Integrity in Research and Scholarship Policy : University of Dayton, Ohio

Navigation

Integrity in Research and Scholarship Policy

Purpose

The University of Dayton (UD) is committed to fostering an environment that promotes responsible conduct of research, discourages research misconduct, and promptly addresses allegations or evidence of possible research misconduct. All research conducted by members of the University community is expected to adhere to the highest ethical standards and comply with federal regulations.

This policy promotes the University’s compliance with federal regulations and best practices for addressing research misconduct, including its institutional responsibilities under the Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct. It describes the procedures that will be followed in response to allegations of research misconduct. While this policy primarily addresses federally funded research, it also applies to research that is not federally funded though such cases may not require reporting to the federal government and may allow for expedited reviews.

The goals of maintaining high ethical standards in research and scholarship include:

Fostering a research environment that promotes research integrity and the responsible conduct of research, discourages research misconduct, and deals promptly with allegations or evidence of possible research misconduct;
Providing a widely promulgated and understandable mechanism for dealing with instances of alleged misconduct;
Responding to each allegation of research misconduct for which the institution is responsible under this part in a thorough, competent, objective, and fair manner; including taking precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the research misconduct proceeding do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the complainant, respondent, or witnesses; and
Establishing an appropriate and clearly defined chain of responsibility for the conduct of research.

Scope

This policy applies to allegations of research misconduct as defined herein, involving faculty, staff, and students conducting externally sponsored or internally funded research.

This policy generally does not apply to:

Any other kind of non-funded academic misconduct or dishonesty;
Self-plagiarism and authorship disputes; or
Research misconduct that occurred six (6) years before the date the University, oversight agency, or funding entity received the allegation subject to certain exceptions for subsequent use and public health or safety.

Policy History

I. Effective Date: March 1994

II. Approval: December 2, 2025

III. History:

Approved in its original form: March 1994 (Title: DOC 1993-01 A Policy on Misconduct in Research and Scholarship)
Approved as amended: January 8, 2015 (Title: Policy on Misconduct in Research and Scholarship)
Approved as amended: December 2, 2025

IV. Maintenance of Policy: Vice President for Research, Office for Academic Research

Policy

DEFINITIONS

Administrative Record comprises: the institutional record, and any information provided by the respondent to the federal oversight agency, such as the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). This includes, but is not limited to, the transcript of any virtual or in-person meetings between the respondent and the oversight agency, and correspondence between the respondent and the oversight agency; any additional information provided to the oversight agency while the case is pending before such agency; and any analysis or additional information generated or obtained by the oversight agency. Any analysis or additional information generated or obtained by the oversight agency will also be made available to the respondent.

Allegation means: a disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of an institutional or oversight agency official.

Assessment means: a consideration of whether an allegation of research misconduct appears to fall within the definition of research misconduct; appears to involve externally sponsored or internally funded research, research training, or activities related to that research or research training; and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. The assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation.

Charge Letter means: the written notice, as well as any amendments to the notice, sent to the respondent stating the findings of research misconduct and any proposed oversight agency administrative actions.

Evidence means: anything offered or obtained during a research misconduct proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact. Evidence includes documents, whether in hard copy or electronic form, information, tangible items, and testimony.

Good Faith:

(a) Good faith as applied to a complainant or witness means having a reasonable belief in the truth of one’s allegation or testimony based on the information known to the complainant or witness at the time. An allegation or cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding is not in good faith if made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for information that would negate the allegation or testimony.

(b) Good faith as applied to an institutional or committee member means cooperating with the research misconduct proceeding by impartially carrying out the duties assigned for the purpose of helping an institution meet its responsibilities under this part. An institutional or committee member does not act in good faith if their acts or omissions during the research misconduct proceedings are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.

Inquiry consists of: information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of research misconduct warrants an investigation.

Institutional Record comprises:

(a) The records that the institution compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the institution did not consider or rely on. These records include, but are not limited to:

1) Documentation of the assessment.

2) If an inquiry is conducted, the inquiry report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the inquiry including, but not limited to, research records and the transcripts of any transcribed interviews conducted during the inquiry, information the respondent provided to the institution, and the documentation of any decision not to investigate.

3) If an investigation is conducted, the investigation report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the investigation including, but not limited to, research records, the transcripts of each interview conducted, and information the respondent provided to the institution.

