THE
FACULTY
SENATE
Senate
Document Number 8008S
Date
of Senate Approval 04/24/08
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Statement
of Faculty Senate Action:
FWDC 5: Proposal to establish a
Research Misconduct Policy
(Faculty Handbook
Section 4.3.6)
Effective Date: Immediately
Rationale:
Integrity in research is the basis
for the academic search for knowledge. Persons involved in academic research
must guard the truth and protect the public trust that research in an academic
environment has long held. Activities which interfere with an honest search for
the truth cannot be tolerated in a university setting. All effort must be made
to maintain an open and honest search for truth through continual commitment by
faculty, staff, and students to scrupulous honesty and integrity in research.
It is clear that scientific
and scholarly misconduct cannot be prevented completely by a university policy
or federal law; it can only be avoided through each individual's firm
commitment to academic ideals and honesty. The importance of such honesty in
one's research work should be impressed upon all members of the university
community by those responsible for conducting or directing research and
scholarship projects. Only in this way can the university community effectively
guard the truth and maintain traditions of intellectual honesty.
1. Add Faculty Handbook Section 4.3.6.3
Research Misconduct Policy
Policy Statement
In the belief that honesty and
integrity are essential to the search for knowledge, it is the policy of The
University of North Carolina Asheville that all persons involved in research
and scholarship must guard the truth, uphold the highest standards in their
research and scholarship, and protect the public trust that the academic
environment has long held. Whenever any UNCA faculty member or other research
employee is accused of serious misconduct in scientific or scholarly research,
the University will conduct an inquiry, make a determination concerning the
truth or falsity of the allegations, and take appropriate disciplinary action.
The process of inquiry will be expeditious and protect the rights of all those
concerned, including the complainant and the accused.
Definition of Research Misconduct
Since the search for knowledge is impeded and subverted by the
misrepresentation of facts, openness and honesty are commonly accepted norms
within the scientific and scholarly community for proposing, conducting, or
reporting research. "Research misconduct" means plagiarism,
falsification, fabrication of data, or other forms of deliberate
misrepresentation. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations
or judgments of data.
Initiation of Inquiry
Allegations of research misconduct
involving faculty members or staff should be directed to the Dean of the
respondent’s academic division (referred to hereafter as the Dean). The Dean will confidentially counsel
any individual who comes forward with an allegation of research misconduct
since some concerns or allegations may not fall within the scope of policies
and procedures developed to address research misconduct. If the Dean determines
that the concern is properly addressed through policies and procedures designed
to deal with misconduct in research, these procedures should be discussed with
the individual questioning the integrity of a research project. If the
individual chooses not to make a formal allegation, but the Dean believes there
is sufficient cause to warrant the inquiry, the matter should be pursued
without a complainant and the Dean should so inform the Provost.
The Dean, in consultation
with the Provost, will determine whether an inquiry is warranted when the
subject of the inquiry is faculty or other staff members.
Inquiry
If the inquiry involves a faculty or
other staff member, the Dean will appoint an ad hoc Inquiry Committee
consisting of three tenured faculty members, two from the Department of the
respondent and one from another Department of the University. In case the respondent is a department chair,
three faculty members shall be from outside the Department. In the case of a two-faculty department, two
faculty members shall be from outside the Department and one from within. In
selecting the members of the Committee, potential conflicts of interest must be
examined scrupulously and any relationship with parties to the matter must be
fully disclosed. Those inquiring into the allegations should be selected in
full awareness of the closeness of their professional or personal affiliation
with the complainant or the respondent. It is also important that the Committee
have appropriate scientific or scholarly expertise to assure a sound knowledge
base from which to work. The respondent and complainant will be notified of the
charges and process at this time. Committee members should be appointed and
convened as soon as possible, provided with the information immediately
available, and charged either to complete the inquiry phase within 30 days or
to present a report, at that time, to the Dean, the respondent, and the
complainant, citing the reasons for delay and progress to date.
During the inquiry,
confidentiality will be maintained to protect the rights of all parties
involved. It may be desirable to keep the identity of the complainant
confidential during the inquiry phase. The Dean will assume responsibility for
disseminating information relevant to the inquiry to the appropriate individuals.
Normally, this will be in writing with copies filed in the Office of the
Provost.
Completion of the inquiry is
marked by the determination of whether or not an investigation is warranted.
There will be written documentation to summarize the process and state the
conclusion of the inquiry. The respondent will be informed whether or not there
will be further investigation and, if there is a complainant, he or she will
also be informed.
Allegations found to require
investigation will be forwarded promptly to the investigative body; if federal
funding is involved, federal regulations require that the agency sponsoring the
research be notified at this point.
If an allegation is found to
be unsupported but has been submitted in good faith, no further formal action,
other than informing all involved parties, will be taken. The proceedings of an
inquiry, including the identity of the respondent, will be held in strict
confidence to protect the parties involved. If confidentiality is breached, the
institution will take steps to minimize the damage to reputations that may
result from inaccurate reports. Allegations that have not been brought in good
faith will lead to disciplinary action.
The institution will seek to
protect the complainant against retaliation; individuals engaging in acts of
retaliation will be disciplined.
