|
Difference |
diff --git a/handbook.md b/handbook.md index b092898..34a6856 100644 --- a/handbook.md +++ b/handbook.md @@ -9179,8 +9179,7 @@ administrators as appropriate. ## 2. WPI Policy on Research Conduct {#policy-on-research-conduct} -(Approved by the Faculty, *December 12, 2017*) -(Approved by the Board of Trustees, *December 15, 2017*) +(Approved by the Faculty, *December 3, 2025*) ### a. Introduction @@ -9231,7 +9230,8 @@ Procedure for Removal of Tenured Faculty Member for Cause" adopted in 1969 as it relates to matters concerning research misconduct. This policy also replaces the Research Misconduct Policy passed by the Board of Trustees on December 13, 2013 and the Research Misconduct -Policy passed by the Faculty on January 23, 2014. +Policy passed by the Faculty on January 23, 2014, as well as the WPI +Policy on Research Conduct passed by the Faculty on December 12, 2017. The appropriate institutional response to research misconduct will vary with the facts and circumstances of each case. In addition to @@ -9269,8 +9269,10 @@ Research Activities are proposing, conducting, processing, reviewing, or reporting the results of research or other scholarly inquiry. Research Misconduct is Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism in -Research Activities or Deliberate Interference. It does not include -honest error or differences of opinion. +Research Activities or Deliberate Interference in the Research +Activities of others. Research Misconduct must be undertaken +Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly. It does not include honest +error or differences of opinion. + *Fabrication* is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. @@ -9279,23 +9281,51 @@ reporting them. processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the Research Record. -+ *Research Record* is the record of data or results that embody the -facts resulting from scientific or other scholarly inquiry and -includes, but is not limited to, research proposals, laboratory -records (both physical and electronic), progress reports, abstracts, -theses, oral presentations, internal reports, and journal articles. + + *Research Record* is the record of data or results that embody the + facts resulting from scientific or other scholarly inquiry and + includes, but is not limited to, research proposals, laboratory + records (both physical and electronic), progress reports, abstracts, + theses, oral presentations, internal reports, and journal articles. + *Plagiarism* is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. + + 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. + + + 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. + + *Deliberate Interference* is intentionally causing material harm to the research or scholarly work of others, and may include damaging or destroying the property of others, such as research equipment or supplies; disrupting active experiments; or altering or deleting products of research, including data and program codes. -*Complainant* is an individual who reports allegations of Research -Misconduct. +*Intentionally:* To act intentionally means "to act with the aim of +carrying out the act." + +*Knowingly:* To act knowingly means "to act with awareness of the +act." + +*Recklessly:* To act recklessly means "to propose, perform, or review +research, or report research results, with indifference to a known +risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism." + +*Institutional Record* means all records that were created and relied +upon with respect to an allegation under this policy. This includes +without limitation the decision of the Institutional Deciding +Official, the complete record of any appeal, and any interview +transcripts. + +*Complainant* is an individual who in good faith makes an allegation +of Research Misconduct. *Respondent* is an individual who is the subject of allegations of Research Misconduct at WPI. @@ -9315,7 +9345,33 @@ at issue is more probably true than not. personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved with the inquiry or investigation. -### d. Duty to Report +*Office of Research Integrity (ORI)* refers to the section of the +Department of Health and Human Services that is responsible for +federal oversight of research misconduct proceedings that involve +funding from the Public Health Service, including NIH funding. + +*Affirmative Defense* is a set of facts presented by the respondent +that, if proven true, can absolve the respondent from liability for +the alleged misconduct, even if the core allegation holds. This +includes assertions by the respondent that the alleged misconduct was +the result of honest error, or a difference of opinion. + +*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. As applied +to an institutional or committee member, Good Faith 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. An institutional or committee +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. + +### d. Duty to Report and Cooperate Each member of the WPI community has a responsibility to report any conduct that they believe in good faith to be Research Misconduct at @@ -9326,13 +9382,22 @@ available from the Vice Provost for Research or from senior academic officers (e.g., Deans, Department Heads, laboratory Directors), who themselves are bound by a Duty to Report. -All allegations of Research Misconduct, wherever initially received, -must be conveyed promptly to the Vice Provost for Research. A -supervisor who becomes aware of possible Research Misconduct, either -from the supervisor's own observations or because of reports, has a -responsibility to bring allegations of Research Misconduct directly to -the Vice Provost for Research in order to ensure that proper -procedures are followed. +All members of the WPI community must cooperate with efforts to review +allegations of Research Misconduct. + +### e. Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct + +An allegation of Research Misconduct is made when conduct covered by +this policy is reported in Good Faith to any institutional official, +regardless of the medium of communication (oral, written, etc.). All +allegations of Research Misconduct, wherever initially received, must +be conveyed promptly to the Vice Provost for Research. If the report +is made in a non-written form, it must be recorded in written form as +soon as it is received. A supervisor who becomes aware of possible +Research Misconduct, either from the supervisor's own observations or +because of reports, has a responsibility to bring allegations of +Research Misconduct directly to the Vice Provost for Research in order +to ensure that proper procedures are followed. If a supervisor feels that the Vice Provost for Research is not the appropriate official to whom to report allegations in a particular @@ -9342,38 +9407,42 @@ forward the allegations to the Office of the Vice Provost for Research or the Provost, then the Complainant should report the allegations to the Vice Provost for Research or the Provost directly. -### e. Standard of Proof for a Finding of Research Misconduct - -In order to enter a finding of Research Misconduct, WPI must determine -by a preponderance of the evidence that: - -+ the Respondent engaged in Research Misconduct; and -+ the Research Misconduct marked a significant departure from accepted - practices of the relevant academic community; and -+ the Respondent committed the Research Misconduct intentionally, - knowingly, or recklessly. +Overall, the handling of the research misconduct process includes an +assessment, followed by a two-step review process involving an inquiry +and an investigation. ### f. Assessment and Review Process -#### i. Initial Assessment +#### i. Assessment Upon receipt of an allegation of Research Misconduct, within 5 business days the Vice Provost for Research will conduct an initial -assessment of the allegations, to determine whether the alleged -misconduct falls within the scope of this Policy. The Vice Provost for -Research may appoint an impartial fact finder with appropriate -expertise to conduct this initial assessment and to make a +assessment of the allegations, to determine whether the allegation +falls within the scope of this Policy. As part of this assessment, +the Vice Provost for Research must determine (a) whether the +allegation meets this policy's definition of Research Misconduct, (b) +whether the allegation is sufficiently credible and specific that +potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified, and (c) +whether the allegation is subject to ORI oversight under 42 CFR Part +93. + +An Inquiry must be conducted if the VPR determines that an allegation +meets criteria (a) and (b) above. + +The Vice Provost for Research may appoint an impartial fact finder +with appropriate expertise to conduct this assessment and to make a recommendation to the Vice Provost for Research. If the Vice Provost for Research determines that the allegations do -not fall within this Policy, the Vice Provost for Research will either -close the matter or refer it to another office at WPI with authority -or responsibility over the matter. +not fall within this Policy, or that the allegation is not +*sufficiently credible* or *specific*, the Vice Provost for Research +will either close the matter or refer it to another office at WPI with +authority or responsibility over the matter. The decision of the Vice +Provost for Research to initiate or not to initiate a two-stage review +process is final. -If the Vice Provost for Research determines that the allegations do -fall within this Policy, the Vice Provost for Research will initiate a -two-stage review process under this Policy. The decision of the Vice -Provost for Research to initiate or not to initiate a review is final. +The results of the assessment must be documented, and all relevant +evidence preserved as part of the Institutional Record. #### ii. Subsequent Two-Stage Review Process @@ -9391,9 +9460,28 @@ recommendation to the Provost whether or not WPI should make a finding of Research Misconduct and, if so, what the appropriate sanction should be. If a formal investigation is warranted, it shall begin within 21 days of the conclusion of the Inquiry, and it is normally to -be completed within 120 days once it has begun. +be completed within 180 days once it has begun. + +#### iii. Multiple Respondents + +If an allegation of Research Misconduct involves multiple Respondents, +a separate Assessment / Inquiry / Investigation is not required for +each Respondent. + +#### iv. Multiple Institutions -#### iii. Interim Institutional Actions +In instances where allegations involve research conducted at multiple +institutions, the institutions may conduct a joint research misconduct +proceeding with one "lead institution." In such cases, the lead +institution is responsible for collecting evidence and conducting +witness interviews. Committee members may be drawn from the +institutions involved, and decisions on whether inquiry or +investigation phases are warranted and on whether research misconduct +occurred may be made jointly or by the lead institution. The Vice +Provost for Research has the authority to determine if and when a +research misconduct proceeding will be handled in this manner. + +#### v. Interim Institutional