4) decision(s) by the Institutional Deciding Official, such as the written decision from the Institutional Deciding Official; and

5) the complete record of any institutional appeal consistent.

(b) A single index listing all the research records and evidence that the institution compiled during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the institution did not consider or rely on; and

Intentionally: acting with the aim of carrying out the act.

Investigation means: the formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record.

Knowingly: acting with the awareness of the act.

Preponderance of the Evidence means: proof by evidence that, compared with evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely true than not.

Recklessly: proposing, performing, or reviewing research with indifference to known risks of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.

Research Record means: the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry. Data or results may be in physical or electronic form. Examples of items, materials, or information that may be considered part of the research record include, but are not limited to, research proposals, raw data, processed data, clinical research records, laboratory records, study records, laboratory notebooks, progress reports, manuscripts, abstracts, theses, records of oral presentations, online content, lab meeting reports, and journal articles.

Retaliation means: an adverse action taken against a complainant, witness, or committee member by an institution or one of its members in response to:

(a) a good faith allegation of research misconduct; or

(b) good faith cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding.

I. RESEARCH MISCONDUCT ROLES

(a) Certifying Official is: the institutional official responsible for assuring on behalf of an institution that the institution has written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct and complies with its own policies and procedures. The Institutional Certifying Official is responsible for certifying the content of the institution’s annual report, which contains information specified by ORI on the institution’s compliance and confirming the report is submitted to ORI, as required. The Certifying Official for the University of Dayton is the Vice President for Academic Research.

(b) Complainant is: the person who makes a good faith allegation of research misconduct.

(c) Deciding Official (DO) is: the institutional official who makes the final determination regarding allegations of research misconduct and institutional recommendations and/or corrective actions. The same individual cannot serve as the Institutional Deciding Official and the Research Integrity Officer. The Deciding Official for allegations of research misconduct shall be the Vice President for Academic Research.

(d) Research Integrity Officer (RIO) refers to: the institutional official responsible for administering the institution’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct. For purposes of this Policy, the Research Integrity Officer shall be the Director of Research Compliance.

(e) Respondent is: the person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding.

II. RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

(a) Research means: a systematic experiment, study, evaluation, demonstration, or survey designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge (basic research) or specific knowledge (applied research) by establishing, discovering, developing, elucidating, or confirming information or underlying mechanisms related to biological causes, functions, or effects; diseases, treatments, or related matters to be studied.

(b) Research Misconduct is defined as: fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. It does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

(d) Falsification is defined as: 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 is defined as: the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

1) Plagiarism includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another’s work that materially misleads the reader regarding the contributions of the author. It does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology.

2) Plagiarism does not include self-plagiarism, authorship, or credit disputes, including disputes amount former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a research project. Self-plagiarism and authorship disputes do not meet the definition of research misconduct.

III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

(a) Ethical Standards and Responsible Conduct: the freedom accorded scholars and researchers carries the obligation of responsible self-discipline. Indeed, the maintenance of high ethical standards in the conduct of research and scholarship, and all other creative activity is a necessary condition for the proper functioning of the University. Dishonesty tarnishes the cause of truth, damages collegial relationships, and may cause irreparable harm to the relationship between the university and the public. Furthermore, as a Catholic and Marianist institution, the University has stated that “…we ground our investigations in the confidence that an open and diligent search for truth is its own best guardian, in deep respect for the people whom we study and with whom we study, and in an abiding communal commitment to the ever-deepening understanding and appreciation that is wisdom” (Statement of the Catholic and Marianist Identity of the University of Dayton, paragraph (19)). In collaborative work, misconduct directly affects the reputation of co-workers, and each investigator must share in assuring honest data gathering and presentation with appropriate credit given for contributions. Overall responsibility for the integrity of collaborative work always rests with the principal investigator/project director or author.

(b) Research Responsibilities: the scholar/researcher is responsible for the conduct of research and supervising other researchers, students, and staff personnel to promote high ethical standards in the conduct of such research. These standards include detecting irregular practices in research and scholarship procedures, handling data and results, introducing remedial measures in case of innocent mistakes, and investigating and eliminating willful fraud. Further, the scholar/researcher is responsible for reporting research results and for recording and retaining research data according to scientifically/professionally acceptable criteria.

