The U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) regulate the management of research misconduct in programs they fund. These agencies require notification upon the discovery of misconduct. The regulations also provide guidelines for protecting the reputations and privacy of both the accuser and the accused. The Old Dominion University policy seeks compliance with these regulations. With the exception of reporting requirements, this policy applies also to research funded by sources other than the PHS and the NSF and to unfunded research.

           The policy and associated procedures will normally be followed when an allegation of possible misconduct is received by an institutional official

Allegation means any written statement of possible misconduct made to an institutional official, either to the dean of the affected college or to the research integrity officer.

Complainant means a person who makes an allegation of misconduct in scientific research or other scholarly activity.

Confidentiality means a state or quality of being confidential. It connotes the entrustment with secret affairs or purpose and a shared intent to operate secretly. In many cases of research misconduct, confidentiality is a legal requirement. Each member involved in the process bears the duty of protecting the privacy of both the complainant and the respondent; a member who breaches this duty may be subject to discipline.

Conflict of interest means the real or apparent interference of one person's interests with the interests of another person, where potential bias may occur due to prior or existing personal or professional relationships.

Deciding Official means the university official who makes final determinations on allegations of misconduct and any responsive institutional actions. The deciding official will normally be the provost and vice president for academic affairs. For this reason, he or she cannot serve as the research integrity officer. If the provost and vice president for academic affairs has had direct, prior involvement in the research, inquiry, investigation, or allegation assessment, he or she will be required to recuse him or herself and the president will appoint an alternate deciding official.

Good faith allegation means an allegation made with the honest belief that misconduct may have occurred. An allegation is not in good faith if it is made with reckless disregard for or willful ignorance of facts that would disprove the allegation.

Inquiry means gathering information and initial fact-finding to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of misconduct warrants an investigation.

Investigation means the formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if misconduct has occurred, and, if so, to determine the responsible person and the seriousness of the misconduct.

NSF means the National Science Foundation.

NSF regulation means the National Science Foundation regulation establishing standards for institutional inquiries and investigations into allegations of scientific misconduct, which is set forth at 45 C.F.R. Part 689, entitled "Misconduct in Science and Engineering."

ORI means the Office of Research Integrity, the office within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) that is responsible for the scientific misconduct and research integrity activities of the U.S. Public Health Service.

PHS means the U. S. Public Health Service, an operating component of the DHHS.

PHS regulation means the Public Health Service regulation establishing standards for institutional inquiries and investigations into allegations of scientific misconduct, which is set forth at 42 C.F.R. Part 50, Subpart A, entitled "Responsibility of PHS Awardee and Applicant Institutions for Dealing With and Reporting Possible Misconduct in Science."

PHS or NSF support means PHS or NSF grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements or applications therefore.

Research Integrity Officer means the institutional official responsible for assessing allegations of misconduct, for determining when such allegations warrant inquiries, and for overseeing inquiries and investigations.

Research record means any data, document, computer file, computer diskette, or any other written or non-written account or object that reasonably may be expected to provide evidence or information regarding the proposed, conducted, or reported research that constitutes the subject of an allegation of 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; laboratory notebooks; notes; exhibitions, productions, or displays; correspondence; videos; photographs; X-ray film; slides; biological materials; audio-tape recordings; computer files and printouts; manuscripts and publications; equipment use logs; laboratory procurement records; animal facility records; human and animal subject protocols; consent forms; medical charts; and patient research files.

Respondent means the person against whom an allegation of misconduct is directed or the person whose actions are the subject of the inquiry or investigation. There can be more than one respondent in any inquiry or investigation.

Retaliation means any action that adversely affects the employment or other institutional status of an individual that is taken by an institution or an employee because the individual has in good faith made an allegation of misconduct or of inadequate institutional response thereto or has cooperated in good faith with an investigation of such allegation.

Sequester means to separate or isolate documents or material from the individual concerned and into the custody of a disinterested institutional official designated by the research integrity officer, such as the general counsel, who can provide confidential and secure storage.

           The research integrity officer will appoint the inquiry and investigation committees and ensure that necessary and appropriate expertise is secured to carry out a thorough and authoritative evaluation of the relevant evidence in an inquiry or investigation. The research integrity officer will ensure that confidentiality is maintained.

           The research integrity officer will assist the inquiry and investigation committees and all institutional personnel in complying with these procedures and with applicable standards imposed by government or external funding sources. The research integrity officer is also responsible for maintaining files of all documents and evidence and for the confidentiality and the security of the files.

