Skip Navigation and Go To Content
Handbook of Operating Procedures

Appendix A - Guidelines and Procedures for Allegations of Research Misconduct

The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston

The purpose of this document is to outline the guidelines and procedures adopted by The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (“University”) for allegations of research misconduct. The University’s underlying policy regarding research misconduct can be found in HOOP Policy 202 Research Misconduct.

I. Definitions

Allegation: Any written or oral statement or other indication of possible research misconduct made to a University official.

Complainant: Person who in good faith makes an allegation of scientific research misconduct. 

Conflict of interest: Real or apparent interference of one person's interests with the interests of another person, where potential bias may occur due to prior or existing personal or professional relationships.

DHHS:  United States Department of Health and Human Services.

Evidence: 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.

Research Misconduct: Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, conducting, reviewing, or reporting research. Each of these terms is defined in HOOP 202 Research Misconduct. Research misconduct does not include honest errors or differences of opinion, interpretation or judgement.

Good Faith Allegation: Allegation made with the honest belief that research misconduct may have occurred. An allegation is not in good faith if it is made with reckless disregard for, or willful ignorance of, facts that would disprove the allegation.

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

Intentionally: To act intentionally means to act with the aim of carrying out the act.

Investigation: Formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if research misconduct has occurred, and, if so, to determine the responsible person and the seriousness of the misconduct.

Knowingly: To act knowingly means to act with awareness of the act.

ORI: Office of Research Integrity, the office within the DHHS that is responsible for the research misconduct and research integrity activities of the U. S. Public Health Service.

Preponderance of the evidence. 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.

PHS:  U. S. Public Health Service, an operating component of the DHHS.

PHS Regulation: Public Health Service regulation establishing standards for institutional inquiries and investigations into allegations of research misconduct, which is set forth in 42 C.F.R. Part 93

PHS Support: PHS grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, or applications therefore.

Recklessly: To act recklessly means to propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.

Research Record: 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.`

Respondent: Person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or the person whose actions are the subject of the inquiry or investigation. There can be more than one respondent in any inquiry or investigation.

Retaliation: Any action that adversely affects the employment or other institutional status of a complainant that is taken by the University or by an employee because the complainant has, in good faith, made an allegation of research misconduct or of inadequate institutional response thereto or has cooperated in good faith with an investigation of such allegation.

II. Rights and Responsibilities

A.   Research Integrity Officer

The University’s Research Integrity Officer (RIO) is the institutional official responsible for administering the University’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct. The RIO has the primary responsibility for implementation of the procedures set forth in these guidelines and in HOOP 202. The Senior Vice President of Research Strategy and Innovation will serve as the Research Integrity Officer.

The RIO will monitor the treatment of individuals who bring allegations of misconduct or of inadequate response by the University (e.g., complainants) and those who cooperate in inquiries or investigations. The RIO will ensure these persons will not be retaliated against in the terms and conditions of their employment or other status at the University and will review instances of alleged retaliation for appropriate action. Employees should immediately report any alleged or apparent retaliation to the RIO or to other University officials in accordance with HOOP Policy 108 Protection from Retaliation.

The RIO should seek legal advice from the Office of Legal Affairs at all stages in these procedures.

B.   Complainant

The complainant is responsible for making allegations in good faith, as having a reasonable belief in the truth of one’s allegation or testimony, based on the information known to the complainant at the time. The complainant is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating with an inquiry or investigation.

C.   Respondent

The respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating with the conduct of an inquiry or investigation. If the respondent is not found guilty of research misconduct, he or she has the right to receive assistance from the University in restoring his or her reputation (see Section III.E.2).

The respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of evidence, affirmative defenses raised, such as honest error. Any destruction by a respondent of research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where a preponderance of evidence establishes that the respondent intentionally or knowingly destroyed records after being informed of the research misconduct allegations. 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.

University employees accused of research misconduct may consult with their personal legal counsel or a non-attorney personal advisor (who is not a witness or otherwise connected to the case) to seek advice and may, with the prior written approval of the RIO, bring the counsel or personal advisor to interviews or meetings on the case.

