10.3 RESEARCH MISCONDUCT POLICY AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURE
I.
STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE
This policy is promulgated by the Board of Trustees pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by §23-
41-104(1), C.R.S. (2013), to set forth a policy to assure integrity in research and the proper
reporting and resolution of complaints alleging research misconduct at CSM. This policy reflects CSM’s
intent and commitment to foster a research environment that promotes the responsible conduct of
research, and requires adherence to the highest standards of integrity in the proposing, conducting and
reporting of research. As a recipient of federal research funds, CSM must have institutional policies and
procedures in place to handle allegations of research misconduct. The following policy and procedure
conform to pertinent federal regulations, including the Public Health Service (PHS) regulations at 42 Code
of Federal Regulations, Part 93. While 42 CFR 93 applies to all individuals who may be involved with a
project supported by or who have submitted a grant application to the PHS, this policy and procedure
apply to al members of CSM’s community engaged in research, regardless of the funding source.
II. POLICY

A. General Policy Statement

Misconduct in research represents a breach of the policies of CSM, the standards
expected by our research sponsors and entrusted to us by the public, and the
expectations of scholarly communities for accuracy, validity and integrity in
research. Such misconduct tarnishes the reputations of honest researchers and universities, as well
as diminishes public confidence in research results. Any allegation of research misconduct
is, therefore, a matter of serious concern to this institution. The highest standards of honesty,
integrity, and ethical behavior are expected of all C S M personnel a nd students involved in
research and scholarly activity. Further, maintenance of public trust in these standards is the
responsibility of all members of the university community, including faculty, administrators, staff
members, and students. CSM wil maintain an environment that fosters adherence to the ethical
standards set forth in this policy, and provides effective means for addressing deviations from these
standards.
All CSM personnel and students involved in research and scholarly activity are subject to this policy,
and expected to be aware of and to comply with all of CSM’s applicable policies and procedures, as
well as the requirements and regulations of outside funding agencies. This policy will specifically
address research misconduct, which is defined as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other
significant departures from commonly accepted practices within the relevant research community in
proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. CSM will properly
assess, inquire into and, if necessary, investigate and resolve promptly and fairly all allegations of
research misconduct, and comply with research sponsor requirements for reporting allegations of
possible research misconduct. When sponsored project funds are involved, CSM will comply within a
time frame consistent with applicable regulations and funding agency requirements for reporting
cases of possible misconduct.
Any member of CSM’s community has an ethical responsibility to act if he or she suspects research
misconduct has occurred. Appropriate actions may include discussing concerns with or reporting
allegations to one’s Department Head or Dean, or CSM’s Research Integrity Officer (“RIO”), Vice
President for Research and Technology Transfer (“VPRTT”) or Provost. Further, members of CSM’s
community are obligated to cooperate with and provide evidence relevant to an al egation of

10-11


research misconduct to appropriate university officials and employees who are directed to conduct
an inquiry or investigate such allegations.
CSM’s inquiry and investigative process shall include expeditious fact-finding and objective peer
review in a setting of appropriate due process that is characterized, at a minimum, by prompt
notification to the individuals whose behavior is the subject of a complaint, protection of the rights of
all participants, and the imposition of appropriate sanctions for policy violations. In the event it is
determined that research misconduct has occurred, appropriate sanctions may include, but are not
limited to one or more of the fol owing: oral or written reprimand; removal from the subject project;
monitoring of future work; probation; suspension; salary or rank reduction; termination of
employment or appointment; or expulsion. Since a charge of misconduct, even if unsubstantiated,
may damage an individual’s career, any such charge must be resolved in a prudent and circumspect
manner, consistent with the duty to thoroughly and fairly resolve each complaint. Retaliation in any
form shall not be permitted against an individual who has filed a complaint in good faith or
cooperated in the investigation of a complaint hereunder.

B. Scope

The policy and procedure hereunder are intended to satisfy CSM’s responsibilities under the Federal
Research Misconduct Policy and related regulations, codified at 42 CFR Part 93. This document,
however, applies to all individuals engaged in university research and scholarship at CSM, regardless
of the funding source. Further, CSM’s policy and complaint procedure apply only to research
misconduct that is alleged to have occurred within six years of the date CSM or the funding agency
received the al egation, subject to the subsequent use, health or safety of the public, and exceptions
in 42 CFR § 93.105(b).

