Responsible University Office And Contact Person
To describe the University's expectations for the integrity of the Research conducted at the University as well as the policies and procedures to be followed in investigating Allegations of Misconduct in Research (Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing Research, or in reporting Research results).
Allegationmeans a disclosure of possible Research Misconduct through any means of communication. The disclosure may be by written or oral statement or other communication to the RIO. (42 CFR 93.201)
Bad Faith means a material and demonstrable failure to meet the standards for Good Faith set forth herein as a Complainant, a witness, an Inquiry Panel member, an Investigation Panel member, or the RIO. The context in which actions have occurred is a relevant and important factor to be taken into account in determining whether an individual has acted in Bad Faith.
Complainant means a Person who in Good Faith makes an Allegation of Research Misconduct. A Complainant need not be a member of the University community. (42 CFR 93.203)
Conflict of Interest means any personal, professional, or financial relationship that influences or reasonably would be perceived to influence the impartial performance of a duty assigned under this Policy by any of the following: a member of an Inquiry Panel, Investigation Panel, the RIO, the DO, the Provost or the President.
Counsel means lay or legal counsel secured by a Respondent to serve as an advisor to the Respondent in Misconduct Proceedings against the Respondent.
Evidence means any document, tangible item, or testimony offered or obtained during a Research Misconduct Proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact relevant to the Allegation at issue in that Misconduct Proceeding. This could include, depending on the Allegation, materials such as:
• Proposals, grant applications and comments thereon;
• Relevant Research data and related records;
• Laboratory notebooks and computer files;
• Telephone logs and memos of calls;
• Correspondence; or,
• Manuscripts, posters, publications, and tapes of oral presentations. (42 CFR 93.208)
Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. (42 CFR 93.103(a))
Falsification is 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. (42 CFR 93.103(b))
Good Faith as applied to a Complainant or witness, means having a belief in the truth of one's Allegation or testimony that a reasonable person in the Complainant's or witness's position could have based on the information known to the Complainant or witness at the time. An Allegation or cooperation with a Research Misconduct Proceeding is not in Good Faith if made with knowing or reckless disregard for information that would negate the Allegation or testimony. Good Faith as applied to an Inquiry Panel member, an Investigation Panel Member, the RIO or the DO, means cooperating with the Research Misconduct Proceeding by impartially carrying out the duties assigned under this Policy for the purpose of helping the University meet its responsibilities for research integrity. An Inquiry Panel member, an Investigation Panel member, or the RIO does not act in Good Faith if his or her acts or omissions in carrying out any such duty are dishonest or influenced by a Conflict of Interest. (42 CFR 93.210)
Intentionally means contemplating any result from a deliberate act as not unlikely to follow.
Inquiry means information gathering and initial fact finding to determine whether an Allegation warrants an Investigation.
Inquiry Panel means a group of at least three persons appointed to conduct an Inquiry.
Institutional Member means all University of Oregon faculty, staff or students.
Investigation means the formal, thorough examination and evaluation of all facts relevant to an Allegation to determine if Misconduct occurred and to assess its extent, gravity, and actual and potential consequences.
Investigation Panel means a group of at least three persons appointed to conduct an Investigation.
Knowingly means deliberately or consciously.
Misconduct means Fabrication, Falsification, Plagiarism, or any other practice that seriously deviates from practices commonly accepted in the discipline or in the academic and Research communities generally in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting Research. Misconduct does not include appropriative practices insofar as they accord with accepted standards in the relevant discipline. Misconduct does not include honest error or honest differences in the interpretation or judgment of Research data. In order for a finding of Misconduct to be made, the following three criteria must be met:
a. There must be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant Research community; and
b. The Misconduct must be committed Intentionally, Knowingly or Recklessly, and;
c. The Allegation must be proven by a Preponderance of the Evidence. (42 CFR 93.103, 104; 45 CFR 689.1, 2(c), DoD Instruction 3210.7 E2.1.4, 10)
Misconduct Proceeding means any proceeding under this Policy related to the review of an Allegation, including Preliminary Assessments, Inquiries, Investigations and internal appeals.
