Faculty and Academic Staff Handbook
19th Edition, 2008
Chapter VII: UWS and UWRF Policies
7.10 Scientific Misconduct
Recognizing that honesty in the conduct of academic research is fundamental to its
integrity and credibility and to the maintenance of public trust in the University, the UWRiver
Falls adopts these policies and procedures for reviewing and investigating
allegations of scientific misconduct.
Faculty and staff are reminded that Chapter UWS 8 of the Wisconsin Administrative
Code, the Unclassified Staff Code of Ethics, provides that:
Every member of the faculty and academic staff at the time of appointment makes a
personal commitment to professional honesty and integrity that meets the demanding
standards of the state and national academic communities.
Students are reminded that Chapter UWS 14, Student Academic Disciplinary Procedures,
provides under Statement of Principles:
The Board of Regents, administrators, faculty, academic staff and students of the
University of Wisconsin system believe that academic honesty and integrity are
fundamental to the mission of higher education and of the University of Wisconsin
system. The University has a responsibility to promote academic honesty and integrity
and to develop procedures to deal effectively with instances of academic dishonesty.
Students are responsible for the honest completion and representation of their work, for
the appropriate citation of sources, and for respect for others' academic endeavors.
Students who violate these standards must be confronted and must accept the
consequences of their actions.
7.10.1 Policy and Definition
For purposes of these policies and procedures, "misconduct in science" or "misconduct"
means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other practices that seriously deviate from
those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing,
conducting, or reporting research. It does not include honest error or honest differences in
interpretations or judgments of data.
Misconduct in science is prohibited at UW-River Falls, and may be cause for discipline
or dismissal.
Misuse by a researcher of University funds (including grant and contract funding from
extramural sponsors) is also cause for discipline or dismissal and may be cause for
criminal prosecution. However, an allegation of misuse of funds is not within the scope
of this policy; such allegation shall be referred to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs, who will consult with the Controller concerning an appropriate course
of action.
A violation of institutional procedures or federal regulations on the protection of human
or animal research subjects or a violation of state or federal safety laws or regulations is
also not within the scope of this policy. An allegation regarding any such violation shall
be promptly referred to the chair of the Institutional Review Board in cases involving
human subjects, to the chair of the Animal Care Committee in cases involving animal
subjects, or to the Chancellor in cases involving safety.
The goal of the procedures outlined below is to assure the integrity of scholarly research,
to achieve a rapid and equitable resolution of all charges, and to assure that all parties are
treated with fairness. In order to protect the reputation of an innocent party, the
procedures will preserve the maximum level of confidentiality consistent with law and
with justice for all parties to these procedures. All parties will take whatever action is
required to avoid any unnecessary conflict of interest.
Where an inquiry or investigation results in a finding that no misconduct has occurred,
the University will not institute a new inquiry or investigation into an allegation of
misconduct where the allegation is made against the same person and is based on material
facts which were reviewed and found not to constitute misconduct during the prior
inquiry or investigation, unless new material evidence is presented by a different
complainant, or unless the person who is the subject of the inquiry or investigation
requests another proceeding.
Because of the difficulties of assessing stale claims and the unfairness to the person
against whom the allegation is made, allegations based on conduct which occurred seven
years or more prior to the making of the allegation will not be inquired into under this
policy unless the circumstances indicate that the alleged conduct was not discoverable
earlier.
7.10.2 Procedures
- Inquiry upon allegation or other evidence of possible misconduct:
(a) Informal allegations or reports of possible misconduct in science shall be directed
initially to the person with immediate responsibility for the work of the individual
against whom the allegations or reports have been made. The person receiving
such an informal report or allegation is responsible for either resolving the matter
or encouraging the submission of a formal allegation or report. Upon receipt of
formal allegations or reports of scientific misconduct, the person with immediate
responsibility for the work of the individual against whom the allegations or
reports have been made shall immediately inform, in writing, the Provost and
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
(b) The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall appoint an
individual or individuals to conduct a prompt inquiry into the allegation or report
of misconduct.
1. The individual or individuals conducting the inquiry shall prepare a written
report for the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs describing
the evidence reviewed, summarizing relevant interviews and including the
conclusions of the inquiry.
2. The inquiry must be completed within 60 calendar days of its initiation unless
circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If the inquiry takes longer than
60 days to complete, the reasons for exceeding the 60-day period shall be
documented and included with the record.
3. The individual against whom the allegation was made shall be given a copy of
the report of the inquiry by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic
Affairs, and shall have an opportunity to respond to the report with 10 days of
receipt. Any response must be in writing, and will become a part of the record
of the inquiry.
