INTRODUCTION

The maintenance of high ethical standards in research and scholarly activities is paramount to ensuring the success of UAB’s mission and demonstrates UAB’s values in action. Validity and accuracy in performing, recording, and reporting research and other scholarly activities are essential to the process of discovery of new knowledge. Dishonesty in these endeavors runs counter to the very nature of research and scholarly activities, the pursuit of truth, and undermines public trust in the scientific process.

It is in the best interest of the public and of academic institutions to prevent misconduct in research and scholarly activities and to respond effectively and responsibly to instances in which misconduct is alleged. This policy supports these fundamental values and reinforces the expectations of UAB community members as expressed in the UAB Enterprise Code of Conduct.

SCOPE

This policy applies to all UAB researchers, including faculty, staff, students, and any other individuals involved in research activities at UAB, regardless of the funding source.

DEFINITIONS

Accepted practices of the relevant research community – Commonly accepted professional codes, procedures, practices, and norms within the overarching community of researchers and institutions.

Allegation – A report of possible Research Misconduct through any means of communication and brought to the attention of an institutional official (e.g., Department Chair, Division Director, Trainee Program Director, Dean, Provost, Office of Research etc.).

Assessment – A review to determine if the Allegation falls within the definition of Research Misconduct, as defined by this policy, and if the Allegation is sufficiently credible and specific to identify possible evidence of Research Misconduct. The Assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the Allegation.

Complainant – A person who in Good Faith reports an Allegation of Research Misconduct.

Evidence – 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.

Fabrication – Making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

Falsification – 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.

Good Faith – A reasonable belief in the truth of one’s Allegation or testimony based on direct knowledge or information known to the Complainant or witness at the time. It does not include hearsay or forwarding allegations already in the public domain.  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. 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 the institution meet its responsibilities and maintaining confidentiality as instructed.

Inquiry – A process conducted by an Inquiry Panel convened by the Research Integrity Officer involving preliminary information gathering and initial fact finding to determine whether an Allegation of Research Misconduct warrants further Investigation.

Intentionally – To act with the aim of carrying out the act.

Investigation – A formal collection, examination, and evaluation of facts conducted by an Investigation Committee for the purpose of determining if the Allegation of Research Misconduct has merit and if Research Misconduct has occurred and, if Research Misconduct is established, to identify the person(s) responsible.

Knowingly – To act with awareness of the act.

Notice – A written or electronic communication served in person or sent by mail or its equivalent to the last known street address, facsimile number, or email address of the addressee.

Plagiarism – The appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

Plagiarism includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences, paragraphs, and other research data elements from another’s work that materially misleads the reader regarding the contributions of the author.

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 alone do not meet the definition of research misconduct. It does not include, fragments of sentences, and  the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly established phenomenon or commonly used methodology or bibliography.

Preponderance of the Evidence – Proof by Evidence that, compared with Evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely true than not.

Questionable Research Practice – Practices that do not constitute Research Misconduct but require attention because they could erode confidence in the integrity of Research.

Recklessly – To propose, perform, or review Research, or report Research results with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.

Reports – Work product, including but not limited to manuscripts submitted for publication, publications or presentations, abstracts submitted for presentations at meetings, summaries of Research or other deliverables to Research sponsors, and any internal Research summaries, publications or presentations.

Research – A systematic experiment, study, evaluation, demonstration, survey, or scholarly work designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge (basic research) or specific knowledge (applied research) by establishing, discovering, developing, elucidating, or confirming information or underlying mechanisms related to causes, functions, effects, or related matters to be studied.

Research Integrity Officer - The UAB employee responsible for administering this policy and associated procedures for addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct. If warranted, the Vice President for Research (VPR) in consultation with the Provost may appoint another university official or outside consultant to serve in the capacity of Research Integrity Officer (RIO).

Research Misconduct – Fabrication, Falsification or Plagiarism in proposing, recording, performing or reviewing Research, or in reporting Research results. Research Misconduct does not include honest errors or differences of opinion.

Research Misconduct Proceeding – Any actions related to alleged Research Misconduct, including Allegation Assessments, Inquiries, Investigations, regulatory oversight reviews, and appeals.

