Policy. The University of Iowa is committed to maintaining a climate that promotes faithful attention to high ethical standards, that enhances the research process, and that does not inhibit the productivity and creativity of scholars. Instances of research misconduct are inconsistent with such a climate of integrity.

Research misconduct is contrary to the interests of the University of Iowa, to federal and other funding agencies and sponsors, to the health and safety of the public, to the integrity of research, and to the conservation of funds awarded to the University of Iowa.

When committed, research misconduct shatters individual careers, taints the conduct of objective research, undermines the credibility of scholarship, and destroys the confidence among scholars as well as between the University and the public.

Research misconduct is defined as 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.

Findings of research misconduct must meet these criteria: must involve a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; must be committed intentionally, knowingly, and/or recklessly (see paragraphs d(9), d(11), and d(13) below); and must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

All researchers — faculty, staff, postdoctoral scholars and fellows, and students — must be unfailingly honest in their work, must refrain from deliberate distortion or misrepresentation, and must take regular precautions against the common causes of error. Steps to minimize the possibility of research misconduct include the following:

1. Researchers must accept responsibility for the quality and integrity of the work reported by them and their collaborators; emphasis must be placed upon the quality and significance of research rather than on quantity and visibility;
2. Consistent with II-27.10 University of Iowa Authorship Policy, only those who have had a genuine role in the research should be included in authorship of papers, and all named authors should accept responsibility for the quality and integrity of the work reported; and

3. Researchers should must retain research data and records for a period of at least five years following publication to provide verification of the validity of the reported results.

   Deterrents to research misconduct include the possibility that it will be quickly detected and exposed. The likelihood that falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized research will go unquestioned is small. Yet Despite the self-correcting nature of research, instances of research misconduct do occur, and in these cases, it is the obligation of faculty, staff, postdoctoral scholars and fellows, and students to report suspected instances of research misconduct to appropriate UI officials (e.g., Departmental Executive Officer, Collegiate Associate Dean, Collegiate Dean, Research Integrity Officer, or Vice President for Research). If concerns for research misconduct are not reported directly to the VPR or the RIO, then UI officials who are made aware of research misconduct concerns are required to report them to the RIO.

1. The planning, conduct, reporting, and review of research, research training, and research-related activities (such as, for example, the operation of tissue and data banks and the dissemination of research information), whether funded or not, and regardless of the source of any funding; and
2. Any person engaged in the above who is employed by or has an official affiliation with he University of Iowa, including any faculty member, staff member, postdoctoral scholar or fellow, student, trainee, visiting scholar, adjunct faculty member, and guest or research collaborator working on campus with UI resources; and
3. Recipient institutions that are required by Reporting Contacts to have institution-wide policies and practices in place that foster the responsible and ethical conduct of research.

1. "Allegation" means a disclosure of possible research misconduct made to the University through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of the VPR or RIO.
2. “Assessment” means a consideration of whether an allegation of research misconduct appears to fall within the definition of research misconduct; appears to involve creative activities, scholarly work, biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or research training; and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. The assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation.
3. "Complainant" means a person who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct.
4. “Creative activities” may encompass original contributions in the fine, literary, graphic, digital, and performing arts. They may involve creative research-based or research-generating collaborations with libraries, museums, parks, and civic or community organizations (e.g., festivals, symposia, workshops). These activities may include pedagogical projects designed for educational settings on or off campus. They may also include original public-facing work disseminated through relevant venues (e.g., residencies, juried exhibitions).
5. “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.
6. "Good faith" is defined as a belief in the truth of an allegation such as might be held by a reasonable person in the same circumstances and based on the information known at the time. An allegation is not made in good faith if it is made with knowing or reckless disregard for information that would negate it.
   
   "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.
7. "Inquiry" means a preliminary review of an allegation to determine whether there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the definition of research misconduct is met and whether the allegation has sufficient substance to warrant an investigation.
   
   An "inquiry" consists of preliminary information gathering and preliminary fact finding to determine whether or not an allegation or apparent instance of research misconduct has substance and if an investigation is warranted. An inquiry does not require a full review of the evidence related to the allegation.
8. Institutional "Deciding Official” (DO) refers to the institutional official who makes final determination on allegations of research misconduct and any institutional actions. The same individual cannot serve as the Institutional Deciding Official and the Research Integrity Officer.
9. “Intentionally” means to act with the aim of carrying out the act.
10. "Investigation" means the formal development of a factual record and examination of that record leading either to a recommended finding, based on the preponderance of the evidence, that research misconduct occurred or, based on that same standard, a recommended finding to the contrary.
    
