3.26 Policy and Procedures for Alleged Misconduct in Research, Creative Activity, or Scholarship

I.   Policy Statement

This statement on research integrity represents a code of ethics that Scripps College (“the College”) expects all active members of our academic community, faculty, staff, and students, to uphold in their research and scholarship. The College expects its members to faithfully adhere to the highest standards of integrity. Faculty and other research personnel are expected to uphold the College’s commitment to the ethical pursuit of research and scholarly work and to report concerns of suspected research misconduct. Research misconduct violates the relationship between a researcher and the College, funding agencies, and research participants; it damages the reputations of those involved and diminishes public trust in research and the scholarly community.

It is the policy of the College to respond to allegations of research misconduct in a fair, competent , and thorough manner, to assess and ensure compliance with regulatory guidelines, to carry inquiries and investigations through to completion, and to pursue diligently all significant issues.

II.   Definitions (definitions are specific to this policy)

Allegation of Research Misconduct:  A written or oral statement of possible research misconduct.

Complainant: The person(s) who makes an allegation of research misconduct.

Conflict of Interest: A conflict of interest is an event or situation or context ‘where personal, financial, political, and other interests conflict with professional, ethical, or legal obligations or duties. Although conflicts of all types are a normal part of human existence, some, known as COIs, involve conflicts between interests and duties.

Inquiry: Initial fact-finding, such as through individual interviews and document reviews, to determine whether an allegation of research misconduct warrants an investigation.

Investigation: The formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if research misconduct has occurred, and, if so, the determination of the responsible person(s) and the seriousness of the misconduct.

Preponderance of the Evidence: Proof by evidence that, compared with evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue (meaning the allegation of misconduct) is more likely than not to be true.

Research Integrity Officer (RIO): The institutional official, appointed by the Dean of Faculty, is responsible for receiving allegations of research misconduct and overseeing the research misconduct process in accordance with the College’s policies and procedures.

Research Record: Any data, document, computer or cloud storage file, digital storage device, or any other written or non-written account or object that reasonably may be expected to provide evidence or information regarding the proposed, conducted, and/or reported research that constitutes the subject of an allegation of research misconduct.

A research record includes, but is not limited to: grant or contract applications, whether funded or unfunded; grant or contract progress and other reports; research notes, notebooks, logs, and files; correspondence; videos; audio recordings; photographs; biological materials and preparations; computer files and printouts; manuscripts and publications; equipment use logs; procurement records; animal facility records; human and animal subject protocols; consent forms; medical charts; and other products of research.

Respondent: The person(s) against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or whose actions are the subject of the inquiry or investigation.

Retaliation: An adverse action that affects the employment or institutional status of the Complainant, a witness, or other individual by the College or one of its members in response to a good-faith allegation of research misconduct or good-faith cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding.

Research Misconduct: A significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community. The intentional, knowing, or reckless fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.

     A.   Fabrication is the making up of data or results and recording or reporting them as true.

     B.   Falsification is the manipulation of research materials, equipment, or processes, or change or omission of data or results such that the research is inaccurately represented in the research record.

     C.   Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

     D.   Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

III.   Scope and Audience

This policy applies to allegations of research misconduct involving individuals engaged in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research at, or on behalf of, the College, and does not distinguish between funded and unfunded research activities. For this policy, research is defined broadly to include any scholarly activities undertaken by the College community, including but not limited to allegations of plagiarism.

Individuals subject to this policy include any person paid by, subject to the rules and policies of, or affiliated with the College including faculty, staff, students, trainees, fellows, visiting scholars, or other collaborators. Allegations of research misconduct involving student Respondents will be reviewed by the Research Integrity Officer (RIO). If the RIO determines that the allegations do not fall under this Research Misconduct policy, the RIO can consult with the Associate Vice President for Student Affairs to determine if the alleged misconduct would fall under the student conduct policy.

When external funding is involved, the College will comply with any additional requirements pursuant to the relevant funding agency’s policies or regulations (such as 42 CFR Part 93 or 45 CFR Part 689).

This policy applies to suspected research misconduct that has occurred within six years of the allegation date, subject to the subsequent use, health or safety of the public, and grandparent exceptions outlined in 42 CFR Part 93.105(b).