III.
DEFINITIONS

For the purpose of this policy, the following definitions apply, and terms used have the same meaning
as given them in the PHS Policies on Research Misconduct and pertinent federal regulations, codified at
42 CFR Part 93.

A. Research Personnel

Any persons who are employed by, are agents of, or are affiliated by contract, agreement or, in the
case of students, enrol ment status with CSM, and who are engaged in or have a role in conducting,
executing or documenting research and research training activities, regardless of whether the source
of support is provided through a grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or internal y.

B. Research Misconduct

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other serious deviation from
commonly accepted practices within the relevant scientific community for proposing, performing or
reviewing research, or in reporting research results. To find research misconduct, a preponderance of
the evidence must show that there was a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant
research community and that it was committed intentional y, knowingly or recklessly. Research
misconduct does not include honest error or differences in opinion.

C. Fabrication

Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

10-12

D. Falsification

Falsification means 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.

E. Plagiarism

The appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate
credit.

F. Significant Departure from Accepted Practices

Significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community includes, but is not
limited to:
• Abusing confidentiality, including the use of ideas and preliminary data gained from access
to privileged information through the opportunity for editorial review of manuscripts
submitted to journals, and peer review of proposals being considered for funding by
agency panels or internal committees;
• Stealing, destroying or damaging the research property of others with the intent to alter
the research record; and
• Directing, encouraging or knowingly allowing others to engage in fabrication, falsification
or plagiarism.

G. Complainant

Refers to an individual who submits a written or oral allegation of research misconduct.

H. Respondent

Refers to the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or the individual
whose actions are the subject of an inquiry or investigation.

I. Research Integrity Officer (RIO)

Refers to the institutional official appointed by the Vice President for Research and Technology Transfer
who has primary responsibility for assuring adherence to the procedures defined in this policy and any
other CSM procedures adopted to implement this policy.
IV. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

A.
Research Integrity Officer (RIO)

The VPRTT will appoint the RIO, who has primary responsibility for assuring compliance with the
procedures of this policy and any other CSM procedures adopted to implement it. With regard to
research misconduct proceedings, the RIO’s responsibilities generally include the following:

• Consults confidentially with persons uncertain about whether to submit an al egation of
research misconduct;
• Receives allegations of research misconduct, and assesses each allegation in accordance
with this policy to determine whether it falls within the definition of research misconduct
and warrants an inquiry;
• As necessary, takes interim action and notifies the federal Office of Research Integrity

10-13


(“ORI”) of special circumstances, in accordance with this policy;
• Sequesters research data and evidence pertinent to the al egation of research misconduct
and maintains it securely in accordance with this policy and applicable law and
regulation;
• Provides confidentiality to those involved in the research misconduct proceeding as
required by 42 CFR § 93.108, other applicable law, and institutional policy;
• Supports and facilitates the inquiry and investigation processes outlined in this policy;
• Serves as liaison, as appropriate and necessary, among the committee members, the
complainant, and the respondent;
• Educates respondents, complainants, witnesses and committee members about CSM’s
process for research misconduct proceedings;
• Facilitates appointment of the members of the inquiry and investigation committees,
ensuring that those committees are properly staffed and that there is expertise
appropriate to carry out a thorough and authoritative evaluation of the evidence;
• Keeps the VPRTT and others who need to know apprised of the progress of the review of
the allegation of research misconduct;
• Notifies and makes reports to federal oversight and funding agencies, including the ORI
as appropriate and as required by 42 CFR Part 93;and
• Ensures that administrative actions taken by the institution and the ORI are enforced.

