FEDERAL POLICY ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

[Guest guest]

FEDERAL POLICY ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT[1]

http://www.ostp.gov/html/001207_3.html

I. Research[2] Misconduct Defined

Research[[3]]Research misconduct is defined as fabrication,

falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing

research, or in reportingOR ANALYZING research results.

· Fabrication is making up data orDATA OR results and

recording or reporting them.

· Falsification is manipulating research materials OR

RESEARCH SUBJECTS, equipment, or processes, or changing, [or]

omitting, OR INTERPRETINGchanging or omitting data or results[TO

WHAT DOES RESULTS REFER TO OTHER THAN DATA?] such that the research

is not FAIRLY [accurately]accurately represented in the research

record.3

· Plagiarism is APPROPRIATING AND USING AS ONE'S OWN

[appropriation of]the appropriation of another person'sDOCUMENTED

ideas, processes, results, or words [without giving appropriate

credit], including those obtained through confidential review of

others' research proposals and manuscripts.[4]credit.

· Research misconduct does not include INADVERTENT [honest]

honest error orSIMPLE [honest] differences of opinion. (OR

ALTERNATIVELY: RESEARCH MISCONDUCT DOES NOT INCLUDE ERRORS OF

JUDGMENT, ERRORS IN RECORDING, SELECTION OR ANALYSIS OF DATA, OR

opinion.

DIFFERENCES OF OPINIONS INVOLVING INTERPRETATION OF DATA.)

· RESEARCH, AS DEFINED HEREIN, INCLUDES ALL BASIC, APPLIED, AND

DEMONSTRATION RESEARCH SUPPORTED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. (OR

PLACE IN FOOTNOTE IN TITLE OF POLICY)

II. Findings of Research Misconduct

A finding of research misconduct requires that ALL THREE CONDITIONS

DELINEATED BELOW BE MET; THAT:

· There be a significant departure from accepted STANDARDS

[practices] of the RELEVANT scientific DISIPLINE [community] [for

maintaining the integrity of the research record]; ANDpractices of

the relevant research community; and

· The misconduct be committed intentionally, or knowingly, or

recklesslyof accepted practices; and

· The allegation be ETABLISHED [proven]proven by a

preponderance of evidence, WHICH EVIDENCE IS NOT SUBJECT TO LEGAL

RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY. (ALLOW INSTITUTIONS TO DETERMINE STANDARDS

OF PROOF?)evidence.

· (THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE MISCONDUCT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN

DETERMINING A FINDING)

III. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies and Research

Institutions4

Agencies and research institutions are partners who share

responsibility for the research process AND THE RESULTING RESEARCH

RECORD. Federal agencies have ultimate oversight authority for

Federally funded research, butTHE FEDERAL AGENCIES RELY ON research

institutions [bear primary responsibility]bear primary

responsibility for prevention and detection of research misconduct,

and IN MOST CASESmisconduct and for the inquiry, investigation, and

adjudication of research misconduct alleged to have occurred in

association with their own institution.

· Agency Policies and Procedures. Agency policies and

procedures with regard to intramural as well as extramural programs

must conform to the policy described in this document. NOTHING IN

THIS POLICY PREVENTS RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS FROM SETTING ADDITIONAL

STANDARDS AS document.

· Agency Referral to Research Institution. In most cases,

agencies will rely on the researcher's home institution to make the

initial response to allegations of research misconduct. Agencies

will usually refer allegations of research misconduct made directly

to them to the appropriate research institution. However, at any

time, the Federal agency may proceed with its own inquiry or

investigation. Circumstances in which agencies may elect not to

defer to the research institution include, but are not limited to,

the following: the agency determines the institution is not prepared

to handle the allegation in a manner consistent with this policy;

agency involvement is needed to protect the public interest,

including public health and safety; the allegation involves an

entity of sufficiently small size (or an individual) that it cannot

reasonably conduct the investigation itself.

· Multiple Phases of the Response to an Allegation of

Research Misconduct. A response to an allegation of research

misconduct will usually consist of several phases, including: (1)

an inquiry – the assessment of whether the allegation has substance

and if an investigation is warranted; (2) an investigation – the

formal development of a factual record, and the examination of that

record leading to dismissal of the case or to a recommendation for a

finding of research misconduct or other appropriate remedies; (3)

adjudication – during which recommendations are reviewed and

appropriate corrective actions determined.

