The University of Vermont (“University”, “Institution” or “UVM”) is committed to fostering an environment in which the highest ethical standards in the conduct of research are followed. The primary responsibility for maintaining such standards of honesty in the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge rests with the faculty, their collaborating staff members, and students. 

Whether proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting of research, the University prohibits faculty, staff, and students from engaging in research misconduct. In the event of any allegations or evidence of possible research misconduct that may arise, the University is committed to addressing such matters promptly.

Research Misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.  

1. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
2. 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.
3. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
4. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

Individuals who become aware of a possible incident of Research Misconduct must immediately report the information and will be considered an allegation in accordance with this policy.

Persons found in violation of this policy under the procedures described below are subject to disciplinary action and may also be subject to civil or criminal prosecution.

Integrity is a fundamental value upon which the University is founded. Without integrity, we could not justify the privilege of academic freedom intrinsic to scholarship and education, nor could we provide to society the advancements of knowledge that derive from free and open inquiry. This policy is designed to ensure the University maintains compliance with all applicable federal regulations concerning research misconduct, including the specific requirements of the PHS Policies on Research Misconduct, as detailed in 42 CFR Part 93. This policy addresses critical issues that can arise from research that is not conducted honestly and with integrity. This policy outlines the procedures for addressing any allegations of research misconduct.

This policy applies to all Institutional members, employees, students, and other personnel who have research responsibilities.

Definitions – People and Roles

Complainant: means an individual who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of a University or federal agency official for example, a Department Chair,  Dean, the Vice President for Research, an attorney in the University Office of the General Counsel, or an official in the Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity.

Informal Inquirer: means the Respondent’s Department Chair, Dean, or Graduate Program Director, as applicable, where the allegation is referred to for an Institutional Assessment. In some cases, the Vice President for Research has the option to appoint the Research Integrity Officer, or another designated Institutional officer, as the Informal Inquirer. The Informal Inquirer will conduct the decide whether or not an Institutional Inquiry is warranted. Such determinations shall be made in writing and delivered to the Vice President for Research and the University Office of the General Counsel.

Investigation Director: means the individual who shall lead and commence the Institutional Investigation where warranted. The Investigation Director in consultation with the Vice President for Research and the Office of the General Counsel will appoint a Research Pannel, provide all materials in hand, and ensure the Review Panel understands the responsibilities of the Review Panel.

Institutional Deciding Official: The Institutional Deciding Official (IDO) can be an Individual or a committee. The IDO makes the final determination of research misconduct findings. The IDO’s written decision becomes part of the University record.

Institutional member: means an individual (or individuals) who is employed by, is an agent of, or is affiliated by contract or agreement with the University. Institutional members may include, but are not limited to, officials, tenured and untenured faculty, teaching and support staff, researchers, research coordinators, technicians, postdoctoral and other fellows, students, volunteers, subject matter experts, consultants, attorneys, or employees or agents of contractors, subcontractors, or sub-awardees.

Respondent: means the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding. 

Review Panel: The Review Panel is charged with ensuring an impartial and unbiased Investigation into the research misconduct allegation is conducted. The review panel will be comprised of three or five (3-5) academically qualified and impartial individuals. 

Research Integrity Officer: The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) is the institutional official responsible for administering, with assistance from the Office of General Counsel, the University’s written policy and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct. The RIO may not serve as both the Institutional Deciding Official and the RIO.

Witnesses: means the people whom the University has reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation. Witnesses provide information for review during research misconduct proceedings. 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.

Definitions - Other Terms

Allegation: means a disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of an institutional or federal official.

Evidence:  means anything offered or obtained during a research misconduct proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact.  Evidence includes documents, whether in hard copy or electronic form, information, tangible items, and testimony.

Fabrication: means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

Falsification: means 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.

Good Faith:

1. Good faith as applied to a complainant or witness means having a reasonable belief in the truth of one's allegation or testimony, based on the information known to the complainant or witness at the time. An allegation or cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding is not in good faith if made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for information that would negate the allegation or testimony.
2. Good faith as applied to a research panel member means cooperating with the research misconduct proceeding by impartially carrying out the duties assigned for the purpose of helping an institution meet its responsibilities under this part. A research panel member does not act in good faith if their acts or omissions during the research misconduct proceedings are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.

Institutional Assessment: means to determine whether an allegation warrants an institutional inquiry. An institutional assessment is performed by the Informal Inquirer, who reviews the readily accessible information relevant to the allegation.