B.
Complainant



The complainant is responsible for making allegations in good faith, maintaining confidentiality,
and cooperating with the inquiry and investigation. Allegations may be reported orally or in
writing. The complainant wil have the opportunity to submit evidence to the inquiry and
investigation committees. The complainant also has the opportunity, if requested by an inquiry
committee, to appear before the committee. The complainant wil be given the opportunity to be
interviewed by and present evidence to the investigation committee. If the RIO or committees
determine that the complainant may be able to provide pertinent information or clarification to
any portion of the committees’ draft reports, these portions may be given to the complainant for
comment. The complainant wil be informed of the results of the inquiry and investigation.
C. Respondent

The respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating with the conduct of
an inquiry and investigation. The respondent is entitled to:


Timely, written notification of the decision to convene an inquiry and the research
misconduct allegation;

An opportunity to comment on the inquiry report and have his/her comments attached
to the report;

Be notified of the outcome of the inquiry, and receive a copy of the inquiry report that
includes a copy of the institution’s policy and procedures on research misconduct;

Timely, written notification of the decision to proceed with an investigation, and the
allegations to be investigated, including any new allegations not addressed in the
inquiry;

Be interviewed during the investigation, have the opportunity to correct the recording or
transcript of the interview, and have the corrected recording or transcript included in the
record of the investigation;

Have interviewed during the investigation any witness who has been reasonably
identified by the respondent as having information on relevant aspects of the
investigation; and

10-14



Have the opportunity to review and comment on the draft investigation report, and have
his/her comments attached to this report.

If not found to have committed research misconduct, the opportunity to request
reasonable and practical assistance from CSM in restoring his or her reputation.

The respondent may admit that research misconduct occurred and that he or she committed the
research misconduct. In this event, and upon consultation with the RIO and/or other institutional
officials, as appropriate, the VPRTT may terminate the institution’s review of an allegation that has
been admitted. The institution’s acceptance of the admission and any proposed settlement or
resolution may be subject to and conditioned upon the approval of federal oversight and funding
agencies, as appropriate and required by federal law or policy.

D. Vice President for Research and Technology Transfer (VPRTT)

The VPRTT ensures the ultimate implementation of this policy and related procedures through the
RIO, and is responsible for the dissemination of the policy to the members of the community involved
in research on behalf of CSM and promoting the responsible conduct of research, consistent with the
standards set forth in this policy. As appropriate, the VPRTT consults with the Provost, the RIO, and
the relevant Deans and Department Heads when receiving and assessing allegations of research
misconduct. The VPRTT ensures that appropriate review procedures are promptly implemented by
the RIO when al egations of research misconduct are reported, and the VPRTT receives the final
reports of the inquiry and investigation committees, and any written comments provided by the
respondent. The VPRTT provides recommendations to the Provost relative to the results of research
misconduct investigations. Working with the RIO, the VPRTT shall ensure that the final investigation
report, the decision of the Provost, and a description of any pending or completed administrative
actions are provided to applicable federal oversight and funding agencies, including the ORI, as
required by 42 CFR § 93.315.

E. Provost

As appropriate, the Provost may be involved in consultations with the VPRTT and the relevant Deans
and Department Heads in receiving and assessing allegations of research misconduct, and receiving the
results of research misconduct investigations. The Provost issues a written decision following receipt of
the final investigatory committee report and the VPRTT’s recommendation. In the event of a final
determination of research misconduct, the Provost may impose appropriate sanctions. The Provost’s
decision stands as the institution’s final decision regarding the research misconduct complaint.

F. Deans and Department Heads

The Deans and Department Heads ensure implementation of this policy and procedure in their
respective col eges and departments. The Deans and Department Heads report knowledge of al egations
of research misconduct to the Provost, VPRTT or RIO. The Deans and Department Heads also help
ensure the cooperation of respondents and other individuals in their respective units regarding inquiries
and investigations related to allegations of research misconduct, including, but not limited to the
sequestration and protection of research records and/or other information and evidence relevant to the
allegations.
G. Research Personnel


10-15

Research Personnel are responsible for maintaining the highest ethical standards in proposing,
performing, and reviewing research, and in reporting research results. Principal investigators are
specifically responsible for: (a) assuring that these standards and the requirements of this policy and
procedure are communicated to and understood by all who work under their supervision, directly or
indirectly; (b) assuring the validity of all information communicated by their research groups; and (c)
assuring appropriate citation of contributions from all deserving individuals both within and outside
their research groups. Co-authorship shal reflect actual scientific involvement in and responsibility for
work reported.
V. PROCEDURES FOR RESPONDING TO ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

A. General Provisions

1.
Responsibility to Report Misconduct

Al members of CSM’s community must report observed, suspected, or apparent research
misconduct to their Department Head, Dean, RIO, VPRTT or Provost. If reports of suspected
research misconduct are made to the Deans or Department Heads, the Deans and Department
Heads must communicate such reports to the RIO, VPRTT or Provost.
If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of research
misconduct, he or she may meet with or contact the RIO to discuss the suspected research
misconduct informally. If the circumstances described by the individual do not meet the
definition of research misconduct, the RIO may refer the individual or allegation to other offices
or officials with responsibility for resolving the problem, as necessary and appropriate. CSM will
protect those individuals who provide information in good faith about questionable conduct
against reprisals and retaliation.


