Research Misconduct Rules

Operating Rules and Procedures
of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct*

I. Introduction

As mandated by the Regents of the University of Colorado, the faculty, in cooperation with the administration, shall develop policies and procedures to prevent, identify, and respond to misconduct in research (Laws of the Regents, Art. IX.2.B.1.a). As defined in the University of Colorado Administrative Policy Statement on Misconduct in Research and Authorship, research misconduct shall be considered to include:

1. fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other serious deviation from accepted practices in proposing, carrying out, or reporting results from research;
2. material failure to comply with Federal requirements for protection of researchers, human subjects, or the public or for ensuring the welfare of laboratory animals;
3. failure to meet other material legal requirements of research; or
4. failure to comply with established standards regarding author names on publications.

The procedures for pursuing allegations of research misconduct may, but need not, include four stages: (1) the receipt of allegations; (2) an inquiry to determine if the allegations warrant further investigation; (3) when warranted, an investigation to gather and examine evidence; (4) a formal finding and appropriate disposition of the allegations. During both inquiry and investigation, the committee shall elicit the cooperation of complainant, respondent, and witnesses and encourage all parties to provide complete information. However, the proceedings shall continue with or without such cooperation. If any University employee or student, or party under contract with the University, refuses to cooperate with the inquiry or investigation of misconduct, such party's noncooperation shall be reported to the appropriate dean or vice chancellor.

The proceedings of the Standing Committee or an investigation committee are intended to be conducted within prescribed time frames. However, failure to complete an inquiry, investigation, or other process within these time frames shall not be grounds for dismissal of an allegation of research misconduct.

The Standing Committee shall make every reasonable effort in accord with statutory requirements and requirements of University policy and these procedures, from receipt of an allegation through the inquiry and investigation stages, to keep all information confidential and to protect as far as possible the privacy of those who in good faith report apparent instances of research misconduct. However, the Standing Committee shall promptly notify the appropriate dean or vice chancellor during an inquiry or investigation (1) if the seriousness of the apparent misconduct warrants notification; (2) if immediate health hazards are involved; (3) if the protection of governmental or university resources, reputation or other interests requires; (4) if governmental or university action may be needed to protect the interests of a subject of the investigation or others affected; or (5) if the scientific or academic community or the public needs to be informed.

The following Operating Rules and Procedures for implementing the misconduct policy are not intended to override or contradict provisions of other regulations or policies of the University of Colorado or of funding agencies.

II. The Standing Committee on Research Misconduct

A. Composition and Appointment

The Standing Committee on Research Misconduct is an intracampus committee established to carry out the University of Colorado administrative policy on research misconduct. The Standing Committee shall include: (1) at least one member from each school or college, (2) a member representing the Boulder Faculty Assembly (BFA), (3) a staff member, nominated by the Staff Council, (4) a student member, nominated by the Graduate Student Advisory Council, and (5) the Associate Vice Chancellor for Research or a designated representative. The Chair of the Standing Committee shall seek nominations for faculty members to serve on the committee from the appropriate deans of the schools and colleges. Committee membership should reflect the diversity of the faculty and should comply with University policies for constituting committees. Nominations received by the Chair shall be submitted to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs for appointment to the Standing Committee. Vacancies shall be filled in the same manner as initial selections.

Members of the Standing Committee shall be appointed for staggered three-year terms (except for initial appointments). Each year, a Chair of the Standing Committee shall be elected during the spring semester to take office at the beginning of the following fall semester.

The Associate Vice Chancellor for Research, or a designated representative, shall be a permanent member of the Standing Committee. The Associate Vice Chancellor for Research shall be responsible for (1) notifying the Standing Committee of any requirements of funding organizations concerning research misconduct; (2) communicating with such agencies as required by agency guidelines; and/or (3) acting as liaison between the Standing Committee and the appropriate dean, vice chancellor, or other University official if that party is required to communicate with the funding agency on research matters.

Clerical and administrative support for all committees described herein shall be provided, including a secretary to take informal written notes when necessary.

All members of the Standing Committee and support staff must agree to full confidentially of any committee proceedings.