Institutional Inquiry:  means preliminary information gathering and preliminary fact-finding for the purpose of conducting an initial review of the evidence to determine whether an allegation warrants an institutional investigation. An inquiry is performed by the Informal Inquirer or the RIO if appointed as the Informal Inquirer. An inquiry does not require a full review of all related evidence.

Institutional Investigation: means to formally investigate the research misconduct allegation and develop a factual record, pursue leads, examine the record, and recommend finding(s) to the Institutional Deciding Official.

Plagiarism: means the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving appropriate credit.

1. Plagiarism includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another's work that materially misleads the reader regarding the contributions of the author. It does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology.
2. Plagiarism does not include self-plagiarism or authorship or credit disputes, including disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a research project. Self-plagiarism and authorship disputes do not meet the definition of research misconduct.

Preponderance of Evidence: means proof by evidence that, compared with evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely true than not.

Intentionally: means to act with the aim of carrying out the act

Knowingly: means to act with awareness of the act.

Recklessly: means to propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.

Research: means a systematic experiment, study, evaluation, demonstration, or survey designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge (basic research) or specific knowledge (applied research) by establishing, discovering, developing, elucidating, or confirming information or underlying mechanisms related to biological causes, functions, or effects; diseases; treatments; or related matters to be studied.

Retaliation:  means an adverse action taken against a complainant, witness, or committee member by an institution or one of its members in response to:

1. A good faith allegation of research misconduct; or
2. Good faith cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding

Timeline for Completion: All aspects of Stage 1 must be completed within 30 days from when the notification of an allegation of research misconduct is received by the Informal Inquirer.

All allegations of research misconduct must be provided to the Research Integrity Officer or other University officials. Upon receipt the RIO or University official will promptly notify the following individuals in writing as follows.

1. If the Respondent is faculty or staff the Informal Inquirer shall be the respondent’s department chair. If the chair is the one suspected of research misconduct, the notification should be directed to the applicable Dean. The Dean will then become the Informal Inquirer. The department chair, or Dean, as applicable, will decide whether a Stage 2, Institutional Inquiry is warranted.
2. If the Respondent is a graduate student, the Informal Inquirer shall be the applicable Graduate Program Director. The Graduate Program Director will decide whether a Stage 2, Institutional Inquiry is warranted.
3. If the Respondent is an undergraduate student, the Informal Inquirer shall be the Dean of the College in which the undergraduate student is enrolled. The Dean will decide whether a Stage 2, Institutional Inquiry is warranted.
4. If the Respondent is a student or resident In the Larner College of Medicine, the Informal Inquirer shall be the Senior Associate Dean for Research. The Senior Associate Dean for Research will decide whether a Stage 2, Institutional Inquiry is warranted.
5. The Office of General Counsel and the Vice President for Research shall also be notified, if not already notified.

An institutional inquiry is Warranted if:

1. The Allegation falls within the definition of Research Misconduct; and
2. The Allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified.

If warranted, the Informal Inquirer must document the assessment and promptly sequester all research records and other evidence and promptly initiate the Institutional Inquiry.

If not warranted, the Informal Inquiry must keep sufficiently detailed documentation of the assessment to permit a later review of the reasons why the University did not conduct an Institutional Inquiry.

In all cases the Informal Inquirer must notify the Vice President for Research and the Office of the General Counsel in writing regarding their decision of whether or not an Institutional Inquiry is warranted.

In addition, the Informal Inquire will notify the LCOM Senior Associate Dean for Research, if the allegation involves LCOM, and in the case of a graduate student involvement, the Dean of the Graduate College.

Conflict of Interest: It is crucial to avoid a conflict of interest. If the Informal Inquire has a conflict of interest, then that person must pass the task of Institutional Assessment to the first individual in the normal chain of command who does not have a conflict of interest. If the respondent is a graduate student, the chain of command will go from the Graduate Program Director to the Dean of the Graduate College. 

Examples of apparent or real conflicts would include, but not be limited to, cases where the Informal Inquirer initiated the charge of misconduct, or was a collaborator in the research in the course of which misconduct is alleged to have occurred. Similarly, other individuals who may be asked to participate in an inquiry must avoid real or apparent conflicts of interest.

Timeline for Completion: All aspects of Stage 2 must be completed within 90 days from the start date of the Institutional Inquiry. Where circumstances clearly warrant a longer period, the Informal Inquirer must document the reasons for exceeding the 90 day period the Informal Inquirer must document the reasons for exceeding the 90 day period and request approval from the Vice President for Research.

