POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR RESPONDING TO

ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

Adopted November 1^st, 2006; Update 12/12/2023

 

I. INTRODUCTION

A.     Preamble

The University of California Riverside Policy on Integrity in Research, adopted on June 19, 1990, provides that “The University will continue to take prompt and vigorous action to investigate and address allegations of misconduct in research.”

The Policy on Integrity in Research further provides that “Campuses and Laboratories shall have necessary policy and procedures to provide appropriate responses to allegations of misconduct in research. Such policy and procedures should specify how pertinent University policies and procedures will be used to address allegations of misconduct in research by faculty, students, and staff. When extramural funds are involved, local policy and procedures also should comply with conditions of the award, including applicable regulations issued by the sponsor of the research.”

Under the University of California Policy in Integrity of Research, “Chancellors and Laboratory Directors, or their designees, shall be responsible for implementation of this Policy, which may include the consideration of initial reports of misconduct and, when necessary, the referral or initiation of formal investigations. Local policy and procedures should clarify available mechanisms for imposing appropriate sanctions or discipline on individuals when the allegation of misconduct has been substantiated. Chancellors and Laboratory Directors, or their designees, shall refer to the University Policy and Procedures for Reporting Improper Governmental Activities and Protection Against Retaliation for Reporting Improper Activities to ensure coordination of allegations of misconduct which may be reported under that Policy and to advise on the procedures to protect against retaliation.”

To maintain and promote research integrity, and to comply with Federal sponsor regulations, we reaffirm our commitment to upholding the highest ethical, professional and legal standards in the conduct of research, and to specifying the procedures and appropriate safeguards for handling investigations of research misconduct.

The following procedures conform to the United States Public Health Service (Department of Health and Human Services) regulations at 42 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 93. While 42 CFR Part 93 applies to all individuals who may be involved with a project supported by, or who have submitted a grant application to, the Public Health Service (PHS), campus policy applies to all individuals engaged in University research whatever the funding source.

B. Campus Policy and Procedures: Scope and Application

1.      University policies establish standards of ethical behavior for all members of the University community and prescribe procedures for due process and discipline for deviation from those standards. The UCR Policy and Procedures For Responding To Allegations Of Research Misconduct (hereafter referred to as the “Policy”) deals with violations of a subset of these standards and governs conduct in connection with all research, broadly defined, including but not limited to the preparation of proposals and their submission for funding, all aspects of conducting research, reviewing research, and the publication of results.

2.      The Policy is intended to define the three increasingly formal stages – the Preliminary Assessment, the Inquiry, and the Investigation – of UCR’s response to Allegations of Research Misconduct. The goal is to respond to such Allegations in a manner that is expeditious, thorough, competent, objective, and fair; and to maintain appropriate confidentiality, avoid conflicts of interest, and balance the interests of all involved, including the Respondent, members of the University community, relevant government agencies, and the general scientific community.

3.      This Policy supersedes and replaces the October 15, 1990 UCR Policy on Integrity in Research.

C.     Research Misconduct.

1.      Definition. Research Misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.

a.       Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

b.      Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately 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.

2.      Requirements for a Finding of Research Misconduct. A finding of Research Misconduct requires that:

a.       There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community;

b.      The misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and

c.       The Allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. “Preponderance of the evidence” means proof by information that, compared with that opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not.

D.     Maintaining confidentiality of the proceedings

Research Misconduct proceedings are to be treated as confidential. No participant in such proceedings shall reveal or disclose the identity of the Complainant, the Respondent or witnesses, the nature of the Allegation, the evidence, or the deliberations of any decision maker, other than to individuals who have a legitimate need for such information in order to conduct the Research Misconduct proceeding or as may be required by law.

 

II. AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR OVERSIGHT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLICY AND PROCEDURES

A.     The Chancellor has delegated to the Vice Chancellor for Research (VCR) administrative authority with respect to the oversight, implementation, maintenance and updating of the Policy, in furtherance of the University’s obligations and responsibilities.