IV.   Responsibilities & Procedures

A.   Reporting Misconduct

It is the responsibility of all employees or individuals associated with the College to report observed, suspected, or apparent research misconduct to the RIO. Allegations may be presented by any means of communication to an institutional or sponsoring official such as HHS (Health and Human Services). Allegations of research misconduct can be submitted by a written or oral statement and ideally would include sufficient detail to permit an initial assessment into whether an inquiry is warranted. Reasonable efforts will be made to review and resolve allegations of research misconduct from individuals wishing to remain anonymous; however, such reports must also include sufficient detail for the RIO to assess the merit of the alleged misconduct.

B.   Assessing Allegations of Misconduct

Promptly after receiving an allegation of research misconduct, in consultation with the Dean of Faculty, the RIO will determine whether an inquiry into the allegation of research misconduct is warranted.

To proceed to an inquiry, the RIO must conclude that: 1) the instance(s) of alleged misconduct, if corroborated, meet(s) the definition of research misconduct as set forth in this policy, and 2) the allegation of research misconduct is sufficiently credible and specific such that potential evidence may be identified.

C.   Confidentiality

To the extent reasonably possible, disclosure of the identity of Complainants, Respondents, and other individuals involved in the research misconduct proceedings will be limited to individuals with a need to know in order to comply with the College’s administrative and funding obligations, and in accordance with State and Federal laws and regulations.

In addition, confidentiality will be maintained for case records or evidence that may identify research subjects with disclosures limited to individuals with a need to know to carry out the research misconduct proceedings.

The Complainant, Respondent, and witnesses may disclose information to their legal counsel to the extent that the disclosure is necessary for the provision of legal advice. Unless otherwise required by law, the Complainant, Respondent, and witnesses may not make any other disclosures of information received during a research misconduct proceeding. Failure to comply with these guidelines may be subject to disciplinary action.

D.   Deadlines

If a deadline defined in this policy falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or College holiday, that deadline will be moved to the next working day and all subsequent deadlines will be adjusted accordingly. The process is stayed when the College is not in session (e.g. spring break, summer break, winter break).

E.   Retaliation

Scripps College prohibits retaliation against individuals who make an allegation of research misconduct that the person reasonably believed to be true. Individuals who believe they are being retaliated against for raising an allegation or participating in an inquiry or investigation should immediately report any alleged retaliation to the Dean of Faculty, who will investigate the matter. The College will take real, practical steps to protect or restore the positions and reputations of good-faith Complainants, witnesses, and other participants who are subject to retaliation.

F.   Conducting the Inquiry

1. Initiation and Purpose of the Inquiry

The RIO will proceed with the inquiry in a timely manner following the determination that an inquiry is warranted. The purpose of the inquiry is to conduct an initial review of evidence to determine whether an investigation is warranted. An investigation is warranted if 1) there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct as set forth in this policy and 2) preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding from the inquiry indicates that the allegation may have merit.
 

2. Notice to the Respondent & Other Individuals

The College will take reasonable and practical steps to ensure cooperation of Respondents and other institutional members throughout the entire process. Upon or before initiating the inquiry, the RIO will make a good-faith effort to notify the Respondent in writing of the substance of the allegation of research misconduct and the inquiry’s initiation. If, during the course of the inquiry, additional Respondents are identified, the RIO will notify them accordingly.

At any time during the research misconduct process, the Respondent may consult with an advisor, which may include outside counsel at the Respondent’s own expense. The Respondent’s advisor may attend any meeting at which the Respondent is present. The advisor’s role will be limited to advising their client during any such meeting.
 

3. Sequestration of Research Records

The RIO will promptly take reasonable and practical steps to sequester all original research records, materials, and documents relevant to the allegation of research misconduct, inventory materials, and secure materials in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws and regulations. The RIO will similarly take custody of all additional research records and evidence discovered during the research misconduct proceeding. Protocols include, but are not limited to, the physical sequestration of hard copies of data and physical samples. In collaboration with the College’s IT Office, appropriate steps will be taken to sequester computer files. The Respondent may receive copies of, or supervised access to, any sequestered records if deemed appropriate by the RIO.
 

