Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson (RMCC) Before an Allegation is filed, the RMCC:

1. COMPLAINANT FLOWCHART Key Complainant = the person making the allegation Dean = Dean of the Respondent’s Department DO = Deciding Official OIG = Office of Inspector General ORI = Office of Research Integrity Respondent = the accused RM = Research Misconduct RMC = Research Misconduct Committee RMCC = Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson RMP = Research Misconduct Policy Complainant Complainant = the person alleging Research Misconduct. Confidentiality: all individuals involved in the case are expected to maintain and preserve privacy consistent with the law for all parties to the procedures (including respondent(s), complainant(s), the Research Misconduct Committee members, Deciding Official, and witness(es)). During the investigation, all University personnel with information regarding the allegations will afford the affected individual(s) (including respondents, complainants, and research subjects) confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible. Personnel acting pursuant to the Research Misconduct process will not disclose complainant's identity to respondent. However, anonymity cannot be guaranteed. Though the University limits disclosure of complainant’s identity to those who need to know to the extent possible, the University cannot stop respondent from learning complainant’s identity by inference (e.g. if there are only so many people in a position to posses the knowledge necessary to make an allegation). Complainant seeks informal advice. Has ten (10) days to inform RMCC if going to file allegation. Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson (RMCC) Before an Allegation is filed, the RMCC: gives informal advice to any person seeking advice about suspected research misconduct; shall refer the matter to appropriate offices or officials if such a matter does not involve research misconduct but does involve some other kind of policy violation; may file an allegation on his/her own if a complainant seeking such informal advice decides not to file and there is sufficient cause and evidence to warrant inquiry.

2. may file allegation on own Complainant files written allegation Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson (RMCC) If there is a conflict of interest with the RMCC, allegation should be submitted to the Dean of the department of the accused (Respondent). If the Dean is conflicted out, the Complainant should submit the allegation to the Senior VP for Academic Affairs, Colleen Hegranes. Informal Consultation RMCC and Dean (of the Department of the Respondent) informally consult with Complainant and notifies him/her of the Research Misconduct Policy process. Inquiry Report After the Informal Consultation and notice is given, the RMCC and the Dean submit the Inquiry Report to the Deciding Official (DO). The RMCC and Dean should attempt to complete the report in 30 days. The RMCC notifies the Respondent and Complainant of the Inquiry Report by giving them copies of the Inquiry Report and waiting 5 days for them to comment. Any identifying information regarding complainant must be redacted from respondent's copy. Complainant. May comment on Inquiry Report w/in 5 days of notice Deciding Official (DO), Colleen Hegranes Determines whether sufficient evidence of possible Research Misconduct to justify an investigation. If No Reasonable Basis for Investigation, notifies Respondent and Complainant. If Complainant requests re-review in writing within 5 days of notice of closure, may re-open investigation within 30 days of appeal. If re-opens investigation, gives notice to Respondent and Complainant. Inquiry Report submitted to the Deciding Official by RMCC and Dean

3. If DO decides investigation warranted, then, within thirty(30) days, Investigation begins and RMCC appoints Research Misconduct Committee Research Misconduct Committee Chair (RMCC) Receives and considers any written objection to an RMC Member for bias or conflict of interest if filed by Complainant or Respondent w/in 5 days of Respondent receiving notice of RMC membership list. The Research Misconduct Committee Chair will determine whether to replace the challenged member with a qualified substitute. Complainant The RMCC will notify complainant of the names of the members of the Research Misconduct Committee. Complainant may submit to the RMCC a written objection of any member of the committee based on an active conflict of interest (e.g. a Committee member is an academic advisoror faculty member in a student complainant's major, or a department chair within a faculty member's department, etc.) within five (5) days of receiving the notification. RMC Interviews Preliminary Investigation Report RMC Drafts the Preliminary Investigation Report which reviews all the info considered by the RMC, states detailed evidence that supports or refutes each allegation in the charge, and states a conclusion on whether each allegation is Research Misconduct. • Complainant Interviewed by RMC. May comment on recordings/transcripts of his/her interview within five (5) days of receiving recording or transcript of interview. RMCC RMCC gives a copy of the RMC's Preliminary Investigation Report to Respondent and Complainant. Complainant's identity redacted from Respondent's copy. Informs Respondent and Complainant of the Preliminary Report's confidentiality and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure confidentiality (e.g. requesting signed confidentiality statement or requiring one to go to the Chairperson's office to view the report). Complainant May comment in writing on Preliminary Investigation Report within five (5) working days of receiving notice. Submits comments to RMC.

4. Research Misconduct Committee (RMC). receives and must consider any comments to Preliminary Investigation Report RMC drafts the complete Investigation Report which, along with Respondent and Complainant comments, is submitted to DO. DO consults with RMCC and then issues decision. DO, Colleen Hegranes, If the decision differs from that of the Research Misconduct Committee, then DO explains in written detail the basis for her different decision. The DO's explanation should be consistent with the definition of Research Misconduct, University policies and procedures, and the evidence reviewed and analyzed by the Committee. After issuing decision, notifies in writing Respondent and Complainant of the decision.