Research Record – The record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry. Data or results may be in physical or electronic form. Examples of items, materials, or information that may be considered part of the research record include, but are not limited to, research proposals, raw data, processed data, clinical research records, submitted proposals for extramural or intramural funding, laboratory records, study records, laboratory notebooks, progress reports, manuscripts, abstracts, theses, records of oral presentations, online content, lab meeting reports, and journal articles.

Respondent – The individual against whom an Allegation of Research Misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a Research Misconduct proceeding.

Retaliation – An adverse action taken against a Complainant, witness, or committee member by an institution or one of its members in response to:

1.      A Good Faith Allegation of Research Misconduct; or

2.      Good faith cooperation with a Research Misconduct Proceeding

Scholarly Record - The collective body of published research and knowledge produced by academics and experts within a particular field, typically including books, articles from established journals, proposals for extramural or intramural applications for funding, presentations in a public forum. It typically would not include internal documents for regulatory review such as those documents used and generated by the Institutional Review Board (“IRB”), Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (“IACUC”), and internal documents used in reviewing potential conflicts of interest, which are subject to a separate independent review process for accuracy.

Witness – An individual with pertinent knowledge of the possible Research Misconduct, either through direct observation or subject matter expertise.

POLICY STATEMENT

UAB is committed to fostering a culture of intellectual honesty by supporting responsible and ethical conduct of research and scholarship. The UAB academic and research community is expected to maintain high ethical standards in Research and scholarly activities. All members of the UAB community are responsible for reporting concerns about Research Misconduct. Individuals who report Allegations in Good Faith are protected from Retaliation. To this end, UAB has established the following obligations:
 

1. Results of Research and scholarly activities must be supported by verifiable evidence.  Faculty and staff must maintain sufficient records or other documentation of their studies in accordance with the UAB Records Retention Policy.  The intent is to foster the necessary respect for carefully recording and preserving primary data among all individuals conducting research. Senior investigators and scholars are further responsible for ensuring junior colleagues, trainees, and students acquire these important fundamentals.
    
2. Intentionally withholding information relevant to the review of Research Misconduct, intentionally pressuring others to do so, or asserting Allegations not in Good Faith against another individual shall be considered a violation of this policy and the UAB Enterprise Code of Conduct.  Additionally, any act of interference, Retaliation or coercion by a UAB employee against a faculty member, employee, or trainee for using this policy is prohibited and is also a violation of this policy, UAB Duty to Report and Non-Retaliation Policy, and the UAB Enterprise Code of Conduct. 
    
3. A finding of Research Misconduct requires that: 1) there is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant Research or scholarly community; 2) the Research Misconduct is committed Intentionally, Knowingly or Recklessly; and 3) the alleged Research Misconduct is supported by a Preponderance of the Evidence. 
    
4. Allegations of this nature are very serious matters, and all parties involved should take measures to ensure that the positions and reputations of all individuals named in such Allegations and all individuals who in Good Faith report apparent Research Misconduct are protected.  Details of the charge, the name of the prospective Respondent(s), the identity of the Complainant, and all other information about the case shall be kept confidential to the extent possible, compatible with investigating the case.  Revealing without authority any confidential information to those not involved in the review constitutes a violation of this policy and the UAB Enterprise Code of Conduct, subject to review and disciplinary action.

5. Because UAB is interested in protecting the health and safety of research subjects, students, staff, and faculty, and because UAB is responsible for protecting sponsored research resources, if the situation warrants it, interim administrative action may be taken prior to the conclusion of either the Inquiry or the Investigation to protect individuals and resources in accordance with existing UAB policy.  Such action includes, but is not limited to, administrative suspension; re-assignment of student(s); augmented prior examination of raw data concerning any scholarly records (e.g., manuscripts or proposals); and/or notification of other UAB offices with compliance-related responsibilities and external sponsors when required by federal regulations.
    
6. If a Respondent is employed or associated with another organization or entity relevant to the Investigation, UAB may share or request information with appropriate members of the other organization or entity as it is deemed appropriate by UAB. Members of such organization or entity may also participate in the process set forth in this Policy as deemed appropriate by UAB.

