The IDO’s decision on whether research misconduct occurred is final, however, the disciplinary actions imposed may be contested.

If the IDO determines that there was no research misconduct, the process is considered complete. The RIO will take the appropriate steps to clear the respondent's record. The RIO may take actions to correct the scientific record or detrimental research practices involved in the case, regardless of whether misconduct is found.

If the respondent is not subject to discipline, the RIO may not notify a complainant about the findings of an investigation. The RIO can disclose the status of any research misconduct review (i.e., open or closed). All information contained in the investigation is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.

Transmittal of the Institutional Record to Appropriate Agency

After the IDO has made a final determination of research misconduct findings, the institution must transmit the institutional record to ORI or other appropriate agency.