(c) Responsibility to Report: all employees subject to these policies shall report, in good faith, observed, suspected, or apparent research misconduct to the RIO. If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of research misconduct, they may meet with or contact the RIO to discuss it informally, potentially anonymously or hypothetically. If the circumstances do not meet the definition, the RIO may refer the individual or allegation to other appropriate offices.

(d) Cooperation: all employees, including respondents, shall cooperate with the RIO, other institutional officials, and appointed committees in the review of allegations and the conduct of inquiries and investigations. This includes providing evidence relevant to research misconduct allegations to the RIO, other institutional officials, and applicable federal agencies, as requested.

(e) Confidentiality: all parties involved in the inquiry and investigation shall strive to maintain confidentiality of the information, respondents, complainants, witnesses, and research subjects, as applicable. To maintain confidentiality of the misconduct proceeding, the RIO and all committee members and others involved shall, to the extent possible, limit disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses, while conducting the research misconduct proceedings to the extent possible, to those who need to know to carry out a thorough, competent, objective, and fair research misconduct proceeding. Those who need to know may include institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions. This limitation on disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses no longer applies once a final determination of research misconduct findings has been made. The identity of respondents, complainants, or other relevant persons must be disclosed, as required, to ORI or other applicable oversight agency pursuant to the oversight agency’s review of research misconduct proceedings.

Except as prescribed by law, the RIO and all committee members and others involved shall limit the disclosure of any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified to those who need the information for the proceeding.

(f) Protections for Inquiry and Investigation Participants.

Retaliation against any complainant, witness, respondent, or committee member is prohibited. Any alleged or apparent retaliation should be immediately reported to the RIO, who shall review the matter with the DO and take appropriate action to protect these individuals from retaliation.

If questions arise concerning the basis for an allegation, the designated DO will determine whether the complainant’s allegations or a witness/committee member’s actions were made/acted in good faith. If an absence of good faith or retaliation is determined, the DO will make a referral for appropriate university disciplinary procedures.

During the research misconduct proceeding, the RIO is responsible for ensuring that respondents receive all notices, opportunities, and reports in accordance with the Procedures for Addressing Research Misconduct Allegations.

Respondents may consult with legal counsel or a non-lawyer personal adviser (who is not a principal or witness) for advice and may bring them to interviews or meetings, but they cannot directly participate in the proceeding. Respondents shall be given the opportunity to admit that research misconduct occurred.

During any stage of an inquiry or investigation, the University may take interim institutional actions as described in the corresponding procedure(s) to this Policy.

(g) Data Retention: all records shall be delivered to and kept secure by the RIO after the investigation. Records of research misconduct proceedings must be maintained in a secure manner for seven years after completion of the proceeding or any agency oversight proceeding, or as required by applicable record retention, whichever is later.

(h) Termination or Resignation Prior to Completing Inquiry or Investigation: the termination of the respondent’s institutional employment, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation of possible research misconduct has been reported will not preclude or terminate the research misconduct proceeding or otherwise limit any of the institution’s responsibilities. If the respondent resigns without admitting misconduct, the assessment, inquiry, and investigation will proceed. If the respondent refuses to participate after resignation, the RIO and committees will use their best efforts to reach a conclusion, noting the respondent’s failure to cooperate and its effect on the evidence.

IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

A finding of research misconduct requires that:

1) there be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community;

2) the misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and

3) the allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

V. CORRECTIVE AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION

If a finding of research misconduct is made, corrective actions or disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from employment, may be imposed in accordance with applicable University policies. Other corrective actions may include the following:

1) request that the researcher, or appropriate authority, withdraw from publication all pending abstracts and papers emanating from the fraudulent research; and

2) notification to the editors of journals to which said papers were submitted or published.

Reference Documents

Appendix A: Procedures for Addressing Research Misconduct Allegations

A. Initial Reporting and Assessment

1. Reporting Allegations. Allegations of research misconduct shall be submitted by any means with any evidence to the RIO:

Director of Research Compliance
University of Dayton
Fitz Hall, Suite 408
300 College Park
Dayton, OH 45469-2969

2. Assessment. An assessment’s purpose is to determine whether an allegation warrants an inquiry. It is intended to be a review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation. Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO or another designated institutional official shall promptly determine whether the allegation:

a. Falls within the definition of research misconduct, as defined by this Policy;

b. Is within the applicability criteria of 42 CFR § 93.102; and

c. Is credible and specific enough to identify and sequester potential evidence.