If, at any point in the process, the respondent admits to research misconduct, the respondent will sign a written statement specifying the affected research records and confirming the specific falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism that occurred; and that it constituted a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.

D.   Institutional Deciding Officer

The Institutional Deciding Official (IDO) makes the final determination of research misconduct findings. The IDO cannot serve as the RIO.  The Senior Vice President for Academic and Faculty Affairs will serve as the IDO.

E.   All Employees

All employees or individuals associated with the University should report 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, he or she may contact the RIO to discuss the suspected 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 for assistance.

At any time, an employee may have confidential discussions and consultations about concerns of possible misconduct with the RIO and will be counseled about appropriate procedures for reporting allegations.

University employees are required to cooperate with the RIO and other University officials in the review of allegations and the conduct of inquiries and investigations. Employees have an obligation to provide relevant evidence to the RIO or other University officials on research misconduct allegations. All employees involved in any part of these procedures are responsible for maintaining confidentiality.

F.   Institution

The University will make these policies and procedures available to the research community.  Inquiries and investigations will be conducted in a manner that will ensure fair treatment to the respondent(s) in the inquiry or investigation and confidentiality to the extent possible without compromising public health and safety or thoroughly carrying out the inquiry or investigation.

The University will protect the privacy of those who report misconduct in good faith to the maximum extent possible. For example, if the complainant requests anonymity, the University will make an effort to honor the request during the allegation assessment or inquiry within applicable policies and regulations and state and local laws, if any. The complainant will be advised that, if the matter is referred to an investigation committee and the complainant's testimony is required, anonymity may no longer be possible. Diligent efforts will be used to protect the positions and reputations of those persons who, in good faith, make such allegations.

To the extent possible, the University will limit disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses while conducting the research misconduct proceedings to those who need to know. This limitation on disclosure no longer applies once the institution has made a final determination of research misconduct findings.

The University bears the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, for making a finding of research misconduct.

III. Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct

A.  Preliminary Assessment of Allegations

Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO will promptly perform a preliminary assessment.

The purpose of an assessment is to determine whether an allegation warrants an inquiry.  An assessment is intended to be a review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation. Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO is responsible for promptly assessing the allegation to determine whether the allegation:

  1. is within the definition and applicability of research misconduct under HOOP 202 and
  2. is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified.

If the RIO determines that requirements for an inquiry are not met, they will keep sufficiently detailed documentation of the assessment to permit a later review of the reasons why an inquiry was not conducted.

If the RIO determines that the requirements for an inquiry are met, they shall document the assessment, promptly sequester all research records and other evidence, and promptly initiate the inquiry. The procedure for sequestering the records and initiating the inquiry are described below.

B.  Inquiry

An inquiry’s purpose is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine whether an allegation warrants an investigation.  An inquiry does not require a full review of all related evidence. The purpose of the inquiry is not to reach a final conclusion about whether research misconduct definitely occurred or who was responsible. The inquiry should be completed within 90 days of initiation unless circumstances warrant a longer period. For inquiries exceeding 90 days, the reasons for exceeding the time limit will be documented in the inquiry report.

1. Sequestration of the Research Records and Notifying the Respondent

After performing a preliminary assessment and determining that an allegation warrants an inquiry, the RIO will ensure that all original research records and materials relevant to the allegation are maintained in a secure manner. Sequestration must occur before or at the time of notifying the respondent. In sequestering the research record and all relevant materials, the RIO must take all reasonable and practical steps to:

  1. obtain custody of all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding and
  2. 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.

At the time of or before beginning the inquiry, the RIO will make a good-faith effort to notify the presumed respondent(s), in writing, that an allegation(s) of research misconduct has been raised against them, that the relevant research records have been sequestered, that an inquiry will be conducted to decide whether to proceed with an investigation, and that they may consult with their personal legal counsel or non-attorney personal advisor.  Respondents will also be provided a copy of HOOP 202 and a copy of these guidelines and procedures.

If additional allegations are raised, the institution will notify the respondent(s) in writing.  When appropriate, the institution will give the respondent(s) copies of, or reasonable supervised access to, the sequestered materials.