4. To protect the privacy and reputation of all individuals involved, including the
individual in good faith reporting possible misconduct and the individual
against whom the report is made, information concerning the initial report, the
inquiry and any resulting investigation shall be kept confidential and shall be
released only to those having a legitimate need to know about the matter.
(c) If the inquiry concludes that the allegation of misconduct is unsubstantiated and
an investigation is not warranted, the reasons and supporting documentation for
this conclusion shall be reported to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic
Affairs, who shall be responsible for reviewing the conclusion of the inquiry. If
the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs concurs in the conclusion
that an investigation is not warranted, his or her determination and all other
supporting documentation from the inquiry shall be recorded and the record
maintained confidentially for a period of three years after the termination of the
inquiry. If the inquiry or the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
determines that an investigation is warranted, the procedures in paragraph (2)
shall be followed.
(2) Investigation of reported misconduct in science:
(a) If an investigation is determined to be warranted under paragraph (1), the Provost
and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall so inform the Chancellor. The
Chancellor shall immediately appoint a committee to conduct the investigation.
The committee shall be composed of impartial faculty members possessing
appropriate competence and research expertise for the conduct of the
investigation, and no faculty member having responsibility for the research under
investigation, or having any other conflict with the University's interest in
securing a fair and objective investigation, may serve on the investigating
committee. If necessary, individuals possessing the requisite competence and
research expertise who are not affiliated with UW-River Falls may be asked to
serve as consultants to the investigating committee.
(b) The investigation must be initiated within 30 days of the completion of the
inquiry. The investigation normally will include examination of all
documentation, including but not necessarily limited to relevant research data and
proposals, publications, correspondence, and memoranda of telephone calls.
Interviews should be conducted of all individuals involved either in making the
allegation or against whom the allegation is made, as well as others who might
have information regarding key aspects of the allegations. Summaries of
interviews conducted shall be prepared, and provided to the parties interviewed
for their comment or revision. These summaries shall be made a part of the record
of the investigation.
(c) The individual making the allegation, the individual against whom the allegation
is made, and all others having relevant information shall cooperate fully with the
work of the investigating committee, and shall make available all relevant
documents and materials associated with the research under investigation.
(d) The investigation should ordinarily be completed within 60 days of its initiation
unless conditions warrant a longer period. This includes conducting the
investigation, preparing the report of the findings, making that report available for
comment by the subjects of the investigation, and submitting the report to the
Chancellor. If the investigating committee determines that it cannot complete the
investigation within the 120-day period, it shall submit to the Chancellor a written
request for an extension, explaining the need for delay and providing an estimated
date of completion. If the research under investigation is funded by an agency
within the Public Health Service (PHS), the procedures under paragraph (3) (d) of
this policy also apply.
(e) The report of the investigation should include a description of the policies and
procedures under which the investigation was conducted, information obtained
and the sources of such information, an accurate summary of the position of the
individual under investigation, the findings of the committee, including the bases
for its findings, and the committee's recommendation to the Chancellor
concerning whether the evidence of scientific misconduct is sufficient to warrant
discipline or dismissal under the applicable faculty or academic staff personnel
rules. All documentation substantiating the findings and recommendation of the
investigating committee, together with all other information comprising the record
of the investigation, shall be transmitted to the Chancellor with the report, upon
completion of the investigation.
(f) A copy of the investigating committee's report shall be provided to the individual
being investigated. The Chancellor or appropriate administrative officer shall
afford the individual under investigation an opportunity to discuss the matter prior
to taking action under paragraph (3) of this policy.
(3) Reporting to Office of Research Integrity (ORI) where research is funded by Public
Health Service grants: Where research is funded by an agency within PHS:
(a) A determination that an investigation should be initiated under paragraph (1)(c)
must be reported in writing to the ORI Director on or before the date the
investigation begins. The notification should state the name of the individuals
against whom the allegations of scientific misconduct have been made, the
general nature of the allegations, and the PHS application or grant numbers
involved.
(b) During the course of the investigation, the granting agency should be apprised of
any significant findings that might affect current or potential funding of the
individual under investigation and that might require agency interpretation of
funding regulations.
(c) The ORI must be notified at any stage of an inquiry or investigation if the
University determines that any of the following conditions exist:
- there is an immediate health hazard involved;
- there is an immediate need to protect federal funds or equipment;
- there is an immediate need to protect the interests of the person making the
allegiation