5. DEAN FLOWCHART Key Complainant = the person making the allegation Dean = Dean of the Respondent’s Department DO = Deciding Official OIG = Office of Inspector General ORI = Office of Research Integrity Respondent = the accused RM = Research Misconduct RMC = Research Misconduct Committee RMCC = Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson RMP = Research Misconduct Policy If someone seeks informal advice regarding Research Misconduct and the Research Misconduct Chair is not conflicted out, the Dean should refer the inquirer to the Chair. Dean is informed of allegation by Research Misconduct Committee Chair (RMCC) Dean (of the department of the Respondent) Confidentiality: all individuals involved in the case are expected to maintain and preserve privacy consistent with the law for all parties to the procedures (including respondent(s), complainant(s), the Research Misconduct Committee members, Deciding Official, and witness(es)). During the investigation, all Universitypersonnel with information regarding the allegations will afford the affected individual(s) (including respondents, complainants, and research subjects) confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible. Personnel acting pursuant to the Research Misconduct process will not disclose complainant's identity to respondent. If the RMCCis conflicted out, the Complainant files directly with the Dean, unless the Dean is conflicted out as well. Conflict of Interest If the RMCC is conflicted out, the Dean assumes all the responsibilities of the RMCC. SEE the RMCC Flowchart. If the Dean is conflicted out, the Complainant should file with Senior VP for Academic Affairs, Colleen Hegranes. RMCC assists

6. Inquiry The Inquiry must be completed within sixty (60) calendar days from the day the inquiry is initiated unless circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If the inquiry takes longer than sixty (60) days to complete, the inquiry record must include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the sixty (60)-day period. If the inquiry identifies additional respondents, the RMCC and Dean must notify them. • Informal Consultation • RMCC and Dean informally consult with Respondent and Complainant. • Notify Complainant of: • The Research Misconduct Policy process; • Notify Respondent of: • Nature of the Charges • Written statement of allegation • Copy of research misconduct policy • Explain research misconduct process • Summary of evidence if allegation based on extensive documentation • Warns Respondent that uncooperative behavior may lead to recommendation thatinvestigation justified • Ask for docs/names of who might help clear the claim against Respondent • Respondent has supervised access to all evidence held by RMC • Respondent has the responsibility to: • inform the RMCC of his/her preliminary explanation • Provide all evidence relevant to the allegation • Respondent has a right to: • Seek counsel (legal or otherwise) • Protection from false accusations RMCC assists • Inquiry Report • After the Informal Consultation and notice is given, the RMCC and the Dean submit the Inquiry Report to the Deciding Official (DO).The purpose of the Inquiry Reportis to determine whether an allegation may be true and eliminate frivolous, unjustified, or clearly mistaken allegations. The Inquiry Report recommends whether further investigation is warranted or a closing of the case. The Inquiry Report must include: • Name and position of the person(s) against whom the allegations have been made, • General nature of the allegations, • Basis for recommending that the alleged actions warrant an investigation, • Any comments on the report by the respondent or complainant, • And PHS support including, if applicable, grant applications, contracts, publications listing PHS support, and PHS application or grant number(s) involved.

7. Inquiry Report Cont’d If there is an admission of Research Misconduct, the Inquiry Report recommends sanctions and is forwarded to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). The RMCC and Dean should attempt to complete the report in 30 days. The RMCC notifies the Respondent and Complainant of the Inquiry Report by giving them copies of the Inquiry Report and waiting 5 days for them to comment. Any identifying information regarding complainant must be redacted from respondent's copy.