    "Investigation" means the formal development, examination, and evaluation of a factual research record or record of creative activities or scholarly work. This leads to a finding of whether research misconduct occurred.
11. “Knowingly” means to act with awareness of the act.
12. "Preponderance of the evidence" means proof by information evidence that, after comparison compared with that evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely to be true than not. The University has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that research misconduct has occurred. The burden then shifts to the respondent to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, any affirmative defense.
13. “Recklessly” means to propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, or creative activities or scholarly works, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.
14. "Reporting Contact" means the branch of the federal funding agency sponsoring the research that is designated by federal regulation to receive information relating to research misconduct. For example, reports involving research funded by the U.S. Public Health Service are required to be sent to the PHS Office of Research Integrity; those involving the National Science Foundation are required to be sent to the NSF Office of Inspector General. "Reporting Contact" may also mean any other external sponsor of University research where reporting on research misconduct is required by contract.
    
    "Reporting Contact" refers to the office of the funding agency sponsoring the research and/or the oversight agency.
15. "Research" means a systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, 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 causes, functions, or effects; diseases; treatments; or related matters to be studied.
16. “Research Integrity Officer (RIO)” refers to the institutional official responsible for administering the institution’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct.
17. "Research misconduct" means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results, or in creative activities or scholarly works.
    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 or creative activity or scholarly work is not accurately represented in the research record.
    3. "Plagiarism" is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, images, or words without giving appropriate credit. It does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology.

18. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

    A finding of research misconduct must meet this definition; must involve a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; must be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

19. "Research record" means the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry, including, but not limited to, research proposals, laboratory records, both physical and electronic, progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal reports, journal articles, and any documents and materials provided to the University by a respondent in the course of a research misconduct proceeding.
    
    "Research record" means the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry or the genesis of creative activities or other scholarly works.  Data or results may be in physical or electronic form.  Examples of items, materials, or information that may be considered part of the research record include, but are not limited to, research proposals, raw data, processed data, clinical research records, laboratory records, study records, laboratory notebooks, progress reports, draft or completed manuscripts or other written materials, abstracts, theses, lab meeting reports, journal articles, images, recordings, records of oral presentations, or online content.
20. "Respondent" means the person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed.
    
    "Respondent" refers to the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding.
21. “Retaliation.” See II-27.8 Anti-Retaliation Policy for Reporting of Misconduct in Research.
22. “Scholarly work” involves the creation and advancement of knowledge through rigorous inquiry, analysis, and reflection. This work may yield pedagogical materials, peer-reviewed publications, or intellectual property (e.g., patents, trademarks, copyrights). Scholarly work may include original knowledge crafted for or with broad publics, such as podcasts, platforms, maps, or installations. Scholarly work may also include applied research, where multiple stakeholders collaborate to address real-world problems (e.g., policies, protocols, initiatives).

1. Research Integrity Officer. The Vice President for Research (VPR) will appoint an institutional Research Integrity Officer (RIO), who is responsible for the implementation of this policy. The RIO must have the necessary expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation, to interview the parties and the witnesses, and to conduct the initial inquiry.
2. Reporting allegations to the University. All members of the University community should report suspected research misconduct to the VPR or the RIO as soon as possible after it is believed to have occurred. Reports to the VPR are immediately reported to the RIO and vice versa. The RIO then notifies the Provost of the allegation, as well as the Associate Dean for Research from the respondent's college.
   
   Reporting allegations to the university. Members of the UI community should report suspected research misconduct to the VPR or the RIO as soon as possible. The VPR and the RIO will both be provided with copies of the allegations. The RIO then determines and notifies the appropriate individuals who have a legitimate need to know about the allegations.
3. RIO conflict of interest. At each stage of the process, the RIO will carry out their responsibilities without any unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the complainant, the respondent, or any witness. Within 10 days of receipt of the notice of inquiry, the respondent may object in writing to the RIO's involvement based on a conflict of interest on the part of the RIO. Within 5 days of receipt of the objection, the VPR will determine whether to replace the RIO with a qualified substitute, who will carry out the RIO's responsibilities set forth in this policy.
4. Confidentiality and fair treatment. To the extent allowed by applicable law, federal regulations, and institutional policies, the confidentiality of the complainant, the respondent, witnesses, and research subjects identifiable from research records or evidence will be protected, and disclosure of their identity limited to those who need to know as part of their involvement with the research misconduct proceeding, including the Reporting Contact(s) and any other research sponsor or federal or state agency with a need to know. Inquiries and investigations will be conducted in this manner unless to do so would compromise public health and safety or the effective completion of the inquiry or investigation. Any process prescribed under this policy will be conducted in a manner that ensures fair treatment of the respondent. However, nothing in this section shall limit the remedies available to the institution to correct the scientific record if a finding misconduct is made. For example, the institution may notify journals and co-authors of retraction or other information necessary to correct the scientific record and notify the scientific community without violating this section.
5. Assessment of allegation. Upon receipt of an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO will promptly assess the allegation to determine whether an inquiry is warranted. An inquiry is warranted only when an allegation is sufficiently credible and specific enough to identify conduct that presents an issue of potential research misconduct and thus falls within the scope of this policy.
   
