精品成人福利在线 University recognizes the key role research plays in fostering intellectual vitality. To maintain high standards of professional conduct, promote research integrity and to comply with federal regulations governing the receipt of federal funding for research, 精品成人福利在线 University has established guidelines and procedures that will govern the institutional response to allegations of misconduct in research raised against scholars. The MSU policy is based on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct \u2013 Final Rule, Code of Federal Regulations, Vol. 42, Part 93 (Federal Register, Vol. 70, p. 28370 (May 17, 2005)<\/a><\/p>\n Individuals with concerns regarding potential research misconduct should:<\/p>\n To the extent allowed by law, the University shall maintain the identity of respondents and complainants securely and confidentially and shall not disclose any identifying information, except to: (1) those who need to know in order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective and fair research misconduct proceeding; and (2) ORI as it conducts its review of the research misconduct proceeding and any subsequent proceedings (if applicable).<\/p>\n To the extent allowed by law, any information obtained during the research misconduct proceeding that might identify the subjects of research shall be maintained securely and confidentially and shall not be disclosed, except to those who need to know in order to carry out the research misconduct proceeding.<\/p>\n In responding to allegations of Research Misconduct, the Vice Provost for Research or its designee (also collectively referred to as \u201cVPR\u201d) shall:<\/p>\n 1. Undertake an Inquiry or Investigation in a timely, objective, thorough, and competent manner.<\/p>\n 2. Ensure reasonable precautions are taken to avoid bias and real or apparent conflicts of interest on the part of those involved in conducting the Inquiry or Investigation. Specifically, reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the VPR, members of Inquiry Panels and Investigation Committees, and experts are unbiased and do not have unresolved personal, professional or financial conflict of interest with the Respondent and Complainant involved in the case in question. In making this determination, consideration shall be given to whether the individual (or any members of his or her immediate family) has any of the following involvements with the Respondent or Complainant: financial involvement; coauthor on a publication; collaborator or co-investigator; party to a scientific controversy; supervisory or mentor relationship; other special relationship such as a close personal friendship, kinship, a physician\/patient relationship or other biased relationship. The Complainant and the Respondent shall have the right to comment on whether the Vice Provost for Research and members of Inquiry Panels and Investigation Committees meet the above criteria. The Complainant or Respondent shall have five (5) calendar days within which to submit a written objection to any appointed member of the committee based on bias or conflict of interest. Based on the comments of Complainant or Respondent, the Vice Provost for Research may replace the Inquiry Panel member in question. The Provost may replace the Vice Provost for Research if, based on the comments of the Complainant or Respondent, he\/she does not meet the stated criteria.<\/p>\n 3. Immediately notify ORI (in cases involving PHS-funded research) and\/or other federal research sponsors supporting the research in question (to the extent required by those sponsors\u2019 regulations) if:<\/p>\n 4. Take interim administrative actions, as appropriate, to protect federal funds and public health and safety, and to ensure that the purposes of the federal financial assistance agreement are carried out.<\/p>\n A Complainant who has made a Good Faith allegation and all other persons who cooperate with the Inquiry and Investigation, shall be treated with fairness and respect, and shall not be the subject of Retaliation. Any alleged or apparent Retaliation should be reported to the Provost. In addition, federal laws and regulations require that institutional policies protect to the maximum extent possible, the privacy of those who in good faith report apparent misconduct. Accordingly, if a Complainant requests anonymity, the University will make an effort to honor the request during the Inquiry to the extent permitted by law. If the matter is referred to an Investigation Committee and the Complainant\u2019s testimony is required, anonymity may no longer be guaranteed.<\/p>\n Respondent shall be treated with fairness and respect and reasonable steps shall be taken by the Vice Provost for Research and Investigation Committee to ensure that this Policy is followed. The confidentiality of the Respondent will be protected to the maximum extent possible in consideration of public health and safety and\/or the thoroughness of the Inquiry or Investigation. If a determination is made that the Respondent has not committed Research Misconduct, the University shall make reasonable efforts to restore his or her reputation within the University.<\/p>\n The Respondent may be represented by an attorney of their choosing, but an attorney shall not be provided by the University. The Respondent may request its union representative attend all investigatory meetings and receive all investigatory reports. The Vice Provost for Research and\/or Director of Research Compliance may request the Office of University Counsel provide advice to the Investigation Committee. Attorneys for the Respondent and Investigation Committee may be present at interviews or meetings conducted in the course of the Inquiry and Investigation.