If additional respondents are identified, the RIO will provide written notification to the new respondent(s).  All additional respondents will be given the same rights and opportunities as the initial respondent.  Only allegations specific to a particular respondent will be included in the notification to that respondent.

2. Inquiry Committee

The RIO, in consultation with other University officials as appropriate, will appoint an inquiry committee of at least three persons, including a committee chair, within 14 calendar days of the initiation of the inquiry. The inquiry committee will consist of individuals who do not have real or apparent conflicts of interest in the case, are unbiased, and have the necessary expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation, interview the principals and key witnesses, and conduct the inquiry. These individuals may be scientists, subject matter experts, administrators, ethicists, or other qualified persons.  They may be from inside or outside the University. At least one member shall have an active faculty appointment at the University.

In lieu of a committee, the RIO or another designated institutional official may conduct the inquiry, utilizing subject matter experts as needed to assist in the inquiry.

The RIO will promptly notify the respondent of the proposed committee membership. If the respondent submits a written objection to any appointed member of the inquiry committee based on bias or conflict of interest within 7 calendar days after receipt of notice, the RIO will determine whether to replace the challenged member with a qualified substitute.

The RIO will provide a written charge for the inquiry committee that describes the allegations and any related issues identified during the allegation assessment.  The charge will state that the purpose of the inquiry is to make a preliminary evaluation based on the evidence and testimonies of the respondent, complainant, and key witnesses to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of possible research misconduct to warrant an investigation. The purpose is not to determine whether research misconduct definitely occurred or who was responsible.

3. Inquiry Process

The inquiry committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official will conduct a preliminary review of the evidence.  The inquiry process involves a review of the research record and may include interviews with the respondent, complainant, and any relevant witnesses to determine whether the allegation has sufficient substance to warrant a formal investigation. An investigation is warranted if:

  1. there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct under HOOP 202 and
  2. 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. 

The RIO and University counsel from the Office of Legal Affairs will be available throughout the inquiry to advise the committee as needed.

4. Inquiry Report

At the conclusion of the inquiry, regardless of the outcome, the inquiry committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official will prepare a written inquiry report. The contents of a complete inquiry report will include:

  1. The names, professional aliases, and positions of the respondent and complainant(s).
  2. A description of the allegation(s) of research misconduct.
  3. Details about any PHS funding, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS support.
  4. The composition of the inquiry committee, if used, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
  5. An inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted.
  6. Transcripts of interviews, if transcribed.
  7. Inquiry timeline and procedural history.
  8. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
  9. The basis for recommending that the allegation(s) warrant an investigation.
  10. The basis for concluding that any allegation(s) do not merit further investigation, including documentation of potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion.
  11. Any comments on the inquiry report by the respondent and/or the complainant(s).
  12. Any recommendation for institutional action, including internal communications or external communications with journals, funding agencies, or other outside bodies.
  13. If the inquiry exceeded 60 calendar days from initiation, the reasons for exceeding that 60-day period.

5. Notification of Draft Inquiry Report

The RIO will provide a draft of the inquiry report to the respondent with 14 calendar days to review and provide comments. Any comments received within the time limit provided will be included with the final inquiry report.  

The RIO may, but is not required to, notify the complainant(s), if they are identifiable, whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted.  The RIO may provide the complainant(s) with portions of the draft inquiry report that address the complainant's role and opinions in the investigation or a summary of the inquiry findings for comment. If a draft is provided and comments are received within the deadline provided, those comments will be included with the final inquiry report.

In distributing the draft inquiry report, or portions thereof, to the respondent and complainant, the RIO will inform the recipient of the confidentiality under which the draft report is being made available and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure such confidentiality. For example, the RIO may request the recipient sign a confidentiality statement or to come to a specific location to review the report.

6. Notice of Inquiry Outcome

The RIO will notify the respondent of the inquiry’s final outcome and provide the respondent with a copy of the final inquiry report. 

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 will keep sufficiently detailed documentation to permit a later review of why the institution did not proceed to an investigation.  