Misconduct Proceeding Record means (1) Evidence secured for any Misconduct Proceeding; (2) a record of the RIO's review of other documents, tangible items, and testimony received or secured by the RIO in connection with that Misconduct Proceeding but determined by the RIO to be irrelevant to the Allegation at issue in the Misconduct Proceeding or to duplicate Evidence that has been retained; (3) the Preliminary Assessment report or referral and final (not draft) documents produced in the course of preparing that report or referral, including any other documentation of a decision that an Inquiry is not warranted; (4) the Inquiry report, determination regarding Investigation, and final (not draft) documents produced in the course of preparing those documents, including any other documentation of a decision that an Investigation is not warranted; (5) the Investigation report, determination regarding Misconduct, and all records (other than drafts of the Investigation report and determination) in support of those documents, including the transcripts of each interview conducted during an Investigation; (6) the complete record of an internal appeal from a finding of Misconduct; and (7) the complete record of any challenge or review.
Person means any individual, corporation, partnership, institution, association, unit of government, or legal entity, however organized. (42 CFR 93.218)
Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. (42 CFR 93.103(c))
Preliminary Assessment means initial information gathering to determine whether there is credible Evidence to support further review of an Allegation and whether the Respondent's alleged conduct could constitute Misconduct or Unacceptable Research Practices.
Preponderance of the Evidence means proof by Evidence that, compared with that opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not. (42 CFR 93.219)
Policy means this policy concerning Allegations of Misconduct in Research.
Questionable Research Practices means practices that do not constitute Misconduct or Unacceptable Research Practices but that require attention because they could erode confidence in the integrity of Research.
Recklessly means disregard for or indifference to the consequences or risks of one's acts.
Research encompasses the scholarly production of knowledge. This includes a systematic experiment, study, evaluation, demonstration or survey designed to develop, interpret or contribute to general knowledge (basic research) or specific knowledge (applied research). Research may be conducted by: (1) a faculty member or other employee of the University as part of his or her non-instructional scholarly activities, or (2) a student in fulfillment of any independent study requirement at the University whose product is intended to be an original scholarly or creative work of potentially publishable quality (including, without being limited to, a master's project or thesis, or doctoral dissertation).
RIO means the University's Research Integrity Officer.
Research Record means the record of data or results from scholarly inquiry, including, without being limited to, Research proposals, laboratory records, both physical and electronic, progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal reports, journal articles, books and other publications of any kind in any media and any material in any media necessary to support the content of any such document, presentation, or publication.
Respondent means the person against whom an Allegation of Research Misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a Research Misconduct Proceeding. A Respondent must be an employee of the University or a student at the University, or must have been an employee or a student at the time the Misconduct allegedly occurred. (42 CFR 93.225)
Retaliation means an adverse action taken against an individual who has, in Good Faith, participated in a Misconduct Proceeding (as Complainant, witness, Inquiry Panel member, Investigation Panel member, Counsel, Advisor, or RIO) or otherwise cooperated in the review of an Allegation under this Policy, where there is a clear and causal link between the participation or cooperation and the adverse action. The context in which an adverse action has occurred, including its materiality, is a relevant and important factor to be taken into account in determining whether it constitutes Retaliation.
Sequestration means the process of securing Evidence.
Significant Departure means a marked divergence from standard practices.
Unacceptable Research Practices means practices that do not constitute Misconduct but that violate applicable laws, regulations, or other governmental requirements, or University rules or policies, of which the Respondent had received notice or of which the Respondent reasonably should have been aware, for proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting Research.
VPRGS means the University's Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies.