Where an Institutional Inquiry has been warranted, the Informal Inquirer must promptly:

1. Take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct investigation, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester them in a secure manner. Where research records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by several users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments. The University Police Services may be involved in obtaining research records and evidence, as  needed.
2. After securing research records and evidence, make a good faith effort to notify the presumed Respondent in writing that anallegation of research misconduct has been made against them and all relevant research records have been sequestered, and an institutional inquiry will be conducted to decide whether to proceed with an institutional investigation. If the inquiry identifies additional Respondents, the Informal Inquirer must notify them as well.

If the Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit, prior to interview or consultation with the

Respondent regarding the Allegation, the Informal Inquirer must contact the University Director or Labor Relations and Employment Services, to ensure that the interview or consultation adheres to disciplinary procedures prescribed in the applicable collective bargaining agreement.

The Respondent may consult with their own legal counsel or non-lawyer personal advisor (who is not a participant or witness) to seek advice, but such counsel or advisor shall not participate in meetings with the Informal Inquirer, the Investigation Director or Review Panel, without prior approval of the Informal Inquirer or the Investigation Director.

Determining if an Institutional Investigation is Warranted 

The Informal Inquirer will conduct a preliminary review of the evidence. In the process of fact-finding, the Informal Inquirer may interview the Respondent and/or witnesses.

An Institutional Investigation is warranted:

1. If there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of Research Misconduct;and
2. The preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding from the informal inquiry indicates that the allegation may havesubstance.

The Informal Inquirer does not determine if research misconduct occurred, nor do they decide whether the alleged misconduct was intentional, knowing, or reckless. These determinations are made during the Institutional Investigation.

At the conclusion of the Institutional Inquiry, regardless of whether an investigation is warranted, the Informal Inquirer must prepare a written report that includes the following information:

1. The names, professional aliases, and positions of the respondent and complainant(s).
2. A description of the allegation(s) of research misconduct.
3. Details about the Funding/Sponsor source (federal or non-federal), including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing the sponsor support.
4. The composition of the inquiry committee, if used, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
5. An inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted.
6. Transcripts of interviews, if transcribed.
7. Inquiry timeline and procedural history.
8. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
9. The basis for recommending that the allegation(s) warrant an investigation.
10. The basis on which any allegation(s) do not merit further investigation.
11. Any comments on the inquiry report by the respondent or the complainant(s).
12. Any institutional actions implemented, including internal communications or external communications with journals or funding agencies.
13. Documentation of potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion.

Respondent Review:

Prior to making a decision on whether an investigation is warranted, the Informal Inquirer must provide the Respondent with 5 business days to review and comment on the inquiry report.

The Informal Inquirer must notify the Respondent whether the informal inquiry found that an Institutional Investigation is warranted. The notice must include a copy of the informal inquiry report and include a copy of this policy.

The Informal Inquirer must notify the Complainant who made the Allegation whether the informal inquiry found that an Institutional Investigation  is warranted and may provide relevant portions of the informal inquiry report to the Complainant for comment.

The Informal Inquirer must notify and make a recommendation as to whether an Institutional Investigation is warranted, to the Vice President for Research and provide a copy of the informal inquiry report.

The Vice President for Research, in consultation with the Office of the General Counsel and applicable Dean, shall make a determination of whether an Institutional Investigation is warranted.

If an Institutional Investigation is warranted:

For those cases where the Vice President for Research determines that an Institutional Investigation is warranted, the Informal Inquirer must:

1. within a reasonable amount of time after this decision, provide written notice to the respondent(s) of the decision to conduct an investigation of the alleged misconduct, including any allegations of research misconduct not addressed during the inquiry; and
2. provide a copy of the inquiry report to the Research Integrity Officer, who will submit the report to the appropriate federal officials, following federal regulations and procedures. Such submission to the federal official/s occur within 30 days of determining that an investigation is warranted, and
3. On a case-by-case basis, University may choose to notify all complainants that there will be an investigation of the alleged misconduct.

Timeline for Completion: All aspects of Stage 3 must be completed within 180-days from the initiation date of the Institutional Investigation. If unable to complete the investigation on time and the Allegation involves Federal PHS activities, the institution must request an extension of time in writing from ORI. Otherwise, if circumstances clearly warrant a longer period, the Informal Investigative Director  must document the reasons for exceeding the 180 day period and request approval from the Vice President for Research.