If an Investigation is Warranted:

If the inquiry committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official determines that an investigation is warranted, the RIO must:

  1. within a reasonable amount of time after this decision, 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
  2. for research supported by PHS funding, within 30 days of determining that an investigation is warranted, provide ORI with a copy of the inquiry report.

C.   Investigation

The purpose of the investigation is to is to formally develop a factual record, pursue leads, examine the record, and recommend finding(s) to the IDO, 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 will pursue diligently all significant issues and relevant leads, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion.  The investigation will begin within 30 days of the decision that an investigation is warranted.

The investigation should be completed within 180 days. If the investigation requires more than 180 days to complete, for PHS supported research, the institution will ask ORI in writing for an extension and document the reasons for exceeding the 180-day period in the investigation report. For other research, the RIO will request an extension in writing from the IDO and document the reasons for exceeding the 180-day period in the investigation report.

1.    Sequestration of the Research Records and Notifying Respondent(s)

The RIO will immediately secure any additional pertinent research records that were not previously secured during the inquiry. This sequestration should occur before or at the time the respondent is notified that an investigation has begun. The need for additional sequestration of records may occur for any number of reasons, including the University's decision to investigate additional allegations not considered during the inquiry stage or the identification of records during the inquiry process that had not been previously secured.

2.    Investigation Committee

The RIO, in consultation with other University officials as appropriate, will promptly appoint an investigation committee. The investigation committee will consist of at least three individuals, including a committee chair, who do not have real or apparent conflicts of interest in the case, are unbiased, and have the necessary expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegations, interview the principals and key witnesses, and conduct the investigation. These individuals may be scientists, administrators, subject matter experts, ethicists, or other qualified persons. They may be from inside or outside the University. At least one member shall have an active faculty appointment at the University.  Individuals appointed to the investigation committee may also have served on the inquiry committee.

The RIO will promptly notify the respondent of the proposed committee membership. If the respondent submits a written objection to any appointed member of the investigation committee, the RIO will determine whether to replace the challenged member with a qualified substitute.

The investigation committee will be appointed and the investigation will begin within 30 days of the completion of the inquiry. The RIO will define the subject matter of the investigation in a written charge to the committee that:

  1. describes the allegations and related issues identified during the inquiry,
  2. defines research misconduct, and
  3. identifies the name of the respondent.

The charge will state that the committee is to evaluate the evidence and testimony of the respondent, complainant, and key witnesses relevant to determining whether, based on a preponderance of the evidence, research misconduct occurred and, if so, to what extent, who was responsible, and its seriousness. The committee is also charged with making recommendations regarding actions to be taken based on its findings. The investigation committee will be provided a copy of these guidelines and procedures and HOOP 202.

To recommend a finding that misconduct occurred, the investigation committee must find that a preponderance of the evidence establishes that:

  1. research misconduct, as defined by the policy, occurred;
  2. the research misconduct is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research or scholarship community; and
  3. the respondent committed the research misconduct intentionally, knowingly, and/or recklessly.

The investigation committee will conduct interviews, pursue leads, and examine all research records and other evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegation(s).  The University will use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough, sufficiently documented, and impartial and unbiased to the maximum extent practicable.  The RIO will notify the respondent in writing of any additional allegations raised against them during the investigation.

During the investigation, if additional information becomes available that substantially changes the subject matter of the investigation or would suggest additional respondents, the committee will notify the RIO, who will determine whether it is necessary to notify the respondent of the new subject matter and/or to provide notice to additional respondents.

The RIO and University counsel from the Office of Legal Affairs will be available throughout the investigation to advise the committee as needed.

3.    Investigation Process

The investigation process involves a thorough and systematic examination of all relevant evidence to determine whether research misconduct occurred. The Investigation Committee members conduct an in-depth review of the research record related to the allegation(s).

The investigation will include interviews with 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 and/or the complainant(s).

All interviews will be recorded and transcribed during the investigation. Any exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview must be numbered and referred to by that number in the interview. The recordings and transcripts will be made available to the interviewee for correction.  The recording(s) and transcript(s) with any corrections and exhibits will be maintained in the institutional record of the investigation. 