B. Meeting Schedule

The Standing Committee shall meet at least twice each academic year, once in the fall and once in the spring. Additional meetings shall be called by the Chair as necessary, with attention paid to the timetables in these Operating Rules and Procedures.

C. Voting Procedures

The Standing Committee shall be considered to have a quorum when a simple majority of its members are present. A quorum vote shall be the vote of the majority of members present and voting.

The votes of all committees shall be recorded by the numbers of members voting for or against a motion; the names of the parties voting shall not be recorded or reported in the minutes. (Herein such votes are referred to as recorded votes.)

D. Conflict of Interest

To ensure impartiality in the proceedings, Standing Committee members are expected to reveal any actual or potential conflicts of interest to the Standing Committee, including: (1) previous personal knowledge of or involvement in the incidents in the allegations and/or (2) close personal, professional or financial relationship with the respondent or complainant or other parties that creates a conflict of interest. A member with an actual conflict of interest should withdraw from the relevant inquiry process. Any member may also withdraw or limit participation if he or she feels that participation may create the appearance of impropriety, even if there is no actual conflict of interest. The Chair of the Standing Committee may also disqualify any member determined by the Chair or the Standing Committee to have an actual conflict of interest. If a member withdraws or is disqualified from particular proceedings, that member shall take no part in those proceedings as a member of the Committee, including attending meetings, asking questions, observing the proceedings, and discussing the allegations with other members; a disqualified member may, however, be called as a witness during such proceedings.

E. Role of the University Counsel

The Standing Committee and any inquiry or investigating committee appointed under these Operating Rules and Procedures may seek advice and assistance from the University Counsel as it deems necessary. The Office of the University Counsel shall be notified of the meetings of the Standing Committee and provided with minutes of Standing Committee proceedings. University Counsel may send a representative to attend meetings of the Standing Committee or proceedings of any inquiry or investigating committee appointed hereunder if the University Counsel considers that such attendance is in the best interests of the University.

F. Amendments to the Operating Rules and Procedures

These Operating Rules and Procedures of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the Standing Committee members. Amendments can be proposed by any member of the Standing Committee.

III. Education of Academic Community

Deans, directors, chairs and graduate advisors shall be reminded annually of University of Colorado Administrative Policy on Research Misconduct and Authorship and their responsibility to inform all faculty, students, and staff of (1) the need for integrity in research performance and (2) the role of the Standing Committee in considering allegations of research misconduct.

IV. Procedures for Making Allegations

All persons having knowledge of misconduct in research as defined in the University of Colorado Administrative Policy Statement on Misconduct in Research and Authorship or having reason to believe that such misconduct may have occurred, are encouraged to submit allegations of research misconduct to the Chair of the Standing Committee. Allegations may also be given to any member of the Standing Committee, who shall direct them to the Chair. Upon receipt of allegations, the Chair shall:

1. Decide whether the allegations fall within the purview of the Standing Committee. The Chair may utilize available resources such as the University Counsel in making the decision.
2. Convene the Standing Committee to consider allegations within the Committee's purview.
3. Report to the Standing Committee the receipt of allegations outside the purview of the Committee and the decision not to pursue them.

V. Inquiry Phase

Upon receipt of allegations of misconduct that fall within its purview, the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct, or a designated subcommittee, shall conduct an inquiry to determine whether any or all allegations warrant a full investigation. The inquiry process is designed to separate allegations deserving further investigation from frivolous, unjustified, or clearly mistaken allegations. The inquiry is a fact-finding, nonadversarial proceeding to determine whether sufficient credible evidence exists in support of any one or more allegations to warrant a full investigation. Sources of information shall include interviews or written statements, physical exhibits, and documents. The inquiry committee shall request confidentiality from all participants in the inquiry. In keeping with the nonconfrontational nature of the inquiry, each of the interested parties shall be interviewed separately. Any person, whether a complainant, respondent, or witness, may have an advisor or attorney present at any interview of such person to act as such person's personal advisor. Such advisors may assist in the presentation of information but may not speak for these persons or conduct cross-examinations. Informal written notes will constitute the records for the proceedings. Allegations judged to have been made without reasonable basis in fact and with malicious intent shall be reported promptly to the appropriate dean or vice chancellor.