If the RIO or another institutional official determines that the allegation meets these three criteria, they shall promptly: (a) document the assessment, (b) sequester all research records and other evidence, and (c) initiate an inquiry. The RIO or other institutional official must document the assessment and retain the assessment documentation securely after completion of the misconduct proceedings.

If the RIO or another institutional official determines that the alleged misconduct does not meet the criteria to proceed to an inquiry, they shall sufficiently document the determination to permit a later review by ORI or other applicable oversight agency of why the University did not proceed to an inquiry.

3. Notifying the Respondent. At the time of or before beginning the inquiry, the University shall notify the presumed respondent(s), in writing, that an allegation(s) of research misconduct has been raised against them, the relevant research records have been sequestered, and an inquiry shall be conducted in accordance with Section B of this Procedure to decide whether to proceed with an investigation. If additional allegations are raised, the University shall notify the respondent(s) in writing.

When appropriate, the University shall provide the respondent(s) copies of, or reasonable supervised access to, the sequestered materials. If additional respondents are identified, the University shall provide written notification to the new respondent(s). All additional respondents shall be given the same rights and opportunities as the initial respondent. In the case of multiple respondents, only allegations specific to a particular respondent shall be included in the notification to that respondent.

4. Sequestering Evidence. Before or at the time of notifying the respondent(s), the University shall obtain the original or substantially equivalent copies of all research records and other evidence that are pertinent to the proceeding, inventory these materials, and sequester the materials in a secure manner. The University has a duty to obtain, inventory, and securely sequester evidence whenever additional items become known or relevant to the inquiry or investigation.

B. The Inquiry Process

1. Purpose & Criteria. The purpose of an inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine whether the allegation warrants an investigation. An inquiry is warranted if it meets all three of the following criteria:

a. Falls within the definition of research misconduct, as defined in this Policy;

b. Is within the applicability criteria of §93.102; and

c. Is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified.

An inquiry does not require a full review of all evidence.

2. Inquiry Committee. The RIO may appoint an Inquiry Committee. In lieu of a committee, the University may task the RIO or another designated institutional official to conduct the inquiry, provided this person utilizes subject matter experts as needed to assist in the inquiry. No member of the Inquiry Committee, or the RIO if they are conducting the inquiry, shall participate in the inquiry if they have a conflict of interest related to the proceedings.

If a committee is appointed, the RIO shall prepare a written charge for the Inquiry Committee. The charge shall:

a. Set forth the time for completion;

b. Describe research misconduct allegations and related issues;

c. State that the inquiry proceedings shall be conducted in compliance with the PHS regulation;

d. State that the purpose is to conduct an initial review of evidence to determine if an investigation is warranted, not to determine if misconduct occurred or who was responsible;

e. State that an investigation is warranted if the committee finds the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct, is within jurisdictional criteria, and may have substance based on review; and

f. Inform the committee that the identities of respondents, complainants, and witnesses shall be kept confidential.

3. Inquiry Process & Interviews. The Inquiry Committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official shall conduct a preliminary review of the evidence. In the process of fact-finding, the Inquiry Committee may interview the respondent and/or witnesses. An investigation is warranted if there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct and involves PHS supported biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training; or activities related to that research or research training, as provided in §93.102; and preliminary information gathering and fact-finding from the inquiry indicates that the allegation may have substance.

The Inquiry Committee will not determine if research misconduct occurred, nor assess whether the alleged misconduct was intentional, knowing, or reckless; such a determination is not made until the case proceeds to an investigation.

4. Documenting the Inquiry. At the conclusion of the inquiry, regardless of whether an investigation is warranted, the Inquiry Committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official will prepare a written inquiry report. The contents of a complete inquiry report shall include:

a. The names, professional aliases, and positions of the respondent(s) and complainant(s);

b. Description of allegation(s) of research misconduct;

c. Details about PHS funding, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS support, if applicable;

d. Composition of the Inquiry Committee, if used, including names, positions, and subject matter expertise;

e. Inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted;

f. Transcripts of interviews, if transcribed;

g. Inquiry timeline and procedural history;

h. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted;

i. The basis for recommending that the allegation(s) warrant an investigation;

j. The basis on which any allegation(s) do not merit further investigation;

k. Any comments on the inquiry report by the respondent(s) or complainant(s);

l. Any institutional actions implemented, including internal communications or external communications with journals or funding agencies; and

m. Documentation of potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion.