The Institutional Investigation is where the formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record that leads to a finding with respect to Research Misconduct.

Investigation Director

Within 30 days from when the determination that an Institutional Investigation is warranted, the Informal Inquirer, with approval from the Vice President for Research, shall commence an Institutional Investigation as the Investigation Director, in consultation with the Vice President for Research and the Office of the General Counsel:

1. To the extent not already done, take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct investigation, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester them in a secure manner. Where research records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by several users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments.
2. Notify the Respondent in writing of the Allegations and that it has been  determined that an Institutional Investigation is warranted and is proceeding.
3. If not already done, notify the Research Integrity Officer, who will promptly and timely provide a copy of the written reportto the appropriate sponsor official, for example if NIH funding, notification goes to U.S. Department of Health & HumanServices, Office of Research Integrity (ORI).

Selection of the Review Panel

The Investigation Director promptly shall, in consultation with the Vice President for Research, appoint a Review Panel of three or five (3-5) academically qualified and impartial members. At least one member of the Review Panel must be unaffiliated with the department in which the research misconduct allegedly occurred. Scholars from other institutions who are recognized experts in the discipline of the accused individual(s) may serve as necessary to ensure a panel qualified to review the allegation. The Investigation Director should ensure, insofar as he/she can, that none of those appointed to the Review Panel has any real or apparent conflict of interest regarding the planned inquiry.

Promptly after the Review Panel is appointed, the Investigation Director shall give notice of the composition of the Review Panel to the Respondent and provide a period of seven (7) calendar days to allow the Respondent to challenge in writing the proposed panel members for good cause shown, including but not limited to circumstances in which the accused believes the member(s) to be unqualified due to bias or lack of expertise.

Charge of the Review Panel

The Investigation Director shall explain, in writing, the responsibilities of the Review Panel and shall provide it with all material already at hand. The Review Panel is charged with ensuring an impartial and unbiased investigation to the maximum extent practicable, including participation of persons with appropriate scientific expertise who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the investigation. An attorney in the Office of General Counsel, or their designee, will train the members of the Review Panel and the Investigation Director on conducting an impartial and effective investigation.

Material to be Provided to the Review Panel: The Respondent shall provide the Review Panel with:

1. list of all persons connected with the work;
2. copies of relevant grant applications and work progress reports;
3. all requested relevant research notebooks, journals, and other records;
4. copies of relevant abstracts and papers, published or pending;
5. other relevant information and materials, such as electronic databases and files, as required by the Review Panel.

In the event the Respondent fails to respond or otherwise cooperate, the Review Panel shall continue its inquiry insofar as is feasible.

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. 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.

Interviews

The Review Panel must interview the Respondent, Complainant, and any other available person who have been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the Respondent. The Respondent will not be present during the witnesses’ interviews but will be provided with a transcript of interviews, once all interviews are completed. The Respondent will have 5-days from delivery of transcripts to review and provide any comments.

1. The Review Panel must record or transcribe each interview, provide the recording or transcript to the interviewee for correction, and include the recording or transcript in the record of the investigation.
2. Any exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview must be numbered and referred to by that number in the interview.  All numbered exhibits must be included in the record of investigation.

Participation of the Respondent

The Respondent shall be requested to cooperate with the Review Panel and shall have the opportunity to be heard and defend themselves against the Allegation, including the presentation of additional relevant evidence and witnesses. If the accused individual is represented by a collective bargaining agent and is interviewed or testifies during the formal inquiry, the interview or testimony must adhere to disciplinary procedures prescribed in the applicable collective bargaining agreement. If the Respondent resigns or refuses to participate, the Review Panel shall continue the inquiry.

Pursue leads

The Review Plan must pursue diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion.  If additional allegations are raised, the Respondent must be notified in writing of the additional allegations raised against them.

Investigation Report

The Review Panel must prepare an investigation report in writing that includes:

1. Description of the nature of the allegation(s) of research misconduct, including any additional allegation(s) addressed during the research misconduct proceeding.
2. Description and documentation of the funding source (i.e. NIH, NSF), including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing the sponsored project support. This documentation includes known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with federal agencies and non-Federal agencies.
3. Description of the specific allegation(s) of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation of the respondent.
4. Composition of investigation committee, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
5. Inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence, except records the institution did not consider or rely on. This inventory will include manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied on during the investigation. The inventory will also include a description of how any sequestration was conducted during the investigation.
6. Transcripts of all interviews conducted.
7. Identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, or other research records that contain the allegedly falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material.
8. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
9. A copy of these policies and procedures.
10. Any comments made by the respondent and complainant(s) on the draft investigation report and the committee’s consideration of those comments.
11. A statement for each separate allegation of whether the committee recommends a finding of research misconduct. 