Inquiry Process

In the inquiry process, the Standing Committee or the designated subcommittee (herein referred to as the inquiry committee) seeks to determine if sufficient credible evidence exists to warrant further inquiry or a full investigation into any one or more allegations. If a subcommittee is considered to be the appropriate inquiry body, it may be appointed and its chair designated by the Chair of the Standing Committee with the approval of the Standing Committee.

1. The inquiry committee may begin its proceedings by interviewing the person making the allegations (the complainant) to decide if any or all of the allegations of misconduct shall be dropped or shall be pursued through further inquiry. This initial interview is an information-gathering proceeding in which the complainant may be interviewed in person or by telephone, or may be asked to submit written statements or answers to questions posed by the inquiry committee. When informed of this interview, the complainant shall also be notified about the Operating Rules and Procedures of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct.
   1. On the basis of information provided by the complainant, the inquiry committee, by recorded simple majority vote, shall decide whether to pursue an inquiry into any or all allegations or whether to terminate consideration of all allegations. If it decides to terminate consideration of all allegations without further inquiry, the inquiry committee shall submit its recommendation and a written, documented report to the Standing Committee, which, by recorded simple majority vote, shall decide whether to accept or reject that recommendation. If it rejects the recommendation, the Standing Committee shall return any or all allegations to the inquiry committee for further inquiry. If the Standing Committee accepts the recommendation to terminate the consideration of the allegations, it shall notify the complainant and respondent in writing about the nature of the allegations, the reasons for the inquiry committee's recommendation not to pursue further inquiry into the allegations, and the recorded votes. The written report and all other documentation shall be retained in the Standing Committee files, located in the Graduate School offices, for three full years.
   2. If the inquiry committee decides on the basis of the substantive nature of information provided by the complainant that further inquiry into any or all of the allegations shall be pursued, it shall notify the Standing Committee. The complainant and respondent shall be notified in writing that further inquiry shall be conducted. The complainant shall be informed if any of the allegations will not be pursued. The respondent shall be informed about the nature of the allegations, the potential consequences if misconduct has been confirmed, and the Operating Rules and Procedures of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct. The respondent shall be requested to provide the inquiry committee with a written response to the allegations to be pursued within 14 calendar days. A reasonable effort shall be made to obtain the respondent's cooperation.

2. The inquiry shall be initiated and conducted as expeditiously as possible. The inquiry shall be completed within 60 calendar days of the initial written notification of the respondent unless a longer period is clearly warranted.
3. The inquiry committee shall invite the respondent for a personal interview to discuss the details of the alleged misconduct. This interview shall be fact-finding rather than adversarial. The inquiry committee may also interview the respondent by telephone or through solicited responses to questions or other methods if the respondent declines a personal interview or in addition to such a personal interview.
4. The inquiry committee may at its discretion interview individuals to obtain information pertinent to the inquiry; such interviews may be conducted in person, by telephone, or through solicited responses to questions or other methods. Additional sources of information, such as documents and physical evidence, may also be considered by the inquiry committee.
5. After what it deems to be adequate inquiry, the inquiry committee shall decide by recorded simple majority vote whether sufficient credible evidence exists to warrant a full investigation of any or all of the allegations. The inquiry committee shall provide its recommendation in a fully documented written report to the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct for appropriate action.
6. The Standing Committee shall review the report of the Inquiry Committee, and determine if more information is needed. If the Standing Committee is satisfied with the report, it shall determine by a simple majority vote whether or not a full investigation of any allegation appears to be warranted.
7. If the Standing Committee determines that the allegations do not appear to warrant a full investigation it shall inform the complainant and respondent in writing of this decision, the reasons for the decision, and the recorded vote. The Standing Committee shall also notify any dean or vice chancellor previously informed of the inquiry proceedings, that the allegations do not appear to warrant a full investigation. The documented report and other pertinent material shall be retained in the Graduate School offices for three full years. The Standing Committee shall invite written responses to the decision from the complainant and respondent. Such responses should be addressed to the Standing Committee and will be placed in the permanent record. Such responses do not constitute appeals of the decision.
8. If the Standing Committee determines that any allegation appears to warrant a full investigation the Standing Committee shall promptly notify the respondent in writing. The Committee shall discuss the specific allegation(s) with the respondent and review the decision regarding the need for a full investigation. At the Standing Committee's option the discussion may take the form of a written exchange or of a meeting with the respondent.
9. If, after discussion with the respondent, the Standing Committee decides by a simple majority vote that a full investigation is appropriate, the Committee shall notify the Dean and Vice Chancellor that such an investigation is to be conducted. The Standing Committee shall report in writing a decision to pursue a full investigation to the appropriate dean or vice chancellor responsible for notifying relevant funding agencies. The written report shall fully document the Standing Committee's decision. The Standing Committee shall remind the respondent of the Operating Rules and Procedures of the misconduct proceedings and inform the respondent of rights during a full investigation.