The University of Oregon is committed to supporting a research community that operates at the highest level of integrity. This commitment extends not only to supporting research that is conducted with high, technical quality but with the collegial, professional and ethical processes with which research is performed. As part of this commitment it is necessary to clarify actions that are not acceptable (e.g. constitute research misconduct) and the procedures that will allow both the unveiling of research misconduct and adequate safeguards against the potential damage caused by inappropriate accusations. With the goal of promoting research integrity, this policy defines (a) "research misconduct," (b) the steps for making an allegation of research misconduct, and (c) the steps for examining and acting on such allegations.
Professional misconduct is unacceptable in all forms. Research Misconduct is a specific type of professional misconduct that involves "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism." The need for formal processes for defining and acting on allegations of research misconduct include the following:
- Public trust is generated on the faith that conclusions are accurate to the best of our knowledge and ability. Academic honesty is critical to the reliability of the knowledge yet to be discovered.
- Defining a high expectation for research integrity establishes a community of scholarship that minimizes research misconduct.
- Universities receiving federal funds must comply with requirements promulgated by the federal agencies to ensure high integrity in the research process, and formal procedures for addressing instances of research misconduct.
- The right of the University to self-govern and self-regulate brings a responsibility to create clear procedures for defining and responding to research misconduct
Members at all levels of the academic community (students, postdoctoral fellows, faculty, and staff) have a responsibility to encourage high research integrity and report instances of what they, in good faith, believe to be a lack of integrity in scholarship and research. Examination of such a concern is a continuation of the search for intellectual truth, not a breach of collegiality. The University of Oregon seeks to emphasize education about ethical issues, to achieve consensus regarding good ethics, and to promote ethical research practices.
1 Portions of the Preamble text are adapted with permission from the Colorado State University Administrative Procedures for Research Misconduct. Portions of the Policy are adapted from the federal Office for Research Integrity sample policy, and Michigan State University's policy.
|A.||This Policy applies to Allegations of Research Misconduct and Research Misconduct involving:|
|B.||This Policy does not apply to authorship or collaboration disputes.|
|C.||This Policy applies only to Allegations of Research Misconduct that occurred within the timeframes set forth by the applicable agency regulations.|
The University accepts the following definition established by the U.S. Public Health Service: "Misconduct means Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing Research, or in reporting Research results. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. Falsification is 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. 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 of opinion.
In order for a finding of Misconduct to be made, the following three criteria must be met:
|E.||Confidentiality: Disclosure of the identity of Respondents and Complainants in Research Misconduct Proceedings is limited, to the extent possible, to those who need to know, consistent with a thorough, competent, objective and fair Research Misconduct Proceeding.|
Except as may otherwise be prescribed by applicable law, confidentiality must be maintained for any records or Evidence from which Research subjects might be identified. Disclosure is limited to those who have a need to know to carry out a Research Misconduct Proceeding.
Roles, Rights and Responsibilities
The Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies (VPRGS) or designee is responsible for the University's compliance with applicable federal regulations, including but not limited to notifying sponsoring agencies at the appropriate time and keeping the University's Inquiry Panels and Investigation Panels well informed with respect to the compliance requirements placed upon them. In the event the VPRGS or designee has a potential Conflict of Interest with respect to a particular Allegation of Misconduct, the President or designee shall determine who shall be responsible for review of the particular Allegation.
For purposes of this Policy, the Assistant Vice President, Responsible Conduct of Research (AVPRCR), is the designee of the VPRGS for all Research Integrity Officer (RIO) responsibilities, unless the VPRGS makes another designation.
