|
OF RECORD
Click here to
view/print this policy |
The
Senate Committee
on Academic Freedom and Responsibility
(SCAFR) recently reviewed the proposed
revisions to the Procedures Regarding
Misconduct in Research that had been
drafted by a faculty committee
chaired by David Manning and reviewed
by the Senate Committee on the Faculty (Almanac May
7, 2002). SCAFR approved the document
with one change. Upon SCAFR's
recommendation, the
Senate Executive Committee approved the
following version at its meeting on
April 2, 2003. These
procedures become effective immediately
and supersede those published in Almanac
September 9, 1997.
-- Robert
Barchi, Provost -- Neal Nathanson, Vice Provost
for Research
Procedures
Regarding Misconduct in Research
Introduction
The
University relies on its faculty to establish and maintain
the highest standards of ethical practice in academic work
including research. Misconduct in research is forbidden and
represents a serious breach of both the rules of the University
and the customs of scholarly communities.
Although
instances of research misconduct are relatively rare, the
University has a responsibility to detect and investigate
possible misconduct and to resolve cases of possible misconduct
fairly and expeditiously.
The
primary responsibility for maintaining integrity in research
must rest with those who perform it. In light of this responsibility,
the University expects each faculty member:
a. To
maintain and further the highest standards of ethical practice
in research. Especially important are integrity in recording and
reporting results, care in execution of research procedures, and
fairness in recognition of the work of others.
b. To be
responsible for the integrity of the research carried out under his or
her supervision, no matter who actually performs the work or under what
circumstances.
c. To
accept that a claim of authorship implies a definable major contribution
to the work and an acceptance of responsibility for the methods and findings
of the work.
d. To
keep thorough and verifiable records of research and to insure that exact
copies of these records are preserved by the unit in which the work is
done.
e. To report
suspected research misconduct to the appropriate dean.
The University must also establish certain standards to assure
a healthy environment for research. These standards include procedures for
dealing with alleged research misconduct.
These procedures are applicable to members of the University
of Pennsylvania standing faculty, standing faculty-clinician-educator, associated
faculty, academic support staff, and emeritus faculty when acting as such.
Research
Misconduct Defined
Research
misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism,
or other serious deviation from accepted practices 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,
or results, or works without giving appropriate credit.
Serious
deviation from accepted practices includes but is not limited
to stealing, destroying, or damaging the research property
of others with the intent to alter the research record; and
directing or encouraging others to engage in fabrication,
falsification or plagiarism. As defined here, it is limited
to activity related to the proposing, performing, or reviewing
of research, or in the reporting of research results and
does not include misconduct that occurs in the research setting
but that does not affect the integrity of the research record,
such as misallocation of funds, sexual harassment, and discrimination,
which are covered by other University policies.
The
research record is the record of data or results that embody
the facts resulting from scientific inquiry, and includes,
but is not limited to, research proposals, laboratory records,
both physical and electronic, progress reports, abstracts,
theses, oral presentations, internal reports, and journal
articles.
Some
forms of misconduct, such as
failure to adhere to requirements for the protection of human
subjects or to ensure the welfare
of laboratory animals, are governed
by specific federal regulations and are subject to the oversight
of established University
committees. However, violations
involving failure to meet these requirements may also be covered
under this policy
or possibly by other University
policies when so determined by the responsible committees
or institutional officials.
Research
misconduct does not include honest error or differences of
opinion.
Findings
of Research Misconduct
A
finding of research misconduct requires that:
There
be a significant departure from accepted practices of the
relevant research community; and
The
misconduct be committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly;
and
The
allegation be proven by a preponderance of evidence.
Procedures
for Handling Alleged Research Misconduct
The
following procedures recognize the need to protect the rights
and reputations of all individuals, including those who are
alleged to have engaged in misconduct and those who report
the alleged misconduct. These procedures also recognize that
ethical standards are not only an individual obligation but
represent a responsibility to the institution, to scientific
communities, and to the public.
All
committees and parties to an inquiry or investigation have
the obligation to maintain maximum confidentiality throughout
the proceedings. Exceptions to this obligation are those
noted for the Dean and Provost in Section 4. All persons
concerned have the obligation to cooperate and furnish all
requested information. If any party refuses to do so, the
committees of inquiry and investigation will note this in
their reports to the Dean.