2. Cooperation with Research Misconduct Proceedings
Individuals covered by this policy and its implementing procedures must cooperate with the RIO
and other institutional officials in the review of allegations and conduct of inquiries and
investigations. Employees, students, and university appointees, including respondents, have an
obligation to provide evidence relevant to research misconduct allegations to the RIO or other
institutional officials. The RIO or other institutional officials may determine whether it is necessary
to sequester original research records and materials relevant to such allegations.

3.
Confidentiality
Throughout the process of responding to an allegation of research misconduct, all persons
involved, including the RIO, committee members, complainant, respondent, and witnesses, shall
exercise great care to preserve the confidentiality of the proceedings to the extent consistent with
a thorough, competent, objective, and fair research misconduct proceeding, and as al owed by
law. Applicable laws and regulations may require CSM to disclose the identity of respondents and
complainants to federal oversight and funding agencies.

4.
Protecting Complainants, Witnesses, and Committee Members

The RIO shall monitor the treatment of individuals who bring allegations of research misconduct

10-16


and those who cooperate with or participate in inquiries and investigations. These individuals are
not to be retaliated against in employment or other status at the institution, and the RIO shall
review instances of alleged retaliation for appropriate action. Individuals should immediately
report any alleged or apparent retaliation against complainants, witnesses or committee members
to the RIO, who shall review the matter and immediately make reasonable and practical efforts,
as appropriate, to address any potential or actual retaliation, and to protect and restore the
position and institutional reputation of the person against whom the retaliation is directed.
Consistent with federal regulations and its own business practices, CSM will make reasonable and
practical efforts to protect the positions and reputations of those individuals who make allegations
in good faith.
5. Protecting the Respondent

During the research misconduct proceeding, the RIO is responsible for ensuring that respondents
receive all the notices and opportunities provided for in 42 CFR Part 93, and a copy of CSM’s
relevant policy and procedures. As requested and appropriate, the RIO and other institutional
officials shall make reasonable and practical efforts to protect or restore the institutional
reputations of persons al eged to have engaged in research misconduct, but against whom no
finding of research misconduct is made.
6. Legal Counsel

Upon request, attorneys from the CSM Office of Legal Services and/or the Colorado Attorney
General’s Office shall provide legal advice to the RIO, VPRTT and Provost, as well as procedural
advice to the inquiry committee and investigation committee. Neither the university nor the
respondent may have legal counsel present at meetings or interviews conducted by the inquiry
and investigation committees, except at the express invitation of the committees. Should legal
counsel be invited, the invitation will be extended to both parties. When invited, legal counsel
may observe, but shall not participate in the proceedings. With the prior approval of the
committees, the respondent may be accompanied by a non-attorney col eague at meetings of the
committees. When invited, the non-attorney colleague may observe but shall not participate in
the proceedings
7. Requirements for Research Misconduct Findings

A finding of research misconduct requires:

• There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research
community;
• The research misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
• The al egation of misconduct be proven by a preponderance of evidence.

8. Interim Administrative Actions and Notifying ORI of Special Circumstances

Throughout the research misconduct proceeding, the RIO will review the situation to determine if
there is any threat of harm to public health, federal funds and equipment, or the integrity of the
sponsored research process. In the event of such a threat, the RIO will, in consultation with
other institutional officials and the ORI, as appropriate, take interim action to protect against any
such threat. Interim action may include, but is not limited to any of the following: additional
monitoring of the research process and the handling of federal funds and equipment;
reassignment of personnel or of the responsibility for the handling of federal funds and
equipment; additional review of research data and results; and delaying publication. The RIO

10-17


shal , at any time during a research misconduct proceeding, notify ORI immediately if there is
reason to believe that any of the following conditions exist:

• Public health or safety is at risk;
• Federal agency resources or interests are threatened;
• Research activities should be suspended;
• There is a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law;
• Federal action is required to safeguard evidence or protect the interests of those involved
in the research misconduct proceeding; or
• The research community or public should be informed.
9. Impact of Termination of Employment
Once the review of a research misconduct alegation has begun, the termination of the
respondent’s university enrollment, employment or appointment, by resignation or otherwise, will
not terminate CSM’s research misconduct proceeding. Assessment, inquiry and investigation of the
alleged misconduct will continue until a final determination is made, consistent with the procedure
herein.