|A.||Deciding Official (DO)means the institutional official who makes final determinations on Allegations of Research Misconduct and any institutional administrative actions; the Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies serves as the Deciding Official. The Deciding Official will not be the same individual as the Research Integrity Officer and should have no direct prior involvement in the institution's Inquiry, Investigation, or allegation assessment. A DO's appointment of an individual to assess Allegations of Research Misconduct, or to serve on an Inquiry Panel or Investigation Panel, is not considered to be direct prior involvement. The DO appoints the chair and members of the Inquiry Panel and Investigation Panel, ensures that those panels are properly staffed and ensures that there is expertise appropriate to carry out a thorough and authoritative evaluation of the Evidence. The DO also determines whether each person involved in handling an Allegation of Research Misconduct has an unresolved personal, professional, or financial Conflict of Interest and shall take appropriate action, including recusal, to ensure that no person with such conflict is involved in the Research Misconduct Proceeding. In cooperation with other institutional officials, the DO will take all reasonable and practical steps to protect or restore the positions and reputations of Good Faith Complainants, witnesses, and panel members and counter potential or actual retaliation against them by Respondents or other Institutional Members. In the event the Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies or designee has a potential Conflict of Interest with respect to a particular Allegation of Misconduct, the President or designee shall determine who shall be responsible as DO for review of the particular Allegation.|
The DO will receive the Inquiry report and after consulting with the RIO and/or other institutional officials, decide whether an Investigation is warranted under the criteria in 42 CFR § 93.307(d), 7 CFR § 3022.3 or other applicable regulation. Any finding that an Investigation is warranted must be made in writing by the DO and must be provided to the relevant federal agency, together with a copy of the Inquiry report meeting the requirements of 42 CFR § 93.309, 45 CFR § 689.4(b)(2)(d), 7 CFR § 3022.6, DoDI 3210.7 E4.1.5 or other applicable regulation within 30 days of the finding. If it is found that an Investigation is not warranted, the DO and the RIO will ensure that detailed documentation of the Inquiry is retained for at least 7 years after termination of the Inquiry, so that the federal agencies may assess the reasons why the institution decided not to conduct an Investigation.
The DO will receive the Investigation report and, after consulting with the RIO and/or other institutional officials, decide whether Research Misconduct occurred and, if so, decide what, if any, institutional administrative actions are appropriate. The DO shall ensure that the final Investigation report, the findings of the DO and a description of any pending or completed administrative actions are provided to the correct federal agency, as required by regulation (42 CFR 93.315, 45 CFR 689.4(b)(5), 7 CFR 3022.10, DoDI 3210.7 E4.1.7).
|B.|| Research Integrity Officer (RIO)means the institutional official responsible for: (1) assessing Allegations of Research Misconduct to determine if they fall within the definition of Research Misconduct, are covered by 42 CFR § 93, 45 CFR § 689, 7 CFR § 3022, DoDI 3210.7 and other applicable regulations, and warrant an Inquiry on the basis that the Allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential Evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified; and (2) overseeing Inquires and Investigations. These responsibilities include the following duties related to Research Misconduct Proceedings:|
|C.|| Complainant: The Complainant is responsible for making Allegations in Good Faith, maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating with the Inquiry and Investigation. As a matter of good practice, the Complainant should be interviewed at the Inquiry stage, given the transcript or recording of the interview, and have the opportunity to correct and resubmit the transcription. The Complainant must be interviewed during an Investigation, be given the transcript or recording of the interview, and be able to correct and resubmit the transcription. The Complainant is entitled to:|
|D.||Respondent: The Respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating with the conduct of an Inquiry and Investigation. The Respondent is entitled to:|
The Respondent should be given the opportunity to admit that Research Misconduct occurred and that he/she committed the Research Misconduct. With the advice of the RIO and/or other institutional officials, the Deciding Official may terminate the institution's review of an Allegation that has been admitted, if the institution's acceptance of the admission and any proposed settlement is approved by the appropriate federal agency.
As provided by regulation and this Policy, the Respondent will have the opportunity to request an institutional appeal.
Other Policy Principles:
|A.||Responsibility to Report Misconduct|
All Institutional Members will report observed, suspected, or apparent Research Misconduct to the RIO. If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of Research Misconduct, he or she may meet with or contact the RIO to discuss the suspected Research Misconduct informally, which may include discussing it anonymously and/or hypothetically. If the circumstances described by the individual do not meet the definition of Research Misconduct, the RIO will refer the individual or Allegation to other officials with responsibility for resolving the problem.
