1 / 1

Investigation Report Then the RMC drafts the Preliminary Investigation Report which:

RESEARCH MISCONDUCT COMMITTEE (RMC) FLOWCHART. Key Complainant = the person making the allegation Dean = Dean of the Respondent’s Department DO = Deciding Official OIG = Office of Inspector General ORI = Office of Research Integrity

benson
Download Presentation

Investigation Report Then the RMC drafts the Preliminary Investigation Report which:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. RESEARCH MISCONDUCT COMMITTEE (RMC) FLOWCHART Key Complainant = the person making the allegation Dean = Dean of the Respondent’s Department DO = Deciding Official OIG = Office of Inspector General ORI = Office of Research Integrity PHS = Public Health Service (e.g. NIH, FDA, CDC, etc.) Respondent= the accused RM = Research Misconduct RMC = Research Misconduct Committee RMCC = Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson RMP = Research Misconduct Policy Research Misconduct Committee Chairperson (RMCC) appoints members of Research Misconduct Committee. RMCC may remove members for bias/conflicts of interest if a request for removal filed by Respondent, Complainant, or a Committee Member. • Research Misconduct Committee (RMC) • Confidentiality: all individuals involved in the case are expected to maintain and preserve privacy consistent with the law for all parties to the procedures (including respondent(s), complainant(s), the Research Misconduct Committee members, Deciding Official, and witness(es)). During the investigation, all University personnel with information regarding the allegations will afford the affected individual(s) (including respondents, complainants, and research subjects) confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible. Personnel acting pursuant to the Research Misconduct process will not disclose complainant's identity to respondent. • If a member of the Committee believes that she or he has a conflict of interest with the respondent or complainant, she or he may file a written request stating her/his reasons to recuse herself or himself from the Committee with the Committee Chairperson. The Chairperson then determines whether to approve the request. • The RMC is a fact-finding entity with significant influence on the decision maker. • Committee has odd # of members and may be composed of scientists, subject matter experts, administrators, lawyers, or other qualified persons from inside or outside the University. The Committee shall be comprised of and limited to: two (2) persons from the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs Advisory Committee, one (1) person from the Institutional Review Board, one (1) person from the Faculty Grievance Committee, one (1) person who is a staff member, and one (1) student. • In making its ultimate recommendation of whether there was Research Misconduct, the RMC: • Places the Burden of Proof on the University to support its conclusions and findings by a preponderance of the evidence; • Considers whether falsification, fabrication, misappropriation or plagiarism occurred in the proposing, conducting, or reporting of research or whether and why there was a serious deviation from accepted practices in the research community at the time the alleged misconduct was committed; • Considers whether there is sufficient evidence of intent and the prohibited act. To be research misconduct, such actions must depart from the accepted practices of the relevant research community and be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. Evidence of research misconduct includes: • having the opportunity to maintain the records but not doing so; or • maintaining records and failing to produce them in a timely manner; and • Considers whether the Respondent presented substantial evidence of honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data such that RM cannot be proven by preponderance of the evidence. • First Meeting & Interviews • The RMC holds its first meeting with the Chairperson. Then the RMC conducts interviews for which: • Documents and research data are reviewed and questions prepared in advance ofthemeeting; • The Committee appoints one person to lead each interview; • The Committee deliberates over any significant questions arising during the interview via a recess without the interviewee present; • Each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding anyrelevant aspects of the investigation is interviewed; • The interview is tape-recorded and transcribed; • Each witness has the opportunity to respond to inconsistencies between his/hertestimony, evidence, or other testimony subject to reasonable steps to maintain confidentiality of testimony of the Respondent and otherwitnesses; and • Recordings or transcripts of each interview are given to each respective interviewee who may then comment on them. • The Committee gives summaries or transcripts of each interview to each • respective interviewee who may comment. Interviewees may comment on recordings/transcripts of each's interview within five (5) days of receiving recording or transcript of interview • Investigation Report • Then the RMC drafts the Preliminary Investigation Report which: • reviews all information considered by the Committee; • states detailed evidence that supports or refutes each allegation in the charge; and • states a conclusion on whether each allegation constitutes Research Misconduct. • The RMC considers any comments made by the Respondent and Complainant, who have 5 days to comment in writing on the Preliminary Report, and then drafts the complete Investigation Report which may include: • Background,Chronology of events,Funding agency if applicable; • Overview of investigatory process; • Overview of investigation; • Conclusion; • Recommended actions; and/or • Attachments (copies of all significant documents references in the report) • The following information must be included in the Investigation Report: • Allegations. Describe the nature of the allegations of research misconduct; • PHS support. Describe and document the PHS support, including, for example, any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS support; • Institutional charge. Describe the specific allegations of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation; • Policies and procedures. If not already provided to ORI with the inquiry report, include the institutional policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted; • Research records and evidence. Identify and summarize the research records and evidence reviewed, and identify any evidence taken into custody but not reviewed; • Statement of findings. 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— • Identify whether the research misconduct was falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism, and if it was intentional, knowing, or in reckless disregard; • Summarize the facts and the analysis which support the conclusion and consider the merits of any reasonable explanation by the respondent; • Identify the specific PHS support; • Identify whether any publications need correction or retraction; • Identify the person(s) responsible for the misconduct; and • List any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with non-PHS Federal agencies; and • Comments. Include and consider any comments made by the respondent and complainant on the draft investigation report. • The Committee then forwards the complete Investigation Report along with Respondent and Complainant's Comments to the Decisional Official • The RMC then forwards the Investigation Report to the respondent. If there are multiple Respondents, then the Committee forwards all relevant parts of the report to each relevant Respondent. Complainant (person making allegation) & Respondent (the accused) May comment in writing on Preliminary Report within five (5) working days of receiving notice. Submits comments to RMC. Respondent(s) Deciding Official (DO)

More Related