The respondent must not be present during the witnesses’ interviews, but the RIO will provide the respondent with a transcript of each interview, with redactions as appropriate to maintain confidentiality.

4.    Investigation Report

The investigation report for each respondent will include:

  1. Description of the nature of the allegation(s) of research misconduct, including any additional allegation(s) addressed during the research misconduct proceeding.
  2. Description and documentation of the PHS and non-PHS support, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS and non-PHS support. This documentation includes known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending, including those with PHS and non-PHS federal agencies and non-federal funding sources.
  3. Description of the specific allegation(s) of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation of the respondent.
  4. Composition of investigation committee, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
  5. Inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence, except records the institution did not consider or rely on. This inventory will include manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied on during the investigation. The inventory will also include a description of how any sequestration was conducted during the investigation.
  6. Transcripts of all interviews conducted.
  7. Identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), PHS and non-PHS funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, or other research records that contain the allegedly falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material.
  8. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
  9. A copy of HOOP 202 and these guidelines and procedures.
  10. Any comments made by the respondent and complainant(s) on the draft investigation report and the committee’s consideration of those comments.
  11. A statement for each separate allegation of whether the committee recommends a finding of research misconduct.
  12. If the investigation took more than 180 days to complete, documentation of the reasons for exceeding the 180-day period and the approval of the timeline extension (from ORI or internally).

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

  1. identify the individual(s) who committed the research misconduct;
  2. indicate whether the misconduct was falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism;
  3. indicate whether the misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, and/or recklessly;
  4. 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;
  5. summarize the facts and analysis supporting the conclusion and consider the merits of any explanation by the respondent;
  6. identify any specific PHS support; and
  7. 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 will provide a detailed rationale for its conclusion.

5.    Notice of Draft Investigation Report

The RIO will notify the respondent of the investigation committee’s findings and provide a copy of the draft investigation report and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the evidence on which the report is based.  The respondent must submit his/her comments on the draft investigation report, if any, within 30 calendar days of the date the respondent received the draft investigation report.  The respondent's comments will be attached to the final report. The findings of the final report should take into account the respondent's comments in addition to all other evidence.

The RIO may provide the complainant, if he or she is identifiable, with those portions of the draft investigation report that address the complainant's role and opinions in the investigation. The complainant must submit his/her comments on the draft investigation report, if any, within 30 calendar days of the date the complainant received the draft investigation report.  The complainant's comments will be attached to the final report. The findings of the final report should take into account the complainant's comments in addition to all other evidence.

In distributing the draft investigation report, or portions thereof, to the respondent and complainant, the RIO will inform the recipient of the confidentiality under which the draft report is being made available and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure such confidentiality. For example, the RIO may request the recipient sign a confidentiality statement or to come to a specific location to review the report.

6.    Institutional Review and Decision

The IDO will make the final determination, based on a preponderance of the evidence, whether to accept the investigation report, its findings, and the recommended institutional actions.

The IDO’s final determination of research misconduct findings will be documented in a written decision that includes:

  1. Whether the institution found research misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct; and
  2. A description of the relevant institutional actions to be taken. These actions may include:
    1. withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the research where research misconduct was found;
    2. removal of the responsible person from the particular project;
    3. letter of reprimand;
    4. special monitoring of future work;
    5. salary reduction;
    6. restitution of funds as appropriate;
    7. probation;
    8. suspension;
    9. initiation of steps leading to possible rank reduction; and/or
    10. initiation of steps leading to possible termination of employment.

The IDO’s determination, together with the investigation committee's report, constitutes the final investigation report. The final investigation report will be provided to the respondent. The IDO’s decision is final.

7.   Notification of Investigation Outcome

When the IDO has made a final decision, the RIO will add this 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, excluding records that the institution did not rely on.  These records include documentation of the assessment, a single index listing all research records and evidence, the inquiry report, the investigation report, and all records considered or relied on during the investigation.  The institutional record also includes the IDO’s final decision and any information the respondent provided to the institution.  The institutional record must also include a general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.