At any time, an Institutional Member may have confidential discussions and consultations about concerns of possible Misconduct with the RIO and will be counseled about appropriate procedures for reporting Allegations.
|B.||Cooperation with Research Misconduct Proceedings|
Institutional Members will cooperate with the RIO and other institutional officials in the review of Allegations and the conduct of inquiries and Investigations. Institutional Members, including Respondents, have an obligation to provide Evidence relevant to Research Misconduct Allegations to the RIO and other institutional officials.
|C.||Protecting Complainants, Witnesses, and Panel Members|
Institutional Members may not retaliate in any way against Complainants, witnesses, or panel members. Institutional Members should immediately report any alleged or apparent retaliation against Complainants, witnesses or panel members to the RIO. The RIO will review the Allegation of retaliation and, if necessary, work with other institutional officials to make all reasonable and practical efforts to counter any potential or actual retaliation and protect and restore the position and reputation of the person against whom the retaliation is directed.
|D.||Protecting the Respondent|
As requested and as appropriate, the RIO and other institutional officials shall make all reasonable and practical efforts to protect or restore the reputation of persons alleged to have engaged in Research Misconduct, but against whom no finding of Research Misconduct is made.
During the Research Misconduct Proceeding, the RIO is responsible for ensuring that Respondents receive all the notices and opportunities provided for in 42 CFR Part 93 and the policies and procedures of the University. Respondents may consult with legal Counsel or a personal advisor (who is not a principal or witness in the case) to seek advice and may bring the Counsel or the personal adviser to interviews or meetings on the case. However, Respondent's Counsel or personal advisor presence at interviews or meetings is restricted to advising (as opposed to representing or responding on behalf of) the Respondent.
|E.||Sequestering the Evidence|
At the time of or before beginning an Inquiry, the RIO must make a Good Faith effort to notify the Respondent(s) in writing, if the Respondent is known. If the Inquiry subsequently identifies additional Respondents, they must be notified in writing. On or before the date on which the Respondent is notified, or the Inquiry begins, whichever is earlier, the RIO must take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the Research Records and Evidence needed to conduct the Research Misconduct Proceeding, inventory the records and Evidence and sequester 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 such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments. The RIO may consult with federal agencies for advice and assistance in this regard.
The manner in which sequestration shall occur will to the maximum extent possible, while complying with 42 CFR 93.307, 7 CFR § 3022.11(b),(c) and other applicable federal regulations, protect the confidentiality of the Respondent and his or her ability to continue his or her program of Research
|F.||Interim Administrative Actions and Notification to Agencies of Special Circumstances|
Throughout the Research Misconduct Proceeding, the RIO will review the situation to determine if there is any threat of harm to public health, federal funds and equipment, or the integrity of the Public Health Service (PHS) or other federally supported Research process. In the event of such a threat, the RIO will, in consultation with other institutional officials and appropriate federal agencies, take appropriate interim action to protect against any such threat. Interim action might include additional monitoring of the Research process and the handling of federal funds and equipment, reassignment of personnel or of the responsibility for the handling of federal funds and equipment, additional review of Research data and results or delaying publication. The RIO shall, at any time during a Research Misconduct Proceeding, notify the appropriate federal agency immediately if he/she has reason to believe that any of the following conditions exist:
|G.||Maintaining Records for Federal Agency Review|
The RIO must maintain and provide to appropriate federal agencies upon request "records of Research Misconduct Proceedings." Unless custody has been transferred to a federal agency or a federal agency has advised in writing that the records no longer need to be retained, records of Research Misconduct Proceedings must be securely maintained for 7 years after completion of the proceeding or the completion of any federal agency proceeding involving the Research Misconduct Allegation. The RIO is also responsible for providing any information, documentation, Research Records, Evidence or clarification requested by a federal agency to carry out its review of an Allegation of Research Misconduct or of the institution's handling of such an Allegation.