   Exigent circumstances requiring immediate reporting. The RIO will notify the appropriate UI officials or Reporting Contact, if applicable, at any stage of the research misconduct process (e.g., assessment, inquiry or investigation) if:
   1. There is an immediate public health or safety risk involved, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects.
   2. There is an immediate need to protect sponsoring agency funds, interests, or equipment.
   3. Research activities should be suspended.
   4. There is an immediate need to protect the interests of the person(s) making the allegations or the individual(s) who is/are the subject of the allegations, as well as their co- investigators and associates, if any.
   5. It is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly, so that the sponsoring agency may take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved.
   6. The research community or public should be informed (e.g., where the allegation involves a public health-sensitive issue such as a clinical trial).
   7. There is a reasonable indication of possible violation of civil or criminal law. In this instance, the institution must inform the Reporting Contact as soon as is reasonably possible after obtaining that information.
6. Interim administrative actions and reports. Interim administrative actions will be taken, as appropriate, to protect federal agency funds, safeguard public health, mitigate institutional risk, preserve the integrity of the research misconduct process, and ensure that the purposes of the financial support from funding agencies are carried out.
7. Burden of proof. The UI has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that research misconduct has occurred. The burden then shifts to the respondent to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, any affirmative defense. In determining whether UI has carried the burden of proof imposed by this part, the DO shall give due consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the respondent. A respondent’s failure to retain and provide research records related to allegations of research misconduct is evidence of research misconduct. The institution must establish by the preponderance of the evidence that the respondent intentionally or knowingly destroyed or withheld research records.
8. Admission of guilt. If at any point in the research misconduct proceeding, the respondent admits to committing research misconduct the research misconduct proceeding will be paused. A respondent’s admission of research misconduct must be made in writing and signed by the respondent. An admission must specify the falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism that occurred and which research records were affected. The admission statement must meet all elements required for a research misconduct finding and must be provided to the Reporting Contact, if applicable, before the institution closes its research misconduct proceeding. The institution must also provide a statement to the Reporting Contact, if applicable, describing how it determined that the scope of the research misconduct was fully addressed by the admission and confirmed the respondent’s culpability.
9. Honest error and disagreements of scientific, creative, or scholarly opinion. At any point during the research misconduct proceedings, the university may determine that either honest error or disagreement of scientific, creative, or scholarly opinion occurred if the evidence available suggests that the actions reported do not meet definition of research misconduct. If necessary, the university may still require that the research record be corrected.
10. Allegations potentially involving artificial intelligence. Allegations of research misconduct potentially involving artificial intelligence (AI) will be reviewed and considered with respect to current federal regulations and guidance, federal or external funding agency rules, UI policy and guidance, and the practices of the relevant research community.
11. Assessment of allegation. Upon receipt of an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO or another designated institutional official must promptly assess the allegation to determine whether the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct, is within the applicability of this policy or the relevant Reporting Contact, and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. If so, they will determine whether an inquiry is warranted.

12. Identification of additional respondents. If the RIO identifies additional respondents during any phase of a research misconduct proceeding, the university is not required to conduct a separate inquiry or investigation for each additional respondent. However, each additional respondent must be provided notice of and an opportunity to respond to the allegations, consistent with this policy. Separate inquiry and investigation reports will be written for each respondent, and respondents will only be provided with their own report(s).

    When allegations involve research misconduct at multiple institutions, one institution must be designated as the “lead institution” if a joint research misconduct proceeding is conducted. The RIO will coordinate with the appropriate officials at the other institution(s). By mutual agreement, the institutions will appoint the appropriate inquiry panels and/or investigation committees to review the matter.

13. Sequestration and notification. On or before notifying the respondent of allegations of research misconduct, the university will promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain all research records and other evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceedings. The RIO shall determine what evidence is reasonably needed to conduct a diligent research misconduct proceeding and may consult with subject matter experts (SMEs) in making this determination. The university shall also inventory the research records and other evidence and sequester them in a secure manner. Research records shall be preserved in the formats that they exist at the time of sequester where practical. However, research records may include copies of the data or other evidence so long as those copies are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value as determined by UI Information Technology Services (ITS).
    