8. DECIDING OFFICIAL (DO), COLLEEN HEGRANES, FLOWCHART DECIDING OFFICIAL (DO), COLLEEN HEGRANES, FLOWCHART Key Complainant = the person making the allegation Dean = Dean of the Respondent’s Department DO = Deciding Official OIG = Office of Inspector General ORI = Office of Research Integrity Respondent = the accused RM = Research Misconduct RMC = Research Misconduct Committee RMCC = Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson RMP = Research Misconduct Policy Inquiry Report. After receiving an allegation of Research Misconduct and conducting an inquiry, the Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson (RMCC) and the Dean of the department of the Respondent submit to the DO an Inquiry Report which recommends whether further investigation warranted by eliminating frivolous, unjustified, or clearly mistaken allegations. Key Complainant = the person making the allegation Dean = Dean of the Respondent’s Department DO = Deciding Official OIG = Office of Inspector General ORI = Office of Research Integrity Respondent = the accused RM = Research Misconduct RMC = Research Misconduct Committee RMCC = Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson RMP = Research Misconduct Policy Inquiry Report. After receiving an allegation of Research Misconduct and conducting an inquiry, the Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson (RMCC) and the Dean of the department of the Respondent submit to the DO an Inquiry Report which recommends whether further investigation warranted by eliminating frivolous, unjustified, or clearly mistaken allegations. • Deciding Official (DO), Colleen Hegranes, • Confidentiality: all individuals involved in the case are expected to maintain and preserve privacy consistent with the law for all parties to the procedures (including respondent(s), complainant(s), the Research Misconduct Committee members, Deciding Official, and witness(es)). During the investigation, all Universitypersonnel with information regarding the allegations will afford the affected individual(s) (including respondents, complainants, and research subjects) confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible. Personnel acting pursuant to the Research Misconduct process will not disclose complainant's identity to respondent. • DO Must: • Determine whether sufficient evidence of possible Research Misconduct to justify an investigation. • If the DO determines that an investigation is warranted, s/he must put the finding in writing. • If the Deciding Official determines than an investigation is not warranted, s/he must state so, along with reasons why, in writing. The Deciding Official’s written determination shall be forwarded to the Research Misconduct Committee Chair in order for it to be made part of the records. • If No Reasonable Basis for Investigation, notifies Respondent and Complainant. • If Complainant requests re-review in writing within 5 days of notice of closure, may re-open investigation within 30 days of appeal. If re-opens investigation, gives notice to Respondent and Complainant • Deciding Official (DO), Colleen Hegranes, • Confidentiality: all individuals involved in the case are expected to maintain and preserve privacy consistent with the law for all parties to the procedures (including respondent(s), complainant(s), the Research Misconduct Committee members, Deciding Official, and witness(es)). During the investigation, all Universitypersonnel with information regarding the allegations will afford the affected individual(s) (including respondents, complainants, and research subjects) confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible. Personnel acting pursuant to the Research Misconduct process will not disclose complainant's identity to respondent. • DO Must: • Determine whether sufficient evidence of possible Research Misconduct to justify an investigation. • If the DO determines that an investigation is warranted, s/he must put the finding in writing. • If the Deciding Official determines than an investigation is not warranted, s/he must state so, along with reasons why, in writing. The Deciding Official’s written determination shall be forwarded to the Research Misconduct Committee Chair in order for it to be made part of the records. • If No Reasonable Basis for Investigation, notifies Respondent and Complainant. • If Complainant requests re-review in writing within 5 days of notice of closure, may re-open investigation within 30 days of appeal. If re-opens investigation, gives notice to Respondent and Complainant Complainant (person making allegation) may request re-review of decision to close the case. Complainant (person making allegation) may request re-review of decision to close the case. Notice to RMCC If Investigation warranted and forwards written determination to RMCC. Notice to RMCC If Investigation warranted and forwards written determination to RMCC.

9. Investigation Report The RMCC appoints the Research Misconduct Committee (RMC) which conducts an investigation and drafts the complete Investigation Report which it then Forwards by to DO DO Must: After consultation with Research Misconduct Chairperson, issues a decision. If the decision differs from that of the Research Misconduct Committee, then DO explains in written detail the basis for her different decision. The DO's explanation should be consistent with the definition of Research Misconduct, University policies and procedures, and the evidence reviewed and analyzed by the Committee. After issuing decision, notifies in writing Respondent and Complainant of the decision. Notice to Respondent must not contain complainant's identity. Decides whether to notify law enforcement agencies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals in which false reports may have been published, collaborators of respondent in work or other relevant parties. If Research Misconduct found, then decides what disciplinary action to take within 15 days of receiving the report and gives written notice and reasons to Respondent. If Research Misconduct is not found, the Deciding Official will consult the respondent to determine what actions, if any, should be taken to ensure that the researcher's reputation is protected or restored. The Decisional Official will implement appropriate actions, including issuing statements of exoneration, if required. Regardless if Research Misconduct found, discuss with Respondent the appropriateness and desirability of notifying other individuals or agencies about the outcome.

10. RESPONDENT FLOWCHART Key Complainant = the person making the allegation Dean = Dean of the Respondent’s Department DO = Deciding Official OIG = Office of Inspector General ORI = Office of Research Integrity Respondent = the accused RM = Research Misconduct RMC = Research Misconduct Committee RMCC = Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson RMP = Research Misconduct Policy Respondent (the accused) Confidentiality: all individuals involved in the case are expected to maintain and preserve privacy consistent with the law for all parties to the procedures (including respondent(s), complainant(s), the Research Misconduct Committee members, Deciding Official, and witness(es)). During the investigation, all Universitypersonnel with information regarding the allegations will afford the affected individual(s) (including respondents, complainants, and research subjects) confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible. Personnel acting pursuant to the Research Misconduct process will not disclose complainant's identity to respondent. Inquiry If the inquiry identifies additional respondents, the RMCC and Dean must notify them. • Informal Consultation • Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson (RMCC) and Dean (of the department of the Respondent) informally consult with Respondent. • Notify Respondent of: • Nature of the Charges • Written statement of allegation • Copy of research misconduct policy • Explain research misconduct process • Summary of evidence if allegation based on extensive documentation • Warns Respondent that uncooperative behavior may lead to recommendation that investigation justified • Ask for docs/names of who might help clear the claim against Respondent • Respondent has supervised access to all evidence held by RMC • Respondent has the responsibility to: • Inform the RMCC of his/her preliminary explanation • Provide all evidence relevant to the allegation • Respondent has a right to: • Seek counsel (legal or otherwise) on his/her own • Protection from false accusations