Charges
of misconduct must be resolved expeditiously in a fair and
objective manner, protecting the rights of the person or
persons against whom a complaint has been filed (the respondent),
the person or persons filing the complaint (the complainant),
and persons serving as informants or witnesses.
The
making of knowingly false or reckless accusations regarding
research misconduct violates acceptable norms of behavior
for members of the University community and may result in
formal charges being brought against the person making such
accusations under University procedures (e.g. Procedure Governing
Sanctions Taken Against Members of the Faculty).
1. Preliminary
Inquiry
1.1 Before
filing a complaint of research misconduct, an individual
is encouraged to review the matter with his or her Department
Chair, Dean, and/or University Ombudsman, to seek advice
from individuals he or she trusts, and through such consultation
to determine whether the matter should be pursued. Inquiry
into research misconduct should be initiated by written complaint
filed with the Dean of the School in which the respondent
has his or her primary appointment. The complainant can be
any individual, whether or not affiliated with the University.
To the extent possible, the complaint should be detailed,
specific and accompanied by appropriate documentation. Upon
receipt of the complaint, the Dean will notify the Provost.
The Dean and the Provost have the responsibility to protect
the position and reputation of the complainant and any informants
or other witnesses, and to protect these individuals from
retaliation, so long as their allegations were made in good
faith. The Provost will notify the Chair of the Faculty Senate
that a complaint has been filed and the nature of the complaint,
but will not identify either the complainant, any informant,
or the respondent, in order to preserve maximum confidentiality
at this very preliminary stage of inquiry.
1.2 Upon
receipt of a properly documented complaint, the Dean will
inform the respondent of the nature of the charges, making
every effort to avoid identifying the complainant or any
informant. The Dean will outline to the respondent, and to
the complainant, his or her rights and obligations by reference
to this and other relevant University procedures. The Dean
will take steps to secure all documents, data and other materials
that appear to be relevant to the allegations. The respondent
is obligated to cooperate fully in all such efforts. The
materials will be copied and the copies provided to the respondent.
The originals will be retained as specified in Section 4.12.
Every effort will be made to minimize disruption to the respondent's
research during this and subsequent phases of the inquiry
subject to Sections 4.4-4.7. The Dean will also appoint a
preliminary inquiry committee consisting of at least three
individuals, none of whom is a member of the same department
as, or a collaborator with, or has a conflict of interest
with the complainant or respondent. The members of the committee
should be unbiased and have appropriate backgrounds to investigate
the issues being raised. They may but need not be members
of the faculty of the University. Upon appointment of the
preliminary inquiry committee, the Dean will notify the complainant
and the respondent of the names of the committee members.
The Dean will also make every effort to protect the identities
of both complainant and respondent with respect to the larger
community. The appointment of the preliminary inquiry committee
will ordinarily be completed within two weeks of the receipt
of a properly documented complaint.
1.3 The
preliminary inquiry committee will gather information and
determine whether the allegation warrants a formal investigation.
The committee will then submit a written report of its findings
to the Dean with a copy to the Provost, the complainant and
the respondent. The report should state what evidence was
reviewed, summarize relevant interviews and include the committee's
recommendation, which will be decided by simple majority
of the committee; any dissenting opinion will be noted. This
report will ordinarily be submitted within 30 calendar days
of receipt of the written complaint by the Dean. The respondent
will be given the opportunity to make a written reply to
the report of the preliminary inquiry committee within 15
calendar days following submission of the report to the Dean.
Such reply will be incorporated by the Dean as an appendix
to the report. The entire inquiry process should be completed
within 45 calendar days of the receipt of a properly documented
complaint by the Dean unless circumstances clearly warrant
a delay as determined by the Dean in consultation with the
Provost. In such cases the record of inquiry will detail
reasons for the delay.