· Agency Follow-up to Institutional Action. After reviewing

the record of the investigation, the institution's recommendations

to the institution's adjudicating official, and any corrective

actions taken by the research institution, the agency will take

additional oversight or investigative steps if necessary. Upon

completion of its review, the agency will take appropriate

administrative action in accordance with applicable laws,

regulations, or policies. When the agency has made a final

determination, it will notify the subject of the allegation of the

outcome and inform the institution regarding its disposition of the

case. The agency finding of research misconduct and agency

administrative actions can be appealed pursuant to the agency's

applicable procedures.

· Separation of Phases. Adjudication is separated

organizationally from inquiry and investigation. Likewise, appeals

are separated organizationally from inquiry and investigation.

· Institutional Notification of the Agency. Research

institutions will notify the funding agency (or agencies in some

cases) of an allegation of research misconduct if (1) the allegation

involves Federally funded research (or an application for Federal

funding) and meets the Federal definition of research misconduct

given above, and (2) if the institution's inquiry into the

allegation determines there is sufficient evidence to proceed to an

investigation. When an investigation is complete, the research

institution will forward to the agency a copy of the evidentiary

record, the investigative report, recommendations made to the

institution's adjudicating official, and the subject's written

response to the recommendations (if any). When a research

institution completes the adjudication phase, it will forward the

adjudicating official's decision and notify the agency of any

corrective actions taken or planned.

· Other Reasons to Notify the Agency. At any time during an

inquiry or investigation, the institution will immediately notify

the Federal agency if public health or safety is at risk; if agency

resources or interests are threatened; if research activities should

be suspended; if there is reasonable indication of possible

violations of civil or criminal law; if Federal action is required

to protect the interests of those involved in the investigation; if

the research institution believes the inquiry or investigation may

be made public prematurely so that appropriate steps can be taken to

safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved; or if

the research community or public should be informed.

· When More Than One Agency is Involved. A lead agency

should be designated to coordinate responses to allegations of

research misconduct when more than one agency is involved in funding

activities relevant to the allegation. Each agency may implement

administrative actions in accordance with applicable laws,

regulations, policies, or contractual procedures.

DEEMED APPROPRIATE.

WHERE ARE APPEALS SITUATED ORGANIZATIONALLY? THIS SECTION SHOULD NOT

IMPLY THAT A FEDERAL FINDING CAN BE APPEALED AT THE INSTITUTIONAL

LEVEL.)

OFFICER. [of the case and recommendations for its disposition.] ANY

REPORTING MAY BE RESTRICTED TO THOSE PORTIONS OF AN INVESTIGATION

DIRECTLY RELATED TO RESEARCH MISCONDUCT AS DEFINED IN THE FEDERAL

POLICY SO THAT CONFIDENTIALITY REQUIREMENTS OF INSTITUTIONS ARE

PROTECTED.

IV. Guidelines for Fair and Timely Procedures

The following guidelines are provided to assist agencies and

research institutions in developing fair and timely procedures for

responding to allegations of research misconduct. They areWILL

[should] designed to provide safeguards for subjects of allegations

as well as for informants. Fair and timely procedures include the

following:

· Safeguards for Informants. Safeguards for informants give

individuals the confidence that they can bring allegations of

research misconduct made in good faith to the attention of

appropriate authorities or serve as informants to an inquiry or an

investigation without suffering retribution;[5] THE PROVISIONS OF

THE FEDERAL WHISTLE-retribution. Safeguards include protection

against retaliation for informants who make good faith allegations,

fair and objective procedures for the examination and resolution of

allegations of research misconduct, and diligence in protecting the

positions and reputations of those persons who make allegations of

research misconduct in good faith.

· Safeguards for Subjects of Allegations. Safeguards for

subjects give individuals the confidence that their rights are

protected and that the mere filing of an allegation of research

misconduct against them will not bring their research to a halt or

be the basis for other disciplinary or adverse action absent other

compelling reasons. Other safeguards include Othertimely written

notificationof the subject of subjects regarding substantive

allegations made against him or her;them; a description of all such

allegations; ACCESS TO THE DATA SUPPORTING THE

ALLEGATIONS;reasonable access to the data and other evidence

supporting the allegations; and the opportunity to respond to

allegations, the supporting evidence and the proposed findings of

research misconduct (if any).

· Objectivity and Expertise. The selection of individuals to

review allegations and conduct investigations who have appropriate

expertise and have no unresolved(UNDISCLOSED?) conflicts of

interests, AND WHO ARE ABLE TO ACT IMPARTIALLY helpsinterests help

to ensure fairness throughout all phases of the process.

· Timeliness. Reasonable time limits for the conduct of the

inquiry, investigation, adjudication, and appeal phases (if any),

with allowances for extensions where appropriate, provide confidence

that the process will be well managed.

