Research Misconduct

The University of Texas at Austin (“University”) is committed to promoting a research community whose members faithfully adhere to the highest standards of integrity. Faculty and other research personnel are expected to uphold the University’s commitment to the ethical pursuit of research and scholarly work and to report concerns of suspected Research Misconduct. Research Misconduct violates the relationship between a researcher and the University, funding agencies, and research participants; it damages the reputations of those involved and diminishes public trust in research and the scholarly community.

It is the policy of the University to respond to Allegations of Research Misconduct in a fair, competent, and thorough manner, and to assess and ensure compliance with regulatory guidelines.

Reason for Policy

To define what constitutes Research Misconduct and describe the procedures for evaluating Allegations of Research Misconduct.

Scope & Audience

This policy applies to Allegations of Research Misconduct involving individuals engaged in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research at, or on behalf of, the University, and does not distinguish between funded and unfunded research activities.

Individuals subject to this policy include any person paid by, subject to the rules and policies of, or affiliated with the University including scientists, trainees, technicians and other staff members, students, fellows, visiting scholars, or other collaborators. Allegations of Research Misconduct involving student Respondents will be reviewed by the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) and representatives from the Office of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity (SCAI) to determine whether the Allegations should be processed under this policy or should be referred to SCAI. If an Allegation involving a student Respondent is processed under this policy, a representative from SCAI may also take part in the proceedings.

When external funding is involved, the University will comply with any additional requirements pursuant to the relevant funding agency’s policies or regulations (such as Public Health Service regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 42 CFR Part 93; see Section X. Related Information).

This policy applies to suspected Research Misconduct that has occurred within six years of the Allegation date, subject to the subsequent use, health or safety of the public, and grandfather exceptions outlined in 42 CFR Part 93.105(b).

Definitions (specific to this policy)

Allegation of Research Misconduct:

A written or oral statement of possible Research Misconduct.

Complainant:

The person(s) who makes an Allegation of Research Misconduct.

Conflict of Interest:

The real or apparent interference of one person’s interests with the interests of another person or entity, where potential bias may occur due to prior, existing, or future personal, professional, or financial relationships.

Inquiry:

Initial fact-finding, such as through individual interviews and document reviews, to determine whether an Allegation of Research Misconduct warrants an Investigation.

Investigation:

The formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if Research Misconduct has occurred, and, if so, to determine the responsible person and the seriousness of the misconduct.

Preponderance of the Evidence:

Proof by evidence that, compared with evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not.

Research Integrity Officer (RIO):

The institutional official, appointed by the Vice President for Research (VPR), who is responsible for receiving Allegations of Research Misconduct and overseeing the Research Misconduct process in accordance with the University’s policies and procedures.

Research Record:

Any data, document, computer or cloud storage file, digital storage device, or any other written or non-written account or object that reasonably may be expected to provide evidence or information regarding the proposed, conducted, and/or reported research that constitutes the subject of an Allegation of Research Misconduct. A Research Record includes, but is not limited to, grant or contract applications, whether funded or unfunded; grant or contract progress and other reports; laboratory notebooks; notes; correspondence; videos; photographs; x-ray film; slides; biological materials; computer files and printouts; manuscripts and publications; equipment use logs; laboratory procurement records; animal facility records; human and animal subject protocols; consent forms; medical charts; and patient research files.

Respondent:

The person(s) against whom an Allegation of Research Misconduct is directed or whose actions are the subject of the Inquiry or Investigation.

Retaliation:

An adverse action that affects the employment or institutional status of the Complainant, a witness, or other individual by the University or one of its members in response to:

A good-faith Allegation of Research Misconduct; or
Good-faith cooperation with a Research Misconduct proceeding.

Research Misconduct:

The intentional, knowing, or reckless fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.