   If, after discussion with the respondent the Standing Committee decides by a simple majority vote that the allegations do not appear to warrant a full investigation, then the procedure in V.7 shall apply.

10. The Standing Committee shall make recommendations to the appropriate dean or and vice chancellor regarding steps to be taken to prevent retaliation against the complainant or other persons providing information in the inquiry and to restore the positions and reputations of persons who have made allegations in good faith.
11. The Standing Committee shall determine whether the respondent's reputation has been unjustly damaged by the inquiry and, through recommendations to the appropriate dean or vice chancellor, make reasonable efforts to repair that damage.
12. The Standing Committee shall report any allegation judged to have been made without reasonable basis in fact and with malicious intent to the appropriate dean or vice chancellor.

VI. Investigation Phase

When the Standing Committee has completed the inquiry phase and has decided that the evidence supporting the allegation(s) warrants a full investigation, it shall appoint a committee to conduct the investigation in consultation with the appropriate dean or vice chancellor. The investigation is an information-seeking, nonadversarial proceeding to explore further the allegations of misconduct and to evaluate whether any or all of the allegations are substantiated by a preponderance of the evidence. The investigation shall consist of review of the evidence presented in the inquiry and consideration of any additional evidence obtained from witnesses, physical exhibits, documents, and other sources. The investigation may include examination of such documentation as relevant research data and proposals, publications, correspondence, and memoranda of telephone calls. Interviews may be conducted with all persons making allegations or against whom allegations are made, as well as with other individuals having information about the allegations. The investigation may include discovery and evaluation of information pertaining to research practices that may justify broadening the scope of the investigation beyond the initial allegation(s). The proceedings of the investigating committee (but not the deliberations) shall be tape recorded.

A. Appointment of Investigative Committee

The Standing Committee shall appoint an investigating committee charged with conducting a thorough, informed and unbiased investigation of the allegations of misconduct.

1. In consultation with the appropriate dean or vice chancellor, the Standing Committee shall appoint an ad hoc committee of three to five members, including a chair, herein referred to as the investigating committee.
2. Investigating committee members may be selected from inside or outside the University, excluding members of the Standing Committee. Attention in selection should be paid to (1) avoiding conflicts of interest and (2) including appropriate research expertise within the committee to evaluate the allegation(s) under consideration.
3. The Standing Committee shall consult with the respondent and complainant to ensure that investigating committee members do not have a bias or conflict of interest in considering the case. If a member's impartiality is questioned, the Standing Committee may replace that member.
4. The chair of the Standing Committee shall meet with the Investigative Committee, prior to the initiation of the investigation, to discuss the procedures for the investigation phase, described in section VI. of this document.

