Processing Requests for Exemptions to the Policy on Openness in Research

Review relevant document (e.g., Request for Proposal or Request for Application, draft research agreement, draft Material Transfer Agreement).

Upon receipt of these documents, grant and contract officers (GCOs) in Sponsored Projects Administration review the documents for clauses that:

• Restrain the University from disclosing:
  1. the existence of the contract or grant;
  2. the identity of the sponsor or the grantor and, if a subcontract is involved, the identity of the prime contractor if the results of the research must be reported to the sponsor, grantor, or prime contractor; and
  3. the purpose and the scope of the proposed research in sufficient detail:
     1. to permit informal discussion concerning the wisdom of such research within the University; and
     2. to inform colleagues in immediate and related disciplines of the nature and importance of the potential contribution to the disciplines involved.
• Limit the ability to disseminate fully and promptly the results of the research or specifically permit retroactive classification (other than standard clauses found in federal contract templates that are not germane to the research).
• Restrict who can participate in the research project.

Determine whether research is "proprietary" or "restricted."

If GCOs find restrictive clauses, they will determine whether the clauses fit into the "proprietary" or "restricted" categories:

Proprietary research: Industrially-sponsored research that uses the sponsor's proprietary information or results in intellectual property for which the sponsor has an option to an exclusive license. These sponsors often request restrictions on who can discuss the research and under what circumstances. They also may prohibit publication of confidential company information or ask the researcher to delay publication of research results so that they can review the material for proprietary information or take steps to secure intellectual property rights to possible inventions.

The University accepts "proprietary" research agreements that do not—

• restrict who can work on the project,
• impose unreasonable publication delays, or
• require the University to receive sponsor approval before publishing its own results (however, sponsor proprietary information may be withheld).

Agreements containing any of these restrictions fall under the definition of "restricted" research.

Restricted research: Research that restricts who can work on the project or how and when the researchers can disseminate their results. This type of research includes projects whose results are labeled as "sensitive but unclassified," “controlled unclassified,” or “export controlled” by the sponsor.

Principal investigators seeking to conduct restricted research must request an exception from the Openness in Research policy.

If the research falls within the definition of restricted research, the GCO alerts the principal investigator, the Export Controls and Research Security team in Research Integrity and Compliance, and others as appropriate.

GCOs and Research Integrity and Compliance are responsible for informing the principal investigator about the open research policy and procedures for requesting an exception if it becomes necessary.

Negotiate to remove or amend restrictive clauses.

GCOs, working with the Office of the General Counsel, Research Integrity and Compliance, and other offices as appropriate, will attempt to negotiate an agreement that is satisfactory to the potential sponsor and principal investigator, and in compliance with the University's policies and the principles of academic freedom.

Refuse the contract or request an exception.

If the sponsor does not agree to remove the restrictions, the principal investigator, in consultation with the Office of the General Counsel, Sponsored Projects Administration, and Research Integrity and Compliance, may choose to refuse the contract or may request an exception from the Openness in Research Policy. To request an exception, complete the steps below.

Initiate exception Request.

The principal investigator must initiate the Exception Request (Appendix A). This form facilitates the flow of information among the groups that will discuss and approve or disapprove the exception request.

Complete the Request Form.

Within five business days of receiving the request, the Associate VP for Research and Innovation Administration, the Office of the General Counsel, and Research Integrity and Compliance (as appropriate) will complete their sections of the request form.  The Associate VP for Research and Innovation Administration and (when appropriate) Associate Director, Export Controls and Research Security, will confirm the accuracy of the contents and representations, in consultation with the requesting principal investigator.

• If the answer to Question 9 of the principal investigator’s section of the form indicates that any Tier 3 (highly sensitive, high-risk) factors exist, the form is forwarded by the Associate Vice President to the Chair, Senate Research Committee for review and recommendation by its Openness Subcommittee and subsequently, the full Committee (see details in #9, below.)
• If the answer to Question 9 of the principal investigator’s section of the form indicates no Tier 3 but one or more Tier 2 (sensitive, moderate risk) factors, the Associate Vice President will forward the request to the Vice President for Research and Innovation for review and action.
• If the answer to Question 9 of the principal investigator’s section of the form indicates only Tier 1 (low risk) factors, or that the criteria are satisfied to meet the Tier 1 precedent test, the Associate Vice President for Research and Innovation Administration will review and act on the request.

Review exception requests according to Tier.