1.4 If
the report of the preliminary inquiry committee finds that
a formal investigation is not warranted, the Dean may (i)
drop the matter, (ii) not initiate a formal investigation,
but take such other action as the circumstances warrant,
or (iii), in extraordinary circumstances, nonetheless initiate
a formal investigation. The decision of the Dean will be
reviewed by the Provost, who will either concur or require
that it be changed. The decision and its review should be
completed within 25 calendar days of the receipt by the Dean
of the report (10 days following a response, if any). The
Dean will inform the concerned parties of the decision. In
the event that a formal investigation is not initiated, the
Dean and the Provost will, as appropriate, use diligent efforts
to restore the reputation of the respondent and to protect
the position and reputation of the complainant unless the
complaint was found not to be made in good faith. The Provost
will notify the Chair of the Faculty Senate that the case
has been dropped.
1.5 If
no formal investigation of the respondent is conducted, sufficient
documentation will be maintained for at least 3 years following
the inquiry to permit a later assessment of the reasons that
a formal investigation was not deemed warranted (see Section
4.12).
1.6 If
the report of the preliminary inquiry committee finds that
a formal investigation is warranted, or the Dean or Provost
decides the matter should be pursued through a formal investigation,
the Dean will initiate a formal investigation as provided
in Section 2. The Provost will inform both the Senate Consultation
Subcommittee and the appropriate government agency or source
funding the research, in writing, that a formal investigation
has been initiated and will identify the respondent to the
agency or source.
2. Formal
Investigation
2.1 To
initiate a formal investigation, the Dean will appoint a
formal investigation committee of not less than three individuals,
none of whom has been a member of the preliminary inquiry
committee but whose appointment will be subject to the same
provisions governing appointment of the preliminary inquiry
committee as described in Section 1.2. A majority of the
formal investigation committee must be members of the standing
faculty. One of the appointed members will be designated
Chair of the committee by the Dean. The formal investigation
will be initiated by the committee as soon as possible and
usually within 30 calendar days after the report of the preliminary
inquiry committee has been received by the Dean. The formal
investigation will be divided into four phases: i) investigation
and development of an initial factual record, ii) draft report
of the findings, iii) hearing, if requested, and iv) final
report of the findings. The Office of the General Counsel
will provide guidance in procedures appropriate to the case
and may have a representative present at any or all meetings
of the committee. The representative will not participate
directly in the proceedings except when and as requested
to do so by the committee.
2.2 Investigation
and development of an initial factual record. The formal
investigation committee will be provided with copies of the
complaint, the report of the preliminary inquiry committee
and any other materials acquired by the preliminary inquiry
committee during the course of its inquiry. The formal investigation
committee will undertake a thorough examination of the allegations,
including, without limitation, a review of all relevant research
data and proposals, publications, correspondence, and records
of communication in any form. Experts within or outside the
University may be consulted. The formal investigation committee
will also investigate any possible acts of research misconduct
by the respondent that come to light during its investigation,
and will include them in its findings. Whenever possible,
interviews will be conducted with the complainant and respondent,
as well as with others having information regarding the allegations.
Tapes will be made of all interviews and saved for reference.
Summaries of the interviews will be prepared, provided to
the interviewed party for comment or revision, and included
as part of the investigatory file. When appearing before
the committee the respondent and the complainant may each
be accompanied by an adviser, who may be a lawyer but who
may not participate directly in the proceedings except when
and as requested to do so by the committee. The committee
will not conduct formal hearings at this point. Except in
unusual cases, the respondent and the complainant will not
appear before the committee at the same time.
2.3 Draft
report of the findings. Following development of the initial
factual record, the formal investigation committee will prepare
and provide a written draft report of its proposed findings
to the respondent, to the complainant, and the Office of
General Counsel. The report will describe the allegations
investigated, how and from whom information was obtained,
the proposed findings and their basis, and will include texts
or summaries of the interviews conducted by the committee.
2.4 Hearing.
If the respondent contests any material finding of fact made
by the committee in the draft report, he or she may request
a hearing before the committee. The request must be made
to the committee in writing within 15 calendar days following
receipt of the draft report. Any such request must specify
findings the respondent asserts are erroneous, the basis
for the claimed error, identify each witness the respondent
may desire to examine at the hearing, and specify the purpose
for calling such witness and the nature of the testimony
expected. Upon receipt of such a request, the committee will
promptly schedule a hearing. The committee will use reasonable
efforts to secure the attendance at the hearing of any witness
requested by the respondent who may have information relevant
to the disputed finding of fact. The committee may also request
the attendance of witnesses in addition to those requested
by the respondent, in which case the respondent will be provided
with a list of these witnesses at the time the request is
made. At the hearing, the respondent and committee will each
have an opportunity to examine each witness. The respondent
may be accompanied by an advisor, who may be a lawyer but
may not participate directly in the proceedings except when
and as requested by the committee. The committee will have
full authority to determine all matters concerning the conduct
of the hearing, including the number of witnesses, the amount
of time allocated for questioning each witness, and the duration
of the hearing. The committee may require that it pose questions
on behalf of the respondent.