Fabrication is the making up of data or results and recording or reporting them as true.
Falsification is the manipulation of research materials, equipment, or processes, or change or omission of data or results such that the research is inaccurately represented in the research record.
Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

Research Misconduct does not include honest error or differences in interpretations or judgments of data, scholarly or political disagreements, good-faith personal or professional opinions, private moral or ethical behavior or views, or authorship or collaboration disputes unless such disputes also involve Research Misconduct as defined by this policy.

Website (for policy)

https://secure4.compliancebridge.com/utexas/public/getdoc.ph?file=7-1230

Contacts

CONTACT

DETAILS

WEB

Department of Investigation and Adjudication

Phone: 512-471-2877

Website:

https://research.utexas.edu/
Email: rio@austin.utexas.edu

It is the responsibility of all employees or individuals associated with the University to report observed, suspected, or apparent Research Misconduct to the RIO. Allegations of Research Misconduct can be submitted by a written or oral statement, and should include sufficient detail to permit an initial assessment into whether an Inquiry is warranted. Reasonable efforts will be made to review and resolve anonymous Allegations of Research Misconduct; however, such reports must also include sufficient detail in order for the RIO to assess the merit of the alleged misconduct.

Deadlines

If a deadline defined in this policy falls on a Saturday, Sunday, University holiday, or skeleton crew day, that deadline will be moved to the next working day.

Retaliation

The University will take real, practical steps to protect or restore the positions and reputations of good-faith Complainants, witnesses, and other participants who are subject to Retaliation. A claim of Retaliation by an individual who participates in the Research Misconduct process will be governed by HOP 3-1022.

Conducting the Inquiry

Initiation and Purpose of the Inquiry

The RIO will proceed with the Inquiry in a timely manner following the determination that an Inquiry is warranted. The purpose of the Inquiry is to determine whether an Investigation is warranted.

Notice to the Respondent & Other Individuals

Upon or before initiating the Inquiry, the RIO will make a good-faith effort to notify the Respondent in writing of the substance of the Allegation of Research Misconduct and the Inquiry’s initiation. If, during the course of the Inquiry, additional Respondents are identified, the RIO will notify them accordingly. At any time during the Research Misconduct process, the Respondent may consult with an advisor, which may include outside counsel, at the Respondent’s own expense. The Respondent’s advisor may attend any meeting at which the Respondent is present; however, the advisor’s role will be limited to advising their client during any such meeting.

The RIO will also promptly notify the Executive Vice President and Provost (EVPP), VPR, VPLA, Complainant, and the Respondent’s dean (or their designee) and chair of the Inquiry’s initiation.

Sequestration of Research Records

The RIO will promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to sequester all original Research Records, materials, and documents relevant to the Allegation of Research Misconduct and secure them in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws and regulations. The Respondent may receive copies of or supervised access to any sequestered records if deemed appropriate by the RIO.

Advice

The VPLA and any legal counsel that may have been arranged through the VPLA will be available throughout the Inquiry to advise the RIO and/or VPR as needed..

Inquiry Process and Determination

The RIO will conduct the Inquiry, which will normally include interviews with the Complainant, Respondent, key witnesses, and examination of relevant documents. The RIO may enlist the assistance of anyone with appropriate technical expertise, selected in accordance with the procedures described in this document for establishing an Investigation committee, to examine the Research Record.

Following the interviews and examination of the Research Record, the RIO will determine—after consulting with the VPR and the VPLA (or their designees)—whether the Allegation of Research Misconduct is sufficient to warrant an Investigation. An Investigation is warranted if the Inquiry demonstrates: 1) there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the instance(s) of alleged misconduct falls within the definition of Research Misconduct; and 2) the evidence indicates the Allegation of Research Misconduct may have merit.

The RIO will prepare a written draft Inquiry report that includes the following details:

Complainant’s name, title, and University affiliation;
Respondent’s name, title, and University affiliation;
A description of the substance of the Allegation of Research Misconduct;
The funding source of the research that is part of the Allegation of Research Misconduct;
A summary of the evidence reviewed during the Inquiry; and
The RIO’s conclusion and rationale as to whether or not an Investigation is warranted.