4. Appointment of the Inquiry Committee

The RIO will take reasonable steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased investigation to the maximum extent practicable. The RIO, in consultation with other institutional officials as appropriate, will appoint an inquiry committee and committee chair within ten (10) business days of the initiation of the inquiry. The inquiry committee should consist of individuals who do not have real or apparent conflicts of interest in the case (including conflicts of interest with the Complainant, Respondent, or witnesses), are unbiased, and will include participation of person(s) with the necessary expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation, interview the principals and key witnesses, and conduct the inquiry. The inquiry committee shall consist of three members, one of whom shall be a faculty member. The other two may be subject matter experts, administrators, attorneys, or other Qualified persons, and they may be from inside or outside the institution. The faculty member shall serve as chair.

The RIO will notify the Respondent of the proposed committee membership once the committee is formed. The Respondent may submit a written objection to any appointed member of the inquiry committee based on bias or conflict of interest within five (5) business days. In such event, in consultation with the Dean of Faculty the RIO will determine whether to replace the challenged member with a qualified substitute.
 

5. Charge to the Committee and the First Meeting

The RIO will prepare a charge for the inquiry committee that describes the allegations and any related issues identified during the allegation assessment.

The inquiry committee will usually interview the Complainant, the Respondent, key witnesses, and examine relevant documents and research records. The inquiry committee will evaluate the evidence and testimony obtained during the inquiry, including making credibility determinations. After consultation with the RIO, the committee members will decide whether there is sufficient evidence of possible research misconduct to recommend further investigation. The scope of the inquiry does not include conducting exhaustive interviews and analyses, deciding whether misconduct occurred, or who was responsible.

At the committee’s first meeting, the RIO will:  review the charge with the committee; discuss the allegations, any related issues, and the appropriate procedures for conducting the inquiry; assist the committee with organizing plans for the inquiry; and answer any questions raised by the committee. The RIO will be present or available throughout the inquiry to advise the committee as needed.
 

6. The Inquiry Report

The inquiry committee will prepare a written inquiry report setting forth

1. The name and title of the committee members
2. Complainant’s name, title, and College affiliation
3. Respondent’s name, title, and College affiliation
4. A description of the substance of the allegation(s) of Research Misconduct
5. The funding source of the research that was investigated (if applicable), including grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing grant support
6. A summary of the inquiry process used
7. A summary of the evidence reviewed, and interviews conducted during the Inquiry
8. A description of the evidence in sufficient detail to demonstrate whether an investigation is warranted
9. The committee’s recommendation as to whether an investigation is warranted
10. If the committee determines that an investigation is not recommended, a recommendation of any other actions that should be taken, if applicable

7. Timeline for Completing the Inquiry Report

The inquiry committee will usually complete the inquiry and submit its report in writing to the RIO no more than 45 calendar days following its first meeting, unless the RIO approves an extension for good cause. If the RIO approves an extension, the reason for the extension will be entered into the records of the inquiry file and the inquiry report. The Respondent also will be notified of the extension.
 

8. Sharing the inquiry report with the Respondent and allowing a response

The RIO will provide the Respondent with a copy this policy and the Inquiry report and may provide the Complainant with those portions of the draft report that address the Complainant’s role and opinions. The Respondent may submit to the RIO a written response to the inquiry report within 10 business days of receiving a copy of the report.

The RIO will transmit the Inquiry report and written response from the Respondent to the Dean of Faculty.
 

9. Inquiry Decision and Notification

Following the inquiry and review of the final inquiry report, the RIO will determine—after consulting with the Dean of Faculty—whether the allegation of research misconduct is sufficient to warrant an investigation. An investigation is warranted if the inquiry demonstrates: 1) there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the instance(s) of alleged misconduct falls within the definition of research misconduct; and 2) the evidence indicates the allegation of research misconduct may have merit.

The RIO will promptly notify both the Respondent and the Complainant in writing of the decision regarding whether to proceed to an investigation and will remind them of their obligation to cooperate in the event an investigation is opened. The RIO will document the decision of whether or not to investigate and will notify all appropriate institutional officials of the decision.

G.   Conducting the Investigation

1. Initiation and Purpose of the Investigation
   The RIO will notify, in writing, the Office of Research Integrity (“ORI”) that the College will be conducting an investigation on or before the date the investigation begins. The ORI will be provided with a copy of the inquiry report. The ORI will be notified of any facts that may be relevant to protect public health, Federal funds and equipment, or the integrity of the Federally funded research process. The College will take appropriate interim institutional actions to protect public health, Federal funds and equipment, and the integrity of the Federally supported research process.
   
