UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH POLICY 11-01-01
CATEGORY: RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION
SECTION: Research
SUBJECT: Research Integrity
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2002 Revised
PAGE(S): 15
A. Preface
The University of Pittsburgh seeks excellence in the discovery
and dissemination of knowledge. Excellence in scholarship
requires all members of the University community to adhere
strictly to the highest standards of integrity with regard to
research, instruction and evaluation. The principle of academic
integrity is integral to membership in the University community.
Each such member is deemed to recognize the value and special
importance of this responsibility, which is linked to accepting
an appointment at the University.
As scholars and citizens of the University community, all parties
must be ever cognizant of the axiom that every increment of
authority and discretion brings with it corollary
responsibilities to colleagues, staff, students, the University
as a whole, the community, and society at large. In addition,
federal regulations impose policies and procedures on the
University for dealing with possible misconduct in science.1
All those engaged in research should be cognizant of the value to
the University of calling attention to research misconduct, and
of the importance of bona fide challenges in assuring and
maintaining the integrity of scholarly investigation and of this
institution.
Should the conduct of research or the collection or reporting of
research data and information be challenged on the ground of
misconduct, whether by a faculty member, student, staff member,
research associate or fellow, or a person outside the University,
the framework for resolution of the grievance shall involve the
dean2 and the Research Integrity Officer working within a process
of peer and administrative review. Throughout, responsible and
honest discourse, the protection of academic freedom, and
protection of the individual against unnecessary public
dissemination of unproven allegations are essential ingredients
in the process.
Research misconduct, as defined below, carries potential for
serious harm to the University community, to the integrity of
research, and to society as a whole. Accordingly, it is
incumbent upon faculty members to exercise active leadership in
their supervisory roles in mentoring, collaborating with, or
directing junior colleagues, staff, or students. First, faculty
must be fully cognizant of the quality of work being done for
which they assume responsibility and, second, they must seek to
avoid undue pressure placed upon more junior faculty, staff, or
students which could lead to the publication or other report of
any inaccurate, incomplete, or falsified data or information. In
judging whether misconduct has occurred, it is important to
distinguish fraud from honest error and ambiguities that are
inherent in the process of scholarly investigation and are
normally corrected by further research.
This policy shall be followed in responding to all allegations of
research misconduct on the part of faculty, research associates,
and staff. In the case of students involved in alleged
misconduct, this policy shall apply in those instances where the
research in question is supported by federal agencies or where
the relevant dean requests that the Research Integrity Officer
invoke the policy. Student matters may also, as appropriate, be
handled under the relevant Academic Integrity Guidelines.
The procedures described below are steps in an academic peer
review and fact-finding process and are not intended or designed
to represent rules of a judiciary. Principles of basic fairness
and confidentiality shall be observed in these peer-review
procedures. Any allegations of misconduct must be treated on an
individual-case basis.
Safeguards give the individual accused of misconduct the
confidence that his or her rights are protected and that the mere
filing of an allegation of research misconduct will not bring the
research to a halt or be the basis for other disciplinary or
adverse action absent other compelling reasons. Safeguards for a
complainant or a witness in any proceeding described in this
document include protection against retaliation for making good-
faith allegations or providing testimony, fair and objective
procedures for the examination and resolution of the allegations,
and diligence in protecting the position and reputation of one
who makes allegations or gives testimony in good faith.
Both the person bringing an allegation and the one against whom
the allegation is made in any of the procedures described below
may seek the advice of the Senate Committee on Tenure and
Academic Freedom, as may any administrator. A dean, in
initiating any of the procedures described below, shall advise
the principals that they may seek such advice.
The University's Research Integrity Officer, who is appointed by
the Chancellor, shall work closely with the relevant academic
administrators, inquiry panels, and investigative boards. In
consultation with the General Counsel, he/she shall ensure
procedural compliance with applicable law, government
regulations, University policy, and principles of fairness in
each stage of the proceedings set out in this policy. Academic
administrators and inquiry panels or investigative boards shall
keep the Research Integrity Officer fully informed of their
activities and shall consult him/her as to process before making
any final recommendations or decisions. The Research Integrity
Officer shall monitor compliance with all procedures and time
schedules described in this policy and shall inform the Provost
of any failures to comply with such time schedules. The Research
Integrity Officer shall not have decision-making responsibility
regarding the substance of any allegations. He or she may, at
the request of a panel or administrator in a research misconduct
proceeding, assist in drafting the recommendations arrived at by
that panel or administrator. The Research Integrity Officer
shall make or supervise all relevant contacts with government
agencies or other outside parties, and shall maintain the record
of all proceedings. In the case of short absences from the
campus, the Research Integrity Officer may designate an Acting
Research Integrity Officer.