10. Malicious or Bad Faith Complaints

Making unfounded al egations of research misconduct that are motivated by malicious intent or
bad faith violates the principles of integrity and ethical behavior that are the foundation of this
policy and procedure. CSM may impose appropriate sanctions, including, but not limited to
disciplinary action, against a complainant whose allegations are found to have been made in bad
faith or with malicious intent, and without reasonable basis in fact and honest belief for making
the charges.
B. Preliminary Assessment of Research Misconduct Allegations

1.
Reporting Requirements


Research misconduct allegations should be promptly reported to the RIO, regardless of which
university personnel initially receive the allegations. Allegations may be communicated orally or in
writing. Upon receiving a report of such an allegation, the RIO will consult in confidence with the
VPRTT, Provost, Deans, Department Heads or other university personnel, as appropriate and
applicable, to determine whether the allegation meets CSM’s definition of research misconduct,
which is consistent with 42 CFR § 93.103. As part of the initial assessment, the RIO will also
determine the appropriate roles and responsibilities of CSM, CSM personnel, and external oversight
agencies with respect to evaluating the allegations, and identify individuals, information and data
relevant to the allegation. This initial assessment should be completed within 10 days of the RIO’s
receipt of the allegations, except in circumstances out of the ordinary.

2.
Determination to Conduct an Inquiry

If, after assessing the allegation, the RIO determines that the allegation warrants further action
and meets the definition of research misconduct as defined in this policy, the RIO will initiate the
inquiry process outlined below. As part of the preliminary assessment process, the RIO is not
required to interview the complainant, respondent, or other witnesses, or gather data beyond any
that may have been submitted with the al egation, except as necessary to determine whether the
allegation is sufficiently credible and specific.

3. Determination to Dismiss an Allegation

If, after assessing the allegation, the RIO determines that the allegation does not warrant further
action and/or does not meet the definition of research misconduct as defined in this policy, the

10-18 (5/20/14)


RIO, in concurrence with the VPRTT, will formally dismiss the allegation. In this circumstance, the
RIO need not notify the respondent of such al egation or the disposition of same. However, the
RIO must notify the complainant in writing that the al egation wil not be pursued under CSM’s
Research Misconduct Policy and Complaint Procedure.

C. Conducting the Inquiry

1.
Purpose of the Inquiry

If, based on the preliminary assessment, the RIO determines that an inquiry is appropriate, he or
she will immediately initiate the inquiry process. The purpose of the inquiry is to conduct an initial
review of the available evidence to determine whether to conduct an investigation. An inquiry
does not require a ful review of al of the evidence related to the al egation.

2. Time Limitations

The inquiry committee should be convened within 30 days of the determination that an inquiry is
appropriate. The inquiry process, including the final report and decision regarding whether an
investigation is warranted, should be completed within 60 days of convening the inquiry
committee, except in circumstances out of the ordinary.

3.
Sequestration of Research Records and Evidence

Once the determination is made to convene an inquiry, the RIO must take al reasonable and
practical steps to obtain custody of all research records and evidence needed to conduct the
research misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester them in a
secure manner. Where the research records or evidence encompass 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. Research records and evidence wil be sequestered in a manner that causes minimal
disruption to non-related research activities.
4. Notifications

Within 10 days of the determination to convene an inquiry, the RIO will notify the respondent of
the allegation in writing. The notification to the respondent will include: the specific allegation(s);
the rights and responsibilities of the respondent; the role of the inquiry committee; a description of
the inquiry process; and a copy of CSM’s Research Misconduct Policy and Complaint Procedure.

5.
Appointment of Inquiry Committee

The RIO, in consultation with other institutional officials as appropriate, will appoint an inquiry
committee as soon after the initiation of the inquiry as is practical. The committee will consist of
three ful -time, tenured faculty members who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or
financial conflicts of interest with those involved with the inquiry. At least two of the members
must have the appropriate scientific expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the
allegation.