Investigation
Purpose
An investigation will be initiated
when an inquiry concludes that such is warranted. The purpose is to further
explore the allegations and determine whether misconduct has been committed
and, if so, the degree of its seriousness. In the course of an investigation,
additional information may emerge that justifies broadening the scope of the
investigation beyond the initial allegations. The respondent will be informed when
significant new directions of investigation are undertaken. The investigation
will focus on accusations of research misconduct as defined previously and
examined the factual materials of each case.
Structure
To carry out the investigation, the
Dean will form an Investigative Committee by expanding the Inquiry Committee to
include two additional tenured faculty and at least one representative from
outside the University. In selecting the members of the committee, conflicts of
interest must again be examined scrupulously and any relationship with parties
to the matter must be fully disclosed. Those inquiring into the allegations
will be selected in full awareness of the closeness of their professional or
personal affiliation with the complainant or the respondent. It is also
important that the committee have appropriate expertise to assure a sound
knowledge base from which to work.
Process
Upon receipt of inquiry findings
that an investigation is warranted, the Dean will initiate an investigation
promptly, and the complainant and respondent will be notified of the
investigation. In accordance with federal regulations, all agencies sponsoring
a research project in which misconduct is suspected will be notified
immediately upon the decision to undertake an investigation. All involved
parties will be interviewed and are obligated to cooperate with the proceedings
in providing information relating to the case. All necessary information will
be provided to the respondent in a timely manner to facilitate the preparation
of a response. The respondent will have the opportunity to address the charges
and evidence in detail. The respondent is not required to have legal counsel in
the investigation, but may seek counsel if he or she so desires.
If the nature of the allegations
is such that there may be need to protect the health and safety of research
subjects or the interests of students and colleagues, the Dean may take interim
administrative action to restrict or suspend the activities of the respondent,
but care should be taken to safeguard the rights of the respondent.
Investigations normally will
be completed within 60 days of initiation. If factors such as the volume and
nature of the research to be reviewed and the degree of cooperation being
offered by the subject of the investigation prevent completion within 60 days,
an interim report will be filed with the Dean at the end of 60 days describing
the investigation up to that point and its expected outcome, and requesting an
extension.
Findings
The findings of the investigative
committee will be submitted in writing to the Dean. The respondent will receive
the full report of the investigation, as will the Chair of the respondent's
department. When there is more than one respondent, each shall receive all
those parts of the findings that are pertinent to his or her role. Respondents
may comment in writing on the report and their comments will be made part of
the record. All federal agencies, sponsors, or other entities initially
informed of the investigation also must be notified promptly. UNCA will retain
the findings of the investigation in a confidential and secure file.
Investigations into
allegations of research misconduct may result in various outcomes including 1)
a finding of clear, serious, and substantial research misconduct; 2) a finding
of research misconduct of a minor or questionable nature; 3) a finding that no
culpable conduct was committed, but serious scientific errors were made; 4) a
finding that no research misconduct or serious scientific error was committed.
If a finding of serious scientific misconduct is made, all agencies funding
that research will be informed. The judgment as to the degree of severity on
the research misconduct will be solely that of the Investigative Committee.
Examples of severe research misconduct include fabrication of data, plagiarism
including the publication of research or scholarship produced by another
person, and falsification of vita items in order to advance one's research.
If an investigation has been
launched on the basis of a complaint, and no research misconduct is found, no
disciplinary measures will be taken against the complainant and every effort
will be made to prevent retaliatory action against the complainant if the
allegations, however incorrect, are found to have been made in good faith. If
the allegations are found to have been maliciously motivated, disciplinary
actions will be taken against those responsible.
Disposition
The nature and severity of the
disciplinary action by the University will vary with the findings of the
Investigative Committee. At this point, the Dean will inform the Chancellor,
Provost, and Chair of the respondent’s department of the Investigative
Committee’s findings. Should the respondent(s) be found guilty of research misconduct
of a clear, serious, and substantial nature, he/she/they may be considered
unfit to continue as members of the UNCA faculty. Respondents will be notified
by registered mail (receipt requested) by the Chancellor or his delegate. Relevant federal agencies, sponsors,
collaborators, and editors of journals will be promptly notified of the
University's findings. Due process for tenured faculty is provided by Section
603 of the "Code" of the
Respondents found guilty of
research misconduct of a less clear, serious, or substantial nature may receive
sanctions ranging from letters of reprimand from the Provost to probation or
permanent removal from the research project involved. Findings of scientific
misconduct may also warrant the removal of the faculty respondent from other
research supervisory roles.
Appeal
Respondents may appeal the findings
of the University. Respondents have a maximum of ten days after receiving
notice of the findings to file a written appeal to the Dean. An appeal of the
findings may be based on the evidence presented during the investigative
hearings or on a failure of the committee to follow established procedures, in
keeping with University policy. New evidence discovered may warrant a new
investigation. Sanctions resulting from the findings may also be appealed if
the respondent(s) has(ve) reason to believe that the disciplinary penalties are
excessive or inappropriate. Respondents who are tenured faculty, and who have
been notified by the Chancellor or his/her delegate of the University's intent
to discharge them, are provided due process under Section 603 of the
"Code" of the