POL-U20.13 Addressing Responsible Conduct of Research

Research misconduct includes fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

Individuals who become aware of research misconduct may report in good faith the misconduct orally or in writing to the Dean of the respondent ‘s college or the Research Integrity Officer. 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 and supported by credible evidence.

Good faith as applied to an institutional or committee 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 policy.

In the case of apparent false and/or malicious accusations, the Provost may initiate an inquiry of the Complainant. False or malicious accusations include acts or omissions that are dishonest or influenced by personal or professional conflicts with those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.

A researcher’s reputation is of paramount importance to a researcher’s career, and serious consideration must be given before anyone takes action that has the potential to impair that reputation. Hence, the University will take steps to protect the party or parties who make good faith allegations to the extent of the law, and the individual(s) reported for research misconduct if the investigation is deemed unwarranted. The Respondent is entitled to Union representation

Throughout the research misconduct proceeding, reasonable efforts shall be made to protect the identity and the reputation of the respondent, witnesses, and others involved in inquiry; the proceedings shall be handled in confidence, to the extent reasonably permitted by law. The University shall honor a complainant’s request that the complainant’s identity in a research misconduct proceeding be kept confidential, recognizing that there may be situations where the research misconduct proceeding cannot go forward if the complainant is not identified.

Knowledge of the existence of a research misconduct proceeding and the identity of any participant in such a proceeding shall be limited to those who need to know in order to conduct a thorough, objective, and fair research misconduct proceeding, or as otherwise required by state or federal law.

The University will take such steps as deemed appropriate to repair any damage done to the reputation of individuals falsely accused.

The RlO:

1. Is responsible for assessing allegations and determining if there is sufficient evidence to warrant an inquiry.
2. Ensures Complainant and Respondent are entitled to a prompt and thorough inquiry.
3. Submits an annual report to Office of Research Integrity (ORI) to renew the University’s assurance.
4. The Office of the Vice Provost for Research offers Responsible Conduct of Research Training.
5. In the event of an inquiry, the RIO will take the following appropriate interim actions:

• Notify any external funding agency if required by law or agreement.
• Take such interim actions as are necessary and prudent to protect the public health and safety, research funds and equipment, and the integrity of the research process; to prevent potential or immediate health hazards; to secure relevant evidentiary records or materials; and to prevent and report any possible criminal violation. 

If a reasonable basis exists for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct, the Provost will direct the RIO to proceed with a full investigation.

The purpose of an investigation is to formally develop a factual record, pursue leads, examine the record, and recommend finding(s) to the Provost, who will make the final decision, based on a preponderance of evidence, on each allegation and any institutional actions.

The Office of the Vice Provost for Research maintains the records of the inquiry, investigation, evidence, and reports for seven years following completion of the proceeding. 

Public records generated in the course of an inquiry or investigation may be subject to disclosure under the state Public Disclosure Law, RCW 42.56, unless specifically subject to the law’s exemptions.

Regardless of whether or not a violation of research misconduct is substantiated, retaliation against complainants, witnesses, experts, Responsible Conduct of Research Panel members, or others for their involvement in a research misconduct proceeding is prohibited. The Provost and/or Research Integrity Officer will act if retaliation occurs. 

 Individuals may choose to utilize the processes of the state of Washington whistleblower law (Chapter 42.40 RCW) and secure the statutory protections under the law in conjunction with this policy.

If the Provost determines that the alleged misconduct is substantiated by the findings, they will decide on the appropriate actions to be taken. The actions may include but are not limited to:

1. Withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the research where research misconduct was found; or
2. Removal of the person responsible from the particular project, letter of reprimand, special monitoring of future work, probation, suspension, salary reduction, or institution of steps leading to possible rank reduction or termination of employment.