<\/p>\n If at any time an Inquiry Panel or Investigatory Committee determines that an allegation of Research Misconduct was not made in Good Faith, it shall report its determination to the Vice Provost for Research. If the Vice Provost for Research, independently or on the basis of a recommendation from an Inquiry Panel or Investigatory Committee, determines that an allegation of Research Misconduct was not made in Good Faith, the Inquiry or Investigation shall be discontinued. Appropriate actions may be taken against a Complainant who is found to have made an intentionally false Allegation against a Respondent.<\/p>\n If the matter involves federal research support and the University plans to terminate an Inquiry or Investigation prior to a decision to take Administrative Action, the Vice Provost for Research with assistance of the Director of OSP, shall notify responsible federal authorities of the termination of the Inquiry or Investigation, and the reasons therefore. When the Allegation identifies misconduct that does not involve research, the Vice Provost for Research should refer the allegation to the University official having administrative oversight over the matter.<\/p>\n Certain federal research sponsors, such as HHS\/PHS and NSF, require the reporting of significant actions in research misconduct matters, such as the institution’s decision to initiate an Investigation, the institution\u2019s determination that it will not be able to complete an Inquiry or Investigation in the time specified under federal regulations, or the closing of a case on the basis that the Respondent has admitted guilt. The Vice Provost for Research, in consultation with the Office of Sponsored Programs and University Counsel, shall comply with such reporting requirements.<\/p>\n Records of Research Misconduct proceedings (including records of assessments and Inquiries that do not lead to Investigation) shall be retained for seven years after completion of proceedings, or such longer time period as may be required by the responsible federal agency.<\/p>\n Upon receiving an Allegation of Research Misconduct, the Vice Provost for Research and the Dean of the College\/School within which the Research is being performed, shall, within 15 working days and without notice to any of the parties involved, consult to determine whether an Inquiry is warranted. If PHS or other federal funding is involved, the Director of the Office of Sponsored Programs will be notified.<\/p>\n The purpose of an Inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine whether to conduct an Investigation. Therefore, an Inquiry does not require a full review of all the evidence related to the allegations.<\/p>\n An Inquiry is warranted if the allegation:<\/p>\n The Vice Provost for Research will make a good faith effort to notify the Complainant and Respondent in writing of the Allegation within a reasonable time after the Inquiry has commenced. If the Inquiry subsequently identifies additional Respondents, they must also be notified in writing of the Inquiry. The Vice Provost for Research shall take reasonable steps to obtain custody of all the research records and any other evidence needed to conduct the Inquiry, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester them in a secure manner. In such cases where the research records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments as long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments. Within 15 working days after the Vice Provost for Research\u2019s determination to undertake an Inquiry, the VPR shall appoint the Inquiry Panel. The Inquiry Panel shall consist of individuals who do not have a real or apparent conflict of interest with those involved in the inquiry, and have the necessary expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the Allegation, interview the principals and key witnesses, and conduct the Inquiry. The members of the Inquiry Panel may be employees of the University. However, the Vice Provost for Research may also appoint individuals to the Inquiry Panel who are not employees of the University if necessary to obtain the relevant expertise and\/or avoid a conflict of interest.<\/p>\n a)<\/strong> Use of Outside Experts<\/strong> At the first meeting of the Inquiry Panel, the Vice Provost for Research shall:<\/p>\n At this first meeting, the Vice Provost for Research or designee will review the Allegation with the Inquiry Panel; discuss the Allegation and any related issues and identify the appropriate procedures in this Policy to be followed for conducting the Inquiry; assist the Inquiry Panel with organizing plans for the Inquiry, and answer any questions raised by the Inquiry Panel. The Vice Provost for Research will be available throughout the Inquiry to advise the Inquiry Panel as needed.<\/p>\n The Inquiry Panel must interview the Complainant, the Respondent, and key witnesses and examine relevant Research records and materials. Supervised access to the data and\/or documents should be available to the Respondent and the Complainant, and to other witnesses as appropriate. Witness interviews shall be summarized in writing by the Inquiry Panel or its designee, and witnesses given the opportunity to review and correct such summaries of their own statements. The Inquiry Panel will make a recommendation to the Vice Provost for Research as to whether an investigation is warranted based on the criteria in this Policy and applicable federal regulations. The scope of the Inquiry does not include deciding whether Research Misconduct has occurred.