Among other things, the VCR shall be responsible for:

 

1.      Coordinating all procedures related to Allegations of Research Misconduct by anyone performing research under the campus’ sponsorship;

 

2.      Fostering a research environment that discourages misconduct in all research;

3.      Disseminating policy and maintaining records related to misconduct in research;

4.      Appointing committees with appropriate expertise to evaluate evidence of, and issues related to, Allegations of Research Misconduct, avoiding real or apparent conflicts of interest among those involved, and assuring that a full and complete Inquiry, Investigation, and resolution process is conducted;

5.      If extramural funds are involved, determining whether law, regulation, or the terms or conditions of the award require notification of the sponsor, specify time limits, or require other actions to assure compliance with externally imposed requirements, and, if so, coordinating the Inquiry and Investigation with all involved individuals and offices to assure compliance;

6.      Assuring appropriate confidentiality or anonymity, fairness and objectivity of proceedings;

7.      Maintaining confidentiality of records, in accord with established University policy, relating to the Inquiry, Investigation and resolution of Allegations of Research Misconduct;

8.      If appropriate or required, notifying concerned parties such as sponsors, co-authors, collaborators, editors, licensing boards, professional societies, and criminal authorities of the outcome of Investigations.

9.      Protecting, to the maximum extent possible, the positions and reputations of those persons who, in good faith, make Allegations of Research Misconduct, and restoring the reputation of persons alleged to have engaged in misconduct when Allegations are not proven.

The Vice Chancellor for Research serves as the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) for the UCR campus, has primary responsibility for handling of allegations of research misconduct, and for implementation of the procedures set forth in this document. However, he/she may designate a RIO who shall be responsible for assessing Allegations of Research Misconduct and determining when such Allegations warrant Inquiries and for providing administrative support for Inquiries and Investigations. Such a designee will be an institutional official who is well qualified to handle the procedural requirements involved and is sensitive to the varied demands made on those who conduct research, those who are accused of misconduct, and those who report apparent misconduct in good faith.

 

B.     The Academic Senate shall:

1.      Recognize that, in order for the University to fulfill obligations imposed by external funding agencies, there must be coordination among Administrative, Senate and legal standards applicable to Research Misconduct Proceedings.

2.      Encourage participation by faculty on Inquiry and Investigation Committees.

III. DEFINITIONS

A.     Allegation. Any written or oral statement or other indication of possible Research Misconduct made to a University or other governmental official.

B.     Complainant. A person who in good faith makes an Allegation of Research Misconduct.

C.     Inquiry. A preliminary evaluation of the available evidence and testimony of the Respondent, whistleblower, and key witnesses to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of possible Research Misconduct to warrant an Investigation.

D.     Investigation. A formal evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if Research Misconduct has occurred and, if so, to determine the responsible person(s) and the seriousness of the misconduct.

E.      Research Misconduct. Defined at section I.C.1., above.

F.      Respondent. The person against whom an Allegation of Research 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.

 

IV. REPORTING ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

All individuals associated with the campus should report observed or suspected research misconduct to the Vice Chancellor for Research. An allegation should, in addition to stating the nature of the suspected misconduct, present the evidence that leads the reporting individual to believe that an incident of research misconduct has occurred.

 

If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of research misconduct he or she should contact the Vice Chancellor for Research to discuss the suspected misconduct informally. If the circumstances described do not meet the definition of research misconduct, the Vice Chancellor for Research will refer the individual or allegation to other offices or officials with responsibility for resolving the problem.

 

V. THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

A.     The purpose of the preliminary assessment of an Allegation of Research Misconduct is to determine whether an Inquiry into the Allegation is appropriate.

B.     Time to complete. The Research Integrity Officer shall conduct and complete the preliminary assessment promptly. If the Research Integrity Officer requires more than ten (10) days to complete the preliminary assessment, he or she shall document and record the reasons and complete the assessment as promptly thereafter as possible.

C.     The preliminary assessment shall be limited to determining:

1.      Whether the Complainant has alleged acts or omissions that fall within the definition of Research Misconduct;

2.      Whether the relevant research or research-related activity is of the type covered by the Policy; and

3.      Whether the Allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified.

D.     Only if the Research Integrity Officer answers all of the foregoing queries affirmatively shall the matter proceed to an Inquiry. Otherwise, all further proceedings shall terminate, and the Research Integrity Officer shall notify the Complainant, the Respondent, and such external agencies as may be required by applicable law or regulation.