11. Respondent's Admission If the Respondent admits Research Misconduct, then s/he is asked to sign a statement attesting to the occurrence and extent of the research misconduct. • Inquiry Report • After the Informal Consultation and notice is given, the RMCC and the Dean submit the Inquiry Report to the Deciding Official (DO).The purpose of the Inquiry Reportis to determine whether an allegation may be true and eliminate frivolous, unjustified, or clearly mistaken allegations. The Inquiry Report recommends whether further investigation is warranted or a closing of the case. The Inquiry Report must include: • the name and position of the person(s) against whom the allegations have been made, • the general nature of the allegations, • the basis for recommending that the alleged actions warrant an investigation, • any comments on the report by the respondent or complainant, • and PHS support including, if applicable, grant applications, contracts, publications listing PHS support, and PHS application or grant number(s) involved. • If there is an admission of Research Misconduct, the Inquiry Report recommends sanctions and is forwarded to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). • The RMCC and Dean should attempt to complete the report in 30 days. • The RMCC notifies the Respondent and Complainant of the Inquiry Report by giving them copies of the Inquiry Report and waiting 5 days for them to comment. Any identifying information regarding complainant must be redacted from respondent's copy. Respondent. May comment on Inquiry Report w/in 5 days of notice Inquiry Report submitted to the Deciding Official by RMCC and Dean Deciding Official (DO), Colleen Hegranes Determines whether sufficient evidence of possible Research Misconduct to justify an investigation. If No Reasonable Basis for Investigation, notifies Respondent and Complainant. If Complainant requests re-review in writing within 5 days of notice of closure, may re-open investigation within 30 days of appeal. If re-opens investigation, gives notice to Respondent and Complainant.

12. If DO decides investigation warranted,then, within 30 days of such determination, RMCC appoints Research Misconduct Committee and gives notice to Respondent. • Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson (RMCC). • Redacts complainant's identity from any material given to Respondent. • Before the investigation begins, notifies in writing the Respondent of: • Research project involved • Specific allegations • Definition of Research Misconduct • Identity of federal funds involved • List of names of RMC members • Opportunity for • Challenges to the RMC members for bias or conflict of interest • Counsel's assistance • Respondent to be interviewed • Present evidence • Comment on draft investigation report • Respondent's obligation to cooperate • Provision protecting complainant against retaliation • Copy of the inquiry report (with complainant's identity redacted) • Copy of the University’s Research Misconduct policies and procedures • Either a copy or a reference to Title 42 Part 93 of the Code of Federal Regulations • Any new subject matter if RMCC determines such notice is necessary • Any new allegations of research misconduct within a reasonable amount of time of decisionto pursue allegations • Receives and considers any written objection to an RMC Member for bias or conflict of interest if filed by Respondent w/in 5 days of Respondent receiving notice of RMC membership list. The Research Misconduct Committee Chair will determine whether to replace the challenged member with a qualified substitute. • Notifies any additional respondents if RMCC determines such notice is necessary • Gives the RMC's Preliminary Report's conclusion to Respondent and Complainant. Informs • Respondent and Complainant of the Preliminary Report's confidentiality and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure confidentiality (e.g. requesting signed confidentiality statement • or requiring one to go to the Chairperson's office to view the report).

13. Respondent may submit to the RMCC an objection for bias/conflict of interest (e.g. a Committee member is an academic advisoror faculty member in a student complainant's major, or a department chair within a faculty member's department, etc.) of an RMC member in writing within five (5) days of receiving notice. RMC Interviews • Respondent Interviewed by RMC. May comment on recordings/transcripts of his/her interview within five (5) days of receiving recording or transcript of interview. Preliminary Investigation Report Research Misconduct Committee (RMC) drafts the Preliminary Investigation Report which reviews all the info considered by the RMC, states detailed evidence that supports or refutes each allegation in the charge, and states a conclusion on whether each allegation is Research Misconduct. RMCC RMCC gives a copy of the RMC's Preliminary Investigation Reportto Respondent and Complainant. Complainant's identity redacted from Respondent's copy. Informs Respondent and Complainant of the Preliminary Report's confidentiality and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure confidentiality (e.g. requesting signed confidentiality statement or requiring one to go to the Chairperson's office to view the report). Respondent May comment in writing on Preliminary Investigation Report within five (5) working days of receiving notice. Submits comments to RMC. Research Misconduct Committee (RMC). receives and must consider any comments to Preliminary Report RMC drafts a complete Investigation Report which , along with Respondent and Complainant comments, is submitted to DO. DO consults with RMCC and then issues decision.