<\/p>\n If the Respondent has made an admission of Research Misconduct, the Inquiry Panel may recommend in the Inquiry report that Research Misconduct has occurred. The University shall promptly report the admission of Research Misconduct to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) to the extent required by federal regulation.<\/p>\n The Inquiry must be completed within 60 calendar days of the appointment of the Inquiry Panel unless circumstances clearly warrant a longer period and the Vice Provost for Research grants an extension. If the Inquiry takes longer than 60 days to complete, the Inquiry Report must include a summary of the reasons for exceeding the 60 day period.<\/p>\n The Inquiry Panel must prepare a written report that includes the following elements:<\/p>\n The Respondent shall be provided with a draft of the Inquiry Panel report and shall have 10 days to provide written comments on it. The Inquiry Panel may also make relevant portions of the Inquiry Report available to the Complainant and\/or witnesses (but not give them a copy), for comment. In preparing its final report, the Inquiry Panel shall consider and attach any comments made by the Respondent (and by the Complainant and\/or witnesses, if applicable) on the draft Inquiry Panel report. As a condition to review the Inquiry Report, the recipient may be required to sign a confidentiality agreement with the University.<\/p>\n The chair of the Inquiry Panel shall transmit the Inquiry Report to the VPR. The Vice Provost for Research shall decide whether the findings from the Inquiry warrant conducting an Investigation. The Inquiry is completed when the Vice Provost for Research makes this determination.<\/p>\n The Vice Provost for Research shall notify the Respondent, the Complainant, Provost and appropriate University officials in writing of his or her decision whether to proceed to an Investigation. The notice to the Respondent must include a copy of the final Inquiry Report. To the extent required by federal regulation, the Vice Provost for Research shall provide notice to federal authorities concerning the Inquiry and the decision whether an Investigation is warranted. For example, for PHS-funded research, regulations require that institutions provide ORI with the written finding of the Vice Provost for Research and a copy of the Inquiry Report. (Code of Federal Regulations, Vol. 42, Sec. 93.309)<\/p>\n If the Vice Provost for Research decides that an Investigation is not warranted, the Director of Research Compliance Officer shall maintain for 7 years after the termination of inquiry sufficiently detailed documentation of the Inquiry to permit a later assessment by ORI. These documents must be provided to ORI or other authorized HHS personnel upon request.<\/p>\n If the Vice Provost for Research determines that an Investigation is warranted, he or she shall, within 15 working days after such determination, appoint an Investigatory Committee. The purpose of the Investigation is to explore the Allegations in detail, to examine the evidence in depth, and to determine whether Research Misconduct has been committed, by whom, and to what extent.<\/p>\n The Vice Provost for Research must, within a reasonable time after determining that an Investigation is warranted: (1) notify the ORI Director of the decision to begin the Investigation and provide ORI a copy of the Inquiry Report (in cases involving PHS funded research), and (2) notify the Respondent in writing of the Allegations to be investigated, and (3) take reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of and sequester in a secure manner, all research records and evidence needed to conduct the Investigation that were not previously sequestered during the Inquiry.<\/p>\n The Vice Provost for Research shall appoint individuals to the Investigatory Committee in consultation with the responsible Provost, Vice President, Dean or responsible senior administrator. For cases in which the Respondent is a student, a person holding an academic appointment or a staff member in a Faculty or other academic unit, the Provost shall appoint individuals to the Investigatory Committee in consultation with other University Officials as appropriate.<\/p>\n The Investigatory Committee shall consist of individuals who do not have real or apparent conflicts of interest in the Allegation, and have the necessary expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the Allegation, interview the principals and key witnesses, and conduct the Investigation. These individuals may be scientists, administrators, subject matter experts, lawyers, or other qualified persons, and they may or may not be employees or contractors of the University.<\/p>\n If there is an allegation involving individuals from different categories of employees and\/or students, the Vice Provost for Research shall confer with the appropriate University Officials and determine a single, coordinated process for conducting the Investigation.