VI. THE INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

A. The purpose of the Inquiry is to determine whether there is sufficient substance to the Allegation to warrant a formal Investigation. The purpose of the Inquiry is not to reach a final conclusion about whether misconduct definitely occurred or who was responsible.

B.     Time to complete. The Inquiry, including the preliminary assessment of the Allegation, should be completed within no more than sixty (60) calendar days from the receipt of the Allegation unless circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If the Inquiry phase must be extended beyond sixty days, the Research Integrity Officer shall record the reasons for doing so.

C.     Preliminary matters

1.      Charge. The Research Integrity Officer will prepare a charge for the Inquiry Committee that describes the Allegations and any related issues identified during the preliminary assessment of the Allegation and states the purpose of the Inquiry.

2.      Notice to the Respondent. At the time of or before beginning an Inquiry, the Research Integrity Officer shall make a good faith effort to notify the Respondent in writing of the nature of the Allegation of Research Misconduct, that the Inquiry has begun or will begin, the membership of the Inquiry Committee, and the procedures that will be followed.

3.      Sequestration of records. To the extent he or she has not already done so, on or before the date on which the Respondent is notified or the Inquiry begins, whichever is earlier, the Research Integrity Officer shall take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all of the research records and evidence needed to conduct the Research Misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester them in a secure manner, except that where the research records or evidence consist of scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments.

4.      The Inquiry Committee. The Research Integrity Officer shall appoint the Inquiry Committee, which should consist of at least three individuals who do not have unresolved real or apparent personal, professional or financial conflicts of interest with the Complainant or Respondent, are unbiased, and have appropriate expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the Allegation, interview the principals and witnesses, and conduct the Inquiry.

5.      Objections to the Inquiry Committee Members. Within five (5) days of receipt of notification of the Inquiry Committee members, Respondent may challenge, in writing, any committee member based on bias or conflict of interest. The Research Integrity Officer will determine whether to replace the challenged member and inform the Respondent in writing of his determination within five days of receipt of the challenge.

D.     Conducting the Inquiry

1.      The Inquiry Committee shall determine whether there is sufficient evidence of possible Research Misconduct to warrant an Investigation. An Investigation is warranted if there is:

a.       A reasonable basis for concluding that the Allegation falls within the definition of Research Misconduct; and

b.      Preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding indicates that the Allegation may have substance.

2.      Experts. The Research Integrity Officer, in consultation with the committee, will determine whether additional experts other than those appointed to the Inquiry Committee need to be consulted during the Inquiry to provide special expertise to the committee regarding the analysis of specific evidence. Such experts shall serve in an advisory capacity; they do not vote and generally do not interview witnesses. The experts chosen can, but need not be, affiliated with UC Riverside.

3.      Interviewing individuals. The Inquiry Committee may interview any individual it identifies as having information or evidence relevant to the Committee’s determinations, including, but not limited to, the Complainant and the Respondent.

4.      Transcribing Interviews. Interviews with the Respondent will be transcribed or recorded. Interviews with anyone else will be summarized, tape-recorded, or transcribed. A transcript or summary of the interview will be provided to each witness for review and to note for the record any objections. Witnesses may add comments or information.

5.      Immediate notification of external agencies. If at any time the Research Integrity Officer or the individual or committee conducting the Inquiry has reason to believe that any of the following circumstances exist, they shall immediately inform the Vice Chancellor for Research, who shall notify the appropriate agency:

a.       The health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects;

b.      Agency resources or interests are threatened;

c.       Research activities should be suspended;

d.      There is a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law;

e.       Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the Research Misconduct Proceeding;

f.        There is reason to believe that the Research Misconduct Proceeding may be made public prematurely, so that agency may take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved; or,

g.       The research community or public should be informed.

6.      If the Inquiry subsequently identifies additional Respondents, the Research Integrity Officer must notify them and provide the information specified in section VI.C.2.