Tier 3 reviews 

Step 1. The Associate VP for Research and Innovation Administration submits the exception request form to the chair of the Senate Research Committee. The chair then forwards the request to the Open Research Subcommittee for review using Appendix B as a guideline. Requests may be reviewed via email discussion or via a Zoom or in-person meeting. Votes recommending approval, disapproval or abstention (with or without notes) must be recorded on the exception request form and forwarded by the Chair of the Subcommittee to the Chair of the full Committee.

Step 2. The Senate Research Committee reviews the recommendation and form forwarded by the Subcommittee, also using Appendix B as a review guideline. Requests may be reviewed via email discussion or via a zoom or in-person meeting. Votes recommending approval, disapproval or abstention (with or without notes) are recorded on the Exception request form and forwarded by the Chair of the Senate Research Committee to the Vice President for Research and Innovation, with a copy to the Associate Vice President for Research and Innovation Administration and a copy to the Principal Investigator.

Timing. If requested, review by the two committees will be completed within one calendar month of the date the exception request is received by the chair. This timeframe may be extended if necessary to accommodate input from the principal investigator.

Step 3. Within 5 calendar days, the Principal Investigator may send a separate statement to the Vice President for Research and Innovation to support or rebut the Committee's recommendation, with a copy to the Associate Vice President for Research and Innovation Administration.

Step 4. The Vice President for Research and Innovation makes the final decision to approve or deny the exception request, and to impose any specific conditions, completing and signing the exception request form.

Step 5. The Vice President for Research and Innovation sends the completed form to the Associate Vice President for Research and Innovation Administration, who in turn distributes it to the principal investigator, chair of the Senate Research Committee, Office of General Counsel, and Research Integrity and Compliance.

Step 6. If the request is denied, the investigator may, within two weeks of the date of receipt of the denial, ask the Vice President for Research and Innovation for reconsideration (“appeal”). The appeal must be in writing explaining the rationale for why the investigator believes the request should be approved. The Vice President may solicit further input from the investigator or others, including further consideration from the Senate Research Committee.  The Vice President will provide a final decision to the investigator within two weeks after receipt of the appeal, or notify the investigator within that time frame when a final answer can be expected. The request for reconsideration and final decision of the Vice President for Research and Innovation will be communicated to the same parties shown in Step 5 above. 

Tier 2 reviews

Step 1. The Associate Vice President for Research and Innovation Administration submits the exception request form to the Vice President for Research and Innovation.   

Step 2. The Vice President for Research and Innovation makes the final decision to approve or deny the exception request, and to impose any specific conditions, completing and signing the exception request form.

Step 3. The Vice President for Research and Innovation sends the completed form to the Associate Vice President for Research and Innovation Administration, who in turn distributes it to the principal investigator, chair of the Senate Research Committee, Office of General Counsel, and Research Integrity and Compliance.

Step 4. If the request is denied, the investigator may, within two weeks of the date of receipt of the denial, ask the Vice President for Research and Innovation for reconsideration (“appeal”). The appeal must be in writing explaining the rationale for why the investigator believes the request should be approved. The Vice President may solicit further input from the investigator or others, including further consideration from the Senate Research Committee. The Vice President will provide a final decision to the investigator within two weeks after receipt of the appeal, or notify the investigator within that time frame when a final answer can be expected. The request for reconsideration and final decision of the Vice President for Research and Innovation will be communicated to the same parties shown in Step 3 above. 

Tier 1 reviews

Step 1. The Associate VP for Research and Innovation Administration makes the decision to grant or deny the exception request using the guidance outlined in Appendix B, completing and signing the exception request form. 

Step 2. The Associate Vice President for Research and Innovation Administration sends the completed form to the Vice President for Research and Innovation, the principal investigator, chair of the Senate Research Committee, Office of General Counsel, and Research Integrity and Compliance.

Step 3. If the request is denied, the investigator may, within two weeks of the date of receipt of the denial, ask the Vice President for Research and Innovation for reconsideration (“appeal”), copying the Associate Vice President for Research and Innovation Administration. The appeal must be in writing explaining the rationale for why the investigator believes the request should be approved. The Vice President may solicit further input from the investigator, Associate Vice President, or others, including further consideration from the Senate Research Committee. The Vice President will provide a final decision to the investigator within two weeks after receipt of the appeal, or notify the investigator within that time frame when a final answer can be expected. The request for reconsideration and final decision of the Vice President for Research and Innovation will be communicated to the same parties shown in Step 2 above. 

Reporting

The completed requests for exceptions are tracked by the Associate Vice President for Research and Innovation Administration or designee. On an annual basis, the Associate Vice President provides an executive summary of exception request decisions to the Vice President for Research and Innovation and the Senate Research Committee, who may in turn forward it to the full Academic Senate.