The Provost shall have oversight responsibility to ensure
compliance with the policy. Only the Research Integrity Officer
or the Provost has the authority to modify the various time
limits specified in the procedures. (All subsequent references
to the number of days for particular stages in the process refer
to calendar days.)
Even if a respondent leaves the University before a case is
resolved or does not participate in the proceedings, the
University has a responsibility to follow the procedures
described in this policy and reach a conclusion.
This policy shall be administered in compliance with regulations
of any agency (the sponsoring agency) sponsoring the research in
question and shall be subject to appropriate modifications, if
necessary.
B. Definitions
Research Misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or
plagiarism, including misrepresentation of credentials, in
proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting
research results.
Research, as defined herein, includes all basic, applied, and
demonstration research in all fields.
Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or
reporting them.
Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or
processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the
research is not accurately represented in the research record.
The research record is defined as the record of data or
results from the research and includes, for example,
laboratory records, both physical and electronic, research
proposals, progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral
presentations, internal reports, journal articles, and
books.
Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas,
processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
Misconduct does not include honest error or differences of
opinion.
A finding of Misconduct requires that:
- There be a significant departure from accepted practices of
the relevant research community;
- The Misconduct be committed intentionally, or knowingly, or
recklessly;
- The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
A Complainant is a person who reports an allegation of
Misconduct.
A Respondent is the subject of an allegation.
A Whistleblower is an institutional member who in good faith
makes an allegation or cooperates in the investigation of an
allegation.
Additional issues in research integrity are discussed in other
documents. Conflict of interest is dealt with in Conflict of
Interest - Research/Teaching, University Policy 11-01-03.3
Guidelines for investigators are discussed in Rights, Roles, and
Responsibilities of Sponsored Research Investigators, University
Policy 11-01-02.4 Numerous issues, including concern for human
subjects and animals in research, authorship, maintenance and
accessibility of data, and mentoring of trainees are reviewed in
Guidelines for Ethical Practices in Research.5 These topics, as
well as laboratory safety concerns, are covered in the web-based
training program, Education and Certification Program in Research
Practice Fundamentals.6
C. Reporting
1. Obligation to Report
Reporting suspected Misconduct is a shared and serious
responsibility of all members of the academic community.
Allegations shall not be made capriciously, but suspicions
or evidence of misconduct shall be reported.
2. Confidentiality
Because of the potential jeopardy to the reputation and
rights of the Respondent, great care must be taken to handle
the reporting as well as the conduct of any inquiry and
investigation so as to preserve confidentiality, providing
information only to those with a need to know. This
obligation of confidentiality applies to the Complainant,
the Respondent, and all participants in an inquiry or
investigation, including panel members, witnesses and
administrators. In order not to release confidential
information about research integrity proceedings to faculty
personnel committees who might be regarded as having a right
to know, a dean may consider delaying a tenure or promotion
consideration of a Respondent until the allegation has been
adjudicated.
3. Method of Reporting
Allegations of Misconduct and the basis for them shall be
communicated confidentially and preferably (but not
necessarily) in writing to the dean of the responsibility
center in which the Misconduct is suspected or to the
Research Integrity Officer. Each shall immediately inform
the other of the receipt of an allegation. Optionally, an
allegation may be reported to a federal agency supporting
the research. Measures (Section G) shall be taken to insure
that no adverse action is taken, either directly or
indirectly, against a Complainant who makes allegations in
good faith.
4. Definition of Good Faith
Good faith means having a belief in the truth of one’s
allegation or testimony that a reasonable person in a
Complainant’s or witness’ position could hold based upon the
information known to the Complainant or witness at the time
the allegation was made. An allegation or cooperation with
an investigation is not in good faith if made with knowing
or reckless disregard of information that would negate the
allegation or testimony.
5. Allegations Against Administrators
If an allegation is made concerning a dean or higher
administrator, the Respondent's supervisor or the Research
Integrity Officer shall be contacted directly by the
Complainant and procedures described below for dealing with
the allegation shall be modified appropriately.
6. Protection of the Complainant
Reporting alleged Misconduct may be difficult and
uncomfortable for the individual making the report. The
option of initially giving an oral report is provided in
order to offer protection and reassurance to the
Complainant.