· IN ESTABLISHING REASONABLE TIME LIMITS FEDERAL AGENCIES

MUST BALANCETHE INTERESTS OF CONCLUDING THE PROCESS EXPEDITIOUSLY

WITH ENSURING IT HAS BEEN CONDUCTED FAIRLY; A GOVERNMENTWIDE MAXIMUM

TIME FRAME SHOULD BE SET FOR COMPLETION OF ALL PHASES OF THE

INVESTIGATION;Confidentiality During the Inquiry,[and]

Investigation, ADJUDICATION, AND APPEALS PROCESSES.and Decision-

Making Processes. To the extent possible consistent with a fair and

thorough investigation and as allowed by law, knowledge about the

identity of subjects and informants is limited to those who need to

know. Records maintained by the agency(ANDINSTITUTION?) during the

course of responding to an allegation of research misconduct ARE

MAINTAINED IN A SYSTEM OF RECORDS (usda/fs-33). THE RECORDS ARE

EXEMPTED UNDER (k)(2) OF THE PRIVACY ACT. CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE

INVESTIGATION ARE [should be]are exempt from [disclosure]

RELEASEdisclosure underEXEMPTIONS 6 AND 7 OF the Freedom of

Information Act [to the extent permitted by law and regulation].

EXEMPTION FROM THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT WILL NOT LIMIT ACCESS

OF THE ACCUSED TO ALL RELEVANT ACCUSATIONS AND THE DATA regulation.

V. Agency Administrative Actions

· Seriousness of the Misconduct. In deciding what

administrative actions are appropriate, the agency should consider

the seriousness of the misconduct, including, but not limited to,

the degree to which the misconduct was knowing, intentional, or

reckless; was an isolated event or part of a pattern; or had

significant impact on the research record, research subjects, other

researchers, institutions, or the public welfare.

· Possible Administrative Actions. Administrative actions

available include, but are not limited to, appropriate steps to

correct the research record; letters of reprimand; the imposition of

special certification or assurance requirements to ensure compliance

with applicable regulations or terms of an award; suspension or

termination of an active award; or suspension and debarment in

accordance with applicable government-wide rules on suspension and

debarment. In the event of suspension or debarment, the information

is made publicly available through the List of Parties Excluded from

Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs maintained by the

U.S. General Services Administration. With respect to

administrative actions imposed upon government employees, the

agencies must comply with all relevant federal personnel policies

and laws.

· In Case of Criminal or Civil Fraud Violations. If the

funding agency believes that criminal or civil fraud violations may

have occurred, the agency shall promptly refer the matter to the

Department of Justice, the Inspector General for the agency, or

other appropriate investigative body.

VI. Roles of Other Organizations

This Federal policy does not limit the authority of research

institutions, or other entities, to promulgate additional research

misconduct policies or guidelines or more specific ethical guidance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------

[1]No rights, privileges, benefits or obligations are created or

abridged by issuance of this policy alone. The creation or

abridgment of rights, privileges, benefits or obligations, if any,

shall occur only upon implementation of this policy by the Federal

agencies.

[2]Research, as used herein, includes all basic, applied, and

demonstration research in all fields of science, engineering, and

mathematics. This includes, but is not limited to, research in

economics, education, linguistics, medicine, psychology, social

sciences, statistics, and research involving human subjects or

animals.

[3] THIS INCLUDES, FOR EXAMPLE RESEARCH IN SCIENCE, ENGINEERING,

MATHEMATICS, BIOMEDICINE, CLINICAL STUDIES, ECONOMICS, SOCIAL

SCIENCES, PSYCHOLOGY, STATISTICS, LINGUISTICS, HUMANITIES, AND

EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS OR ANIMALS.

3The research record is the record of data or results that embody

the facts resulting from scientific inquiry, and includes, but is

not limited to, research proposals, laboratory records, both

physical and electronic, progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral

presentations, internal reports, and journal articles.

[4] . PLAGIARISM DOES NOT INCLUDE SIMPLE

AUTHORSHIP OR CITATION DISPUTES.

4The term " research institutions " is defined to include all

organizations using Federal funds for research, including, for

example, colleges and universities, intramural Federal research

laboratories, Federally funded research and development centers,

national user facilities, industrial laboratories, or other research

institutes. Independent researchers and small research institutions

are covered by this policy.

·[5] .[5] THE IDENTITY OF THE INFORMANT MAY BE DISCLOSED IF

REQUIRED FOR A FAIR PROCEEDING;