Actions At any point in the process, the Vice Provost for Research may institute appropriate interim institutional actions to protect the @@ -9553,7 +9641,7 @@ Research should provide the Respondent with reasonable updates and opportunities to respond to information obtained in the investigation. Throughout the Committee Investigation process, the Respondent is -entitled to the presumption of innocence, and: +entitled to the presumption of innocence of wrongdoing, and: + shall have the opportunity to respond to allegations of Research Misconduct; @@ -9563,6 +9651,11 @@ entitled to the presumption of innocence, and: + may, in lieu of a WPI Advisor, have legal counsel for assistance or support. +Interviews conducted during the Investigation phase must be recorded +and transcribed, and the transcripts provided to the relevant +interviewee for correction prior to their inclusion in the +investigation record. + Once the Investigation is completed, the Committee will prepare a draft written report offering a judgment based on the evidence as to whether the Respondent has committed Research Misconduct, and if so, @@ -9574,15 +9667,20 @@ explanation or defense provided by the Respondent, and including the numerical vote of the Committee without identifying individual votes. The Respondent will be provided with a copy of the draft Investigation -report with an opportunity to respond within a reasonable time period -set by the Vice Provost for Research. Such response will be considered -by the Committee before the Committee takes a final vote, makes its -final recommendation for disciplinary action, and issues its final +report, as well as the transcripts of any witness interviews (with +redactions as appropriate to maintain confidentiality), and will have +the opportunity to respond within a reasonable time period set by the +Vice Provost for Research. Such response will be considered by the +Committee before the Committee takes a final vote, makes its final +recommendation for disciplinary action, and issues its final Investigation report. In addition, any comments provided by the Respondent will be included as an appendix to the final Investigation report. The final Investigation report will be forwarded to the Vice Provost for Research. +The final Investigation report for each respondent must be in writing +and include the applicable report elements required by 42 CFR 93.313. + The Vice Provost for Research will review the Investigation report and may ask the Investigation Committee for additional review or explanation. If this results in revisions to the report, the @@ -9595,7 +9693,11 @@ report to the Provost and the Respondent along with a written recommendation whether or not WPI should make a finding of Research Misconduct. If the Vice Provost for Research recommends a finding of Research Misconduct, he or she will also recommend disciplinary -actions to be taken. Before the Provost makes a finding of Research +actions to be taken. + +The Provost is the institutional official who makes final +determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any +institutional actions. Before the Provost makes a finding of Research Misconduct, the Provost shall consult with the Committee and with the Secretary of the Faculty. @@ -9620,15 +9722,98 @@ the final report to ORI (and any other funding agency or authority required to be notified), regardless of the vote or the disciplinary action recommended by the Investigation Committee. -The Investigation is to be completed within 120 days of beginning it, +ORI may determine that revisions to the institutional record are +needed or that additional allegations, or that research misconduct +should be addressed. ORI may also make its own independent findings +of Research Misconduct. The lack of an ORI finding of Research +Misconduct does not overturn a finding by WPI that the conduct +constituted Research Misconduct requiring remediation under this +policy. + +The Investigation is to be completed within 180 days of beginning it, including conducting the Investigation, preparing the report of findings, providing the draft report for comment and sending the final report to ORI. However, if the Vice Provost for Research determines -that the Investigation will not be completed within this 120-day +that the Investigation will not be completed within this 180-day period, the Vice Provost for Research will submit to ORI a written request for an extension, setting forth the reasons for the delay. -### i. Appeals +### i. Requirements for a Finding of Research Misconduct + +#### i. Requirements + +A finding of Research Misconduct under this policy requires that: + +1. There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the +relevant research community; and + +2. The misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or +recklessly; and + +3. The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. + +#### ii. Burden of Proof + +1. The institution has the burden of proof for making a finding of +research misconduct. A respondent's destruction of research records +documenting the questioned research is evidence of research +misconduct where the institution establishes by a preponderance of +the evidence that the respondent intentionally or knowingly +destroyed records after being informed of the research misconduct +allegations. A 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. + +2. The respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, +by a preponderance of the evidence, all affirmative defenses +raised. In determining whether the institution has carried the +burden of proof imposed by this part, the finder of fact shall give +due consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest error +or difference of opinion presented by the respondent. + +3. The respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by +a preponderance of the evidence, any mitigating factors relevant to a +decision to impose administrative sanctions after a research +misconduct proceeding. + +### j. Time Limitation + +#### i. Six-year limitation. + +This policy applies only to Research Misconduct occurring within six +years of the date on which an allegation of research misconduct is +received. + +#### ii. Exceptions to the six-year limitation + +1. *Subsequent use exception.