7. Securing of Evidence
When an inquiry is initiated, the Research Integrity Officer
shall ensure that appropriate steps are taken to locate and
secure possibly relevant evidence so as to prevent loss or
alteration of research records, which may include but are
not limited to notes or notebooks, computer records,
instrument printouts, manuscripts, and chemical or
biological samples. The Research Integrity Officer may call
on the dean, department chair, or director for assistance in
locating, retrieving, and storing such records.
8. Notifications
The sponsoring agency, the IRB (Institutional Review Board)
or IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee) shall
be notified promptly and at any time in the proceedings, if
the dean or Research Integrity Officer determines that there
is an immediate need to protect human subjects or animals
used in research or that the alleged Misconduct is otherwise
sufficiently serious to warrant early notification.7 If
the dean or Research Integrity Officer determines that there
is an immediate need to protect human subjects or animals
used in research or that the alleged Misconduct is otherwise
sufficiently serious to warrant early notification, the
sponsoring agency shall be notified within 24 hours.8 The
agency shall also be notified in advance if an inquiry or
investigation is to be terminated prior to completion, in
the event that the regulations of the specific agency
require such notification.9 The IRB or IACUC may take
action to protect human subjects or animals independently of
the inquiry and investigatory processes described below.
9. Optional Jurisdictions
The Research Integrity Officer, in consultation with the
dean, may refer an allegation to another institution for
relevant proceedings if the research in question was
conducted primarily at that institution, or to an
appropriate federal agency, if the research in question was
conducted at several institutions or if some other special
circumstances make it impractical for the University of
Pittsburgh to conduct the inquiry or investigation.
D. The Assessment
1. Purpose of an Assessment
The Research Integrity Officer, in consultation with the
dean, shall make a preliminary assessment of the allegation
to determine whether it falls within the definition of
Research Misconduct in Section B. If the allegation is
determined to be a matter of research impropriety but does
not fall within the definition of Research Misconduct, the
dean may look into the matter and resolve it in an
appropriate manner. An example might be material failure to
comply with Federal requirements or IRB or IACUC rulings
issued for protection of researchers, human subjects or the
public or for ensuring the welfare of laboratory animals.
If the allegation does fall within the definition of
Research Misconduct and sufficient evidence exists or may be
obtained to warrant an inquiry, the procedures listed in the
following sections of this policy shall be followed.
2. Conditions for Dismissing an Allegation
If the allegation is determined to be outside the definition
of Research Misconduct and/or probable cause does not exist
to believe that Research Misconduct has occurred, the
allegation with respect to this policy will be dismissed by
the Research Integrity Officer.
E. The Inquiry
1. Appointment of an Inquiry Panel and Its Charge
The dean shall appoint and charge one or more objective,
qualified persons (the Inquiry Panel) to conduct the
inquiry, in consultation with the Research Integrity
Officer. The dean shall designate one member of the panel
to serve as chair. The dean should be satisfied, on the
basis of both his own information and signed statements from
members of the panel, that they are free of any close
personal or professional association with the complainant or
respondent or of other conflicts of interest that could bias
their judgment in the inquiry. They will normally be
selected from within the University. The inquiry shall
consist of information-gathering and preliminary fact-
finding to determine whether the allegations appear
sufficiently founded to warrant a formal investigation. The
inquiry is designed to provide a basis on which to proceed
to an investigation or to determine that an investigation is
not warranted. In the case of human or animal research
studies where further information is warranted, the dean may
request an audit through the University’s Research Conduct
and Compliance Office.
2. Notifying the Respondent
The dean shall promptly notify the Respondent of the
specific allegations and of the initiation of the inquiry
and provide the Respondent and the Complainant with a copy
of the Research Integrity Policy. The dean shall provide
the Respondent with the names of proposed members of the
panel. If the Respondent objects to the appointment of one
or more of the proposed members, he or she shall state the
objection(s) in writing to the Provost within 5 days, in
which case the Provost shall review the proposed list of
members within 5 days of receipt of such objection(s) and
shall have authority to direct the dean to replace one or
more members of the panel. In the case of research
sponsored by a federal agency, the Respondent may be
informed of possible sanctions which the agency might impose
(see Section F16). If the Respondent at this or any other
interim stage admits the allegations to be true, the matter
shall be considered for appropriate action under Section F14
of this policy, if permitted by procedural requirements of
the sponsoring agency.