2.5 Final
report of the findings. Following completion of the hearing,
if any, the committee will submit a written final report
to the Dean with copies to the Provost, the complainant,
and the respondent. This report should describe the policies
and procedures under which the investigation was conducted,
how and from whom information was obtained, the allegations
investigated, the findings and the basis of the findings,
and should include texts or summaries of the interviews and
hearing, if any, conducted by the committe. The committee
will state that it finds the charge(s) made by the complainant
or otherwise emerging during the course of its proceedings
to be unsubstantiated or substantiated by a preponderance
of evidence. For each charge considered, the vote of a majority
of the committee will constitute the decision of the committee.
The vote will be recorded. If the vote is not unanimous,
a statement of any dissenting opinion will be included in
the report. If the committee finds that a violation of University
policy in addition to or other than research misconduct might
have been committed, a description of the possible violation
will be included for consideration by the Dean under other
procedures. The final report will ordinarily be submitted
within 90 days of the appointment of the formal investigation
committee. The respondent and complainant will each be permitted
to make a written reply to the Dean with a copy to the Provost
within 15 calendar days of submission of the report. The
Dean will ask the committee to respond in writing to any
replies from the respondent or complainant within 7 calendar
days. All such responses and replies will be incorporated
as appendices to the report of the formal investigation committee.
3. Adjudication
3.1 The
Dean will consider the final report and replies. If the Dean
in consultation with the Provost determines that there has
been procedural error that is likely to have affected the
committee's findings, or that any material finding is
unsupported by a preponderance of evidence, the Dean will
remand the matter to the committee for further proceedings.
Upon acceptance of the report by the Dean, the Provost will
report the outcome of the investigation to the Chair of the
Faculty Senate and the appropriate government agency or source
funding the research. The Provost will also provide a copy
of the report to the appropriate government agency or source
funding the research, as required. The entire formal investigation
process should be completed within 120 calendar days of its
initiation, unless circumstances clearly warrant a delay
as determined by the Dean in consultation with the Provost.
In such cases the reasons for a delay will be documented.
3.2 If
the final report of the formal investigation committee finds
the charges to be unsubstantiated, the Misconduct in Research
procedure will be terminated and the concerned parties will
be informed. The Dean and the Provost have the responsibility
to take an active role to repair any damage done to the reputation
of the respondent or the complainant (provided the complainant
acted in good faith), and to take appropriate action should
they determine that the accusation was knowingly or recklessly
false.
3.3 If
the report of the formal investigation committee finds the
charges against a faculty member to be substantiated, the
Dean in consultation with the Provost will take whatever
actions are appropriate to the level of intent of the misconduct,
the consequences of the behavior, and other aggravating and
mitigating factors in accordance with University procedures
and which consider the previous record of the respondent.
The Dean in consultation with the Provost will determine
whether there is substantial reason to believe that just
cause exists for suspension or termination, and will take
other steps as may be appropriate under the University's
Procedure Governing Sanctions Taken Against Members of the
Faculty. In any subsequent proceeding commenced under such
procedure, the final report of the formal investigation and
all replies and responses thereto will form part of the record
and be accorded appropriate weight.
4. Other
Actions and Procedures
4.1 The
Dean may designate the Associate or Vice Dean if a member
of the Standing Faculty to represent him or her in the administration
of any case of misconduct. The Provost may similarly designate
the Deputy Provost, Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs,
or Vice Provost for Research if a member of the Standing
Faculty to represent him or her.
4.2 If
the respondent feels that any action of the Dean, preliminary
inquiry committee, or formal investigation committee violates
procedures set forth in this document or otherwise introduces
an unfair bias into the proceedings, he or she may submit
to the Dean, preliminary inquiry committee, or formal investigation
committee, respectively, in writing the nature of the action
and the reasons why the action may influence either the material
findings of fact or the conduct of the proceedings. The complaint
to the Dean or respective committee must be made promptly.
