A. Roles, Rights, and Responsibilities <ol style="list-style-type: upper-roman;"> <li>Institution <ol> <li>UW-Whitewater's Responsibilities <ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;"> <li>To the extent possible, UWW will limit disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses while conducting the research misconduct proceedings to those who need to know, inform all institutional members about these policies and procedures, and make these policies and procedures publicly available. This limitation on disclosure no longer applies once UWW has made a final determination of research misconduct findings.</li> <li>UWW will respond to each allegation of research misconduct under 42 CFR Part 93 in a thorough, competent, objective, and fair manner.</li> <li>UWW will take all reasonable and practical steps to ensure the cooperation of respondents and other institutional members with research misconduct proceedings, including, but not limited to, their providing information, research records, and other evidence.</li> <li>UWW agrees to cooperate with ORI during any research misconduct proceeding or compliance review, including addressing deficiencies or additional allegations in the institutional record if directed by ORI and to assist in administering and enforcing any HHS administrative actions imposed on institutional members.</li> <li>UWW may also take steps to manage published data or acknowledge that data may be unreliable.</li> </ol> </li> <li>UW-Whitewater's Responsibilities During and After a Research Misconduct Proceeding <ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;"> <li>Except as may otherwise be prescribed by applicable law, UWW will maintain confidentiality for any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified and will limit disclosure to those who need to know to conduct a research misconduct proceeding.</li> <li>Before or at the time of notifying the respondent of the allegation(s) and whenever additional items become known or relevant, UWW will promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain all research records and other evidence and sequester them securely.</li> <li>UWW will ensure that the institutional record contains all required elements, i.e., research records that were compiled and considered during the proceedings, assessment documentation, and inquiry and/or investigation reports. Upon completion of the inquiry, UWW will provide ORI with the complete inquiry report and add it to the institutional record.</li> <li>UWW will maintain the institutional record and all sequestered research records and other evidence in a secure manner for seven years after completion of UWW and/or HHS proceeding.</li> <li>UWW will provide information related to the alleged research misconduct and proceedings to ORI upon request and transfer custody or provide copies of the institutional record or any component of it and any sequestered evidence to HHS, regardless of whether the evidence is included in the institutional record. Additionally, UWW will promptly notify ORI of any special circumstances that may arise.</li> <li>Disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses while UWW is conducting the research misconduct proceedings is limited to those who need to know, which UWW will determine consistent with a thorough, competent, objective, and fair research misconduct proceeding, and as allowed by law. Those who need to know may include institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions.</li> </ol> </li> <li>UW-Whitewater's Responsibilities to the Complainant(s) <ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;"> <li>UWW will provide confidentiality consistent with 42 CFR Part 93 for all complainants in a research misconduct proceeding.</li> <li>UWW will also take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for conducting any part of the research misconduct proceeding do not have potential, perceived, or actual personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the complainant(s).</li> <li>UWW agrees to take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of complainants and to protect these individuals from retaliation by respondents and/or other institutional members. If UWW chooses to notify one complainant of the inquiry results in a case, all complainants will be notified by UWW, to the extent possible.</li> </ol> </li> <li>UW-Whitewater's Responsibilities to the Respondent(s) <ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;"> <li>As with complainants, UWW will provide confidentiality consistent with 42 CFR Part 93 to all respondents in a research misconduct proceeding.</li> <li>UWW will make a good-faith effort to notify the respondent(s) in writing of the allegations being made against them.  </li> <li>UWW will take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for conducting any part of the research misconduct proceeding do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the respondent.</li> <li>UWW is responsible for giving the respondent(s) copies of or supervised access to the sequestered research records. The institution will notify the respondent whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted, provide the respondent an opportunity to review and comment on the inquiry report, and attach their comments to the inquiry report.</li> <li>If an investigation is commenced, UWW must notify the respondent, give written notice of any additional allegations raised against them not previously addressed by the inquiry report, and allow the respondent(s) an opportunity to review the witness transcripts.  </li> <li>UWW will give the respondent(s) an opportunity to read and comment on the draft investigation report and any information or allegations added to the institutional record.</li> <li>UWW will give due consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the respondent.</li> <li>UWW will bear the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, for making a finding of research misconduct.</li> <li>UWW will make all reasonable, practical efforts, if requested and as appropriate, to protect or restore the reputation of respondents against whom no finding of research misconduct is made.</li> </ol> </li> <li>UW-Whitewater's Responsibilities to Committee Members <ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;"> <li>UWW will ensure that a committee, consortium, or person acting on UWW’s behalf conducts research misconduct proceedings in compliance with the PHS regulation and the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law.</li> <li>UWW will take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of good-faith committee members and to protect these individuals from retaliation.</li> </ol> </li> <li>UW-Whitewater's Responsibilities to the Witness[es] <ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;"> <li>UWW will provide confidentiality consistent with 42 CFR Part 93 and the Wisconsin Public Records Law for all witnesses.