E.      Concluding the Inquiry

1.      If the Committee concludes that the Allegation warrants an Investigation, it shall:

a.       Prepare a written Inquiry Report, which shall include:

(i)            The name and title of the committee members and experts, if any;

(ii)          The name and position of the Respondent;

(iii)         The Allegations;

(iv)        A summary of the Inquiry process used;

(v)          A list of the research records reviewed;

(vi)        Summaries of any interviews;

(vii)       A description of the evidence in sufficient detail to demonstrate whether an Investigation is warranted or not; and,

(viii)     The determination as to whether an Investigation is warranted and whether any other actions should be taken if an Investigation is not warranted.

b.      Provide a copy of the draft Inquiry Report to the Respondent, who may, within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt, submit comments to the Inquiry Committee.

c.       Forward the Inquiry Report to the Research Integrity Officer, who shall notify any external agencies as may be required by applicable law or regulation.

2.      Concluding the Inquiry with a determination that an Investigation is not warranted. If the Inquiry Committee determines that an Investigation is not warranted, it shall prepare a sufficiently detailed documentation of the Inquiry to permit a later assessment by third parties of the reasons for not conducting an Investigation.

F.      Notice of the results of the Inquiry

1.      Notice to the Respondent. The Research Integrity Officer must notify the Respondent whether the Inquiry found that an Investigation is warranted. The notice must include a copy of the Inquiry Report and include a copy of or refer to these Policy and Procedures.

2.      Notice to the Complainant. The Research Integrity Officer may notify the Complainant whether the Inquiry found that an Investigation is warranted. The Research Integrity Officer may provide relevant portions of the Inquiry Report to the Complainant for comment.

G.     Maintenance of records

1.      Records of the Inquiry, including all documentary evidence, interview notes, and the Inquiry report, shall be maintained in a secure manner for at least 7 years after completion of the proceeding.

2.      If an Inquiry is terminated before its completion, a report of the planned termination, including the reasons for such an action, should be made to those federal funding agencies that require it.

 

VII. THE INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

A.     The purpose of the Investigation is to explore in detail the Allegations, to examine the evidence in depth, and to determine specifically whether misconduct has been committed, by whom, and to what extent. The Investigation will also determine whether there are additional instances of possible misconduct that would justify broadening the scope beyond the initial Allegations.

B.     Time

1.      The Investigation shall begin within 30 days after the determination has been made that an Investigation is warranted.

2.      All aspects of the Investigation must be completed within 120 days of its commencement, including conducting the Investigation, preparing the report of findings, providing the draft report for comment in accordance with Section ­E1 below, and forwarding the final report to any external agencies as may be required by applicable law or regulation.

3.      Extension of time limit. If the Investigation Committee is unable to complete the Investigation in 120 days, it shall request an extension in writing from the Research Integrity Officer. The Research Integrity Officer may, at his or her discretion and upon adequate cause, extend the time for completion of the Investigation for a reasonable period; provided, however, that the Investigation is governed by any applicable external agencies, and if required by applicable law or regulation, the Vice Chancellor for Research must request an extension from the agency. Such request should include an explanation for the delay, an interim report on the progress to date, an outline of what remains to be done, and an estimated date of completion.

C.     Preliminary Matters

1.      Charge to the Committee. The Research Integrity Officer 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, defines Research Misconduct, and identifies the name of the Respondent. The charge will state that the committee is to evaluate the evidence and testimony of the Respondent, whistleblower, and witnesses to determine whether, based on a preponderance of the evidence, Research Misconduct occurred and, if so, to what extent, who was responsible, and its seriousness.

2.      Notice of Commencement of the Investigation. The Research Integrity Officer will notify the Respondent(s) in writing of the nature of the Allegation of Research Misconduct, that the Investigation has begun or will begin, the membership of the Investigation Committee, and the procedures that will be followed.

3.      The Investigation Committee. The Research Integrity Officer shall appoint the Investigation Committee, which should consist of at least three individuals who 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 Research Integrity Officer shall take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the Investigation do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the Complainant, Respondent, or witnesses.

4.      Objections to the Inquiry Committee Members. Within five (5) days of receipt of notification of the Investigation Committee members, Respondent may challenge, in writing, any committee member based on bias or conflict of interest. The Research Integrity Officer will determine whether to replace the challenged member and inform the Respondent in writing of his determination within five days of receipt of the challenge.