* The six-year limitation does not apply +if the respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research +misconduct that occurred before the six-year limitation through the +use of, republication of, or citation to the portion(s) of the +research record (e.g., processed data, journal articles, funding +proposals, data repositories) alleged to have been fabricated, +falsified, or plagiarized, for the potential benefit of the +respondent. + + + When the respondent uses, republishes, or cites to the portion(s) of + the research record that is alleged to have been fabricated, + falsified, or plagiarized, in submitted or published manuscripts, + submitted grant applications, progress reports submitted to funding + agencies, posters, presentations, or other research records within six + years of when the allegations were received, this exception applies. + + + For research misconduct that appears subject to the subsequent use + exception, WPI must retain documentation of its determination that the + subsequent use exception does not apply. + +2. *Exception for the health or safety of the public.* If ORI (or WPI, +following consultation with ORI), determines that the alleged research +misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial +adverse effect on the health or safety of the public, this exception +applies. + +### k. Appeals The Respondent may appeal any finding of Research Misconduct, and any sanction other than termination of employment or revocation of tenure @@ -9671,7 +9856,7 @@ effect, any finding of Research Misconduct, and the imposition of any sanction imposed by the Provost, will be stayed while an appeal is pending before the President or the Board of Trustees. -### j. Special Measures +### l. Special Measures The Provost has the authority to mitigate the effects of the misconduct, including withdrawing WPI's name and sponsorship from @@ -9688,7 +9873,7 @@ position and reputation of any complainant, witness or committee member and to counter potential or actual retaliation against these individuals. -### k. Provisions Common to Misconduct Review Process +### m. Provisions Common to Misconduct Review Process #### i. No Conflicts of Interest @@ -9723,8 +9908,11 @@ All participants in the review process under this Policy are expected to maintain confidentiality to protect the privacy of all involved, to the extent possible and as permitted by law. Participants should keep in mind the effect that allegations can have on reputations, even if -the allegations are not sustained by the proceedings. Thus, only -those people with a need to know should be informed of a complaint. +the allegations are not sustained by the proceedings. Thus, the +existence of a complaint, as well as the identities of the Complainant +and Respondent, may only be disclosed to those who have a need to +know. This may include institutional review boards, journals, editors, +publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions. #### iii. No Retaliation @@ -9753,31 +9941,107 @@ and including termination of employment or other affiliation with WPI. All members of the WPI community must cooperate with efforts to review allegations of Research Misconduct. -While the destruction or absence of, or failure to provide upon -request, information relating to allegations of Research Misconduct is -not misconduct per se, such failure may be considered to be evidence -supporting a finding of Research Misconduct when the evidence shows -the Respondent had relevant information and intentionally, knowingly, -or recklessly destroyed it; had the opportunity to maintain the -information but did not do so; or maintained the information and -failed to produce it in a timely manner in connection with a Research -Misconduct proceeding, with the result that the Respondent -significantly departed from accepted practices of the relevant -academic community. - #### vi. Record Keeping -The Office of the Vice Provost for Research is the custodian of -records relating to proceedings under this Policy. - -#### vii. Notice to Sponsors +WPI will maintain the Institutional Record and all sequestered +evidence including physical objects (regardless of whether the +evidence is part of the institutional record) in a secure manner for +seven years after completion of the proceeding or the completion of +any ORI proceeding involving the research misconduct allegation, +whichever is later, unless custody has been transferred to ORI or ORI +advises otherwise in writing. The Office of Research Integrity & +Compliance is the custodian of the Institutional Record relating to +proceedings under this Policy. + +#### vii. Federal Oversight of Research Misconduct Proceedings + +Research Misconduct proceedings that involve federal funding are +subject to oversight from the funding agency. + +Research that involves Public Health Service funding (e.g. NIH) is +subject to oversight from ORI. In accordance with federal regulations +(42 CFR 93), the Vice Provost for Research or their designee will +provide all