|H.||Completion of Cases; Reporting Premature Closures to Federal Agencies|
Generally, all Inquiries and Investigations will be carried through to completion and all significant issues will be pursued diligently. The RIO must notify the appropriate federal agency in advance if there are plans to close a case at the Inquiry, 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, except: (1) closing of a case at the Inquiry stage on the basis that an Investigation is not warranted; or (2) a finding of no Misconduct at the Investigation stage, which must be reported to the appropriate federal agency, as prescribed in this Policy.
|I.||Respondent Termination or Resignation Prior to Completing Inquiry or Investigation|
The termination of the Respondent's institutional employment, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an Allegation of possible Research Misconduct has been reported, will not preclude or terminate the Research Misconduct Proceeding or otherwise limit any of the institution's responsibilities.
If the Respondent, without admitting to the Misconduct, elects to resign his or her position after the institution receives an Allegation of Research Misconduct, the assessment of the Allegation will proceed, as well as the Inquiry and Investigation phases, as appropriate based on the outcome of the preceding steps. If the Respondent refuses to participate in the process after resignation, the RIO, DO and any Inquiry or Investigation Panel will use their best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the Allegations, noting in the report the Respondent's failure to cooperate and its effect on the Evidence.
Exclusions and Special Situations:
|A.||Interim Administrative Actions and Notifying Federal Agencies of Special Circumstances: Throughout the Research Misconduct Proceeding, the RIO will review the situation to determine if there is any threat of harm to public health, federal funds and equipment, or the integrity of the PHS supported Research process. In the event of such a threat, the RIO will, in consultation with other institutional officials and federal agencies, take appropriate interim action to protect against any such threat. Interim action might include additional monitoring of the Research process and the handling of federal funds and equipment, reassignment of personnel or of the responsibility for the handling of federal funds and equipment, additional review of Research data and results or delaying publication. The RIO shall, at any time during a Research Misconduct Proceeding, notify federal agencies immediately if he/she has reason to believe that any of the following conditions exist:|
|E.||Determination Regarding Investigation|
|H.||Determination Regarding Misconduct|
|J.||Final Resolution and Outcome|
|K.||Unacceptable or Questionable Research Practices|
|M.||Protecting Participants in Misconduct Proceedings |
UO Faculty, students, staff, and any person who, at the time of the alleged research misconduct, was employed by, was an agent of, or was affiliated by contract or agreement with the University of Oregon.
All Institutional Members (faculty, staff and students) proposing, reviewing, conducting, or reporting Research results for basic or applied Research under the auspices of the University.
Appendix A: Information on Submitting an Allegation of Research Misconduct
Upholding the integrity of research is essential to the mission of research, and to the public investment and trust that supports it. The University of Oregon takes seriously its obligation to maintain an environment of scholarly integrity and to respond promptly to allegations of research misconduct. This information sheet is intended to provide helpful information to individuals who are considering making an allegation of research misconduct.
What is Research Misconduct?
For the purposes of this policy research misconduct is defined as:
- Plagiarism, the use of another person's words, results, processes or ideas without giving appropriate credit,
- Fabrication, the making up of data or results and recording or reporting them,
- Falsification, the manipulating of research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record, or,
- Any other practice that seriously deviates from practices commonly accepted in the discipline or in the academic and research communities.
Research misconduct can occur at all stages of engaging in research, including proposing, performing, reviewing or reporting research.
What is not Research Misconduct?
- Honest errors or differences of opinion do not constitute research misconduct.
- Authorship disputes concerning whether one is first, second, or third author does not constitute research misconduct. Research misconduct may have occurred if you feel your name has been left off the paper altogether, and your ideas, processes, results or words have been used without appropriate credit.
- Unacceptable research practices may not rise to the level of research misconduct but do violate applicable laws, regulations, or other governmental requirements, or University rules or policies.
