Administrative Procedures for Allegations of Research Misconduct Executive Summary (see WSU Policy 2101 for Details)

I. 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 1.Sexual harassment (see Wright Way Policy § ) 2.Misappropriations of funds (Section , Ohio Revised Code) 3.Failure of compliance with policies governing human subjects/lab animals 4.Failure to comply with guidelines/conditions of external sponsors or university

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

II. Definitions of Players (continued) II.4. Deciding Officer (DO) [at WSU Provost] Is consulted by the RIO 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 of an 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

II. Definitions of Players (continued) II.6. Investigative Committee (InvC) Composed of an 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

III. Phases of Process III. 1.Assessment Phase § 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 § ab c. Preliminary fact finding to determine whether an Investigation is warranted; involves the RIO, DO, and Inquiry Committee III.3. Investigation Phase § § 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.

Complainant (WSU status or independent) Allegation of misconduct Respondent: WSU institutional member Research Integrity Officer (RIO) VP for Research Conducts Assessment Phase (1 week): Does complaint fall within scope of policy? If yes, notify DO Deciding Officer (DO) Provost Concurs with RIO 1 2 Proceed if warranted to B. Inquiry Phase 3 A. Assessment Phase (1 week) IV. Flow Chart of Phases and Actions

Research Integrity Officer (RIO) Sequesters records if necessary Notifies respondent Appoints & charges InqC Inquiry Committee (InqC) Fact finding; interviews complainant, respondent, witnesses Votes and forwards report to RIO Deciding Officer (DO) Determines whether an investigation is warranted 6 B. Inquiry Phase (total time: 60 days) 4 Research Integrity Officer (RIO) Gives respondent opportunity to comment on/appeal report Submits, with respondent’s comments, final report to DO 7 Proceed if warranted to C. Investigation Phase 8 5

Research Integrity Officer (RIO) Sequesters records (if not done yet) Notifies respondent (no later than 15 days after start of investigation) Appoints & charges InvC Investigation Committee: InvC Fact finding; interviews complainant, respondent, witnesses Votes and forwards report to RIO Deciding Officer (DO) Determines appropriate actions Notifies respondent, complainant, others. 9 C. Investigation Phase (total time: 120 days) 8 Research Integrity Officer (RIO) Gives respondent opportunity to comment on/appeal report (30 days) Submits, with respondent’s comments, final report to DO 10

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