3. Conduct of the Inquiry
The Inquiry Panel, in consultation with the Research
Integrity Officer, shall interview witnesses, examine
relevant primary research records, publications and/or
reports, and material, consult experts in the field if
necessary, and/or take such other steps as are in their
judgment appropriate to the inquiry. The Research Integrity
Officer shall collect factual documents and other materials
requested by the panel and shall provide assistance to the
panel during its meetings. The Respondent may elect whether
to be interviewed or not during the inquiry. If the
Respondent is interviewed, he/she may be accompanied by an
adviser, who may but need not be an attorney; but the
adviser may not present the case or otherwise participate in
the discussion. A written summary of the testimony given by
each witness shall be provided to the witness for review and
correction of factual errors.
4. The Inquiry Report
The Inquiry Panel shall prepare a written report that states
what evidence was reviewed, summarizes relevant interviews
and includes the findings of the inquiry and recommendations
to the dean. The report, which should be completed within
40 days of receipt of the dean’s charge, shall be given to
the Respondent, the Research Integrity Officer and the dean.
Extensions for good cause must be approved by the Research
Integrity Officer or by the Provost acting on a request from
the panel summarizing the reason for the delay, progress to
date, and an estimate of the date of completion. The
Respondent shall be given 10 days after receipt of the
report to submit any written comments on the report to the
Research Integrity Officer and the dean.
5. The Dean’s Decision
After receiving the inquiry report and any comments by the
Respondent, the dean shall determine whether additional
investigation is warranted and shall, within 10 days of the
day Respondent's comments were due, prepare his/her written
recommendation and submit it simultaneously to the Provost,
the Senior Vice Chancellor for the Health Sciences if the
case arises within the Health Sciences, the Respondent, and
the Research Integrity Officer.
6. The Case in Which Further Investigation Is Not Recommended
If the recommendation is that additional investigation is
not warranted, and if the recommendation is accepted by the
Provost, in consultation with the Senior Vice Chancellor for
the Health Sciences in cases originating within the Health
Sciences, the proceedings concerning Research Misconduct
shall be terminated. If the Provost does not accept the
recommendation that an investigation is not warranted, a
formal investigation shall be initiated as provided for in
Section E8 below.
7. A Finding of Research Impropriety
If the research activities of the Respondent are found to
involve research impropriety although not of a nature or to
a degree that might constitute Misconduct or that warrant
additional investigation, the dean may take corrective or
disciplinary measures.
8. The Case in Which Additional Investigation is Warranted
If the recommendation of the dean is that additional
investigation should be undertaken, and if the
recommendation is accepted by the Provost, in consultation
with the Senior Vice Chancellor for the Health Sciences in
cases originating within the Health Sciences, the dean shall
so advise the Respondent and shall inform the Respondent of
the commencement of a formal investigation by a University
research investigative board. In the case of sponsored
research, the relevant sponsoring agency or agencies shall
also be notified by the Research Integrity Officer before
the formal investigation is initiated.10 The notification
shall follow the requirements of the agency in a case where
federal sponsorship is involved, and shall be subsequently
supplemented by interim report(s) to the agency when
required.11 Other parties with a need to know shall be
informed, with a stated obligation of confidentiality. If
the recommendation is not accepted by the Provost, the
Provost shall provide reasons in writing and notify the
dean, the Senior Vice Chancellor for the Health Sciences in
cases originating within the Health Sciences, the
Chancellor, the Research Integrity Officer, and the
Respondent. Unless the Chancellor overrides the Provost’s
decision within 10 days, the proceedings concerning
Misconduct shall be terminated.
9. Notification of the Complainant
Whether or not a formal investigation is warranted, the
Complainant, if known, shall be provided with at least those
portions of the inquiry report and the determination that
address the Complainant's role and information given in
connection with the inquiry.
10. Records of the Inquiry
Records of the inquiry shall be maintained by the Research
Integrity Officer in a secure place for a period of at least
three years.12 Such records shall include any comments of
the Respondent and all other materials collected or
reviewed.
F. The Investigation
1. Appointment and Charge of the Investigative Board
An Investigative Board to which allegations of Misconduct
are to be referred for formal investigation shall be
appointed by the dean, in consultation with the Research
Integrity Officer. The dean should be satisfied, on the
basis of both his or her own information and signed
statements from members of the board, that they are free of
any close personal or professional association with the
complainant or respondent or of other conflicts of interest
that could bias their judgment in the inquiry. The dean
shall provide the names of proposed board members to the
Respondent. If the Respondent objects to the appointment of
one or more of the proposed members, he or she shall state
the objection(s) in writing to the Provost within 5 days, in
which case the Provost shall review the proposed list of
members within 5 days of receipt of such objection(s) and
shall have authority to direct the dean to replace one or
more members of the board and so notify the Respondent. The
Investigative Board shall be given its charge within 10 days
of receipt by the Respondent of the initial list of proposed
board members or within 5 days of the replacement of one or
more members of the board, whichever occurs later. The time
schedules for the various steps in constituting a board are
to be taken as suggested guidelines. The objective of
charging the board within 20 days of the dean's
recommendation to constitute a board shall be observed if at
all possible.