If the Dean or respective committee finds that the complaint
does not merit action, or if the respondent is not satisfied
with the nature of any corrective action, the respondent
may appeal to the Provost. The Provost will decide the matter
and will have the authority to take corrective action. Proceedings
will not be delayed during consideration of the respondent's
claim by the Provost unless the Provost determines that a
delay is essential for fair consideration.
4.3 Any
final action taken by the Dean under Section 3.3, and any
administrative action taken under Sections 4.4, 4.5, 4.6,
or 4.7 may be reviewed under other established University
grievance and appeal procedures to the extent such review
is within the stated jurisdiction of such procedures. All
other actions taken, proceedings conducted and reports prepared
under this procedure are not subject to review or consideration
under the Faculty Grievance Procedure.
4.4 The
Dean in consultation with the Provost will, during the course
of the inquiry or formal investigation, take administrative
action, as appropriate to protect the welfare of animal or
human subjects.
4.5 At
any time during the preliminary inquiry or formal investigation,
the Dean and Provost will immediately notify the relevant
funding agency(ies) if public health or safety is at risk;
if agency resources or interests are threatened; if research
activities should be suspended; if there is reasonable indication
of possible violations of civil or criminal law; if Federal
action is required to protect the interests of those involved
in the investigation; if the University believes the preliminary
inquiry or formal investigation may be made public prematurely
so that appropriate steps can be taken to safeguard evidence
and protect the rights of those involved; or if the research
community or public should be informed.
4.6 Subject
to Section 4.5, the Dean and Provost will, during the course
of the inquiry and formal investigation, take administrative
action, as appropriate to protect funds for sponsored research
and ensure the purpose of any external financial assistance.
4.7 The
Dean in consultation with the Provost will, during the course
of the inquiry and formal investigation, take administrative
action, as appropriate to ensure an acceptable working environment
for individuals under the direction of, or working with the
respondent. The Provost and Dean will also notify individuals,
programs, or institutions of allegations or developments
that would necessitate immediate action in order to prevent
the likelihood of substantial harm.
4.8 The
Chairs of the preliminary inquiry and formal investigation
committees will inform the Dean of any issues relevant to
Sections 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 arising during the course
of the proceedings.
4.9 Inadvertent
failure to tape any interview under Section 2.2 will not
be considered a procedural defect requiring correction.
4.10 If
the final report of the formal investigation committee finds
charges have been substantiated, the Provost will take appropriate
steps to correct any misrepresentations resulting from the
misconduct in question upon acceptance of the report by the
Dean. Collaborators, and other affected individuals, organizations,
or institutions will be informed. If misrepresented results
have been submitted for publication, already published, or
otherwise disseminated into the public domain, appropriate
journals and other sponsors will be notified.
4.11 If
the Dean is the complainant or respondent or in any other
way has a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict
of interest, he or she is obligated to remove him or herself
from the case during the preliminary inquiry and formal investigation
and to transfer to the Provost responsibility for carrying
out these procedures. In carrying out the latter the Provost
will assume the role specified for the Dean and the President
that specified for the Provost in sections 1, 2, 3, and 4.
4.12 Complete
records of all relevant documentation on cases treated under
the provisions of this policy will be preserved by the offices
of the Dean and the Provost in a manner consistent with the
Protocols for the University Archives and Record Center.
In cases adjudicated under Section 3, records will be preserved
for a minimum of ten years following completion of all proceedings.
Records of cases which are dropped under the provisions of
sections 1.4 or 3.1 will be preserved for at least three
years following the initial inquiry, but not as part of the
personnel record of the respondent.
4.13 The
University may act under these procedures irrespective of
possible civil or criminal claims arising out of the same
or other events. The Dean, with the concurrence of the Provost,
after consulting with the general counsel, will determine
whether the University will, in fact, proceed against a respondent
who also faces related charges in a civil or criminal tribunal.
If the University defers proceedings, it may subsequently
proceed irrespective of the time provisions set forth in
these procedures.
Almanac, Vol. 49, No. 32, May 6, 2003
|
|