14. DO, Colleen Hegranes, If the decision differs from that of the Research Misconduct Committee, then DO explains in written detail the basis for her different decision. The DO's explanation should be consistent with the definition of Research Misconduct, University policies and procedures, and the evidence reviewed and analyzed by the Committee. After issuing decision, notifies in writing Respondent and Complainant of the decision. If Research Misconduct found, then decides what disciplinary action to take within 15 days of receiving the report and gives written notice and reasons to Respondent. If Research Misconduct is not found, the Deciding Official will consult the Respondent to determine what actions, if any, should be taken to ensure that the researcher's reputation is protected or restored. The Decisional Official will implement appropriate actions, including issuing statements of exoneration, if required. Regardless if Research Misconduct found, discuss with Respondent the appropriateness and desirability of notifying other individuals or agencies about the outcome. RMCC informs al parties that all inform cannot be released unless and until allegations result in a finding of Research Misconduct and final discipline is imposed; or as required by federal or state law.

15. RESEARCH MISCONDUCT COMMITTEE (RMC) FLOWCHART Key Complainant = the person making the allegation Dean = Dean of the Respondent’s Department DO = Deciding Official OIG = Office of Inspector General ORI = Office of Research Integrity PHS = Public Health Service (e.g. NIH, FDA, CDC, etc.) Respondent = the accused RM = Research Misconduct RMC = Research Misconduct Committee RMCC = Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson RMP = Research Misconduct Policy Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson (RMCC) appoints members of Research Misconduct Committee. RMCC may remove members for bias/conflicts of interest if a request for removal filed by Respondent, Complainant, or a Committee Member. • Research Misconduct Committee (RMC) • Confidentiality: all individuals involved in the case are expected to maintain and preserve privacy consistent with the law for all parties to the procedures (including respondent(s), complainant(s), the Research Misconduct Committee members, Deciding Official, and witness(es)). During the investigation, all Universitypersonnel with information regarding the allegations will afford the affected individual(s) (including respondents, complainants, and research subjects) confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible. Personnel acting pursuant to the Research Misconduct process will not disclose complainant's identity to respondent. • If a member of the Committee believes that she or he has a conflict of interest with the respondent or complainant, she or he may file a written request stating her/his reasons to recuse herself or himself from the Committee with the Committee Chairperson. The Chairperson then determines whether to approve the request. • The RMC is a fact-finding entity with significant influence on the decision maker. • Committee has odd # of members and may be composed of scientists, subject matter experts, administrators, lawyers, or other qualified persons from inside or outside the University. The Committee shall be comprised of and limited to: two (2) persons from the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs Advisory Committee, one (1) person from the Institutional Review Board, one (1) person from the Faculty Grievance Committee, one (1) person who is a staff member, and one (1) student. • In making its ultimate recommendation of whether there was Research Misconduct, the RMC: • Places the Burden of Proof on the University to support its conclusions and findings by a preponderance of the evidence; • Considers whether falsification, fabrication, misappropriation or plagiarism occurred in the proposing, conducting, or reporting of research or whether and why there was a serious deviation from accepted practices in the research community at the time the alleged misconduct was committed; • Considers whether there is sufficient evidence of intent and the prohibited act. To be research misconduct, such actions mustdepart from the accepted practices of the relevant;

16. Research Misconduct Committee (RMC) Cont’d • research community and be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. Evidence of research misconduct includes : • respondent having research records and destroying them; • having the opportunity to maintain the records but not doing so; or • maintaining records and failing to produce them in a timely manner; • Considers whether the Respondent presented substantial evidence of honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data such that RM cannot be proven by preponderance of the evidence • First Meeting & Interviews • The RMC holds its first meeting with the Chairperson. Then the RMC conducts interviews for which: • Documents and research data are reviewed and questions prepared in advance ofthemeeting; • The Committee appoints one person to lead each interview; • The Committee deliberates over any significant questions arising during the interview via a recess without the interviewee present; • Each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding anyrelevant aspects of the investigation is interviewed; • The interview is tape-recorded and transcribed; • Each witness has the opportunity to respond to inconsistencies between his/hertestimony, evidence, or other testimony subject to reasonable steps to maintain confidentiality of testimony of the Respondent and otherwitnesses ; and • Recordings or transcripts of each interview are given to each respective interviewee who may then comment on them. • The Committee gives summaries or transcripts of each interview to each • respective interviewee who may comment. Interviewees may comment on recordings/transcripts of each's interview within five (5) days of receiving recording or transcript of interview