2. Composition of the Investigative Board
The Investigative Board normally will be selected from
within the University and/or affiliated institutions to
which this policy applies. Exceptions may be made by the
dean if needed to avoid conflicts of interest or to secure
particular expertise. When the Respondent is a faculty
member, research associate, resident, or fellow, the
Investigative Board normally shall be composed of two
tenured faculty members of the responsibility center of the
Respondent and three tenured faculty members whose primary
appointments are in other responsibility centers within the
University of Pittsburgh. No board member shall hold a
primary appointment in the same program in which the
research in question was conducted, nor should any board
member have had direct responsibility for, or a role in the
research under investigation or have any other relevant
conflict of interest. If two suitable tenured faculty
members cannot be identified within the Respondent's
responsibility center, additional members of the five-member
board may be selected from other responsibility centers.
When the Respondent is staff or a student, the board shall
include at least one student or staff member as appropriate
to the particular case. The above limitations on the
membership of the board may be modified, and any or all
members may be selected from outside the University, if the
Provost deems it necessary in order to find expert,
objective and otherwise qualified members. The dean shall
designate one member of the board to serve as chair.
3. Nature of the Hearing
As part of its investigation, the board shall hold a formal
hearing. The proceedings shall be closed to the public
unless both the Respondent and Complainant agree that the
proceedings be open. The charge to the board should be
limited to investigation of the specific allegations of
Misconduct and to any additional possible Misconduct that is
uncovered during the course of the investigation.
4. Resources for the Board
The Investigative Board shall consult with the Research
Integrity Officer as to procedures and shall have the option
to consult with and/or receive testimony at the hearing from
recognized experts who are knowledgeable in the field of
research under investigation.
5. Notification of the Respondent about the Hearing
Thirty days or more prior to the board's formal hearing, the
Respondent shall:
a. be sent a notice stating the place, time and date of
the hearing;
b. be given notice that he/she shall have reasonable
access to any relevant information in support of the
inquiry report, with care to maintain confidentiality,
if possible, with respect to sources of the
information;
c. be informed in writing of significant new directions of
investigation undertaken as a result of the emergence
of additional information that justifies broadening the
scope of the investigation beyond the initial
allegations;
d. be advised that he/she shall be permitted to present
materials in defense against the allegations being made
and present for the board’s consideration a list of
witnesses to be called at the hearing;
e. be sent a list of the witnesses (if any) expected to
testify at the hearing; and be notified in a timely
manner of any changes in the list.
6. Rights of the Respondent at the Hearing
At the formal hearing conducted by the board, the Respondent
shall have the opportunity to:
a. hear testimony from the Complainant if the
Investigative Board desires such testimony;
b. question the witnesses appearing before the board on
any relevant matter, including the Complainant if the
Complainant’s testimony is essential, subject to the
procedural rulings provided for elsewhere in this
policy. If the Complainant cannot attend the hearing
to provide essential testimony, written questions from
the Respondent may be put to him/her by the Research
Integrity Officer, and written responses shall be
requested;
c. testify if he or she so chooses and submit
documentation and tangible evidence in defense against
the allegations of Misconduct;
d. be accompanied by one adviser of choice, who may but
need not be an attorney. The adviser may consult with
the Respondent but may not present the case to the
board or otherwise participate in the discussion and/or
proceedings; and
e. submit a written statement following the close of the
hearing.
7. Hearing Procedures
The chair of the Investigative Board, in consultation with
the Research Integrity Officer, shall make all required
substantive and procedural rulings at the hearing,
including, but not limited to, admissibility of evidence and
order of procedure. The chair need not apply technical
exclusionary rules of evidence followed in judicial
proceedings, nor entertain technical legal motions.
Technical legal rules pertaining to the wording of
questions, hearsay and opinions need not be formally
applied. Reasonable rules of relevancy shall guide the
chair in ruling on the admissibility of evidence.
Reasonable limits may be imposed on the number of factual
witnesses and the amount of cumulative evidence that may be
introduced. An audio recording or stenographic record shall
be made of the proceedings, copies of which may be obtained
by the Respondent upon payment of any reasonable charges
associated with preparation thereof.
