PSU Procedures For Handling Allegations Of Scientific and Scholarly Misconduct

Preface

The Portland State University Procedures for Handling Allegations of Scientific and Scholarly Misconduct were developed by the Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Research in consultation with members of the academic administration and the Faculty Senate Presiding Officer to comply with federal requirements that the University have procedures in place for dealing with scientific misconduct.

The interim procedures are based upon those adopted by Oregon State University in November 1989. The original procedures were written to conform to the 1989 NIH policy and to follow National Science Foundation, Public Health Services and the Association of American Universities guidelines.

The procedures are intended to complement procedures already in effect, such as Oregon Administrative Rules, policies and procedures pertaining to animal welfare, human subjects, radiation safety, recombinant DNA, and drugs in the workplace. The procedures explicitly include scholarly conduct along with scientific conduct, and are therefore intended to apply broadly to PSU faculty and other investigators in the sciences, professional schools, humanities, and the arts.

September 1990

Purpose

It is the purpose of these procedures to set forth guidelines for efficient disclosure and resolution of accusations of scientific and scholarly misconduct in a manner that (1) protects the public from the results of misconduct, (2) protects innocent scientists and scholars from harassment or interference with their academic freedom, and (3) protects from retribution the individual who, in good faith, presents evidence of misconduct.

Definitions

Scientific and scholarly misconduct means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific or scholarly communities for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activity. The misconduct may appear in the content of a grant proposal, published manuscript, work of art, film, news release, or other expression of scientific or scholarly activity. Not covered by these procedures are substandard, careless research practices, or errors which are effectively dealt with by the peer review process for promotion, publication, and grant proposals.

The complainant is the individual who reports possible misconduct to the mediator.

The mediator in most situations will be the department chairperson or head of the unit in which the alleged misconduct has occurred. However, if the allegation involves the department chairperson or head, or if the complainant is unsatisfied with the response, the alleged misconduct may be reported to the academic dean of the unit. A complainant who is unsatisfied by the response at this level may present the allegation to the Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Research. If still unsatisfied, the complainant may present the allegation to the Provost. The President of the University, who is the final institutional mediator, may be contacted by the complainant if responses at all other levels were found unsatisfactory.

The respondent is the individual accused of misconduct. This individual may be an employee or appointee of PSU or be under the supervision of a PSU employee or appointee.

The adviser is an individual appointed by the mediator to provide professional assistance in the inquiry.

The inquiry is informal information-gathering and fact-finding to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of misconduct warrants an investigation.

The investigation is the formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if misconduct has occurred.

Reporting of Alleged Scientific and Scholarly Misconduct

Reports by any colleague, student, or unaffiliated individual who believes that scientific or scholarly misconduct has occurred should be made in accordance with OAR 577-41-015 in writing to the President and to the mediator.

The mediator must decide whether the allegation falls within the definition of scientific or scholarly misconduct.

Consultation between a complainant and the mediator must be in strict confidence to the extent permitted by state law and OSSHE regulations.

Within one week of receiving a written allegation, the mediator must file a report with the Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Research indicating whether or not an inquiry is appropriate. The report must include a summary of the allegation, the mediator's response, and an explanation of the response, but it should not include names or remarks that reveal the identity of the complainant or respondent.

If an inquiry is not appropriate, within one week of receiving the written allegation the mediator must explain this fact in writing to the complainant. The mediator should keep sufficient notes to explain how the situation was resolved, if called upon to do so at a later date.

Even though no further action appears warranted, the mediator ordinarily should inform the respondent of the allegation at this point, without disclosing the name of the complainant.

The Inquiry

The purpose of the inquiry is to gather information and facts informally to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of misconduct warrants in investigation.

To protect the anonymity of the complainant, all aspects of the inquiry must be conducted confidentially, to the extent permitted by state law and OSSHE regulation.

As soon as possible after determining that an allegation falls within the definition of scientific or scholarly misconduct, the mediator must notify the respondent in writing of the allegation and invite a response.