17. InvestigationReport • Then the RMC drafts the Preliminary Investigation Report which: • reviews all information considered by the Committee; • states detailed evidence that supports or refutes each allegation in the charge; and • states a conclusion on whether each allegation constitutes Research Misconduct. • The RMC considers any comments made by the Respondent and Complainant, who have 5 days to comment in writing on the Preliminary Report, and then drafts the complete Investigation Report which may include: • Background, Chronology of events, Funding agency if applicable; • Overview of investigatory process; • Overview of investigation ; • Conclusion; • Recommended actions; or • Attachments (copies of all significant documents references in the report) • The following information must be included in the Investigation Report: • Allegations. Describe the nature of the allegations of research misconduct; • PHS support. Describe and document the PHS support, including, for example, any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS support; • Institutional charge. Describe the specific allegations of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation; • Policies and procedures. If not already provided to ORI with the inquiry report, include the institutional policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted; • Research records and evidence. Identify and summarize the research records and evidence reviewed, and identify any evidence taken into custody but not reviewed; • Statement of findings. For each separate allegation of research misconduct identified during the investigation, provide a finding as to whether research misconduct did or did not occur, and if so— • Identify whether the research misconduct was falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism, and if it was intentional, knowing, or in reckless disregard; • Summarize the facts and the analysis which support the conclusion and consider the merits of any reasonable explanation by the respondent; • Identify the specific PHS support; • Identify whether any publications need correction or retraction; • Identify the person(s) responsible for the misconduct; and • List any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with non-PHS Federal agencies; and • Comments. Include and consider any comments made by the respondent and complainant on the draft investigation report.

18. InvestigationReport Cont’d The Committee then forwards the complete Investigation Report along with Respondent and Complainant's Comments to the Decisional Official The RMC then forwards the Investigation Report to the respondent. If there are multiple Respondents, then the Committee forwards all relevant parts of the report to each relevant Respondent. Complainant (person making allegation) & Respondent (the accused) May comment in writing on Preliminary Report within five (5) working days of receiving notice. Submits comments to RMC. Respondent(s) Deciding Official (DO)

19. RESEARCH MISCONDUCT COMMITTEECHAIR (RMCC) FLOWCHART Key Complainant = the person making the allegation Dean = Dean of the Respondent’s Department DO = Deciding Official OIG = Office of Inspector General ORI = Office of Research Integrity Respondent = the accused RM = Research Misconduct RMC = Research Misconduct Committee RMCC = Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson RMP = Research Misconduct Policy ANNUAL REPORT The RMCC must file an annual report with the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) which contains information specified by ORI on the institution's compliance with §93 of Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Complainant (person making allegation) seeks informal advice. Has ten (10) days to inform RMCC if going to file allegation. Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson (RMCC) Confidentiality: all individuals involved in the case are expected to maintain and preserve privacy consistent with the law for all parties to the procedures (including respondent(s), complainant(s), the Research Misconduct Committee members, Deciding Official, and witness(es)). During the investigation, all Universitypersonnel with information regarding the allegations will afford the affected individual(s) (including respondents, complainants, and research subjects) confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible. Personnel acting pursuant to the Research Misconduct process will not disclose complainant's identity to respondent. Before an Allegation is filed, the RMCC: gives informal advice to any person seeking advice about suspected research misconduct; shall refer the matter to appropriate offices or officials if such a matter does not involve research misconduct but does involve some other kind of policy violation; may file an allegation on his/her own if a complainant seeking such informal advice decides not to file and there is sufficient cause and evidence to warrant inquiry. Complainant files written allegation

20. Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson (RMCC) • If there is a conflict of interest with the RMCC, allegation should be filed with the Dean of the department of the accused (Respondent). If the Dean is conflicted out, the Complainant should file with the Senior VP for Academic Affairs, Colleen Hegranes. • Confidentiality: all individuals involved in the case are expected to maintain and preserve privacy consistent with the law for all parties to the procedures. During the investigation, • all University personnel with information regarding the allegations will afford the affected individual(s) confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible. • RMCC's ongoing responsibilities include: • Document all activity once allegation received • Assure all involved privacy will be maintained to maximum extent possible • On or before the date the Respondent is notified of the allegations, locate secure, and inventory all originals of all data and materials if relevant to case • Maintain record of inquiry for at least seven (7) years apart from • Respondent's personnel file • Take reasonable steps to minimize damage to reputations due to inaccurate reports if privacy breached • RMCC notifies: • The appropriate Dean • IACUC if vertebrate animals are involved • IRB if human subjects are involved Dean (of Dept of Respondent)assists • Inquiry • The Inquiry must be completed within sixty (60) calendar days from the day the inquiry is initiated unless circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If the inquiry takes longer than sixty (60) days to complete, the inquiry record must include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the sixty (60)-day period. On or before the date of the Informal Consultation with the Respondent, the RMCC notifies the Director of Human Resources of: • that an Inquiry under the Research Misconduct Policy has begun; • the name of the respondent and complainant; and • the confidentiality of the respondent and complainant's identity If the inquiry identifies additional respondents, the RMCC and Dean must notify them. Informal Consultation • RMCC and Dean informally consult with Complainant and notifies him/her of: • The Research Misconduct Policy process