PROCEDURES

Reporting Allegations of Research Misconduct

Consistent with the Duty to Report and Non-retaliation Policy, it is the responsibility of all UAB researchers, including faculty, staff, students, and any other individuals involved in research activities who become aware of potential Research Misconduct to report such potential Research Misconduct to one of the following: (1) their department/unit head, (2) the Dean of the school in which their department/unit is located, (3) the UAB RIO or (4) the UAB Hotline.  In the case of students, such evidence also may be reported to a faculty mentor or the Dean of the appropriate School.  Those individuals receiving such Allegations or evidence of Research Misconduct must immediately notify the RIO. The RIO will report the Allegation to the Dean of the unit in which the alleged Research Misconduct occurred as well as to the Provost and the VPR. If there are Allegations against a Dean or other member of senior leadership, the RIO may consult with other offices as appropriate regarding the appropriate reporting line. 

Procedural Overview

Allegations of possible research misconduct are reviewed in a sequence of steps, beginning with an assessment by the RIO for specificity and credibility. Next, if an assessment determines that an Allegation is sufficiently specific and credible, notice of an Inquiry is presented to the prospective Respondent(s) and the Allegation is reviewed by an Inquiry to determine if there is sufficient evidence of possible research misconduct to warrant an Investigation. Next, an Investigation will examine the allegations, create a factual record of findings, and determine whether the Preponderance of the Evidence supports a finding of Research Misconduct. Finally, findings of Research Misconduct are subject to the determination and implementation of administrative actions by institutional leadership.

Assessment

When an Allegation is reported to the RIO or another designated institutional official, the RIO must promptly conduct a preliminary assessment to determine if the Allegation warrants an Inquiry. The RIO, in consultation with the Dean or Dean’s Designee of the school for the Respondent, and, as necessary, a subject matter expert, will make the Assessment. This determination includes assessing whether the Allegation:

1. falls within the definition of Research Misconduct;

2. is sufficiently credible and specific to identify possible evidence of Research Misconduct;

3. is not, in the discretion of the RIO, immaterial (i.e., has not been proactively addressed and corrected by appropriate action in the Scholarly Record by the Respondent(s), such as proactive correction of a publication); and,

4. the alleged Plagiarism, Falsification, and/or Fabrication is found within six (6) years of the date formally accepted into the Scholarly Record (i.e., for a publication, the date published; for a proposal, the date submitted by the institution to the sponsor; for an oral presentation, the proceedings publication date).  This period may be extended if the Office of Research Integrity (“ORI”) or UAB, following consultation with ORI, determines that the alleged Research Misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public.

Reporting Allegations to the department/unit head in advance of the preliminary Assessment will be at the discretion of the RIO in consultation with the Dean. If the Assessment criteria are met, the RIO shall document the Assessment and initiate an Inquiry. If one or more Assessment criteria are not met, the RIO shall document, dismiss, and/or refer the Allegation, as appropriate. The Dean, Provost and VPR shall be informed of Assessment outcomes.

Inquiry

1. On or before the date on which the Respondent is notified that an Inquiry is necessary, or the Inquiry begins, whichever is earlier, the RIO will take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all relevant research records and evidence needed to conduct the Research Misconduct proceeding, inventorying the records and evidence and sequestering them in a secure manner, except that where the research records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on the instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments. Further the RIO shall undertake all reasonable and practical efforts to take custody of additional research records and evidence that is discovered during the inquiry (as well as throughout the entire course of a research misconduct proceeding. In consultation with the administrative leader (e.g., Dean) of the unit in which the Respondent is an employee, the RIO will inform the immediate supervisory chain of authority, up to and including the academic department head, as appropriate, that an Inquiry will be initiated.

2. The Inquiry shall consist of preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding to determine whether the Allegations appear to have sufficient evidence to warrant an Investigation. When an Inquiry is initiated, the RIO shall designate an Inquiry Panel in consultation with the appropriate leadership of the unit in which the Respondent(s) are employed (e.g., Dean, Research Dean, Vice Provost, Vice President), which includes content expertise and is evaluated for conflicts of interest.

3. Upon being issued written notice of the Allegations, the Respondent shall have 10 business days to submit a written response to the Inquiry Panel. The Inquiry Panel may, at its discretion, interview the Respondent, Complainant, and/or Witnesses as necessary as part of the inquiry process. Such interviews will be recorded, and they will be transcribed to the extent they are included in the Inquiry report.