The RIO will provide the Respondent with a copy of the draft Inquiry report and may provide the Complainant with those portions of the draft report that address the Complainant’s role and opinions. The Respondent or Complainant may submit written comments to the RIO within 10 days of receiving a copy of the draft report. The RIO will consider any written comments from the Respondent and Complainant to the draft Inquiry report and modify the report, as appropriate, prior to producing a final report.

The RIO will transmit the final Inquiry report, including any comments to the draft report from the Respondent or Complainant, to the EVPP, VPR, VPLA, Complainant, Respondent, and the Respondent’s chair and dean (or their designee).

Time for Completion

The RIO will make every effort to complete the final Inquiry report within 60 days after initiating the Inquiry. The RIO may make a written extension request to the VPR outlining the reasons for an extension. The RIO’s request and the VPR’s decision regarding an extension will be recorded in the Inquiry file.

Conducting the Investigation

Initiation and Purpose of the Inquiry

The RIO will begin the Investigation within 30 days of notifying the EVPP that an Investigation is warranted.

The purpose of the Investigation is to explore the substance of the Allegation of Research Misconduct in detail and determine whether misconduct has occurred, by whom, and to what extent; and to determine whether there are additional instances of possible Research Misconduct that would justify broadening the scope of the Investigation.

Notice to the Respondent

In addition to providing the Respondent with the final Inquiry report, the RIO will also notify the Respondent in writing of any additional instances of possible Research Misconduct uncovered and pursued during the course of the Investigation. The RIO will also notify any additional Respondents in writing that may be identified.

Sequestration of Research Records

The RIO will take reasonable steps to sequester any additional relevant Research Records that were not sequestered during the Inquiry. The sequestration will occur before or at the time the Respondent is notified of the Investigation, whenever possible. The Respondent may receive copies or supervised access to any sequestered records if deemed appropriate by the RIO.

Appointing the Investigation Committee

Within 15 days of initiating the Investigation, the RIO—after consulting with the VPR, VPLA, and the appropriate dean (or their designees)—will appoint 3 individuals, including a designated chair, to the Investigation committee. All committee members must have the necessary expertise to effectively interview the Complainant, Respondent, and other witnesses, and to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the alleged instances of Research Misconduct. Committee members may be scientists, subject matter experts, administrators, lawyers, or other qualified persons within or outside of the University. At least one panelist must be a UT Austin faculty member. Members of the Investigation committee may have also assisted in the earlier inquiry concerning the allegations.

All committee members must be impartial and have no real or apparent conflicts of interest with those involved in the case or regarding the subject matter of the case. The RIO will notify the Respondent of the proposed committee membership, and will provide the Respondent with 5 days to submit a written objection to any member due to real or apparent conflicts of interest. The RIO will determine—after consulting with the VPR, VPLA, and the appropriate dean (or their designees)—whether a conflict exists and, if so, replace the challenged member with a qualified alternate.

Investigation Committee Charge and First Meeting

The RIO will prepare a written charge to the committee that describes the substance of the Allegation of Research Misconduct and any related issues identified during the Inquiry, defines Research Misconduct, and identifies the Respondent. The charge will state that the committee is to evaluate the evidence and testimony of the Respondent, Complainant, and witnesses to determine whether, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, Research Misconduct occurred and, if so, to what extent, who was responsible, and its seriousness. The RIO shall provide the Complainant and Respondent a copy of the charge to the Investigation committee.

The RIO will convene the first meeting of the Investigation committee to review the charge, the Inquiry report, and the prescribed procedures and standards to conduct the Investigation, including the necessity for confidentiality and for developing a specific Investigation plan. The Investigation committee will be provided with a copy of this policy and any relevant external funding regulations.