21. Inquiry • RMCC and Dean informally consults with Respondent and notifies him/her of: • Nature of the Charges • Written statement of allegation • Copy of research misconduct policy • Explain research misconduct process • Summary of evidence if allegation based on extensive documentation • Warns Respondent that uncooperative behavior may lead to recommendation that investigation justified • Ask for docs/names of who might help clear the claim against Respondent • Respondent has supervised access to all evidence held by RMC • Respondent has the responsibility to: • Inform the RMCC of his/her preliminary explanation • Provide all evidence relevant to the allegation • Respondent has a right to: • Seek counsel (legal or otherwise) • Protection from false accusations • If the Respondent admits Research Misconduct, then s/he is asked to sign a statement attesting to the • occurrence and extent of the research misconduct. Dean assists • Inquiry Report • After the Informal Consultation and notice is given, the RMCC and the Dean submit the Inquiry Report to the Deciding Official (DO).The purpose of the Inquiry Reportis to determine whether an allegation may be true and eliminate frivolous, unjustified, or clearly mistaken allegations. The Inquiry Report recommends whether further investigation is warranted or a closing of the case. The Inquiry Report must include: • the name and position of the person(s) against whom the allegations have been made, • the general nature of the allegations, • the basis for recommending that the alleged actions warrant an investigation, • any comments on the report by the respondent or complainant, • and PHS support including, if applicable, grant applications, contracts, publications listing PHS support, and PHS application or grant number(s) involved. • If there is an admission of Research Misconduct, the Inquiry Report recommends sanctions and is forwarded to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). • The RMCC and Dean should attempt to complete the report in 30 days. • The RMCC notifies the Respondent and Complainant of the Inquiry Report by giving them copies of the Inquiry Report and waiting 5 days for them to comment. Any identifying information regarding complainant should be redacted from respondent's copy. Any identifying information regarding complainant must be redacted from respondent's copy.

22. Respondent (the accused) andComplainant (person making allegation) May comment on Inquiry Report w/in 5 days of notice. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) Any admission of Research Misconduct is forwarded to ORI. If the Universityplans to terminate an inquiry or investigation for any reason, the Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson shall submit a report of such planned termination, including a description of the reasons for such termination, to the ORI, which will then decide whether further investigation should be undertaken. DO, Colleen Hegranes, The RMCC submitsthe Inquiry Report to the Deciding Official (DO). RMCC receives decision from DO. If DO decides Inquiry does not justify investigation, RMCC notifies the Director of Human Resources. If the DO determines that an investigation is warranted, then Investigation must begin within 30 days of such determination • RMCC • Before the investigation begins, notifies in writing the Respondent of: • Research project involved • Specific allegations • Definition of Research Misconduct • Identity of federal funds involved • List of names of RMC members • Opportunity for: • Challenges to the RMC members for bias or conflict of interest • Counsel's assistance • Respondent to be interviewed • Present evidence • Comment on draft investigation report • Respondent's obligation to cooperate • Provision protecting complainant against retaliation • Copy of the inquiry report (with complainant's identity redacted) • Copy of the University’s Research Misconduct policies and procedures • Either a copy or a reference to Title 42 Part 93 of the Code of Federal Regulations • Any new subject matter if RMCC determines such notice is necessary • Any new allegations of research misconduct within a reasonable amount of time of decision to pursue allegations • If after the inquiry, the Deciding Official determines that an investigation is warranted, then, no later than the date on which the investigation begins, the Research Misconduct Committee Chair must give written notice to the ORI and provide a written finding by the Deciding Official and a copy of the inquiry report. • The Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson shall report promptly to the head of the appropriate funding agency incidents of alleged or apparent misconduct that are judged to warrant investigation.

23. RMCC Cont’d • The RMCC must notify ORI of any facts that may be relevant to protect public health, Federal funds and equipment, or the integrity of the PHS supported research process. If ORI requests any of the following, the RMCC shall provide such material: • The institutional policies and procedures under which the inquiry was conducted; • The research records and evidence reviewed, transcripts or recordings of any interviews, • and copies of all relevant documents; and • The charges for the investigation to consider. • Notifies ORI if any of the following arise: • The health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect humanor animal subjects; • HHS resources or interests are threatened; • Research activities should be suspended; • There is a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law; • Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding; • The institution believes the research misconduct proceeding may be made public • prematurely so that HHS may take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved; and • The research community or public should be informed. • Appoints members to the Research Misconduct Committee (RMC) which has an odd # of members. The Committee shall be comprised of and limited to: two (2) persons from the Office of Research andSponsored • Programs Advisory Committee, one (1) person from the Institutional Review Board, one (1) person from the Faculty Grievance Committee, one (1) person who is a staff member, and one (1) student. • Prepares the charge which describes allegations and any issues found in the inquiry. • Receives and considers any written objection to an RMC Member for bias or conflict of interest if filed by Complainant or Respondent w/in 5 days of Respondent receiving notice of RMC membership list. • Notifies any additional respondents if RMCC determines such notice is necessary. • Notifies the Director of Human Resources that Inquiry has proceeded to Investigation. • If the investigation cannot be finished w/in 120 days of its initiation, files an Interim Report with the ORI and requests an extension from ORI explaining reason for delay, an outline of what needs to be done, and an estimated date of completion. • Gives the RMC's Preliminary Investigation Report's conclusion to Respondent and Complainant. Informs Respondent and Complainant of the Preliminary Report's confidentiality and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure confidentiality (e.g. requesting signed confidentiality statement or requiring one to go to the Chairperson's office to view the report).