5. Notification & Opportunity to Comment. The University shall provide a copy of the draft inquiry report to the respondent for review and comment. The University may, but is not required to, provide relevant portions of the report to a complainant for comment.

The University shall notify the respondent of the inquiry’s final outcome and provide the respondent with copies of the final inquiry report, the PHS regulation, and this Policy and procedures. The University may, but is not required to, notify a complainant whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted. If the University provides notice to one complainant in a case, it must provide notice, to the extent possible, to all complainants in the case.

6. Institutional Decision & Completion Time. The University shall complete the inquiry within ninety (90) days of initiating it unless circumstances warrant a longer period, in which it will sufficiently document the reasons for exceeding the time limit in the inquiry report. The inquiry is completed when the Inquiry Committee makes a determination as to whether an investigation is warranted.

a. If an Investigation Is Not Warranted. If the Inquiry Committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official determines that an investigation is not warranted, the University shall keep sufficiently detailed documentation to permit a later review by ORI or other applicable oversight agency of why the University did not proceed to an investigation, store these records in a secure manner after the termination of the inquiry, and provide them to ORI or other applicable oversight agency upon request.

b. If an Investigation is Warranted. If the Inquiry Committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official determines that an investigation is warranted, the University must:

i. within a reasonable amount of time after this decision, but before the investigation begins, provide written notice to the respondent(s) of the decision to conduct an investigation of the alleged misconduct, including any allegations of research misconduct not addressed during the inquiry; and

ii. within thirty (30) days of determining that an investigation is warranted, provide ORI or other applicable oversight agency with a copy of the inquiry report as required.

On a case-by-case basis, the University may choose to notify the complainant(s) that there will be an investigation of the alleged misconduct, but is required to take the same notification action for all complainants in cases where there is more than one complainant.

C. The Investigation Process

1. Initiation & Purpose. The investigation ordinarily begins shortly after inquiry completion. For allegations involving PHS-funded research, the University shall notify ORI of the decision to investigate and begin the investigation within thirty (30) calendar days after the decision that an investigation it is warranted.

The purpose of an investigation is to formally develop a factual record, pursue leads, examine the record, and recommend finding(s) to the DO, who will make the final decision based on a preponderance of evidence on each allegation and any institutional actions. As part of its investigation, the University shall diligently pursue all significant issues and relevant leads, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion.

2. Notifying the Respondent. The University shall notify the respondent(s) of the allegation(s) within thirty (30) days of determining that an investigation is warranted and before the investigation begins. If any additional respondent(s) are identified during the investigation, the University shall notify them of the allegation(s) and provide them an opportunity to respond. If the University identifies additional respondents during the investigation, it may choose to either conduct a separate inquiry or add the new respondent(s) to the ongoing investigation.

3. Sequestration of Records. On or before the investigation begins, the University shall obtain the original or substantially equivalent copies of all research records and other evidence not previously secured during the inquiry, inventory these materials, sequester them in a secure manner, and retain them for seven years after its proceeding or any oversight agency proceeding, whichever is later.

4. Investigation Committee. The RIO, in consultation with the DO or other institutional officials, shall appoint an Investigation Committee of no less than three (3) persons. At least two (2) members must be full-time employees without conflicts of interest, not from the complainant’s or respondent’s department, and with appropriate subject matter expertise. The respondent may select one full-time employee with experience in research and/or scholarship to serve on the Committee. Faculty members appointed to the Committee shall be tenured faculty (associate or full professor). Individuals from the Inquiry Committee may also serve on the Investigation Committee.

After vetting Investigation Committee members for conflicts of interest and appropriate scientific expertise, the University shall convene the Committee and ensure that the members understand their responsibility to conduct the research misconduct proceedings in compliance with the PHS regulation.

The RIO shall prepare a written charge for the Investigation Committee. The charge shall:

a. Identify the respondent and describe the allegation(s);

b. Inform the committee it must conduct the investigation as prescribed;

c. Define research misconduct;

d. Instruct on the burden of proof and standard for findings; and

e. Inform the committee it is responsible for preparing a written investigation report.