The mediator, at his or her discretion, may seek the advice of one or more individuals, termed adviser(s), who should be professionally familiar with the nature of the area of alleged misconduct.

The mediator and adviser(s) must decide within 60 days of the initial allegation whether there is sufficient evidence of misconduct to proceed with a formal investigation. The mediator must report the results of the inquiry in writing to the Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Research within this period. The report should include a discussion of the evidence, a summary of relevant interviews and a statement of the conclusions reached. The respondent shall be given a copy of the report and an opportunity to append written comments. If it is determined that no investigation is warranted, the report should not include names or remarks that reveal the identity of the complainant or respondent. If it is determined that an investigation is warranted, the mediator must also notify the respondent's immediate supervisor and academic dean.

The reasons for a decision not to proceed with an investigation must be documented in sufficient detail by the mediator to permit a later assessment of the reasons for determining that an investigation was not warranted. Such records should be maintained by the mediator for three years in a secure manner apart from the respondent's personnel file.

The Investigation

The purpose of an investigation is to examine all relevant facts formally to determine whether scientific or scholarly misconduct has occurred.

In accordance with OAR 577-41-030(2), a special ad hoc Screening Panel shall be appointed by the Advisory Council. The chairperson and at least two other members shall be tenured faculty members at PSU, and at least two members should have expertise in the area of alleged misconduct. In the event that two impartial experts are not available on the faculty, the Advisory Council may select outside experts to serve on the Screening Panel. The Vice Provost for Graduate Studies must not be a member of the Screening Panel but should be available for advice if any member of the Screening Panel requests it. The respondent may be advised by a colleague or an attorney during the investigation.

The investigation must begin within 30 days of a notification of the Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Research by the mediator. The Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) of the NIH/PHS and any other funding agency supporting the respondent's research must, at that time, be notified by the Vice Provost of Graduate Studies and Research of the intent to investigate. The investigation must be completed within 120 days unless extenuating circumstances, acceptable to the Screening Panel, OSI and any other funding agency, prevail.

The investigation must be conducted in such a manner that the respondent is aware of all the accusations and evidence, including the identity of the complainant, as early as possible, and shall be given the opportunity to respond. The investigation normally shall include examination of all documentation, including but not necessarily limited to relevant research data and proposals, publications, correspondence, and memoranda of telephone calls. Whenever possible, interviews should be conducted with all individuals involved either in making the allegation or against whom the allegation is made, as well as other individuals who might have information regarding key aspects of the allegations; complete summaries of these interviews should be prepared, provided to the interviewed party for comment or revision, and included as part of the investigatory file.

All parts of the investigation shall remain confidential to the extent permitted by state law and OSSHE regulation, unless the respondent requests in writing that the proceedings be open to the public.

After the respondent has been given an opportunity to comment on the findings, the final report of the Screening Panel must be submitted in writing to the Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Research within one week after the close of the investigation.

The respondent and granting agencies shall also receive copies of the report. The Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Research shall keep all written documents and other evidence used in the investigation, together with the Screening Panel report, in a confidential and secure file.

Procedures for the Imposition of Sanctions

Any disciplinary action shall be decided by the President of the University in accordance with the procedures of rule OAR 517-41-015.

Reporting of Hazards and Violations

Notwithstanding any other provision in these procedures the Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Research shall notify OSI at any stage of the inquiry or investigation that any of the following conditions exist: (1) There is an immediate health hazard involved; (2) there is an immediate need to protect federal funds or equipment; (3) there is an immediate need to protect the interest of the person(s) making the allegations or of the individual(s) who is the subject of the allegations as well as his or her co-investigators and associates, if any; (4) it is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly; or (5) there is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violation, in which instance the Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Research must inform OSI within 24 hours of obtaining that information.

Prohibition Against Retaliation

No retaliation shall be taken against anyone who makes an allegation in good faith nor against a respondent who is cleared of all allegations.