- Questionable research practices do not rise to the level of research misconduct or unacceptable research practices, but do require university attention because they could erode the confidence in the integrity of university research.
- Harassment or relational issues do not constitute research misconduct, but are taken seriously by the university. You can discuss these types of concerns with _____.
Who can I ask for help on what is or is not research misconduct?
The university Research Integrity Officer (RIO).
Who can make an allegation of research misconduct?
Any person has the right to bring forward an allegation of research misconduct. That includes any member of the University (faculty, student or staff) as well as anyone from outside the university.
Who do I tell about an allegation of research misconduct?
All allegations of research misconduct need to be communicated to the Research Integrity Officer (RIO), whose contact information is at the end of this document. You can discuss an allegation in person, by phone, in writing, or by any other means of communication. You can also contact the RIO to have a general discussion without having to make an allegation.
Why is it important that an allegation is made in good faith?
An allegation of research misconduct is made in good faith when the person making the allegation sincerely believes in the truth of the information on which the allegation is based and at the time the allegation is made. An allegation of research misconduct can have a serious impact on the career of the person against whom the allegation is made, so it is important that a person choosing to make an allegation give the matter careful thought before proceeding.
What is an allegation made in bad faith and what are the consequences?
An allegation of research misconduct is made in bad faith if the person making the allegation knows about or recklessly disregards information that would negate the allegation. Knowingly bringing forward an allegation in bad faith could result in any of the disciplinary actions and procedures listed in the student code of conduct.
What happens when I make an allegation of research misconduct?
When the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) receives an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO will ask you to come in and discuss the allegation. The RIO will ask you questions about information that supports the allegation, your relation (student, employee, etc) to the individual against whom the allegation is being made, and if there are others who may know about information related to the allegation. The RIO will tell you about your rights and responsibilities, including that if you ask; the RIO must take all reasonable steps to keep your identity confidential. Once you have made an allegation, you are also obligated to keep the process confidential, and to not discuss it with anyone other than the RIO. The RIO, not you, is responsible for looking into the allegation you have made. In most cases the RIO's initial, informal review should be completed within 15 business days. The RIO will then let you know whether the allegation will be reviewed formally.
What kind of evidentiary support must there be to determine research misconduct?
At a minimum, there must be documents, records, lab notebooks, manuscripts or drafts, etc. (for details please reference the definition of Evidence on page two of policy) that show the alleged misconduct. You may or may not have all the records that would be reviewed; however, there must be sufficient documentation or compelling reasons for an allegation to move from a discussion with the Research Integrity Officer to a more formal review process. A formal review process must find sufficient documentation supporting the allegation in order for a determination of misconduct to be made.
What could happen to me if I make an allegation of research misconduct?
When a person makes an allegation of research misconduct in good faith, they are entitled to have the university take all reasonable and practical steps to protect them from adverse actions (e.g., retaliatory actions) that can be directly linked to anyone involved in the informal or formal review of an allegation of research misconduct.
How do I contact the UO RIO?
The UO RIO's name and contact information is:
Associate Vice President for Research
Phone: (541) 346-4545
See Appendix A.
04/23/1990 Reviewed and Approval Recommended by President's Staff
10/23/1996 Revised and Approval Recommended by President's Staff
10/05/2009 Emergency Revisions Approved by the Senior Vice President and Provost, the Executive Leadership Team and the President
02/08/2010 Policy number revised from 2.000 to 09.00.02 05/22/2011 Interim Policy - Revision approved by President Richard Lariviere <signed document> Reviewed by ELT (4/11/11) Endorsed by UO Science Council (5/4/2010) To be reviewed by UO Senate in Fall of 201102/24/2012 Update- Interim Policy Reviewed and Approved as Current Policy 03/07/2012 Reviewed and Approved by UO Senate 03/26/2012 Reviewed and Approved by Robert Berdahl, UO Interim President <signed document>