The University shall notify the respondent(s) in writing of any additional allegations raised against them during the investigation.

5. Investigation Process & Interviews. The Investigation Committee shall:

a. Use diligent efforts to ensure the investigation is thorough, sufficiently documented, and take reasonable steps to conduct an impartial and unbiased investigation to the maximum extent practicable;

b. Conduct interviews, diligently pursue leads, and examine all research records and other evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegation(s). The committee may request involvement of outside experts. Additional hearings may be held, especially if the respondent disputes initial findings;

c. The University shall interview each respondent, complainant(s), 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;

d. The University shall number all relevant exhibits and refer to any exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview by that number;

e. The University shall record and transcribe interviews during the investigation and make the transcripts available to the interviewee for correction. The University shall include the transcript(s) with any corrections and exhibits in the institutional record of the investigation; and

f. The respondent will not be present during the witnesses’ interviews, but the University shall provide the respondent with a transcript of each interview, with redactions as appropriate to maintain confidentiality for the respondent, complainant(s), and witnesses and to protect complainants, witnesses, and committee members from retaliation.

6. Burden of Proof & Standard for Finding Misconduct. To determine that the respondent committed research misconduct, the Investigation Committee must find by a preponderance of the evidence that:

a. Research misconduct, as defined in the policy, occurred;

b. The research misconduct is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and

c. The respondent committed the research misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. '

The University bears the burden of proof for making a finding of research misconduct. A respondent’s destruction of research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where the University establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent intentionally or knowingly destroyed records after being informed of the research misconduct allegations. Additionally, a respondent’s failure to provide research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where the respondent claims to possess the records but refuses to provide them upon request.

The respondent has the burden of proving any affirmative defenses (e.g., honest error or difference of opinion) by a preponderance of the evidence. The respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, any mitigating factors relevant to a decision to impose administrative actions after a research misconduct proceeding.

7. Documenting the Investigation and Investigation Report Content. The investigation report for each respondent shall include:

a. Description of the nature of the allegation(s) of research misconduct including any additional allegation(s) addressed during the research misconduct proceeding;

b. Description and documentation of the PHS support, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS support. This documentation includes known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with PHS and non-PHS Federal agencies;

c. Description of the specific allegation(s) of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation of the respondent;

d. Composition of the investigation committee, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise;

e. Inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence, except records the University did not consider or rely on. This inventory shall include manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied on during the investigation. The inventory shall also include a description of how any sequestration was conducted during the investigation;

f. Transcripts of all interviews conducted;

g. Identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), PHS funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, or other research records that contain the allegedly falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material;

h. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted;

i. A copy of this University of Dayton Integrity in Research and Scholarship Policy and corresponding procedure(s);

j. Any comments made by the respondent and complainant(s) on the draft investigation report and the committee’s consideration of those comments; and

k. A statement for each separate allegation of whether the committee recommends a finding of research misconduct.

If the committee recommends a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the investigation report shall present a finding for each allegation. These findings will:

a. identify the individual(s) who committed the research misconduct;

b. indicate whether the misconduct was falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism;

c. indicate whether the misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly;

d. identify any significant departure from the accepted practices of the relevant research community and that the allegation was proven by a preponderance of the evidence;

e. summarize the facts and analysis supporting the conclusion and consider the merits of any explanation by the respondent;

f. identify the specific PHS support; and

g. state whether any publications need correction or retraction.

If the Investigation Committee does not recommend a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the investigation report shall provide a detailed rationale for its conclusion.

The Investigation Committee should also provide a list of any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with PHS and non-PHS Federal agencies.

8. Comments on Draft Report. The University shall provide the respondent a copy of the draft investigation report and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the research records and other evidence that the Investigation Committee considered or relied on. The respondent shall submit any comments on the draft report to the University within thirty (30) days of receiving the draft investigation report. The University may share a copy of the draft investigation report or relevant portions of it with the complainant(s) for comment. If the University chooses to share a copy of the draft investigation report or relevant portions with the complainant(s), the complainant’s comments shall be submitted within thirty (30) days of the date on which they received the report. The University shall add any comments received to the investigation report.

9. Institutional Decision. The DO shall review the investigation report and make a final written determination of whether the University found research misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct. In this statement, the DO shall include a description of relevant institutional actions taken or to be taken.