6.
Responsibilities of Inquiry Committee

The inquiry committee is responsible for determining whether the al egation of research
misconduct warrants an investigation based on an initial review of the available evidence. The
inquiry committee may also identify issues that would justify broadening the scope of the
misconduct proceeding beyond the specifics of the initial allegation. The inquiry committee is not
responsible for making a final determination based on the merits of the allegation. The inquiry
committee has access to any and all evidence relevant to the al egation of research misconduct,

10-19 (5/20/14)


and may interview the complainant, respondent, and/or others, if necessary and appropriate. The
committee wil determine whether an investigation is warranted based on its initial review of the
available evidence, and summarize its findings and recommendations in a written report to the
VPRTT. The inquiry, including the final report and decision regarding whether an investigation is
warranted, should be completed within 60 days of the date that the committee is convened,
except in circumstances out of the ordinary.



7.
Charge to the Inquiry Committee

The RIO will provide the charge to the inquiry committee, which includes:

• Distribution of copies of the CSM Research Misconduct Policy and Complaint Procedure;
• Purpose of the inquiry;
• Definition of research misconduct;
• Specific timeframe for completion of the inquiry;
• Description of the allegations and any related issues identified during the allegation
assessment;
• Identification of the respondent; and
• Responsibilities of the inquiry committee, including:
o Election of committee chair;
o Initial review of evidence;
o Interviews of complainant, respondent and others, if deemed necessary and
appropriate;
o Determination that an investigation is warranted if the committee finds: (1) there is a
reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research
misconduct; and (2) the al egation may have substance, based on the committee’s
review during the inquiry; and
o Preparation of a final, written report.

The RIO will be available throughout the inquiry to advise the committee as needed.

8.
Inquiry Process

The inquiry committee wil examine relevant research records and materials, and may interview
the complainant, respondent, and key witnesses. Any interviews will be recorded or transcribed
and provided to the interviewee for correction. The committee wil then evaluate the evidence,
including the testimony obtained during the inquiry. After consultation with the RIO, the
committee members wil decide whether an investigation is warranted based on the criteria in this
policy and 42 CFR § 93.307(d). The scope of the inquiry is not required to and does not normal y
include a final determination as to whether research misconduct occurred. However, if a legally
sufficient admission of research misconduct is made by the respondent, misconduct may be
determined at the inquiry stage if all relevant issues are resolved. In that case, the institution
shall promptly determine the next steps that should be taken, consulting with external oversight
agencies as needed and appropriate.

9.
Inquiry Report

At the conclusion of the inquiry, the inquiry committee will prepare a written report of its findings
and recommendations. The required elements of this report are:


Names of committee members;

Name and title/position of respondent;

Description of the allegations of research misconduct;

A summary of the inquiry process utilized;

Inventory of evidence reviewed;

If federal funds are involved, identification of grant numbers, applications, contracts and

10-20 (5/20/14)


publications that list PHS or other federal support;

Basis for the committee’s recommendations for each al egation; and

Any comments on the draft report by the respondent.

10.
Notification to the Respondent and Opportunity to Comment

The RIO shal notify the respondent as to whether the inquiry found an investigation to be
warranted, and include a copy of the draft inquiry report. The respondent has the opportunity to
review and provide comment on the draft committee report. Any comments must be provided
within 10 days of receipt of the draft report. The inquiry committee wil consider the comments of
the respondent and may revise the draft report as appropriate. Any written comments provided by
the respondent must be attached to the final inquiry committee report. The final inquiry committee
report with al attachments must be submitted to the VPRTT and RIO.

11.
Institutional Decision

Upon review of the inquiry committee’s report and any attachments, the VPRTT wil make a
written determination as to whether the allegation should be dismissed or an investigation of the
allegation is warranted. The VPRTT’s decision is final and not subject to appeal. If the decision is
to proceed with an investigation, the VPRTT will direct the RIO to initiate the investigation process.

12.
Notifications

The VPRTT will notify the respondent in writing regarding the VPRTT’s decision on whether to
proceed with an investigation, and will include a copy of the final inquiry committee report with all
attachments. The VPRTT wil direct the RIO to provide written notification to the Provost, affected
Deans and Department Heads, and complainant regarding the results of the inquiry and the
decision on whether to proceed with an investigation.