4. If the Inquiry subsequently identifies additional Respondents, the Inquiry Panel shall also issue written notice of the Allegations to the additional Respondents. 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.

5. The Inquiry Panel shall determine, based upon a Preponderance of the Evidence whether:

1. there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of Research Misconduct; and
2. preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding from the Inquiry clearly indicates that the Allegation may have substance.

If the Inquiry Panel determines that both criteria are met, the Inquiry Panel shall recommend that the Allegations advance to an Investigation. 

6. The Inquiry Panel shall develop a written report that includes: (1) the name and position of the Respondent; (2) a description of the Allegations; (3) the funding support for the research that is the subject of the Inquiry; (4) what evidence was reviewed; (5) summary of relevant interviews; and, (6) the conclusions of the Inquiry and the basis for its recommendation. Specifically, the report shall include whether the Allegation falls within the definition of Research Misconduct and whether the preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding from the Inquiry indicates an Investigation is warranted. 

7. The Respondent shall be given a copy of the Inquiry Panel’s report and will be notified of the Inquiry outcomes. In the event the Allegation proceeds to Investigation, the Respondent(s) shall have ten (10) business days to provide written comments concerning the Inquiry Panel’s report, which will be considered by the Inquiry Panel and appended to the Inquiry Panel’s final report. 

8. If there are multiple Respondents, separate Inquiry reports will be prepared, including only the Allegations specific to a particular Respondent.

9. UAB will endeavor to complete the Inquiry within 30 days of the first meeting of the Inquiry Panel. 

10. The Dean, Provost and VPR shall be informed of Inquiry outcomes, including any interim actions taken (e.g., augmentation of Respondent’s responsible conduct in research training, necessary corrections of the scholarly record, curtailment of professional duties).

11. If an Investigation is warranted, RIO will provide, as required, appropriate notification to the applicable contractual, regulatory, and/or governing agency/authority.

12. The RIO shall promptly disclose to relevant parties information necessary to protect against an immediate health hazard, to protect the interests of the persons making the Allegations, to protect the individuals who are the subject of the Allegations, to protect the interests of any co-investigators and associates, or, if it is likely that the possible Research Misconduct is going to be publicly reported or if there is a likelihood that a criminal violation has occurred.

13. If an Investigation is warranted, the RIO shall commission an examination of the known Respondent’s publications and extramural funding submissions (whether funded or not) from the previous six (6) years for evidence of possible Research Misconduct (i.e., prior-works lookback examination). The RIO, in consultation with the Dean or Dean’s designee and a subject matter expert, as necessary, shall determine if the outcome of the prior-works lookback examination yields additional allegations worthy of further consideration. If new allegations emerge during this review, the RIO will inform the Respondent(s), and the Allegations will be evaluated by the Investigation Committee.

14. Within 30 calendar days of a finding that an Investigation is warranted, RIO will provide the relevant oversight agencies with a written notice and, where necessary and required (e.g. 42 CFR 93.309(a)) a copy of the inquiry report.

Investigation

1. If an investigation is deemed necessary, the RIO will initiate a formal Investigation and appoint an Investigation Committee.  The Inquiry Committee’s report and any comments from the Respondent(s) will be presented to the Investigation Committee.

2. When an Investigation is initiated, in consultation with the Dean, the Provost, and the VPR, the RIO shall designate an Investigation Committee consisting of at least three (3) research-intensive faculty members in good standing, which may include Inquiry Panel committee members. The Respondent will be afforded an opportunity to review the proposed Investigation Committee for conflicts of interest.

3. At the initial charge to the Investigation Committee, a chairperson will be selected by the Investigation Committee members and be responsible for driving the Investigation towards a timely and meaningful conclusion.

4. UAB will take all reasonable and necessary steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased Investigation to the maximum extent practicable, including carefully considering the participation of persons with appropriate scientific expertise who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest relevant to the Investigation. The RIO will share the names of the Investigation Committee with the Respondent(s) and, as determined necessary by the RIO, with the Complainant or others to review for potential conflicts of interest. The decision of the RIO regarding potential conflict of interest shall be final.