D. Resolution, Notification, and Appeal

1. Final Decision & Notification. After the DO has made a final determination of research misconduct findings, the University shall add the DO’s written decision to the investigation report and organize the institutional record in a logical manner. The institutional record consists of the records that were compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the University did not rely on. These records include documentation of the assessment, a single index listing all research records and evidence, the inquiry report and investigation report, and all records considered or relied on during the investigation. The institutional record also includes the DO’s final decision and any information the respondent provided to the University. The institutional record must also include a general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.

If the respondent filed an appeal, as described further below, the complete record of any institutional appeal also becomes part of the institutional record. After any institutional appeal is complete and the DO has made a final written determination, the University shall transmit the institutional record to ORI or other applicable oversight agency, as required.

The DO shall communicate results to appropriate deans, legal counsel, and the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs. Consideration should be given to notifying co-authors, co-investigators, collaborators, and journal editors.

2. Appeal Process. A written notice of appeal from the respondent, stating grounds, must be submitted to the DO through the RIO within thirty (30) days of the final notification of findings. Grounds may include new evidence, disproportionate sanctions, or material procedural defects. The DO shall transfer the appeal process to the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs may request the RIO reconvene the Investigation Committee, convene a separate committee, or affirm/deny the appeal. The Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs’s decision on whether research misconduct occurred is final and shall be conveyed within thirty (30) calendar days. However, the disciplinary actions imposed may be appealed as set forth in applicable University policy.

3. The University shall complete all aspects of the investigation within one hundred eighty (180) days. The University will conduct the investigation, prepare the draft investigation report for each respondent, and provide the opportunity for respondents to comment. The University will document the DO’s final decision and transmit the institutional record (including the final investigation report and DO’s decision) to ORI or other applicable oversight agency, as required. If the investigation takes more than one hundred eighty (180) days to complete, the University shall ask ORI or other applicable oversight agency, if required, in writing for an extension and document the reasons for exceeding the 180-day period in the investigation report.

E. Other Considerations and Special Circumstances

1. Interim Institutional Actions and Notifying Federal Agencies of Special Circumstances. In the event of any threat of harm to public health, federal funds/equipment, or research integrity, the RIO, in consultation with other officials and the applicable oversight agency, may take appropriate interim actions (e.g., additional monitoring, reassignment of personnel/responsibilities, additional data review, delaying publication). For federally funded research, the University must immediately notify ORI (or relevant federal agency) if there is reason to believe:

a. Public health or safety is at risk, including immediate need to protect human or animal subjects;

b. Federal resources or interests are threatened;

c. Research activities should be suspended;

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

e. Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding;

f. The proceeding may be made public prematurely, requiring federal action to safeguard evidence and rights; or

g. The federal oversight agency may need to take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved.

2. Multiple Institutions and Multiple Respondents. If the alleged research misconduct involves multiple institutions, the University may work closely with the other affected institutions to determine whether a joint research misconduct proceeding will be conducted. If so, the cooperating institutions shall choose an institution to serve as the lead institution. In a joint research misconduct proceeding, the lead institution will obtain research records and other evidence pertinent to the proceeding, including witness testimony from the other relevant institutions. By mutual agreement, the joint research misconduct proceeding may include committee members from the institutions involved. The determination of whether further inquiry and/or investigation is warranted, whether research misconduct occurred, and the institutional actions to be taken may be made by the institutions jointly or tasked to the lead institution.

If the alleged research misconduct involves multiple respondents, the University may either conduct a separate inquiry for each new respondent or add them to the ongoing proceedings. The University must give additional respondent(s) notice of and an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

3. Respondent Admissions. For federally funded research, the University shall promptly notify ORI or other applicable oversight agency in advance if at any point during the proceedings (including the assessment, inquiry, investigation, or appeal stage) it plans to close a research misconduct case because the respondent has admitted to committing research misconduct or a settlement with the respondent has been reached. If the respondent admits to research misconduct, the University will not close the case until providing ORI or other oversight agency with the respondent’s signed, written admission. The admission must state the following:

a. Specific fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism that occurred;

b. Which research records were affected; and

c. That it constituted a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.

The University must also provide a written statement to ORI or other oversight agency, if applicable, confirming the respondent’s culpability and explaining how the University determined that the respondent’s admission fully addresses the scope of the misconduct.