<\/p>\n The Investigation Committee shall determine whether experts other than those appointed to the Investigation Committee need to be consulted during the Investigation to provide expertise regarding the analysis of evidence. If consulted, such experts shall serve in a strictly advisory capacity to the Investigation Committee and shall not vote. At the request of the chair of the Investigation Committee, experts may interview witnesses and answer questions during Investigation Committee deliberations. The experts chosen may or may not be employees or contractors of the University.<\/p>\n At the first meeting of the Investigation Committee, the Vice Provost for Research shall:<\/p>\n In conducting its Investigation, the Investigatory Committee shall:<\/p>\n The Investigation Committee shall use its best efforts to complete the Investigation within 120 days. If the Investigation Committee is unable to complete the Investigation within 120 days, the Vice Provost for Research may grant an extension of time. An extension may require approval of the responsible federal agency. For example, in cases involving PHS-funded research, it is necessary to obtain ORI approval to extend the Investigation beyond 120 days. (See Code of Federal Regulations, Vol. 42, Sec. 93.311)<\/p>\n The Investigation Report shall contain the same information which must be included in the Inquiry Report regarding the nature of the Allegations, sources of external support, and Research Records and evidence reviewed. In addition, the Investigation Report shall provide, for each separate allegation of Research Misconduct identified during the Investigation, a finding as to whether Research Misconduct did or did not occur.<\/p>\n The Investigation Committee shall draft a written report of the Investigation that includes the following:<\/p>\n The Respondent shall be provided with the draft Investigation Report and concurrently a copy of, or supervised access to, the evidence on which the report is based. The Respondent shall have 30 calendar days (which time shall be part of the total time for the Investigation) to provide written comments on it. The Investigation Committee may also make relevant portions of the report available to the Complainant and\/or witnesses (but not give them a copy), for comment. The Committee shall, in preparing its final Investigation Report, consider and attach any comments made by the Respondent (and by the Complainant and\/or witnesses, if applicable on a case by case basis) on the draft Investigation Report.<\/p>\n The chair of the Investigatory Committee shall forward copies of the final Investigation Report to the Vice Provost for Research and the Respondent. In distributing either copies of the draft or final report, or portions thereof, the Vice Provost for Research will inform the recipient of the confidentiality under which the report is made available and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure such confidentiality. For example, as a condition to receipt of the report, the Vice Provost for Research may require that the recipient sign a confidentiality agreement with the University.<\/p>\n The chair of the Investigation Committee will oversee the Investigation Committee in finalizing the draft Investigation Report, including a summary of the Respondent\u2019s comments provided to the report. The final Investigation Report shall be forwarded to the Vice Provost for Research, who will determine in writing: (1) whether the institution accepts the findings of the Investigation Committee in the Investigation Report; and (2) the institutional response to the accepted findings of research misconduct. If the Vice Provost for Research\u2019s determination varies from the findings and recommendations of the Investigation Committee, the Vice Provost for Research will, as part of his or her written determination, explain in detail the basis for rendering a decision different from the findings of the Investigation Committee. Alternatively, the Vice Provost for Research may return the Investigation Report to the Investigation Committee with a request for further fact-finding or analysis. Within 15 days of receipt of the final decision and notification from the Vice Provost for Research the Respondent may appeal in writing, on procedural grounds only, directly to the Provost and\/or President. The President\u2019s decision is final.<\/p>\n After the Vice Provost for Research makes a final determination on the Investigation, the Vice Provost for Research shall forward copies of the Investigation Report to Office of Research Integrity and other responsible federal agencies where applicable, within the 120 day period required to complete the Investigation.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This policy was created in 2014. In 2018 the policy was placed onto the University template for policies with no significant changes. In 2020, this policy was revised to reflect the new role of the Vice Provost for Research within the Office of Research in the Academic Affairs Division.<\/p>\n We thank the staff of the Office of Sponsored Projects at Dartmouth College for providing permission to refer to Dartmouth College policy for guidance and direction in adopting and implementing this policy.