B. Investigation Process

1. The investigation shall be initiated within 30 calendar days of the completion of the inquiry and conducted as expeditiously as possible. The investigating committee shall reach a decision as to whether misconduct did occur and shall report its findings to the Standing Committee within 120 calendar days of the initiation of the investigation, unless a longer period is clearly warranted.
2. The investigating committee has the responsibility for conducting a thorough and unbiased investigation to gain full knowledge of the evidence. In accordance with this mandate, the investigating committee shall:
   1. Begin its proceedings by studying the information collected by the inquiry committee and by consulting the Standing Committee regarding the fundamentals of the case.
   2. Conduct a full examination of relevant evidence, which may require reinterviewing witnesses, interviewing additional witnesses, and pursuing other directions not considered in the inquiry. The investigating committee shall determine the extent or limitations of the examination of evidence. If the investigating committee broadens the scope of the investigation beyond that of the initial allegations, it shall notify the respondent of the new areas being studied and allow the respondent to supply additional information.
   3. Take responsibility for providing the respondent with an opportunity to present his or her position, including the opportunity to present the testimony of witnesses, written statements, and other supporting documentation. The respondent may suggest additional avenues of investigation and witnesses to be interviewed by the committee. The respondent and the respondent's advisor may be present during the committee's questioning of witnesses. Neither the respondent not the respondent's advisor may question witnesses directly; however, they may suggest questions to the committee.
   4. Control the proceedings and limit the presentation of irrelevant or repetitious evidence. Any party appearing before the committee may have an advisor present, who may be an attorney. The advisor may assist the party in the presentation of information but may not speak on the party's behalf.
   5. Take precautions to keep all details of the investigation confidential and request confidentiality from all persons who present information during the investigation.
   6. Keep the Standing Committee informed on the progress of the investigation.

C. Findings and Disposition by the Investigating Committee

The objective of the disposition phase is to render an informed and unbiased judgment on the validity of the specific allegations and on other forms or instances of research misconduct considered in the investigation and to transmit that decision to the appropriate persons for action. The investigating committee, when it considers that its task has been completed, shall determine by recorded simple majority vote whether the allegations of misconduct are supported by the preponderance of evidence.

1. The investigating committee shall reach one of the following decisions, based on the definitions of misconduct in the University of Colorado Administrative Policy Statement on Misconduct in Research and Authorship: a finding of misconduct; a finding of no culpable conduct, but serious research error; a finding of no misconduct and no serious research error.
2. The investigating committee shall submit an initial written report to the Standing Committee that addresses the following specific issues:
   • Whether, in its judgment, misconduct did take place.
   • If misconduct did take place, (a) whether the misconduct was deliberate or merely careless; (b) whether the misconduct was an isolated event or part of a pattern; (c) an assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct.
   • If misconduct did not take place, whether the committee finds that allegations have been made without reasonable basis in fact and with malicious intent.
   The report shall include a detailed explanation of the investigating committee's decisions.
3. After consideration of the initial report the Standing Committee may request additional information, additional explanation and/or further investigation if necessary. It is expected that the Investigative Committee will respond to the request. When the Standing Committee is satisfied with the Investigative Committee's response to the request, the Investigative Committee shall provide its fully documented final written report of the investigation to the Standing Committee. If no additional information, additional explanation and/or further investigation is requested, the initial report shall be considered the final report.

VII. DISPOSITION BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE

A. Distribution of the Investigating Committee's Findings and Final Report

Upon receipt of the investigating committee's final report, the Standing Committee shall:

1. Notify the complainant and respondent of the investigating committee's findings. The respondent shall be provided with the final report of the investigating committee. The complainant may also be provided with the final report of the investigating committee, if the Standing Committee deems it appropriate.
2. Invite responses to the final report and/or findings of the investigating committee from the respondent and the complainant. These responses should be addressed to the Standing Committee and will become part of the permanent record. Such responses do not constitute an appeal.

B. Standing Committee's Recommendations

After distributing the final report and/or findings of the investigating committee and receiving responses from the parties, if any, the Standing Committee shall:

1. Notify the appropriate dean and vice chancellor of the investigating committee's findings, provide him or her with the investigating committee's final report and recommend possible disciplinary action, policy changes, or other actions that might ensure that similar misconduct does not occur in the future.
2. Make recommendations to the appropriate dean and vice chancellor regarding steps to be taken to prevent retaliation against the complainant or other persons providing information in the investigation and to restore the positions and reputations of persons who have made allegations in good faith.
3. Determine whether the respondent's reputation has been unjustly damaged by the investigation and, through recommendations to the appropriate dean and vice chancellor, make reasonable efforts to repair that damage.
4. Report any allegation judged to have been made without reasonable basis in fact and with malicious intent to the appropriate dean and vice chancellor.