D.     Conducting the Investigation.

1.      An Investigative Committee is appointed to determine whether Research Misconduct has occurred, and, if so, to determine the responsible person, the seriousness of the misconduct, and recommendations with respect to the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.

2.      Interviewing individuals. The Inquiry Committee may interview any individual it identifies as having information or evidence relevant to the Committee’s determinations, including, but not limited to, the Complainant and the Respondent.

3.      Transcribing Interviews. Interviews with the Respondent will be transcribed or recorded. Interviews with anyone else will be summarized, tape-recorded, or transcribed. A transcript or summary of an individual’s interview will be provided to him or her for review and to add comments or additional information.

4.      Pursue leads. The Investigation Committee shall pursue diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the Investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible Research Misconduct, and continue the Investigation to completion.

5.      Experts. The Research Integrity Officer, in consultation with the committee, will determine whether additional experts other than those appointed to the committee need to be consulted during the Investigation to provide special expertise to the committee regarding the analysis of specific evidence. Such experts shall serve in an advisory capacity; they do not vote and generally do not interview witnesses. The experts chosen can, but need not be, affiliated with UC Riverside.

6.      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 Research Integrity Officer, who will determine whether it is necessary to notify the Respondent of the new subject matter or to provide notice to additional Respondents.

7.      Immediate notification of external agencies. If at any time the Investigation Committee has reason to believe that any of the following circumstances exist, it shall immediately inform the Research Integrity Officer, who shall notify the appropriate agency:

a.       The health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects;

b.      Agency resources or interests are threatened;

c.       Research activities should be suspended;

d.      There is a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law;

e.       Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the Research Misconduct Proceeding;

f.        There is reason to believe that the Research Misconduct Proceeding may be made public prematurely, so that agency may take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved; or,

g.       The research community or public should be informed.

8.      If the Investigation subsequently identifies additional Respondents, the Research Integrity Officer must notify them.

9.      Burden of proof.

a.       The University bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Research Misconduct occurred.

b.      The destruction, absence of, or Respondent's failure to provide, research records adequately documenting the questioned research shall be considered evidence of Research Misconduct, provided the University establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly destroyed research records, failed to maintain the records, or maintained the records and failed to produce them in a timely manner, and that the Respondent's conduct constitutes a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.

c.       In determining whether the University has carried the burden of proof, the Investigation Committee shall give due consideration to credible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the Respondent.

10.  Finding Research Misconduct. A finding of Research Misconduct requires that:

a.       There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and

b.      The misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and

c.       The Allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. “Preponderance of the Evidence” means proof by information that, compared with that opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not.

E.      Concluding the Investigation

1.      Upon the conclusion of the Investigation, the Investigation Committee shall prepare, in writing, a final Investigation Report that shall:

a.       Describe the nature of the Allegations of Research Misconduct;

b.      If applicable, describe and document the support, including, for example, any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing such support;

c.       Describe the specific Allegations of Research Misconduct for consideration in the Investigation;

d.      Identify and summarize the research records and evidence reviewed, and identify any evidence taken into custody but not reviewed;

e.       For each separate Allegation of Research Misconduct identified during the Investigation, provide a finding as to whether Research Misconduct did or did not occur, and if so:

(i)            Identify whether the Research Misconduct was falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism, and if it was intentional, knowing, or reckless;

(ii)          Summarize the facts and the analysis which support the conclusion and consider the merits of any reasonable explanation by the Respondent;

(iii)         If applicable, identify the specific external agency support;

(iv)        Identify whether any publications need correction or retraction;

(v)          Identify the person(s) responsible for the misconduct; and

(vi)        List any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the Respondent has pending with external agencies

2.      The Respondent and Complainant shall have an opportunity to review the draft Investigation Report and to provide written comments, which the Investigation Committee shall consider and include in the final Investigation Report. The Respondent and Complainant shall have twenty-one (21) calendar days to submit written comments on the Investigation Report. The findings of the final report should take into account the Respondent's comments in addition to all the other evidence.