Prior to finalizing the investigation report, the Research Panel will provide a copy of the investigation report to the Respondent and Complainant for their comment

The Research Panel must provide the Respondent with a copy of, or supervised access to, the evidence on which the report is based. The comments of the Respondent and Complainant must be submitted within thirty (30) days from the date they each receive a copy of the investigation report. The comments made by the Respondent and Complainant on the investigation report must be included in the investigation report.

Within ten (10) calendar days of receiving the full report of the Review Panel, the Investigation Director shall forward the report to the Provost, Vice President for Research, and the applicable Dean (in cases where the Respondent is a graduate student, this is the Dean of the Graduate College.

The IDO will review the investigation report in consultation with the Vice President for Research and Office of the General Counsel and make a final written determination of whether the institution found research misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct. In this statement, the IDO will include a description of relevant institutional actions taken or to be taken. The IDO  may reject the findings of the Review Panel, or decide further investigation is needed. The Provost may also appoint a new Review Panel to reopen the Investigation.

The Investigation is completed when the Provost makes this determination in writing.

If the Allegation involves sponsored project funding, the Provost, in consultation with the Vice President for Research, and the Office of the General Counsel, will direct the RIO to provide a copy of the final investigation report to the federal or non-federal sponsor official, and in the case of PHS funding the ORI. The notice shall state whether the Institution found research misconduct, and if so, who committed the misconduct and whether the Institution accepts the findings and must also describe any pending or completed administrative actions against the Respondent.

Multiple Institutions and Multiple Respondents

If the alleged research misconduct involves multiple institutions, UVM will work closely with the other affected institutions to determine whether a joint research misconduct proceeding will be conducted. If so, the cooperating institutions will choose an institution to serve as the lead institution.

In a joint research misconduct proceeding, the lead institution will obtain research records and other evidence pertinent to the proceeding, including witness testimony, from the other relevant institutions. By mutual agreement, the joint research misconduct proceeding may include committee members from the institutions involved. The determination of whether further inquiry and/or investigation is warranted, whether research misconduct occurred, and the institutional actions to be taken may be made by the institutions jointly or tasked to the lead institution.

If the alleged research misconduct involves multiple respondents, UVM may either conduct a separate inquiry for each new respondent or add them to the ongoing proceedings. The institution must give additional respondent(s) notice of and an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

Respondent Admissions of Research Misconduct

If the Respondent admits to research misconduct, the Respondent will sign a written statement and return it to the Investigation Director, 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.

UVM will promptly notify the sponsoring agency official (if PHS, ORI) in advance if at any point during the proceedings (including the assessment, inquiry, investigation, or appeal stage) it plans to close a research misconduct case because the respondent has admitted to committing research misconduct or a settlement with the respondent has been reached.

PHS Specifics when Respondent admits to research misconduct

If the respondent admits to research misconduct, the institution will not close the case until providing ORI with the respondent’s signed, written admission. 

The admission must state the specific fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism that occurred, which research records were affected, and that it constituted a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.

Disciplinary Action

Administrative action as a result of a finding of Research Misconduct may include withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the research where Research Misconduct was found; removal of the Respondent from the particular project, letter of reprimand, special monitoring of future work, probation, suspension, salary reduction, or initiation of steps leading to possible rank reduction or termination of employment.

Procedures in this policy are not, however, intended to supersede procedures outlined in the Faculty Handbook, Code of Student Conduct Policy, the discipline articles of applicable labor contracts, or other relevant UVM policies and procedures. Individual(s) guilty of Research Misconduct may also be expected personally to make restitution as appropriate under the circumstances of the case.

Notification of Outside Parties

When there has been a finding that Research Misconduct occurred, the Provost may, as appropriate, notify external sponsors, law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, journals, collaborators of the Respondent, or other parties with a legitimate need to know the outcome of the proceeding.

Cooperation with Federal Agency Proceedings: In cases involving federal funding support, the University shall provide its full and continuing cooperation with the appropriate federal office during any federal investigations, oversight reviews, administrative hearings, or appeals.