   The purpose of the investigation is to review the allegations, examine the evidence in depth, and determine whether misconduct has been committed, by whom, and the severity of such misconduct, if any. The investigation will also determine whether there are additional instances of possible misconduct that would justify broadening the scope beyond the initial allegations. This is particularly important where the alleged misconduct involves potential harm to human subjects or the general public or if it affects research that forms the basis for public policy, clinical practice, or public health practice. The findings of the investigation will be set forth in an investigation report.
    
2. Notice to the Respondent
   In addition to providing the Respondent with the final Inquiry report, the RIO will also notify the Respondent in writing of any additional instances of possible Research Misconduct uncovered and pursued during the course of the inquiry. The College will give the Respondent written notice of any new allegation of research misconduct within a reasonable amount of time of deciding to pursue allegations not addressed during the inquiry or in the initial notice of investigation. The RIO will also notify any additional Respondents in writing that may be identified.
    
3. Sequestration of Research Records
   The RIO will take reasonable steps to sequester and inventory any additional relevant Research Records that were not sequestered during the Inquiry. The sequestration will occur before or at the time the Respondent is notified of the Investigation, whenever possible. Protocols include, but are not limited to, the physical sequestration of hard copies of data and physical samples. In collaboration with the College’s IT, appropriate steps will be taken to sequester computer files. The Respondent may receive copies or supervised access to any sequestered records if deemed appropriate by the RIO.
    
4. Appointing the Investigation Committee
   The RIO, in consultation with other institutional officials as appropriate, will appoint an investigation committee and the committee chair within ten (10) business days of the notification to the Respondent that an investigation is planned, or as soon thereafter as practicable. The investigation committee should consist of five (5) individuals who do not have real or apparent conflicts of interest in the case (including conflicts of interest with the Complainant, Respondent, or witnesses), are unbiased, and will include participation of person(s) who have the necessary expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegations, interview the principals and key witnesses, and conduct the investigation. At least two faculty members shall be appointed to the committee. A faculty member shall be the chair. The other members may be administrators, subject matter experts, attorneys, or other qualified persons, and they may be from inside or outside the institution. Individuals appointed to the investigation committee may also have served on the inquiry committee.
   
   All committee members must be impartial and have no real or apparent conflicts of interest with those involved in the case or regarding the subject matter of the case. The RIO will notify the Respondent of the proposed committee membership, and will provide the Respondent with 5 business days to submit a written objection to any member due to real or apparent conflicts of interest. The RIO will determine, in her or his sole discretion, whether to replace the challenged member or expert with a qualified substitute.
    
5. Investigation Committee Charge and First Meeting
   The RIO will define the subject matter of the investigation in a written charge to the committee that describes the allegations and related issues identified during the inquiry, define research misconduct, and identify the Respondent. The charge will state that the committee is to purse diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation; evaluate the evidence and testimony of the Respondent, Complainant, and key witnesses; and determine whether, based on a preponderance of the evidence, research misconduct occurred and, if so, to what extent, who was responsible, and its seriousness.
   
   The RIO will convene the first meeting of the investigation committee to review the charge, the inquiry report, and the prescribed procedures and standards for the conduct of the investigation, including the necessity for confidentiality and for developing a specific investigation plan. The investigation committee will be provided with a copy of these instructions. The investigative committee will use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough and sufficiently documented and includes examination of all research records and evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegations.
    
6. Investigation Process
   The Investigation will usually involve the examination of all relevant information including, but not limited to, relevant Research Records. The committee should, when possible, interview the Complainant, Respondent, and other individuals who might have information regarding any instance of alleged Research Misconduct being investigated. The RIO will ensure that any interviews conducted during the course of the Investigation are recorded or transcribed. Following an interview, the RIO will provide each interviewee with a copy of their recording or transcript within 10 business days to submit written corrections, if any. The recording or transcript will be included in the record of the investigation.
   
   During the investigation, if additional information becomes available that substantially changes the subject matter of the investigation or would suggest additional Respondents, the committee will notify the RIO, who will determine whether it is necessary to notify the Respondent of the new subject matter or to provide notice to additional Respondents.
   