13.
Disposition of Inquiry Record
If the VPRTT determines that an investigation is not warranted, the RIO shall secure and maintain
for seven (7) years after the termination of the inquiry sufficiently detailed documentation of the
inquiry to permit a subsequent assessment by an external oversight agency or other reviewing
body of the reasons why an investigation was not conducted. If the VPRTT determines that an
investigation is warranted, the RIO will forward all of the information assembled in the course of
the inquiry to the investigatory committee for use in its investigation.

D. Conducting the Investigation

1.
Purpose and Time Limitations

Once the VPRTT determines that an investigation is warranted, the RIO will be directed to initiate
the investigation process. The purpose of the investigation is to determine, based on a
preponderance of evidence, whether research misconduct has occurred and, if so, to determine
the responsible person(s), and the nature and seriousness of the misconduct. The investigation
committee should be convened within 30 days of the determination to initiate an investigation.
The investigation process, including the final report and findings for each allegation, should be
completed within 120 days of convening the investigation committee, except in circumstances out
of the ordinary.


2.
Sequestration of Research Records

The RIO will take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of and sequester in a secure
manner al research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct
investigation not previously sequestered during the inquiry process.

10-21 (5/20/14)



3.
Notifications

Within 10 days of the determination to convene an investigation, the RIO will formally notify the
respondent in writing of the institution’s decision to convene an investigation, including the
following:

• The specific allegation(s);
• The rights and responsibilities of the respondent;
• The role of the investigation committee;
• The investigation process timeline; and
• A copy of CSM’s Research Misconduct Policy and Complaint

If required in any research award documentation or pursuant to federal regulation, the RIO will
also notify appropriate federal funding and oversight agencies in writing of the decision to proceed
with an investigation within 30 days of the determination that an investigation is warranted. This
notification will include a copy of the inquiry committee report and other information and
references as required by relevant federal regulation or oversight agencies.

4.
Appointment of the Investigation Committee

The RIO, in consultation with other institutional officials as appropriate, will appoint an
investigation committee as soon after the initiation of the investigation as is practical. The
investigation committee will consist of three full-time, tenured faculty members who do not have
unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved with the
investigation. At least two of the committee members must have the appropriate scientific
expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the al egation. When necessary to secure
the necessary expertise or to avoid conflicts of interest, the RIO may select committee members
from outside the institution.

5.
Responsibilities of Investigation Committee

The investigation committee is responsible for conducting a thorough review of all facts and
evidence relevant to the investigation to determine, based on a preponderance of evidence,
whether research misconduct has occurred and, if so, to determine the responsible person(s) and
the nature and seriousness of the misconduct. The investigation committee may also identify, in
the course of its duties, issues that would justify broadening the scope of the misconduct
investigation beyond the initial allegation. The investigation committee must interview the
complainant, respondent, and any other available persons who have been reasonably identified as
having information relevant to the investigation. Interviews will be recorded or transcribed and
provided to the interviewee for correction. The investigation committee shall make a finding for
each al egation, determining whether research misconduct occurred, by whom and to what extent,
taking into account that a finding of research misconduct requires: a preponderance of evidence; a
significant departure from accepted practices in the relevant scientific community; and that the
research misconduct must have been committed intentionally, knowingly or recklessly. The
investigation committee shall summarize its findings and recommendations in a written report to
the VPRTT. The investigation, including the final report and findings for each allegation, should be
completed within 90 days of convening the investigation committee, except in circumstances out
of the ordinary.


6.
Charge to the Committee

The RIO will provide the charge to the investigation committee, which includes:

• Distribution of copies of the CSM Research Misconduct Policy and Complaint Procedure;

10-22 (5/20/14)


• Purpose of the investigation;
• Definition of research misconduct and requirements for findings of misconduct;
• Timeframe for completion of the investigation;
• Description of the specific allegation(s) to be investigated and related issues identified
during the inquiry process;
• Identification of the respondent(s); and
• Responsibilities of the investigation committee, including:
o Election of a committee chair;
o Examination of evidence;
o Interviews of complainant and respondent;
o Interviews of other persons as necessary and appropriate;
o A finding for each al egation, determining whether research misconduct occurred, and if
so, identifying the responsible person and determining the nature and seriousness of the
research misconduct;
o Preparation of a final, written report.