5. Upon notice to the RIO, the Respondent may solicit the confidential assistance of an advisor who must abide by the confidentiality expectations of this Policy. Respondent’s advisor has no right or privilege to address the Investigation Committee directly. Advisors who breach the confidentiality expectations of this Policy or otherwise impair the Investigation in any way may be restricted from further engagement with the Respondent concerning the Investigation upon written notice from the RIO to the advisor and the Respondent.

6. The Investigation Committee, in consultation with the RIO, will determine those individuals who should be interviewed. This will include the Respondent and may include the Complainant, if known, and any relevant Witnesses. All interviews conducted during the Investigation will be recorded and transcribed and will be made an exhibit to the final report, subject to review by relevant parties as described below.

7. All meetings and deliberations of the Investigation Committee will be held in confidence. 

8. The RIO or designee and representatives from other UAB offices as requested by the RIO may be present at meetings for technical assistance and to provide guidance and advice as to process. 

9. The Investigation Committee may call upon subject matter experts in the review of data or in the investigative process, as necessary.  Subject matter expertise may be sought from within or outside the University, at the discretion of the Investigation Committee and will be bound to confidentiality under the obligations of this Policy. 

10. Interviews of persons appearing before the committee, whether in person or remotely, will be recorded and transcribed.  In some instances, one or more members of the Investigation Committee may be authorized to conduct an interview on behalf of the entire Investigation Committee.

11. Upon conclusion of the Investigation, the Investigation Committee will develop a written report. The written Investigation report shall include, but not be limited to, the following: Allegations; funding support; institutional charge; policies and procedures; research records and evidence; and statement of findings for each Allegation. Each Allegation shall identify: (1) the responsible Respondent or persons; (2) the type of Research Misconduct and if it was intentional, knowing, or reckless disregard; (3) a summary of facts and analysis supporting the conclusion; (4) the funding support; (5) publications and reports needing correction or retraction; and, (6) current or pending funding support.

12. The Respondent shall be given a draft of the Investigation Committee’s report and concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, research records and other evidence that the Investigation Committee considered or on which it relied. The Respondent must submit any comments on the draft report within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the draft Investigation Committee report.

13. Any comments received from the Respondent(s) concerning the Investigation report will be reviewed by the RIO and, where appropriate, shared with the Investigation Committee. The Investigation Committee will append the Respondent’s comments to the final report and, where necessary, their updated findings and recommendations.

14. If there are multiple Respondents, separate Investigation reports shall be prepared, including only the Allegations specific to a particular Respondent.

15. The Investigation Committee’s Report with the Respondent’s comments and any appended findings and recommendations, along with recommendations of the RIO concerning a final decision on whether findings of Research Misconduct are warranted and a descriptive recommendation concerning corrective actions, shall be forwarded to the VPR. The VPR will review and make a final decision and inform the Provost. 

16. The Respondent(s) and the Dean’s office of the respective unit shall be informed of the VPR’s decision.  

17. The Dean’s office of the respective unit will recommend administrative actions to the Provost’s office.

18. Recommended administrative actions impacting a Respondent’s employment or association with UAB, but not the finding of research misconduct, may be appealed, as appropriate, through the processes described in relevant policies, including, but not limited to, the UAB Faculty Handbook. Other administrative actions (e.g., correction of the scholarly record, training, etc.) are not appealable by the Respondent(s).

19. If the allegation originates from an external constituent of UAB (e.g., a federal sponsor, oversight agency, or publisher) with an overtly stated expectation of notification, UAB shall comply with any associated reporting obligations. The RIO will notify appropriate external oversight agencies in advance if there are plans to close a case at the investigation, or appeal stage on the basis that Respondent has admitted guilt, a settlement with the Respondent has been reached, or for any other reason.

20. UAB will endeavor to complete its Investigation within 180 days of being charged with its task. If a case takes longer to resolve, where required by external oversight agencies, the RIO will provide written justification of extensions including an anticipated completion timeline.

NONCOMPLIANCE

Confirmed lack of adherence to this policy or established procedures will result in consequences commensurate with the offense, up to and including termination of employment, appointment, student status, or other relationships with UAB.

IMPLEMENTATION

The Vice President for Research is responsible for procedures to implement this policy.

Related Policies and Procedures

UAB Enterprise Code of Conduct

UAB Faculty Handbook

UAB Duty to Report and Non-Retaliation Policy

UAB Records Retention Policy

42 C.F.R., Part 93