24. Complainant may submit a written objection to any member of the committee based on an active conflict of interest (e.g. a Committee member is an academic advisoror faculty member in a student complainant's major, or a department chair within a faculty member's department, etc.) within five (5) days of receiving the notification. Respondent may file bias/conflict of interest request to the RMCC regarding RMC member in writing and within 5 days of receiving notice of RMC membership. RMCC At RMC First Meeting: Reviews the charge with the RMC; Discusses allegations and procedures for investigation; Assists the RMC with organizing the investigation; and Answers questions. • First Meeting of the Research Misconduct Committee • Preliminary Investigation Report After RMC Conducts interviews and investigation, • RMC Drafts the Preliminary Investigation Report which reviews all the info considered by the RMC, states detailed evidence that supports or refutes each allegation in the charge, and states a conclusion on whether each allegation is Research Misconduct. RMCC RMCC gives a copy of the RMC's Preliminary Reportto Respondent and Complainant. Complainant's identity redacted from Respondent's copy. Informs Respondent and Complainant of the Preliminary Report's confidentiality and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure confidentiality (e.g. requesting signed confidentiality statement or requiring one to go to the Chairperson's office to view the report). Complainant May comment in writing on Preliminary Report within five (5) working days of receiving notice. Submits comments to RMC. Research Misconduct Committee (RMC). receives and must consider any comments to Preliminary Investigation Report and drafts the complete Investigation Report which along with Respondent and Complainant's comments is submitted to DO. DO,inconsultation with RMCC, makes decision RMCC

25. RMCC • After DO makes decision, RMCC: • Ensures compliance with all notice requirements for funding and sponsoring agencies; • Notifies all parties that no information can be released unless and until allegations result in a finding of Research Misconduct and final discipline is imposed except as required by federal or state law; • Maintains Records of Inquiry and Investigation including all documents reviewed by the Investigation Committee (also known as the Research Misconduct Committee), summaries of witness interviews, findings of the Investigative Committee.; Keeps Records of Inquiry and Investigation for at least seven (7) years after completion of Research Misconduct procedures or any Public Health Service proceeding involving Research Misconduct unless ORI has advised the institution in writing that it no longer needs to retain the records or custody of the records has been transferred to HHS;and Notifies federal or other funding agencies of outcome of inquiries, that investigation initiated, and the outcome of the investigation. Notifies the Director of Human Resources of outcome and closing of Research Misconduct proceeding. Notice to ORI Per Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations § 93.315, the Research Misconduct Committee Chair must: • Give ORI the Investigation Report; • State whether the Universityfound research misconduct and if so who committed the misconduct; • State whether the institution accepts the investigation’s findings; and • Describe any pending or completed administrative actions against the respondent(s).

26. TEMPORARY RESEARCH MISCONDUCT COMMITTEE CHAIR FLOW CHART Key Complainant = the person making the allegation Dean = Dean of the Respondent’s Department DO = Deciding Official OIG = Office of Inspector General ORI = Office of Research Integrity Respondent = the accused RM = Research Misconduct RMC = Research Misconduct Committee RMCC = Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson RMP = Research Misconduct Policy Decisional Officer Sr. VP for Academic Affairs, Colleen Hegranes appoints the Temporary Chair Temporary Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson. If the standing RMCC and Dean of the department under which the allegation arises are both conflicted out, then the Senior Vice President of Academic Affairs, Colleen Hegranes, appoints a temporary RMCC who then assumes all the responsibilities of the RMCC for the duration of the case. SEE RMCC flowchart for duties. Confidentiality: all individuals involved in the case are expected to maintain and preserve privacy consistent with the law for all parties to the procedures (including respondent(s), complainant(s), the Research Misconduct Committee members, Deciding Official, and witness(es)). During the investigation, all Universitypersonnel with information regarding the allegations will afford the affected individual(s) (including respondents, complainants, and research subjects) confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible. Personnel acting pursuant to the Research Misconduct process will not disclose complainant's identity to respondent.