</li> <li>UWW will take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for conducting any part of the proceedings do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the witnesses.</li> <li>UWW will also take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of witnesses and to protect these individuals from retaliation.</li> </ol> </li> </ol> </li> <li>Research Integrity Officer <ol> <li>The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) is the institutional official responsible for administering UWW’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct in compliance with the PHS regulation. The same individual will not serve as both the Institutional Deciding Official and the RIO.</li> <li>UWW may choose to have the RIO or another designated institutional official conduct the inquiry in lieu of a committee, and, if needed, this individual may utilize one or more subject matter experts to assist them in the inquiry.</li> <li>Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO or another designated institutional official will promptly assess the allegation to determine whether the allegation <ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;"> <li>is within the definition of research misconduct under the PHS regulation,</li> <li>is within the applicability criteria of the regulation at § 93.102, and</li> <li>is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. If the RIO or another designated institutional official determines that the requirements for an inquiry are met, they shall document the assessment, promptly sequester all research records and other evidence per the PHS regulation, and promptly initiate the inquiry.</li> </ol> </li> <li>If the RIO or another designated institutional official determines that requirements for an inquiry are not met, they will keep sufficiently detailed documentation of the assessment to permit a later review by ORI of the reasons why UWW did not conduct an inquiry.</li> <li>UWW will keep this documentation and related records in a secure manner for seven years and provide them to ORI upon request.</li> </ol> </li> <li>Complainant <ol> <li>The complainant is the person who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct. The complainant brings research misconduct allegations directly to the attention of an institutional or HHS or, as applicable, a non-PHS official through any means of communication.</li> <li>The complainant will make allegations in good faith, as it is defined in the PHS regulation, as having a reasonable belief in the truth of one’s allegation or testimony, based on the information known to the complainant at the time.</li> </ol> </li> <li>Respondent <ol> <li>The respondent is the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding. The respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of evidence, affirmative defenses raised.</li> <li>The respondent’s destruction of research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where a preponderance of evidence establishes that the respondent intentionally or knowingly destroyed records after being informed of the research misconduct allegations.</li> <li>The respondent’s failure to provide research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where the respondent claims to possess the records but refuses to provide them upon request.</li> <li>The respondent will not be present during the witnesses’ interviews but will be provided with a transcript of the interview after it takes place.</li> <li>The respondent will have opportunities to (a) view and comment on the inquiry report, (b) view and comment on the investigation report, and (c) submit any comments on the draft investigation report to UWW within 30 days of receiving it.</li> <li>If admitting to research misconduct, the respondent will sign a written statement specifying the affected research records and confirming the misconduct was falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism; committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.</li> </ol> </li> <li>Committee and Consortium Members <ol> <li>Committee members (and consortium members where applicable) are experts who act in good faith to cooperate with the research misconduct proceedings by impartially carrying out their assigned duties for the purpose of helping UWW meet its responsibilities under 42 CFR Part 93. Committee and consortium members will have relevant scientific expertise and be free of real or perceived conflicts of interest with any of the involved parties.</li> <li>Committee or consortium members or anyone acting on behalf of UWW will conduct research misconduct proceedings consistent with the PHS regulation. They will determine whether an investigation is warranted, documenting the decision in an inquiry report. During an investigation, committee or consortium members participate in recorded interviews of each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent(s). They will also determine whether or not the respondent(s) engaged in research misconduct and document the decision in the investigation report. They consider respondent and/or complainant comments on the inquiry/investigation report(s) and document that consideration in the investigation report.</li> <li>An investigation into multiple respondents may convene with the same investigation committee or consortium members or anyone acting on behalf of UWW, but there will be separate investigation reports and separate research misconduct determinations for each respondent.</li> <li>Committee or consortium members may serve for more than one investigation, in cases with multiple respondents.</li> <li>Committee members may also serve for both the inquiry and the investigation.</li> </ol> </li> <li>Witnesses <ol> <li>Witnesses are people whom UWW has reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation.</li> <li>Witnesses provide information for review during research misconduct proceedings.</li> <li>Witnesses will cooperate with the research misconduct proceedings in good faith and have a reasonable belief in the truth of their testimony, based on the information known to them at the time.</li> </ol> </li> <li>Institutional Deciding Official <ol> <li>The Institutional Deciding Official (IDO) makes the final determination of research misconduct findings. The IDO cannot serve as the RIO.</li> <li>The IDO documents their determination in a written decision that includes whether research misconduct occurred, and if so, what kind and who committed it, and a description of the relevant actions UWW has taken or will take.</li> <li>The IDO’s written decision becomes part of the institutional record.</li> </ol> </li> </ol> B. Procedures The UWW Procedures for Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct are provided in <a href="/policies/procedures-by-category/compliance-and-risk-management-procedures/uww-733a-research-misconduct">UWW Procedure 733.A</a>.