D.  Reporting to ORI – PHS Supported Research

For allegations involving PHS supported research, the following additional rules apply:

The RIO will report to ORI as required by regulations.

At any time during the misconduct proceedings, University will immediately notify ORI if any of the following circumstances arise:

  1. Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects;
  2. HHS resources or interests are threatened;
  3. Research activities should be suspended;
  4. There is reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law;
  5. Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding;
  6. HHS may need to take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved.

If the University plans to terminate an inquiry or investigation for any reason without completing all steps of that process, the RIO will submit a report of the planned termination to ORI, including a description of the reasons for the proposed termination.

If, at any point in the process, the respondent admits to research misconduct, the RIO will consult with ORI. When the case involves PHS funds, the University cannot accept an admission of research misconduct as a basis for closing the case or not undertaking an investigation without prior approval from ORI. 

If an investigation takes more than 180 days to complete, the institution will ask ORI in writing for an extension.

If the IDO’s determination varies from that of the investigation committee, the RIO, in the University's letter transmitting the report to ORI, will explain in detail the basis for rendering a decision different from that of the investigation committee. The RIO's explanation should be consistent with the definition of research misconduct, University policies and procedures, and the evidence reviewed and analyzed by the investigation committee. The RIO may also return the report to the investigation committee with a request for further fact-finding or analysis.

University officials may take interim administrative actions, as appropriate, to protect federal funds and to ensure that the purposes of the federal financial assistance are carried out.

E.  Institutional Administrative Actions

1.    Termination of Institutional Employment or Resignation Prior to Completion of Inquiry or Investigation

The termination of the respondent's employment at the University, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation of possible research misconduct has been reported, will not preclude or terminate the misconduct procedures.

If the respondent, without admitting to the misconduct, elects to resign his or her position prior to the initiation of an inquiry, but after an allegation has been reported, or during an inquiry or investigation, the inquiry or investigation will proceed. If the respondent refuses to participate in the process after resignation, the committee will use its best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the allegations, noting in its report the respondent's failure to cooperate and its effect on the committee's review of the evidence.

2.    Restoration of the Respondent's Reputation

If the University finds no misconduct and, for research supported by PHS, ORI concurs, after consulting with the respondent, the RIO will undertake reasonable efforts to restore the respondent's reputation. Depending on the particular circumstances, the RIO should consider notifying those individuals aware of or involved in the investigation or the final outcome.

3.    Protection of the Complainant and Others

Regardless of whether the University or, for research supported by PHS, ORI determines that research misconduct occurred, the RIO will undertake reasonable efforts to protect complainants who made allegations of research misconduct in good faith and others who cooperated in good faith with inquiries and investigations of such allegations. Upon completion of an investigation, the RIO will determine and implement, after consulting with the complainant, what steps, if any, are needed to restore the position or reputation of the complainant. The RIO will also take appropriate steps during the inquiry and investigation to prevent any retaliation against the complainant.

4.    Allegations Not Made in Good Faith

If relevant, the RIO will determine whether the complainant's allegations of research misconduct were made in good faith. If an allegation was not made in good faith, the RIO, in consultation with the President, will determine what, if any, administrative action should be taken against the complainant.

5.    Noncompliance with HOOP 168 or HOOP 109

At any stage of the assessment, inquiry, or investigation, if a determination is made not to proceed to the next phase or that the allegation does not constitute research misconduct, the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) may nonetheless require appropriate actions to address and rectify any identified noncompliance with HOOP 168 (Conduct of Research), HOOP 109 (Standards of Conduct), or other applicable institutional policies. This may include measures to correct questionable research practices or other detrimental research practices, as defined or described by relevant federal funding agencies.

F. Record Retention

After completion of a case and all ensuing related actions, the RIO will prepare a complete file, including the records of any preliminary assessment, inquiry, or investigation and copies of all documents and other materials furnished to the RIO or committees. The University will maintain the file in a secure manner for 7 years after completion of the case. For research supported by PHS, ORI or other authorized DHHS personnel will be given access to the records upon request. 

Updated April 2026