<\/p>\n <\/a>[i] 42 CFR \u00a7 93.313 精品成人福利在线 University Guidelines and Procedures Regarding Allegations of Misconduct in Research I. Policy Statement and Policy Scope A. General Policy 精品成人福利在线 University recognizes the key role research plays in fostering intellectual vitality. To maintain high standards of professional conduct, promote research integrity and to comply with federal regulations governing the receipt of federal […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"template":"","categories":[2],"responsible-office":[8],"class_list":["post-1249","policies","type-policies","status-publish","hentry","category-academic","responsible-office-academic-affairs"],"msu_policies_meta":[{"policy_id":"","policy_owner":"Research Integrity and Compliance","effective_date":"02\/01\/2014","last_updated":"01\/01\/2020","policy_contact":"","pdf_url":"http:\/\/www.montclair.edu\/policies\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/205\/2019\/11\/MSU-Policy-on-Misconduct-in-Research-FINAL-January-2020.pdf"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.montclair.edu\/policies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/policies\/1249","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.montclair.edu\/policies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/policies"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.montclair.edu\/policies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/policies"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.montclair.edu\/policies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.montclair.edu\/policies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/policies\/1249\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1304,"href":"https:\/\/www.montclair.edu\/policies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/policies\/1249\/revisions\/1304"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.montclair.edu\/policies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1249"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.montclair.edu\/policies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1249"},{"taxonomy":"responsible-office","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.montclair.edu\/policies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/responsible-office?post=1249"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}B. Scope and Application<\/h3>\n
\n
II. Who should read this Policy<\/h2>\n
\n
III. Definitions<\/h2>\n
\n
IV. Policy and Policy Description<\/h2>\n
A. General Procedures<\/h3>\n
1. Reporting Allegations of Research Misconduct<\/h4>\n
\n
2. Confidentiality<\/h4>\n
3. Responding to Allegations<\/h4>\n
\n
4. Protecting the Complainant<\/h4>\n
5. Protecting the Respondent<\/h4>\n
6. Legal Counsel<\/h4>\n
7. Allegations Not Made in Good Faith<\/h4>\n
8. Early Termination of Proceedings<\/h4>\n
\nThe respondent shall have the opportunity at any time during the proceedings to admit that research misconduct occurred and that they committed the research misconduct. The Vice Provost for Research may terminate the institution\u2019s review of an allegation that has been admitted, if the institution\u2019s acceptance of the admission and any proposed settlement is approved by ORI.<\/p>\n9. Referral of Non-Research Misconduct Issues<\/h4>\n
10. Requirements for Reporting to Federal Authorities<\/h4>\n
11. Record Retention<\/h4>\n
B. Assessment of Allegation and Inquiry<\/h3>\n
1. Preliminary Assessment of Allegations to determine if Inquiry is warranted.<\/h4>\n
2. Purpose of Inquiry; Criteria Warranting Investigation<\/h4>\n
\n
3. Notification of Complainant and Respondent; Sequestration of Research Records<\/h4>\n
\nThe notification to the Complainant and the Respondent should:<\/p>\n\n
4. Designation of Inquiry Panel;<\/h4>\n
\nThe Inquiry Panel may also consult with experts as necessary if special expertise is warranted regarding the analysis of evidence. If consulted, such experts shall serve in a strictly advisory capacity to the Inquiry Panel and shall not vote. At the request of the Inquiry Panel, experts may interview witnesses and respond to questions during Panel deliberations. The experts chosen may or may not be employees of the University.<\/p>\n5. Charge to the Inquiry Panel and First Meeting<\/h4>\n
\n
6. Inquiry Panel Procedures<\/h4>\n
7. Time for Completion of Inquiry<\/h4>\n
C. Inquiry Report<\/h3>\n
1. Elements of Report<\/h4>\n
\n
2. Notification to the Respondent and Opportunity to Comment<\/h4>\n
3. Vice Provost for Research\u2019s Decision on Inquiry Panel\u2019s Recommendation.<\/h4>\n
4. Notice of Results of Inquiry; Report to Federal Authorities.<\/h4>\n
5. Documentation of Decision Not to Investigate<\/h4>\n
D. Investigation<\/h3>\n
1. Initiation and Purpose of Investigation<\/h4>\n
2. Notify the Respondent and Office of Research Integrity. Sequestration of Research Records<\/h4>\n
3. Appointment of the Investigation Committee; Use of Outside Experts<\/h4>\n
4. Charge to the Investigation Committee and the First Meeting<\/h4>\n
\n
5. Investigation Process.<\/h4>\n
\n
6.Time Limit for Completing Investigation<\/h4>\n
E. Investigation Report<\/h3>\n
1. Elements of the Investigation Report<\/h4>\n
\n
2. Notification of Respondent and Opportunity to Comment<\/h4>\n
3. Decision by Vice Provost for Research<\/h4>\n
\nWhen a final decision has been made by the Vice Provost for Research, the Respondent and the Complainant shall be notified in writing. The Vice Provost for Research will also notify the Provost and any funding or sponsoring agencies as required by applicable law.<\/p>\n4. Appeal; Review by Vice Provost for Research.<\/h4>\n
5. Notification of the Office of Research Integrity of Institutional Findings and Actions<\/h4>\n
V. History<\/h2>\n
VI. Acknowledgements<\/h2>\n
\n<\/a>[ii] 42 CFR \u00a7 93.313(f)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"