8. Required and Optional Testimony
The Respondent shall have the right to decline to testify,
and no adverse inference may be drawn from the exercise of
this right. The board may require any other employee of the
University or of any other entity, such as the UPMC Health
System, covered by this policy to participate in the
proceedings.
9. An Allegation Made Not in Good Faith
If the board has some basis for believing that the
Complainant has not acted in good faith, it should notify
the Complainant of the basis for that belief, provide an
opportunity for response, and incorporate its judgment on
this matter in its report.
10. The Investigative Report
The board should deliver its formal written report to the
dean within 80 days of receiving its charge. The board
shall at the same time provide copies of the report to the
Respondent, by hand delivery if possible, and to the
Research Integrity Officer. Extensions for good cause must
be approved by the Research Integrity Officer, or by the
Provost acting on a request from the board summarizing the
reason for the delay, an interim report of progress to date,
and an estimate of the date of completion. The report shall
describe the policies and procedures under which the
investigation was conducted, how and from whom information
was obtained, the findings, the basis for the findings, and
recommended sanctions. If the board finds that the
Respondent engaged in Misconduct, its report shall also
address the Respondent’s intent in engaging in the
Misconduct and the materiality or significance of the
Misconduct in relation to the accepted standards of research
practice; and the report shall contain a summary of the
views presented by the Respondent. The Respondent shall be
given 10 days to submit his/her written comments on the
report to the dean and the Research Integrity Officer.
11. The Dean’s Decision
The dean shall decide the case within 10 days of the day on
which the Respondent's comments were due. If the dean's
decision is inconsistent with the recommendation of the
board, the dean's communication to the Provost, as provided
for in paragraphs 12 and 15 below, shall include a complete
copy of the board's report and a written explanation of the
bases for his or her disagreement with that report.
12. A Finding of No Misconduct
If the dean determines that the alleged Misconduct is not
substantiated by the findings of the investigation, the
Respondent shall be so notified in writing. Diligent
efforts shall be undertaken, at the Respondent’s request, to
restore the reputation of the Respondent and to close the
matter. The dean shall inform the Provost, the Senior Vice
Chancellor for the Health Sciences in cases originating in
the Health Sciences, the Research Integrity Officer, and the
Chancellor, and shall provide the Complainant with at least
those portions of the Investigative Board’s report and the
determination that address the Complainant’s role and
information given in connection with the investigation. The
Research Integrity Officer shall give any sponsoring agency
a report on the investigation in the form and within the
time prescribed by any applicable regulations.
13. Possible Sanctions for Research Impropriety
If the research activities of the Respondent are found to
constitute research impropriety, although not of a nature or
to a degree that might result in a finding of Research
Misconduct, the dean may impose sanctions such as:
a. a reprimand;
b. notification of the IRB or IACUC for possible actions
in matters relevant to clinical or animal research,
respectively;
c. requirement to withdraw or correct abstracts,
manuscripts, publications, and/or grant proposals;
d. limitations on the Respondent’s responsibility in
research;
e. requirement for participation in training programs;
f. notification to sponsoring agencies, co-authors,
editors, and other institutions involved in the
research.
14. Possible Sanctions for Research Misconduct
If the dean determines that the alleged Misconduct is
substantiated by the findings, he/she shall within 20 days
decide on appropriate sanctions, after consultation with the
Research Integrity Officer. These discretionary sanctions,
which shall be stayed pending the outcome of any appeal, may
include but are not limited to the following:
a. notification and restitution to any sponsoring agency
as appropriate;
b. requirement for withdrawal or correction of all pending
abstracts and papers emanating from the research in
question, and, if appropriate, notification of editors
of journals in which previous related abstracts and
papers appeared;
c. removal from the particular project, letter of
reprimand, requirement that letters of apology be
written, or special monitoring of future work;
d. probation, suspension, salary adjustment, consideration
of possible rank reduction or termination of employment
or student status, repetition of designated student
examinations, or revocation of a degree, providing that
steps with a potential impact on the employment or
student status of a Respondent should be taken in
accordance with procedures described in the University
of Pittsburgh Faculty or Staff Handbook or Guidelines
on Academic Integrity, without the possibility of
reopening the investigation into the substance of the
Research Misconduct;
e. notification to the IRB or IACUC chair on matters
related to clinical or animal research, respectively;
f. notifications to affected institutions of previous or
current affiliation, co-authors and other affected
third parties;
g. notification of future or prospective employers;
h. notification of state licensing boards.
15. Notifications of a Misconduct Finding
The Respondent shall be notified promptly in writing of the
determination and the actions by hand delivery or certified
mail. The dean also shall immediately inform the Senior
Vice Chancellor for the Health Sciences in Health Sciences
cases, and the Provost and the Chancellor in all cases. The
Complainant shall be provided promptly with at least those
portions of the investigative board report and the
determination that address the Complainant's role and
information given in connection with the investigation. In
matters involving the use of human subjects or of animals in
research, the IRB or IACUC, as appropriate, shall also be
informed.
16. Possible Sanctions from a Federal Agency
The Research Integrity Officer shall give any sponsoring
agency a report on the investigation in the form and within
the time prescribed by any applicable regulations.13 A
federal sponsoring agency, if it concurs in a finding of
Research Misconduct, may in addition apply its own
administrative actions, which may include but are not
limited to the following:14
a. debarment for a stated period from eligibility to
receive federal research funds;
b. prohibition for a stated period from service on a
government advisory or peer review committee;
c. implementation of procedures for supervising the
respondent’s subsequent research activities;
d. implementation of procedures for certifying the
accuracy of data and attribution of sources in
subsequent proposals for research funding;
e. publication of the finding in federal publications.
17. Public Release of Information
The Provost or Senior Vice Chancellor for the Health
Sciences, as appropriate, shall, in consultation with the
General Counsel, determine the manner in which information
about the incident is released, with due consideration for
confidentiality as well as possible danger to human health
and welfare.
G. The Complainant
1. Non-Tolerance of Retaliation
The University has a duty not to tolerate or engage in
retaliation against good-faith whistleblowers. This duty
includes providing appropriate and timely relief to
ameliorate the consequences of actual or threatened
reprisals, and holding accountable those who retaliate.
Whistleblowers and other witnesses to possible research
misconduct have a responsibility to raise their concerns
honorably.
2. Defense Against Retaliation
In cases of alleged retaliation that are not resolved
through administrative intervention, whistleblowers should
have an opportunity to defend themselves in a proceeding
where they can present witnesses, except when the
whistleblowers violate rules of confidentiality established
for the proceedings.
3. Grievance - First Step
A Complainant or whistleblower who desires to initiate a
proceeding for adjudicating a charge of retaliation may
invoke the procedures of University Policy 02-03-01, Faculty
Grievances,15 even if the grievant is not a faculty member.
The first step is for the grievant to contact the Senate
Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom to initiate an
informal investigation and dispute resolution process.
4. Grievance - Initiation of Second Step
If a settlement is not achieved by the first step, the
grievant shall present a written complaint to the Research
Integrity Officer which shall contain the following
information, including supporting dates and facts:
a. That the grievant made an allegation of research
misconduct or that the University failed to respond
adequately to an allegation of research misconduct, or
that the Complainant or whistleblower cooperated in an
investigation of such an allegation.
b. That the University or one of its members committed an
adverse action against the grievant within one year
after the filing of the initial allegation or the
cooperative participation in an investigation of such
an allegation.
c. That the adverse action resulted from the allegation or
cooperation.
d. That the complaint is being made within 180 calendar
days of the alleged adverse action or the discovery by
the original grievant of the adverse action.
5. Appointment of a Grievance Panel
On receipt of such a complaint, the Research Integrity
Officer shall refer the complaint to the Provost, who will
move to the second step and appoint a Grievance Panel. The
Grievance Panel shall allow the grievant to present
evidence, to be accompanied by an adviser who may but need
not be a lawyer, and to call other witnesses.
6. Procedural Rights of the Grievant
The grievant shall be given a written summary of evidence
collected including witness testimony and shall have the
opportunity to respond to this information before the panel
writes its report.
7. The Grievance Report
The Grievance Panel shall write a report stating its
conclusions and recommendations and submit its report to the
Provost and to the grievant.
8. Appeal from the Grievance Report
The grievant, if not satisfied with the report of the Panel,
may appeal the findings in writing to the Provost.
9. The Provost’s Adjudication
The Provost shall take the report of the Panel and any
written comments from the grievant into account before
rendering a decision. If the decision includes a finding of
retaliation, the Provost shall take corrective action, which
may include redress of any disadvantage suffered by the
grievant and sanctions against the person(s) found to have
committed the retaliation. The action of the Provost in the
matter completes the process.
10. Acknowledgment of the Role of the Complainant
At the conclusion of the proceedings, the University has a
responsibility to acknowledge the role of the Complainant
promptly, in public or private as appropriate, if the
Complainant agrees.
11. Response to a Charge of Acting Not in Good Faith
If a dean believes on the basis of an inquiry or
investigative report that the initial allegation of possible
Misconduct was made not in good faith, the Complainant shall
be given an opportunity to reply in writing if that
opportunity was not previously provided. If the dean then
makes a finding that indeed the Complainant did not act in
good faith, the dean may apply appropriate sanctions if the
Complainant is from within the University or affiliated
institutions covered by this policy. Sanctions shall be
stayed pending the outcome of any appeal and shall not be
applied against the Complainant if the allegation was filed
with a lack of full information but not out of malice.
H. Appeals
1. Nature of an Appeal
A dean's determination of Misconduct by a Respondent or lack
of good faith by a Complainant may be appealed in writing,
in either case to the Provost, with a copy to the Research
Integrity Officer, within 10 days of personal delivery or
mailing of the determination, whichever occurs first. The
grounds for the appeal shall be submitted in writing within
20 days after filing the notice of appeal. Such an appeal
shall be restricted to the body of the evidence already
presented in the written record. The written record shall
include all materials collected or reviewed at both the
inquiry and investigation stages (including the Respondent's
or Complainant’s written comments16), the written reports
filed at both stages and the audio recording or stenographic
record of the hearing.
2. Appointment and Charge of an Appeal Panel
In the case of an appeal, the Provost, in consultation
with the Research Integrity Officer, shall form a five-
person appeal panel to advise him or her on the merits of
the case. The selection of the members of the appeal
panel shall be in accord with the rules (under IV.B.3.) in
Faculty Reviews and Appeals, University Procedure 02-02-10
as approved on November 27, 2000, and as may be amended
subsequently;17 however, the panel shall not otherwise be
bound by the procedures described in that document. Names
shall be drawn from the Central Appeals Pool or School
Pools (e.g., for FAS and the School of Medicine), but no
more than one panel member shall be from the unit
(department) where the Respondent has his or her primary
appointment. The panel shall be formed and charged within
30 days of the date of the dean's decision, and it shall
render its report within 60 days after receiving its
charge.
3. Grounds for Appeal
The only grounds for recommendation of reversal by the
appeal panel shall be failure to follow appropriate
procedures, insufficiency of evidence, or arbitrary and
capricious decision making.
4. Outcome of an Appeal
If the decision of the Provost is to affirm the
determination and actions, appropriate measures shall be
taken, after consultation with the Research Integrity
Officer. The Provost’s determination shall conclude the
University’s proceedings with respect to the Misconduct
allegation. No subsequent procedure to determine the
Respondent’s employment or student status may reopen the
investigation into the allegation of Research Misconduct.
I. Policy Changes
Changes in federal regulations or University policies could
necessitate changes to this policy. Amendments to the policy
shall be made only after consultation by the administration
with the Senate. Appropriate notice of any such change shall
be provided to the University community in writing.
____________________________
1 Public Health Service Regulations, codified at 42 Code of
Federal Regulations (2001), §§ 50.101 through 50.105 (referred to
subsequently as PHSR); National Science Foundation Regulations, 45
Code of Federal Regulations (2001), §§ 689.1 - 689.9 (referred to
subsequently as NSFR).
2 For the purposes of this document, "dean" includes deans,
directors of University centers, and presidents of the regional
campuses.
3 http://www.pitt.edu/HOME/PP/policies/11/11-01-03.html
4 http://www.pitt.edu/HOME/PP/policies/11/11-01-02.html
5 http://www.pitt.edu/~provost/ethresearch.html
6 http://www.health.pitt.edu/rpf/
7 PHSR, 42 C.F.R., §50.104(b); NSFR, 45 C.F.R., §689.3(b)(3).
8 PHSR, 42 C.F.R., §50.103(d)(5).
9 PHSR, 42 C.F.R., §50.104(a)(3).
10 PHSR, 42 C.F.R., §50.103(d)(4); NSFR, 45 C.F.R.,
§689.3(b)(1).
11 PHSR, 42 C.F.R., §50.103(d)(12) and §50.104(a)(1); NSFR, 45
C.F.R., §689.3(b)(2).
12 PHSR, 42 C.F.R., §50.103(d)(6).
13 PHSR, 42 C.F.R., §50.104(a)(2); NSFR, 45 C.F.R., §689.3
14 PHSR, 42 C.F.R., §50.104(a)(7); NSFR, 45 C.F.R., §689.2
15 http://www.pitt.edu/HOME/PP/policies/02/02-03-01.html
16 PHSR, 42 C.F.R., §50.103(d)(1).
17 http://www.pitt.edu/HOME/PP/procedures/02/02-02-10.html