Investigation Process

The Investigation will normally involve the examination of all relevant information including, but not limited to, relevant Research Records, computer files, proposals, manuscripts, publications, correspondence, memoranda, and phone call or meeting notes. The committee should, when possible, interview the Complainant, Respondent, and other individuals who might have information regarding any instance of alleged Research Misconduct being investigated. The RIO will ensure that any interviews conducted during the course of the Investigation are recorded or transcribed. Following an interview, the RIO will provide each interviewee with a copy of their recording or transcript and 10 days to submit written corrections, if any.

Investigation Report and Opportunity to Comment

With the RIO’s administrative assistance, the committee shall prepare a draft Investigation report for submission to the EVPP that includes the following:

Complainant’s name, title, and University affiliation;
Respondent’s name, title, and University affiliation;
Each committee member’s name, title, and University affiliation;
The specific instances of alleged Research Misconduct investigated;
The funding source of the research that was investigated;
The policies and procedures under which the Investigation was conducted;
A summary of the evidence reviewed by the committee and a list of any evidence in custody that was not reviewed and why;
A statement of findings regarding each allegation and the basis for the finding. A finding of Research Misconduct requires:

A significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community;
The misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

A list identifying any publications that need to be corrected or retracted; and
Any additional follow-up actions that may be necessary to correct the research or scholarly record.

The RIO will provide the Respondent with a copy of the draft Investigation report and copies of the evidence on which the report is based. The RIO may also provide the Complainant with those portions of the draft Investigation report that address the Complainant’s role and opinions. When providing the Respondent and Complainant with the draft Investigation report, the RIO will inform them of the confidentiality of the report and its contents. Within 10 days of receiving the draft Investigation report, the Respondent and Complainant may submit written comments regarding the report to the RIO.

The committee will consider any comments from the Respondent and Complainant to the draft Investigation report and modify the report, as appropriate, prior to producing a final report for submission to the EVPP. Any comments by the Respondent or Complainant to the draft Investigation report will be attached to the final Investigation report.

The RIO will submit the committee’s final report (with attached comments) to the VPLA for a review of its legal sufficiency prior to its submission to the EVPP. The RIO may return the report to the Investigation committee to consider any comments from the VPLA and resubmit the report for a review of its legal sufficiency.

Investigation Decision and Notification

Following the VPLA’s approval of the Investigation report’s legal sufficiency, the RIO will transmit the final report, the evidence reviewed, and any comments submitted by the Respondent and Complainant to the VPR and EVPP. The EVPP will make the final determination about whether to accept, reject, or request additional analysis regarding the committee’s Investigation report, findings, and recommended follow-up actions. If the EVPP’s determination differs from the Investigation committee’s, the EVPP will provide a detailed written explanation. The explanation should be consistent with the definition of Research Misconduct, the University’s policies and procedures, and the evidence reviewed and analyzed by the Investigation committee. Once the EVPP has rendered a final determination, the RIO will notify the Respondent and the Complainant in writing of the EVPP’s decision.

Time for Completion

The final report should be submitted to the EVPP within 120 days of the Investigation committee’s first meeting. Any extension of this period will be based on good cause, as determined by the VPR, and will be recorded in the Investigation file.

Final Actions

Following the EVPP’s determination, the EVPP will also notify the VPR and RIO in writing of any required follow-up actions. Such actions may include:

Correcting the Research Record as prescribed in the Investigation report;
Contacting the appropriate funding agency and ensuring institutional compliance with funding regulations;
Referring the matter to the VPR for any additional administrative actions within their purview; and/or
Referring the Respondent for institutional disciplinary action.

The EVPP’s determination as to whether or not Research Misconduct has occurred constitutes the final decision regarding the case and cannot be reversed, appealed, or modified; however, any Respondent may grieve the institutional disciplinary actions resulting from the Research Misconduct proceedings (see Section X. for the relevant institutional policies).

If the EVPP finds that the Respondent did not engage in Research Misconduct, the Respondent may request and receive appropriate assistance from the University in restoring the Respondent’s reputation.