Draft Proposal for Powerpoint

1. Administrative Procedures for Allegations of Research MisconductShort Version(see WSU Policy 2101 for Details) Draft Proposal for Powerpoint

2. Research Misconduct Policy Review Senate Executive Committee Input from: Senate Ad Hoc Subcommittee College of Engineering and Computer Science Input from: Faculty Members John M Emmert Colleen A Finegan Richard H. Bullock Patricia A Schiml-Webb Peter K Lauf, Chair College of Science & Mathematics Office of Student Judicial Services College of Liberal Arts College of Education & Human Servcies Provost Office Stephen Angle Administration Jack Bantle William Sellers Boonshoft School of Medicine AAUP Liaison Bill Rickert

3. Research Misconduct Policy I. Definitions of Covered /Not Covered Principles • IA. Covered Principles • 1. Ethical Research Conduct: • Honest and truthful data gathering and recording in theoretical and bench research with appropriate credit given to sources and collaborators • 2. Research Misconduct: • Deliberate self-serving act of distortion of the truth by any institutional member of the University (officials, tenured, untenured and adjunct faculty, students, graduate assistants, technicians), thus harming the process in IA/1. • Specifically: Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. • IB. Not Covered Principles • Sexual harassment (see Wright Way Policy § 4001.21) • Misappropriations of funds (Section 2921.41, Ohio Revised Code) • Failure of compliance with policies governing human subjects/lab animals • Failure to comply with guidelines/conditions of external sponsors or university

4. Research Misconduct Policy II. Definitions of Players • II.1. Complainant, any member (or non-member) of the academic community, including students and technical personnel making an allegation, true or false, of research misconduct against • II.2. Respondent, any institutional member of the University (officials, tenured, untenured and adjunct faculty, students, graduate assistants, technicians), accused by Complainant of deeds listed in I.A.2. • II.3. Research Integrity Officer (RIO) [at WSU VP for Research]. • Receives the allegation from II.1. about I.A.2 • Is guarantor of confidentiality of matters between II.1. and II.2. • Initiates Assessment Phase, and then, if necessary, Inquiry Phase by naming Inquiry Committee (InqC) • If necessary, opens Investigative Phase by naming Investigative Committee (InvC) • Takes administrative actions as a result of InvC vote • Informs DO [see II.4] who reports results of InvC to sponsor if required • Protects Complainant and restores reputation of Respondent if not guilty of research misconduct

5. Research Misconduct Policy II. Definitions of Players (continued) • II.4. Deciding Officer (DO) [at WSU Provost] • Is consulted by theRIO at various points in the process • Communicates final decisions to Respondent and Complainant; notifies sponsor(s) if required • Initiates administrative actions against Respondent if found guilty. These actions affect the position of the Respondent in the institution and may terminate external support. • II.5. Inquiry Committee (InqC) • Is composed ofan uneven number (at least 3) of members of the academic community • Receives charge from the RIO; purpose is to determine if an Investigation is warranted • Reviews all records, interviews the Complainant, Respondent, key witnesses • Makes final recommendation to the RIO by majority vote • Inquiry must be completed within 60 days

6. Research Misconduct Policy II. Definitions of Players(continued) • II.6. Investigative Committee (InvC) • Composed ofan uneven number (at least 5) of members of the academic community, including a veteran technical expert, a faculty familiar with the field of allegation and, depending on the case, a student. • Receives charge from the RIO and deals with charge; primary purpose is to develop a factual record by exploring the allegations in detail and examining the evidence in depth, leading to recommended findings on whether research misconduct has been committed, by whom, and to what extent • Reviews all records; interviews the Complainant, Respondent, key Witnesses • Makes final recommendation to the RIO by majority vote • Investigation must begin within 30 days of DO’s decision that an investigation is warranted, and be completed within 120 days

7. RMP Procedures Policy 2101. III. Phases of Process III. 1.Assessment Phase §2101.6.a. Determination by RIO, with concurrence of DO, whether an an allegation of research misconduct meets criteria for being covered by this policy; proceed to Inquiry Phase, if it does III.2. Inquiry Phase §2101.6.ab. - 2101.7.c. Preliminary fact finding to determine whether an Investigation is warranted; involves the RIO, DO, and Inquiry Committee III.3. Investigation Phase §2101.8.- §2101.9. RIO sequesters records (if needed), notifies Respondent, appoints and charges an Investigation Committee; the Investigation Committee conducts interviews that are transcribed, pursues all leads, and prepares a draft report for the RIO; the RIO sends report to Respondent with request for comments, and submits, with Respondent comments, final report to DO III.4. Outcomes. DO takes actions as specified in II.4. leading to either restoration of Respondent’s integrity, or administrative actions against Respondent including personnel actions and termination of research support by external funding agencies; protects Complainant against retributions. .

8. RMP: Flow Chart of Phases and Actions A. Assessment Phase (1 week) Respondent Academic Member of WSU Research Misconduct Complainant (WSU status or independent) Allegation of misconduct Research Integrity Officer (RIO) Vice President for Research Conducts Assessment Phase (1 week): Does complaint fall within scope of policy? If no, no further action. If yes, notify DO 1 2 Deciding Officer (DO) Provost Concurs with RIO 3 Proceed if warranted to B. Inquiry Phase

9. B. Inquiry Phase (total time: 60 days) Inquiry Committee Fact finding; interviews Complainant, Respondent, witnesses Votes and forwards report of findings and recommendations to RIO Research Integrity Officer (RIO) Sequesters records Notifies Respondent Appoints & Charges Inquiry Committee 4 5 Research Integrity Officer (RIO) Gives Respondent opportunity to comment on/appeal report Submits, with Respondents comments, final report to DO 6 Deciding Officer (DO) Determines whether an Investigation is warranted 7 8 Proceed if warranted to C. Investigation Phase

10. C. Investigation Phase (total time: 120 days) Research Integrity Officer (RIO) Sequesters records (if not done earlier) Notifies Respondent (no later than 15 days after start of investigation) Appoints & Charges Investigation Committee Investigation Committee Fact finding; interviews Complainant, Respondent, witnesses (interviews are transcribed) Votes and forwards report of findings and recommendations to RIO 8 9 Deciding Officer (DO) Determines appropriate actions to be taken Notifies Respondent, Complainant, others as req’d. Research Integrity Officer (RIO) Gives Respondent opportunity to comment on/appeal report (30 days) Submits, with Respondents comments, final report to DO 10