Funding

Disciplines: All

This month, ORP is highlighting SIUE’s Academic and Research Misconduct Policy 1Q5, as well as resources available to help promote a culture of research integrity at all levels within the academic community. This week, our focus is on the misconduct process once an inquiry is initiated.

 Misconduct Process Steps

There are 4 major steps to a misconduct proceeding – allegation, assessment, inquiry, and investigation. Our article last week ended at how we get to the inquiry point and we pick up this week with what happens after an inquiry is initiated. After the assessment phase, the next two phases are the inquiry and the investigation. Each step generally has the same elements: (1) a committee gathers evidence, (2) they compile a report, (3) and the Deciding Official determines if continuing onto the next step in the process is warranted.

 Inquiry

 If an inquiry is initiated, a couple of things happen all at the same time. First, the RIO will appoint a Research Integrity Inquiry Panel (RIIP). The RIIP is the panel responsible for conducting an inquiry. The RIIP consists of 3 members from the Committee on Research Integrity (CRI). At the same time, the Respondent is notified of the inquiry. The policy outlines all the information required in the notification. The policy also has details on the timing of each step.

 The purpose of the inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the available evidence to determine whether to conduct a full investigation. An investigation is warranted if the RIIP determines: (1) there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research or academic misconduct, (2) the allegation may have substance.

 To make this determination, an inquiry does not require a full review of all the evidence related to the allegation, and it is not a formal hearing. The purpose of the inquiry is to separate allegations deserving of further investigation from frivolous, unjustified, malicious, or clearly mistaken allegations. There is no outlined scope during the inquiry and deciding things like whether misconduct definitely occurred, determining who committed the misconduct or conducting exhaustive interviews and analyses is not required or the goal of the inquiry. 

 The inquiry ends with a final inquiry report and that is given to a Deciding Official. The Deciding Official then, based on the report, decides whether an investigation is warranted.

 Investigation

 The investigation phase is similar to the inquiry in some ways but has some keys differences. Similar to the inquiry, the investigation phase begins with a notification to the Respondent on whether the inquiry found an investigation to be warranted. At the same time, a committee is convened. The committee during the investigation is the Committee on Research Integrity (CRI).

 During the investigation, the CRI’s job is to determine if the respondent committed research or academic misconduct. To find there was academic or research misconduct, the CRI must find a preponderance of the evidence establishes that: (1) research or academic misconduct, as defined in this policy, occurred; (2) the research or academic misconduct is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant academic community; and (3) the respondent committed the research or academic misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.

 At the end of the investigation phase, the CRI will do a final report and recommendation and send to the DO. The DO will determine: (1) whether SIUE accepts the investigation report and its findings or (2) whether to return the report to the CRI with a request for further fact-finding or analysis. The DO’s decision about research or academic misconduct is final.  There is no option to appeal this decision.

 However, there are some key differences between the inquiry and investigation. First, the RIO defines the subject matter and scope of the investigation in a written charge to the CRI. The investigation will also determine whether there are additional instances of possible research or academic misconduct that would justify broadening the scope of the investigation. Second, the investigation phase is the formal examination of the record with the goal of determining if the alleged misconduct did or did not occur and to what extent.

 Resources

 The best resource SIUE provides on the research misconduct process is the research misconduct policy itself. While long, it has the entire process and all details related to each step. Additionally, the NIH publishes guidance on common questions like “what are the requirements for making a finding of research misconduct?” Those questions and the NIH’s answers to them can be found here along with their resources.

Next week is the final week for the focus on SIUE’s Research Misconduct Policy 1Q5 and the article will highlight the standard for finding misconduct and the repercussions of research misconduct.