           The research integrity officer, through the vice president for research, will report to ORI or NSF, as required by regulation, keep the appropriate agency apprised of any developments during the course of the inquiry or investigation that may affect current or potential funding for the individual(s) under investigation or that the agency needs to know to ensure appropriate use of Federal funds, and otherwise protect the public interest.

           The complainant is responsible for making allegations in good faith, maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating with an inquiry or investigation.

           The respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality of all information received from the inquiry or investigation and for cooperating with the conduct of an inquiry or investigation. If the respondent is found to be not guilty of misconduct, he or she has the right to receive institutional assistance, reasonable and diligent under the circumstances, to restore his or her reputation.

           At any time, an employee may have confidential discussions and consultations about concerns of possible misconduct with the research integrity officer, the vice president for research, or the dean of the affected college, and will be counseled about appropriate procedures for reporting allegations.

           Employees should immediately report any alleged or apparent retaliation to the research integrity officer.

           Also the institution will protect the privacy of those who report misconduct in good faith to the maximum extent possible. For example, if the complainant requests anonymity, the university will make an effort to honor the request during the allegation assessment or inquiry within applicable policies and regulations and state and local laws, if any. The complainant will be advised that if the matter is referred to an investigation committee and the complainant's testimony is required, anonymity may no longer be guaranteed. Old Dominion University will undertake reasonably diligent efforts to protect the positions and reputations of those persons who, in good faith, make allegations.

           Institutional employees accused of misconduct may consult with legal counsel or a non-lawyer personal adviser (who is not a principal or witness in the case) to seek advice and may bring the counsel or personal adviser to interviews or meetings on the case.

           The research integrity officer will notify the respondent of the proposed committee membership within 10 days. If the respondent submits a written objection to any appointed member of the inquiry committee or expert (consultant) based on bias or conflict of interest within five days of the receipt of the request, the research integrity officer will immediately replace the first challenged member or expert with a qualified substitute and determine whether to replace other members or experts the respondent challenges.

           At the committee's first meeting, the research integrity officer 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 research integrity officer and general counsel will be present or available throughout the inquiry to advise the committee as needed.

           The research integrity officer will notify the respondent of the proposed committee membership within five days. If the respondent submits a written objection to any appointed member of the investigation committee or expert, the research integrity officer will immediately replace the first challenged member and determine whether to replace the other challenged members or experts with qualified substitutes, observing the 30-day time limit.

           The investigation will normally involve examination of all documentation including, but not necessarily limited to, relevant research records, computer files, proposals, manuscripts, publications, correspondence, memoranda, and notes of telephone calls. Whenever possible, the committee should interview the complainant(s), the respondent(s), and other individuals who might have information regarding aspects of the allegations. Interviews of the respondent should be tape recorded or transcribed. All other interviews should be transcribed, tape recorded, or summarized. Summaries or transcripts of the interviews should be prepared, provided to the interviewed party for comment or revision, and included as part of the investigatory file.

           When a final decision on the case has been reached, the research integrity officer will notify both the respondent and the complainant in writing. In addition, the deciding official 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 research integrity officer is responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification requirements of funding or sponsoring agencies.

The decision to initiate an investigation of PHS- or NSF-funded research must be reported in writing to the director of ORI (at DHHS) or the Inspector General of NSF before the date the investigation begins. At a minimum, the notification should include the name of the person(s) against whom the allegations have been made, the general nature of the allegation as it relates to the definition of misconduct, and the agency applications or grant number(s) involved. ORI or NSF must also be notified of the final outcome of the investigation and must be provided with a copy of the investigation report. Any significant variations from the provisions of these policies and procedures should be explained in any reports.

Prior to any decision to terminate an inquiry or investigation without completing all relevant requirements of the PHS or NSF regulations, the research integrity officer will submit a report of the planned termination to ORI or the NSF Inspector General, including a description of the reasons for the proposed termination.

If the university determines that it will not be able to complete an investigation of federally funded research in 120 days, the research integrity officer will submit to the respective agency a written request for an extension that explains the delay, reports on the progress to date, estimates the date of completion of the report, and describes other necessary steps to be taken. The request will be submitted through the Office of Research. If the NSF is the funding agency, the Office of Research may authorize an extension of the investigation such that the investigation and all administrative actions will be completed within an additional 60 days. If the request is granted, the research integrity officer will file periodic progress reports as requested.

When PHS or NSF funding or applications for funding are involved and an admission of misconduct is made, the research integrity officer will contact the agency for consultation and advice. Normally, the individual making the admission will be asked to sign a statement attesting to the occurrence and extent of misconduct. An admission of misconduct does not constitute sufficient basis for closing a case involving PHS or NSF funds without prior approval from the agency.

           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.