   The RIO will notify the Dean of Faculty at any stage of the inquiry or investigation if:

1. there is an immediate health hazard involved;
2. there is an immediate need to protect Federal funds or equipment;
3. there is an immediate need to protect the interests of the person(s) making the allegations or of the individual(s) who is the subject of the allegations as well as his/her co-investigators and associates, if any;
4. it is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly;
5. the allegation involves a public health sensitive issue; or
6. there is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violation. In this instance, the institution must inform the RIO within 24 hours of obtaining that information.

7. Investigation Report and Opportunity to Comment
   The final report submitted to the RIO should describe the policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted, describe how and from whom information relevant to the investigation was obtained, state the findings, and explain the basis for such findings. The report will include a summary of the views of any individual(s) alleged to have engaged in misconduct and, if applicable, a description of any sanctions imposed, and administrative actions taken by the institution.

With the RIO’s administrative assistance, the Investigation Committee shall prepare a draft Investigation report for submission to the Dean of Faculty that includes the following:

1. Complainant’s name, title, and College affiliation
2. Respondent’s name, title, and College affiliation
3. Each committee member’s name, title, and affiliation
4. A description of the specific instances of alleged Research Misconduct investigated and the nature of the allegations
5. The funding source of the research that was investigated (if applicable), including grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing grant support
6. The policies and procedures under which the Investigation was conducted
7. Identification and summary of the research records and evidence reviewed by the committee and a list of any evidence taken into custody that was not reviewed and why
8. A statement of findings regarding each allegation and the basis for the finding. A finding of Research Misconduct requires:

• A significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community
• The misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
• The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

9. For each separate allegation of research misconduct identified during the investigation,
   1. An explanation of whether research misconduct did or did not occur;
   2. If misconduct did occur, an explanation of whether it was falsification; fabrication, or plagiarism, and whether it was intentional, knowing, or in reckless disregard;
   3. A summary of the facts and the analysis which support the conclusions along with a consideration of the merits of any reasonable explanation by the Respondent;
   4. A list of publications that need to be corrected or retracted;
   5. Any additional follow-up actions that may be necessary to correct the research or scholarly record;
   6. A list of person(s) responsible for the misconduct;
   7. A list of current support or know applications or proposals for support that the Respondent has pending with granting agencies.

The RIO will provide the Respondent with a copy of the draft Investigation report and copies of, or supervised access to, the evidence on which the report is based. The RIO may also provide the Complainant with those portions of the draft Investigation report that address the Complainant’s role and opinions. When providing the Respondent and Complainant with the draft Investigation report, the RIO will inform them of the confidentiality of the report and its contents. Within 10 business days of receiving the draft Investigation report, the Respondent and Complainant may submit written comments regarding the report to the RIO.

The Investigation Committee will consider any comments from the Respondent and Complainant to the draft Investigation report and modify the report, as appropriate, prior to producing a final report for submission to the RIO, who will submit it to the Dean of Faculty. Any comments by the Respondent or Complainant to the draft Investigation report will be attached to the final Investigation report. The RIO may return the report to the Investigation committee to consider any comments from the Dean of Faculty.

The College will maintain and provide to ORI upon request all relevant research records and records of the institution’s research misconduct proceeding, including results of all interviews and the transcripts or recordings of such interviews and the final report.

8. Time for Completion
   Subject to Section IV.D, an investigation should ordinarily be completed within one-hundred twenty (120) days of its initiation, with the initiation being defined as the first meeting of the Investigation Committee. This includes conducting the investigation, preparing the report of findings, and submitting the final report to the Dean of Faculty. Any extension of this 120-day period must be requested in writing by the College to the ORI. Any extension will be based on good cause, as determined by the Dean of Faculty and will be recorded in the Investigation file and the Investigation Report.
   
   If an institution plans to close an inquiry or investigation for any reason without completing all relevant requirements, the College will submit a report of the planned termination to the ORI, including a description of the reasons for the proposed termination.
    