required notices and records to ORI in accordance with the +regulation in effect at the time of the allegation. A table of the +required notices is included as an +[appendix](chapter-10.html#chapter-10-section-2-appendix) to this +policy. -To the extent a sponsor requires notification from WPI that research -it funded has become the subject of proceedings under this Policy, the -Vice Provost for Research will supply that notification. In addition, -the Vice Provost for Research will give applicable sponsors written -notice of any decision of the Provost entering a finding of Research -Misconduct at WPI. +To the extent a non-PHS sponsor requires notification from WPI that +research it funded has become the subject of proceedings under this +Policy, the Vice Provost for Research will supply that notification. +In addition, the Vice Provost for Research will give applicable +sponsors written notice of any decision of the Provost entering a +finding of Research Misconduct at WPI, to the extent required by the +terms of the applicable funding agreement. + +### Appendix - Required Notifications & Reports to ORI for Research Misconduct Proceedings Involving PHS Funding {#chapter-10-section-2-appendix} ++--------------------+-----------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| Notification/report| Description | Due | +| type | | | ++====================+===============================================+======================================+ +| Inquiry report | Copy must be provided to ORI | Within 30 days of completion of the | +| | | inquiry, and before the start of an | +| | | investigation | ++--------------------+-----------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| Decision to | Notification to ORI Director | On or before the date on which the | +| initiate an | | investigation begins. | +| investigation | | | ++--------------------+-----------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| Final investigation| Copy must be provided to ORI | Within 180 days of the start of an | +| report | | investigation | ++--------------------+-----------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| Notification of | ORI must be notified if the institution plans | Prior to WPI's closure of the | +| closure | to close a proceeding at the inquiry, | proceeding | +| | investigation, or appeal stage on the basis | | +| | that the respondent has admitted guilt, a | | +| | settlement with the respondent has been | | +| | reached, or for any other reason, except the | | +| | closing of a case at the inquiry stage on | | +| | the basis that an investigation is not | | +| | warranted or a finding of no misconduct at | | +| | the investigation stage. | | ++--------------------+-----------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| Decision to | Notification to ORI Director | On or before the date on which the | +| initiate an | | investigation begins. | +| investigation | | | ++--------------------+-----------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| Special | ORI must be notified if health or safety of | Institution must notify ORI | +| circumstances: | the public is at risk, including an immediate | immediately | +| Health or safety | need to protect human or animal subjects | | +| of the public | | | ++--------------------+-----------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| Special | ORI must be notified if HHS resources or | Institution must notify ORI | +| circumstances: | interests are threatened. | immediately | +| HHS resources or | | | +| interests | | | ++--------------------+-----------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| Special | ORI must be notified if WPI determines that | Institution must notify ORI | +| circumstances: | research activities should be suspended. | immediately | +| Research | | | +| activities | | | +| suspended | | | ++--------------------+-----------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| Special | ORI must be notified if there is reasonable | Institution must notify ORI | +| circumstances: | indication of possible violations of civil | immediately | +| violations of | or criminal law. | | +| civil or criminal | | | +| law | | | ++--------------------+-----------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| Special | ORI must be notified if Federal action is | Institution must notify ORI | +| circumstances: | required to protect the interests of those | immediately | +| Federal action | involved in the research misconduct | | +| required | proceeding. | | ++--------------------+-----------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| Special | ORI must be notified if WPI determines that | Institution must notify ORI | +| circumstances: | the research community or public should be | immediately | +| public notification| informed of the proceeding. | | ++--------------------+-----------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| Special | ORI must be notified of any facts that may | Institution must notify ORI | +| circumstances: | be relevant to protect public health, Federal | immediately | +| Other | funds and equipment, and the integrity of the | | +| | PHS-supported research process. | | ++--------------------+-----------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ ## 3. WPI Sexual Misconduct Policy[^15] {#sexual-misconduct-policy} @@ -10176,7 +10440,7 @@ c. Reporting Sexual Misconduct Anonymously well-being is in jeopardy, please contact Campus Police at +1-508-831-5555. -### f. Initial Steps and Investigation of Reports of Sexual Misconduct +### e. Initial Steps and Investigation of Reports of Sexual Misconduct #### i. Initial Steps