F.      Maintenance of records

1.      Records of the Investigation, including all documentary evidence, interview notes, and the Investigation report, shall be maintained in a secure manner for at least seven years.

2.      The campus will notify relevant Federal funding agencies if, during the course of the Investigation, facts are disclosed that may affect current or potential Federal funding for individual(s) under Investigation or that the Federal agency needs to know to ensure appropriate use of Federal funds and otherwise protect the public interest.

3.      In a separate communication to the Research Integrity Officer, the Investigation Committee shall offer its recommendations with respect to disciplinary sanctions, if any.

 

VIII. POST-INVESTIGATION PROCEEDINGS

Further Proceedings outside of the University

The University will cooperate fully with federal agencies as required by law in post-investigation proceedings. This may include providing the Federal agency with access to the research records, evidence and persons under its authority.

Further Proceedings within the University

A.     Investigation concludes no Research Misconduct occurred.

1.      The University shall make all reasonable and practical efforts, if requested and as appropriate, to protect or restore the reputation of any Respondent, Complainant, witness whom an Investigation Committee has concluded has not engaged in Research Misconduct.

B.     Investigation concludes Research Misconduct occurred.

1.      Respondent is a member of the Academic Senate. If, in the case of a faculty member, the Vice Chancellor for Research together with the Executive Vice Chancellor intend to file charges pursuant to the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, the Vice Chancellor for Research shall prepare and sign an Academic Complaint form and forward it to the Chancellor in accordance with the provisions of the Bylaws of the Riverside Division of the Academic Senate, Appendix 5, Section 5.3, “Rules of Procedures for Implementation of Policies on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline at UCR.”

2. Respondent is a Non-Senate academic appointee. If, in the case of an academic researcher (Visiting Scholars, Post-Doctoral Fellows, Professional Researchers, Non-Faculty Academics, etc.), the Vice Chancellor for Research intends to impose disciplinary sanctions, the researcher is notified in writing of such intention, and is invited to respond to the Allegations and proposed disciplinary sanctions. If discipline is imposed without the agreement of the Non-Senate academic appointee, the appeal process described in the Academic Personnel Manual section 140 “Non-Senate Academic Appointees/Grievances” may be invoked.

3. Respondent is a staff employee. If, in the case of a staff employee the Investigation Committee makes a finding of Research Misconduct, its report, the staff employee’s response, and the recommendation of the Vice Chancellor for Research as to appropriate disciplinary sanctions, if any, shall be referred to the Unit Head of the staff employee’s department, for appropriate administrative action, up to and including the imposition of discipline.

4. Respondent is a student. If, in the case of students, the Investigation Committee makes a finding of Research Misconduct, its report, the student’s response, and the recommendation of the Vice Chancellor for Research as to appropriate disciplinary sanctions, if any, shall be referred to the Dean of Students, for appropriate administrative action, up to and including the imposition of discipline.

IX. OTHER RELATED UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA POLICIES

1.   Guidelines on University-Industry Relations, 5/17/89, revised 2/16/96 (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/5-17-89.html).

2.   University Policy on Integrity in Research, 6/19/90 (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/6-19-90.html).

3.   UC Policy on Disclosure of Financial Interests and Management of Conflicts of Interest Related to Sponsored Projects, 10/1/95, revised 10/15/97 (http://www.ucop.edu/research/disclosure.html).

4.   UC Policies Applying to Campus Activities, Organizations, and Students, Part A, Section 100.00, Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline, and Section 110.00, Policy on Student Grievance Procedures, 5/17/02 (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/ucpolicies/aos/toc.html).

5.   UC Policy on Reporting and Investigating Allegations of Suspected Improper Governmental Activities (Whistleblower Policy) (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/10-04-02whistle.pdf) and Policy for Protection of Whistleblowers from Retaliation and Guidelines for Reviewing Retaliation Complaints (Whistleblower Protection Policy) (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/10-04-02retaliation.pdf), 10/4/02.

 

6. The University of California Electronic Communications Policy establishes principles, rules, and procedures applying to all members of the University community to specifically address issues particular to the use of electronic communications.

http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/PP081805.pdf, 8/18/05.