Responsible Conduct in Research

Definitions

“Research misconduct” means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data.

“Falsification of data” – Ranging from fabrication to deceptively selective reporting, including the purposeful omission of conflicting data with the intent to falsify results.

“Plagiarism” – Representation of another’s work as one’s own.

“Misappropriation of Others’ Ideas” – The unauthorized use of privileged information (such as violation of confidentiality in peer review), however obtained. This behavior is not specifically mentioned in the definition of research misconduct given above, but is generally considered to also constitute such misconduct.

Required Training

The Responsible and Ethical Conduct of Research (RECR) training is a part of funding requirements for both the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundations (NSF). Clark University subscribes to the CITI Program training resource to provide access to RECR training for faculty, staff, and students.

Principal Investigators (PIs) are responsible for not only overseeing and mentoring their students and researchers in the responsible and ethical conduct of research, but also for ensuring that all undergraduates, graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, and any researchers supported by their NSF awards have successfully completed the designated modules of the online course.

NSF:

All PIs, Co-PIs and senior personnel named on NSF proposals submitted on or after July 31, 2023, and undergraduate students, graduate students, and postdoctoral researcher supported on NSF awards must complete RECR training (NSF 23-1).  Faculty and senior personnel should complete training within 60 days of the receipt of funding. Undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate researchers should complete training within 60 days of salaries being charged to an account.

In July 2023, NSF expanded the required training topics to include data management and mentorship. For proposals submitted on or after July 31, 2023, PIs, Co-PIs, and senior personnel named on resulting award, and postdocs, undergraduates, and graduates charging salary to the award must complete a refresher course with the updated modules.

NIH:

NIH requires that all trainees, fellows, participants, and scholars receiving support through any NIH training, career development award (individual or institutional), research education grant, and dissertation research grant must receive instruction in responsible conduct of research.  In 2022, NIH issued updated guidance (NOT-OD-22-055) on the format, frequency, and timing of RCR instruction as well as additional topics for consideration. This policy applies to any NIH-funded programs supporting research training, career development, or research education that require instruction in responsible conduct of research as stated in the relevant funding opportunity announcements.

Process for Addressing Research Misconduct Allegations

The specific procedures for dealing with allegations of misconduct in research at Clark University are adapted from the Association of American Universities (AAU) framework and follow the steps below:

1. An inquiry to determine whether the allegation or related issues warrant further investigation,
2. When warranted, an investigation to collect and thoroughly examine evidence,
3. A formal finding, and
4. Appropriate disposition of the matter.

Inquiry

Allegations should be taken to the Dean of Research (DoR).

The claimant(s) is a party who is filing the inquiry, and respondent(s) is a party against whom the inquiry is filed.  The inquiry is initiated by an allegation/complaint involving the possibility of misconduct, and conducted by the DoR.  Scrupulous care must be taken to assure that no one with a conflict of interest (defined in accordance with established University policies as used by the Committee on Conflict of Interest) in the matter at issue sits in a position of judgment.[1]

An inquiry is not a formal hearing; it is designed to separate allegations deserving of further investigation from frivolous, unjustified, or clearly mistaken allegations. Allegations that have not been brought in good faith may lead to disciplinary action. The Dean is responsible for notifying the respondent(s) within a reasonable time of the charges and process that will follow. When the inquiry is initiated, the respondent(s) is notified of the obligation to cooperate by providing material necessary to conduct the inquiry. During the inquiry, confidentiality is desirable in order to protect the rights of all parties involved to the extent possible.

The completion of an inquiry is marked by a determination of whether or not an investigation is warranted. The Dean is to develop a report summarizing the process and stating the conclusion of the inquiry, and inform the claimant(s) and respondent(s) whether or not there will be further investigation. Allegations found to require investigation is forwarded to the investigation panel.  Federal regulation requires that the agency sponsoring the research is notified at this point. If an allegation is found to be unsupported but has been submitted in good faith, no further formal action is taken. Allegations submitted in bad faith may result in discipline.

Investigation

Investigations, if required, shall be conducted by a subcommittee of the Research Board, constituting at least 3 board members representing disciplinary diversity. A member outside of the Research Board, with appropriate scientific expertise, may be added to assure a relevant knowledge base.

The purpose of investigation is to explore further the allegations and determine whether fraud/misconduct has been committed. The investigation focuses on accusations as defined previously and examines the factual materials of each case. In the course of an investigation, additional information may emerge that justifies broadening the scope of the investigation beyond the initial allegations. The respondent is informed when new directions of investigation are undertaken.

Findings

The committee is to submit in writing the findings of the investigation to the Dean, and is advised to do so within 120 days of the start of the investigation. The report is shared with the respondent(s), or parts that are pertinent to his or her role if multiple respondents are involved. All federal agencies, sponsors, or other entities initially informed of the investigation is notified.  Findings include evidence to one of the following determination: a finding of fraud; a finding of serious scientific misconduct short of fraud; a finding that no culpable conduct was committed, but serious scientific errors were discovered; or a finding that no fraud, misconduct, or serious scientific error was committed.  If misconduct is found, no disciplinary measures is taken against the complainant if the allegations, however incorrect, are found to have been made in good faith, and every effort should be made to prevent retaliatory action against the complainant. If the allegations are found to have been made in bad faith, disciplinary actions may be taken against those responsible.  Relevant sections of the Faculty Handbook, student Code of Conduct, and other governing University policy documents should be applied.

Appeals of the investigative committee’s decision by the respondent(s) are restricted to the body of evidence already presented, and must be submitted to the Provost in writing within 30 days of the determination. The grounds for appeal are limited to failure to follow appropriate procedures in the investigation or new evidence that had not been considered by the committee.  New evidence, however, may warrant a new investigation.  The review and decision by the Provost is final.

Outcome and Disposition

Outcomes and Dispositions of Cases should be determined in accord with procedures and carried out by properly designated bodies within the University. Relevant sections of the Faculty Handbook, student Code of Conduct, and other governing University policy documents should be applied as they are now written for equally grave situations, including rights and procedures for appeal. Thus, for faculty subjects, if any personnel actions are envisioned, the Committee on Personnel would become involved; for students, the proceedings would go to the College Board of Graduate Board.

Reporting to the federal agency which is supporting the research, if applicable, must be done in accordance with the federal rules. All investigation reports, attachments, appeals, actions, and findings will be given to ORI (Office of Research Integrity) at the close of the investigation.

[1]If conflict of interest exists between the Dean and the claimant(s) or respondent(s), the Provost will designate someone to conduct the inquiry.