Primacy of federal law

If federal funding has been sought or received in connection with the research at issue, proceedings under this policy shall conform with applicable federal regulations such as the Public Health Service Final Rule on Research Misconduct, 42 C.F.R. Part 93. For example, the Investigation Director, in consultation with the applicable Dean (in cases where the Respondent is a graduate student, this is the Dean of the Graduate College) and Vice President for Research, shall ensure that appropriate institutional actions are taken to protect public health, federal funds and equipment, and the integrity of the federally- supported research process and shall notify the appropriate federal office of any facts relevant to those institutional actions. Similarly, the maintenance and custody of research records and evidence shall comply with appropriate rules, such as, if applicable, 42 C.F.R. section 93.305. To the extent of any conflict between this policy and federal law or regulation, the federal law or regulation shall be controlling.

Evidentiary Standards

A finding of research misconduct must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning proof by information that, compared with that opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not (i.e., 51% proof). UVM has the burden of proof for making a finding of research misconduct. The destruction, absence of, or Respondent’s failure to provide research records adequately documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where UVM establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly had research records and failed to produce them in a timely manner and that the Respondent’s misconduct constitutes a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.

The Respondent has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, any affirmative defenses raised, such as honest error, and any mitigating factors that are relevant to a decision to impose administrative actions following a research misconduct proceeding.

Retaliation is Prohibited

The University will take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of good faith Complainants, witnesses, Informal Inquirer, Investigation Director, and review panel members and protect them from retaliation by the Respondent and other institutional members.

Retaliation means an adverse action taken by an institution or one of its members in response to a good faith Allegation of Research Misconduct or good faith cooperation with a Research Misconduct Proceeding.

Good faith, as applied to the Complainant or witness, means having a belief in the truth of one’s allegations or testimony that a reasonable person in the Complainant’s or witness’s position could have based on the information known to the Complainant or witness at that time. Good faith, as applied to the Informal Inquirer, Investigation Director, and review panel members means cooperating with the research misconduct proceeding by carrying out the duties assigned impartially for the purpose of helping the University meet its responsibilities under the policy and under the law.

If a Complainant or witness makes an allegation that they know, or should know, is not true, or if an allegation is fabricated to harm the accused person, or if an allegation is made maliciously or recklessly, appropriate disciplinary action may be taken by the University. If an Informal Inquirer, Investigation Director or review panel member does not act in good faith because their acts are dishonest, or influenced by personal, professional or financial conflicts of interest, appropriate disciplinary action may be taken by the University.

Confidentiality During Proceedings

Disclosure of the identity of Respondents, Complainants, and witnesses while conducting the research misconduct proceedings is limited, to the extent possible, to those who need to know, as determined by the institution, consistent with a thorough, competent, objective and fair research misconduct proceedings, and as allowed by law.  Those who need to know may include institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions.  This limitation on disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses no longer applies once an institution has made a final determination of research misconduct findings.  Except as may otherwise be prescribed by applicable law, confidentiality must be maintained for any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified.  Disclosure is limited to those who need to know to carry out a research misconduct proceeding.  These confidentiality requirements do not prohibit the University from managing published data or acknowledging that data may be unreliable.

Records of Proceedings Where There is No Finding of Research Misconduct

All records, documents, and the like relative to proceedings that terminate without a finding of research misconduct shall be maintained confidentially in the office of the Vice President for Research. The records and documents shall be sealed, and filed under the name of the Respondent, in a repository created for the purpose of records maintenance under this policy. Under no circumstances should such records be referenced or included in the personnel file of the Respondent.

Records of Proceedings Where There is a Finding of Research Misconduct

All records relative to proceedings where there is a Finding of Research Misconduct shall be maintained in the office of the Vice President for Research.

Access to Records

Access to records shall be limited to persons to whom access must be granted to ensure compliance with the dictates of the law and this policy. All access and disclosure requests, and responses thereto, shall be documented and maintained as part of the file. Except as may otherwise be prescribed by applicable law, confidentiality must be maintained for any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified. Disclosure is limited to those who have a need to know to carry out a research misconduct proceeding.

Maintenance of Records

All records, documents, and the like submitted, generated, or otherwise developed in connection with proceedings under this policy shall be maintained for at least seven (7) years after termination of the research misconduct proceedings.

Training will be provided on an as-needed basis as determined by the Approval Authority or the Responsible Official.

• Public Health Services Office of Research Integrity

Questions concerning the daily operational interpretation of this policy should be directed to the following (in accordance with the policy elaboration and procedures):