9. Institutional Review, Decision, and Notification
   Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the Dean of Faculty, in consultation with the President, will make the final determination whether to accept the investigation report, its findings and the recommended institutional actions, in whole or in part. If this determination varies from that of the investigation committee, the Dean of Faculty will explain the basis for rendering a decision different from that of the investigation committee. The Dean of Faculty’s explanation should be consistent with the institution’s policies and procedures, and the evidence reviewed and analyzed by the investigation committee. The Dean of Faculty may also return the report to the investigation committee with a request for further fact-finding or analysis. The Dean of Faculty’s and the President’s determination, together with the investigation committee’s report, constitutes the final investigation report.
   
   When a final decision on the case has been reached, the RIO will notify both the Respondent and the Complainant of the conclusion of the investigation. In addition, the Dean of Faculty will determine whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals in which falsified reports may have been published, collaborators of the Respondent in the work, or other relevant parties should be notified of the outcome of the case. The Dean of Faculty is responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification requirements of funding or sponsoring agencies.
    
10. Final Actions
    The College will take appropriate administrative actions against individuals when an allegation of misconduct has been substantiated. If the Dean of Faculty determines that the alleged misconduct is substantiated by the findings, she or he will decide on the appropriate actions to be taken after review and approval of the President. The actions may include but are not limited to:
    1. withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the research where research misconduct was found; or
    2. removal of the responsible person from the particular project, letter of reprimand, special monitoring of future work, probation, suspension, or initiation of steps leading to possible rank reduction or termination of employment; and
    3. restitution of funds as appropriate.

The Dean of Faculty determination as to whether or not Research Misconduct has occurred constitutes the final decision regarding the case and cannot be reversed, appealed, or modified.

If the Dean of Faculty finds that the Respondent did not engage in Research Misconduct, the Respondent may request and receive reasonable and practical efforts from the College in restoring or protecting the Respondent’s reputation.

The College will take reasonable and practical efforts to protect and/or restore the position and reputation of any Complainant, witness, or committee member and to counter potential or actual retaliation against these Complainants, witnesses, and committee members.

11. Other Considerations

a. Termination of Institutional Employment or Resignation Prior to Completing Inquiry or Investigation

The termination of the Respondent’s institutional employment, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation of possible Research Misconduct has been reported, will not preclude or terminate the misconduct procedures.

If the Respondent, without admitting to the misconduct, elects to resign his or her position prior to the initiation of an inquiry, but after an allegation has been reported, or during an inquiry or investigation, the inquiry or investigation will proceed. If the Respondent refuses to participate in the process after resignation, the committee will use its best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the allegations, noting in its report the Respondent’s failure to cooperate and its effect on the committee’s review of all the evidence.

b. Allegations Made Without Reasonable Basis

If relevant, the Dean of Faculty will determine whether the Complainant reasonably believed the allegations of Research Misconduct to be true. If an allegation without a reasonable basis to believe the allegation is true, the Dean of Faculty will determine whether any administrative action should be taken against the Complainant.

5. Records Retention

The RIO and Dean of Faculty will ensure the ORI has the following:

• Investigation Report:  a copy of the report, all attachments, and any appeals
• Final institutional action: whether the institution found research misconduct, and if so, who committed the misconduct
• Findings: whether the institution accepts the investigation’s findings.
• Institutional administrative actions: description of any pending or completed administrative actions against the respondent

The College will provide and support full and continuing cooperation with the ORI during its oversight review under Subpart D of 42 C.F.R. Part 93 or any subsequent administrative hearings or appeals under Subpart E of 42 C.F.R. Part 93. This includes providing all research records and evidence under the institution’s control, custody, or possession and access to all persons within its authority necessary to develop a complete record of relevant evidence.

The RIO will secure and maintain all records from the Research Misconduct proceeding, including: the inquiry report, final documents produced in the course of preparing the inquiry report, and the investigative report for a period of 7 years following the completion of the case in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws and regulations.

The College will provide full and continuing cooperation with ORI during its oversight review or any subsequent ORI administrative hearings. This includes providing all research records and evidence under the institution’s control, custody, or possession and access to all persons within its authority necessary to develop a complete record of relevant evidence.

6. Training

The RIO in concert with the Dean of Faculty’s Office will offer regular training in research integrity, misconduct, and conflict of interest and have training materials available for faculty, staff, and students to facilitate research integrity.

7. Contact Information

For more information or to report an allegation of research misconduct, contact the Dean of Faculty’s office: deanoffacultyoffice@scrippscollege.edu.

8. Related Information

42 CFR Part 93
Sample Policy and Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct