6.20 Policies and Procedures for Dealing with Misconduct in Research and Creative Activity

6.20.1 Policy Statement

In fostering academic freedom, it is the policy of The Florida State University to uphold the highest standards of integrity in research and creative activity, and to protect the right of its employees to engage in research and creative activity. Researchers are expected to adhere to the standards of research in their area of endeavor, and to encourage adherence to those standards by their colleagues and by those under their supervision. Particularly unacceptable are fabrication or falsification of data in scientific research, and plagiarism in any research or creative endeavor. Deviations which are believed to constitute misconduct are to be reported to an appropriate University official. Misconduct does not include honest error or honest difference in interpretations or judgment of data.

Florida State University is committed to adhering to and enforcing applicable federal, state and local laws and to following procedures required by granting agencies from which grant funds are secured. Researchers are to be aware of any special provisions regarding standards of research and of procedures required by funding agencies for resolving allegations of misconduct in research. Application for funding from an agency shall indicate that the researcher agrees to the procedures required by that agency should it be necessary to investigate an allegation of misconduct in research.

Each department or unit in which research or creative activity is conducted will have a statement of procedures for fostering integrity in research and creative activity. Each department or unit will keep a current copy of its statement on file in the Office of the Vice President for Research.

6.20.2 Procedures for .Reporting; Allegations of Misconduct in Research and Creative Activity

A suspected instance of misconduct in research and creative activity is to be reported to an appropriate University official. Normally this report will be to the departmental chair or the dean of the college (or comparable administrator if the person involved is not under a dean; henceforth this will be understood when the term "dean" is used). Any University official, including departmental chairs, who receives such a report shall communicate the report to the dean of the college in which the alleged misconduct occurred. The dean of the college is responsible for informing the departmental chair (if the report is from another source), the Dean of the Faculties and the Vice President for Research. The dean is also responsible for promptly initiating an inquiry into any suspected or alleged instance of misconduct to determine whether an investigation is warranted.

6.20.3 Inquiry and Investigation

The inquiry will be conducted by a three person committee appointed by the dean. The inquiry will determine whether there is reasonable cause to conduct a full investigation. Upon initiating an inquiry the dean will notify the affected faculty or staff member in writing that an allegation has been made against him or her and that the dean's office is conducting an inquiry to determine whether there is reasonable cause to initiate an investigation.

It will be the task of the committee of inquiry to separate allegations deserving further investigation from frivolous, unjustified, or clearly mistaken allegations.

If the committee of inquiry recommends that no further action should be taken, no record of the allegation or inquiry is to remain in the accused faculty member's evaluation file.

If a full investigation is recommended by the committee of inquiry, the dean will appoint a three person faculty committee to conduct the investigation. The dean may appoint a larger committee or may appoint members from outside the University if that is deemed warranted by the circumstances of the case. The affected faculty or staff member will be given written notification of the charges and will be accorded due process in the investigation. Both the University and the affected faculty or staff member will have an opportunity to present evidence, call witnesses and have questions put to witnesses. A record of the proceeding will be available to the affected faculty or staff member at cost. The affected faculty or staff member may have counsel or a representative present during the proceedings. At the conclusion of the investigation, the committee shall provide documented recommendations to the dean regarding whether they think misconduct has occurred. The affected faculty or staff member will have an opportunity to provide the dean with a written statement regarding the recommendations.

The dean, in consultation with the Dean of the Faculties and the Vice President for Academic Affairs, will decide either to take action appropriate to his authority or to recommend a course of action to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The dean can render a judgment that misconduct has not occurred; that misconduct has occurred and the appropriate penalty is within his or her authority; or that misconduct has occurred but an appropriate penalty is not within the dean's authority. The dean may act upon the first two judgments, the third would have to be a recommendation to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. If the affected faculty or staff member is judged not to have engaged in misconduct, this will be communicated to all appropriate, to restore the reputation of anyone alleged to have engaged in misconduct when allegations are not confirmed. If the affected faculty or staff member is judged to have engaged in misconduct this fact should be communicated to the faculty member along with the proposed penalty.

A faculty or staff member, at this point, depending on his or her standing and the severity of the proposed penalty will have available one or more avenues of appeal from which to choose as delineated in the BOR-UFF Agreement, the FSU Constitution, the Florida Administrative Code, and any other applicable authority.

Those appointed to inquiry or investigatory committees should be free of any conflict of interest and committees should have sufficient expertise to be able to assess the charges before them.

University procedures of inquiry and investigation are not to breach pledges of confidentiality or anonymity provided to human subjects of research.

Those accused of misconduct shall be afforded confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible.

6.20.4 Protection of those Reporting Misconduct

The University will protect employees who make good faith reports of misconduct in research or creative activity from job-related disciplinary reprisals and will make diligent efforts to protect their reputation. Confidentiality will be maintained to the extent compatible with law and due process. Once an allegation is made it shall be the responsibility of the University to pursue the matter. Those accused of misconduct in research or creative activity will be informed regarding the person or persons who made the allegation about their work, unless such knowledge is irrelevant to the evaluation of the allegation. This information will be provided with the notification that an inquiry is to take place.

6.20.5 Promptness of Procedure

Each stage should be completed as quickly as is compatible with a fair and effective process for assessing the allegations. If the allegation involves research funded by certain agencies, a specific timetable will need to be followed.

6.20.6 Requirement of Notification and Interim Actions

Should it be necessary to provide information to external agencies or organizations, the Vice President for Research will be the University official responsible for those notifications. In some instances regulations will require interim actions. The Vice President for Research in consultation with the dean conducting the procedure of inquiry and investigation will initiate those interim actions. Those conducting an inquiry or investigation will provide necessary information to the Vice President for Research to allow him to comply with externally mandated actions or reports.

It is the policy of FSU to take legally allowed measures to set the record straight if misconduct is established.

6.20.7 Dissemination of Information Regarding Integrity; in Research and Creative Activity

The Vice President for Research shall publish a document containing all relevant University policy statements, generally applicable federal, state and local requirements, and specific requirements of particular funding agencies regarding integrity in research and creative activity. Each faculty member engaged in research or creative activity shall be given a copy. Staff or graduate students employed in research shall also be provided copies of this document. Those holding relevant administrative positions will likewise be provided copies. This document will be revised periodically so as to remain current.

Subsection A: Standards and Procedures for Addressing Allegations of Misconduct in Research funded by the National Science Foundation;.

These standards and procedures are meant to supplement the University's general procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in research and creative activity in order for the University to meet requirements promulgated by the National Science Foundation. If there are inconsistencies between these processes and the general University processes, provisions of this process supplant the incompatible general University provisions, when the research in question is funded by the National Science Foundation.

National Science Foundation has specific requirements for conducting investigations of allegation of misconduct involving work which it has funded. It is University policy that an applicant for funding from NSF or anyone working on a project funded by NSF agrees to be bound by the University's process of inquiry and investigation which implements NSF's requirements.
NSF "Misconduct" means (1) fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other serious deviation form 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; or (3) failure to meet other material legal requirements governing research.
NSF provides specific definitions of "inquiry" and "investigation": An "inquiry" consists of information gathering and preliminary fact-finding to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of misconduct warrants an investigation. An "investigation" is a formal examination and evaluation of relevant facts to determine whether misconduct has taken place or if misconduct has already been confirmed, to assess its extent and consequences or determine appropriate NSF action.
The University will take action necessary to ensure the integrity of research, the rights and interests of research subjects and the public, and the observance of legal requirements and responsibilities.
The University will inform NSF immediately if an initial inquiry supports a formal investigation, and will keep NSF informed during such an investigation.
The University will notify NSF before deciding to initiate an investigation or as required during an investigation (i) if the seriousness of the apparent misconduct warrants; (ii) if immediate health hazards are involved; (iii) of NSF's resources, reputation, or other interests need protecting; (iv) if Federal action may be needed to protect the interests of a subject of the investigation or of others potentially affected; or (v) if the scientific community or the public should be informed.
In order to defer independent inquiry or investigation by NSF, the University will decide whether an investigation is warranted within 90 days, and will complete an investigation and reach a disposition within 180 days after initiating an investigation. Should additional time be needed, the University will seek a continuing deferral from NSF, however NSF may require submission of periodic status reports.
The University will provide NSF with a final report from any investigation.
The investigatory phase shall be deemed completed for the purpose of reporting the results of the investigation to NSF when the dean or the Vice President for Academic Affairs either finds the faculty or staff member innocent of the charges or finds misconduct to have occurred and proposes an appropriate penalty. Any such report to NSF must contain an account of any additional processes the affected person may invoke and the bearing those processes may have on the issue of misconduct.

Florida State University may ask for an extension for reporting the results of an investigation in certain specified instances. If any of the following penalties are contemplated, a faculty member has a right to a peer hearing as specified in Rule 6C2-4.0335, Florida Administrative Code: to suspend with or without pay, reduce the compensation or rank of, terminate the annual appointment of a tenured faculty member; to immediately suspend or to terminate the appointment of a non-tenured faculty member prior to the expiration of the non-tenured faculty member's current employment contract. If an accused faculty member exercises this right, the University will request an extension, if needed, and provide an accounting of the current status of the case, and an estimation of the time needed to complete the peer hearing required by 6C2-4.0335.
Based on required reports to NSF, NSF may order that interim actions be taken to protect Federal resources or to guard against continuation of any suspected or alleged misconduct. Any interim action by NSF will be reviewed periodically during an investigation and modified as warranted. An interested party may request a review and modification of any interim action.

Subsection B: .Standards and Procedures for Addressing Allegations of Misconduct in Research funded by the Public Health Service of the Department of Health and Human Services.

These standards and procedures are meant to supplement the University's general procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in research and creative activity in order for the university to meet requirements promulgated by the Public Health Service of the Department of Health and Human Services. If there are inconsistencies between these processes and the general University processes, provisions of this process supplant the incompatible general University provisions when the research in question is funded by the Department of Health and Human Services or its institutes or agencies. These standards and procedures are necessary to meet the assurance conditions promulgated by the Public Health Service of HHS.

The Public Health Service of HHS has specific requirements for conducting investigations of allegations of misconduct involving research, research training or related activities which they have funded or for which funds have been requested. It is University policy that an applicant for funding from HHS or anyone working on a project funded by HHS agrees to be bound by the University's process of inquiry and investigation which implements the Public Health Service's requirements.
For PHS of HHS "misconduct" or "misconduct in science" 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 difference in interpretations or judgments of data.
PHS provides specific definitions of "inquiry" and ".investigation": "Inquiry means information gathering and initial fact-finding to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of misconduct warrants an investigation; "Investigation" means the formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if misconduct has occurred.
The University will inquire immediately into an allegation or other evidence of possible misconduct. An inquiry is to be completed within 60 calendar days of its initiation. A written report shall be prepared that states what evidence was reviewed, summarizes relevant interviews, and includes the conclusions of the inquiry. The individual(s) against whom the allegation was made shall be given a copy of the report, and if they choose to comment their comments will be part of the record. If circumstances clearly warrant, a longer period may be involved, but in that case the record of inquiry should include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the 60-day period.
Sufficiently detailed documentation of inquiries will be maintained for at least three years so as to permit a later assessment of the reasons for determining that an investigation was not warranted.
An investigation must be undertaken within 30 days if the findings from the inquiry provide sufficient basis for doing so.
The decision to initiate an investigation must be reported in writing to the Director, Office of Scientific Integrity on or before the date the investigation begins.
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. Whenever possible, interviews should be conducted of all individuals involved either in making the allegation or against whom the allegation is made, as well as individuals who might have information regarding key aspects of the allegations; complete summaries of these interviews should be prepared, provided to the interviewed party for comment or revision, and include as part of the investigatory file.
An investigation should ordinarily be complete within 120 days of its initiation. Included in this time frame are the conducting of the investigation, preparing the report of findings, obtaining comments from subject(s) and submitting the report to the Office of Scientific Integrity. If the investigation cannot be completed in 120 days, the University will submit a request for an extension to the funding agency. This request will include an interim report on the progress to that point and an estimate of the date for completion of the report and other necessary steps. The University will file periodic reports as requested by the agency.
The University will notify the funding agency of the final outcome of the investigation. The final report will describe the policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted, how and from whom information was obtained relevant to the investigation, and include the findings, documentation to substantiate the investigation's finding, and the actual text or an accurate summary of the views of any individual(s) found to have engaged in misconduct. This report will be made available to the Director, Office of Scientific Integrity who will decide whether the Office will either proceed with its own investigation or will act on the institution's findings. If they can be identified, the person(s) who raised the allegations will be provided those portions of the report which address their role and opinions in the investigation.
If the decision is made to terminate an inquiry or investigation for any reason without completing all relevant requirements, a report of such planned termination, including a description of the reasons for such termination, shall be made to the Office of Scientific Integrity.
The University will notify the Office of Scientific Integrity if it ascertains from the inquiry or investigation that any of the following conditions exist:
(1) There is an immediate health hazard involved;
(2) There is an immediate need to protect Federal funds or equipment;
(3) There is an immediate need to protect the interest of the person(s) making the allegations or the individual(s) who is the subject of the allegations as well as his/her co- investigators and associates, if any;
(4) It is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly.
(5) There is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violation. In that instance, the institution will inform the Office of Scientific Integrity within 24 hours of obtaining that information.
The investigatory phrase shall be deemed completed for the purpose of reporting the results of the investigation to HHS when the dean or the Vice President for Academic Affairs either finds the faculty or staff member innocent of the charges or finds misconduct to have occurred and proposes an appropriate penalty. Any such report to HHS must contain an account of any additional processes the affected person may invoke and the bearing those processes may have on the issue of misconduct.

Florida State University may ask for an extension for reporting the results of an investigation in certain specified instances. If any of the following penalties are contemplated, a faculty member has a right to a peer hearing as specified in Rule 6C2-4.0335, Florida Administrative Code: to suspend with or without pay, reduce the compensation or rank of, terminate the annual appointment of a tenured faculty member; to immediately suspend or to terminate the appointment of a non-tenured faculty member's current employment contract. If an accused faculty member exercises this right, the University will request an extension, if needed, and will provide an accounting of the current status of the case, and an estimation of the time needed to complete the peer hearing required by 6C2-4.0335.
The University will take interim administrative actions, as appropriate, to protect Federal funds and insure that the purposes of the Federal financial assistance are carried out.