The RIO will be available throughout the investigation process to advise the committee as needed.

7.
Investigation Process

The investigation committee must use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough
and sufficiently documented, and includes an examination of all research records and evidence
relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of each al egation. The committee wil interview each
respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as
having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses
identified by the respondent. All interviews will be recorded or transcribed, and the interviewees
wil be provided the recording or transcript of the interview for correction.

8. The Investigation Report

At the conclusion of the investigation, the investigation committee will prepare a written report
that summarizes its findings and recommendations. The required elements of this report are:

• Names of the committee members;
• Name and title/position of the respondent;
• Description of the allegation of research misconduct investigated;
• Description of the investigation process utilized;
• Inventory of the evidence reviewed, including documents and evidence examined and
witnesses interviewed;
• A finding as to whether research misconduct occurred for each separate al egation
identified during the investigation, and whether it was committed intentionally, knowingly,
or recklessly;
• Identification of each finding of research misconduct as plagiarism, falsification, fabrication,
or other serious deviations from accepted practices;
• Identification of the individual responsible for each instance of research misconduct;
• Summary of the facts and analysis supporting the conclusion;
• If federal funds are involved, identification of grant numbers, applications, contracts and
publications that list PHS or other federal support;
• Identification of any publications that require correction or retraction; and
• Any comments on the draft investigation committee report by the respondent.

9.
Respondent’s Opportunity for Review and Comment

The RIO wil provide the respondent a copy of the draft investigation report for comment and,
concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to the evidence on which the report is based. The
respondent wil be al owed 30 days from the date he or she receives the draft report to submit

10-23 (5/20/14)


written comments to the RIO. Any comments wil be provided to the investigation committee for
consideration. The committee may revise the draft investigation report, as appropriate, and will
prepare a final report. Any written comments provided by the respondent must be attached to the
final investigation committee report. The investigation committee report with all attachments must
be submitted to the VPRTT and RIO.

10.
Institutional Decision

Upon review of the investigation committee’s final report and attachments, the VPRTT wil prepare
a written recommendation and forward both the investigation committee report and his or her
recommendation to the Provost for review and disposition. The Provost will issue a final, written
decision. If the Provost’s decision varies from the findings of the investigation committee and/or
the VPRTT’s recommendation, the Provost will, as part of his or her written determination, explain
in detail the basis for the decision. If it is determined that research misconduct has occurred, the
Provost will determine the appropriate course of disciplinary action in accordance with relevant
CSM policies and procedures, and will confer with the VPRTT and RIO to determine other,
appropriate institutional actions in response to the research misconduct. If it is determined that
research misconduct has not occurred, the matter is closed with the Provost’s decision, which
serves as the final decision of the institution. If requested, the institution will make all practical,
reasonable and appropriate efforts to restore the reputation of the individual alleged to have
engaged in research misconduct, but against whom no findings of research misconduct were
found.

11. Notifications

The Provost will notify the respondent in writing of the results of the investigation, including a copy of
the final investigation committee report with all attachments. The notification will outline plans for
any pending disciplinary action against the respondent. By separate, written communication, the
Provost will also notify the complainant of the results of the investigation. The RIO will notify the
affected Deans and Department Heads of the results of the investigation. As required, the RIO will
also notify any applicable federal oversight and funding agencies in writing of: the investigation
committee’s findings; whether the institution accepts the investigation committee’s findings; whether
the institution found misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct; and any pending or
completed institutional actions or sanctions. This notification will include a copy of the investigation
committee’s report with al attachments.

E. Record Retention

All documentation and records related to allegations of research misconduct, regardless of
whether they resulted in an inquiry or investigation, wil be retained and secured by the RIO for a
period of seven (7) years from the date of the receipt of the al egation. Al documentation and
records related to research misconduct inquiries and investigations will be retained and secured for
a period of seven (7) years from the date of the completion of the research misconduct
proceedings.

Promulgated by the CSM Board of Trustees on June 13, 1996.
Amended by the CSM Board of Trustees on June 22, 2000, and May 19, 2014.


10-24 (5/20/14)