    Where the research records or other evidence are located on or encompass scientific instruments shared by multiple users, the institution may obtain copies of the data or other evidence from such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value to the instruments. Whenever possible, the institution must obtain the research records or other evidence when additional items become known or relevant to the inquiry or investigation. Where appropriate, an institution must give the respondent copies of, or reasonable, supervised access to the research records that are sequestered in accordance with this policy.
14. Inquiry. When the allegation is assessed to warrant initiation of an inquiry, the RIO will perform the inquiry for the purpose described above in paragraph c(4). Upon opening an inquiry, the RIO will provide written notice of the alleged misconduct and initiation of the inquiry to the respondent (and, in the case of sponsored research, the Principal Investigator where the PI is not the respondent). At the same time, the RIO will sequester all relevant records and any other evidence needed to conduct the inquiry. The RIO may elect to interview the complainant, the respondent, and any additional witnesses with possible information related to the allegation at hand. Where the RIO lacks sufficient specialized expertise, the RIO may consult with qualified experts in order to determine whether an investigation of the alleged misconduct is warranted. Any additional respondents identified during the inquiry process must also be promptly notified of their status.
    
    Inquiry. An inquiry’s purpose is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine whether an allegation warrants an investigation. An inquiry does not require a full review of the evidence related to the allegation. In addition to reviewing materials sequestered, the RIO may interview relevant witnesses who may have knowledge of facts and evidence pertinent to the allegations.
    1. Inquiry determination. An investigation is warranted if there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the definition of research misconduct, as defined in this policy or by the relevant Reporting Contact, may have substance.  Findings of research misconduct cannot be made at the inquiry stage.
    2. Inquiry report and recommendation. The RIO will produce a written inquiry report that includes all applicable content required by the Reporting Contact or institutional procedures.
    3. Inquiry timeline. The RIO will complete the inquiry and submit the written inquiry report and recommendation to the DO for institutional action within 90 calendar days of initiating the inquiry, unless the DO determines that circumstances clearly warrant a longer period and approves an extension for good cause. In such cases, the inquiry record must include documentation of the reasons for the extension, and the respondent must be notified of the extension.
    4. DO decision and action on the inquiry report. The DO will review the inquiry report and either approve or reject the recommendation of the RIO, stating in writing the reasons for that decision. During this review, the DO may also request additional information to assist in acting on the recommendation of the RIO.The DO will render a decision within 30 calendar days of receiving the inquiry report.
    5. Notice to Reporting Contact. Where the DO approves a recommendation for an investigation in a case involving federal funding, the RIO will notify the Reporting Contact for the relevant federal funding agency on or before the start of the investigation and will provide a copy of the inquiry report and the DO's written decision to the Reporting Contact.
15. Investigation. The investigation of a research misconduct allegation must be initiated within 30 calendar days of the DO's decision that an investigation is warranted. The RIO shall notify the respondent in writing of the DO’s decision prior to the start of the investigation. The university will take reasonable steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased investigation.
    1. Research Misconduct Committee. The VPR shall appoint a Research Misconduct Committee (RMC) of no less than three faculty members. The committee number can be greater than three and must be an odd number. The RIO will consult with the Associate Provost for Faculty, and the appropriate academic leadership such as the Associate Deans for Faculty and Research for the college of the respondent(s) to identify prospective investigation committee members. The RIO will make every reasonable effort to determine that members of the RMC have no actual or potential personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest relevant to the allegation and that they collectively possess an appropriate level of expertise to competently evaluate the evidence of alleged research misconduct. The DO will review the RIO’s assessment that the members of the RMC have no conflict of interest and have the appropriate expertise to review the allegations of research misconduct. If necessary, the RIO will select investigation committee members external to the UI in order to ensure appropriate subject matter expertise or retain external subject matter experts.  External committee members or subject matter experts will be vetted in a similar fashion as internal, UI committee members.  Subject matter experts are not voting members of the investigation committee. The RIO shall attend committee meetings to assist the committee in its work.
    2. Notice to the respondent of committee composition. The RIO will notify the respondent of the RMC membership prior to the RMC’s first meeting. The respondent will have 5 business days to reply, in writing if they have a reasonable objection to any member of the RMC. If the respondent raises a reasonable objection to a prospective member of the RMC, the RIO will determine whether a conflict, lack of subject expertise, or other circumstance exists such that a prospective committee member’s continued participation in the investigation would be improper or raise a perception of impropriety sufficient to require replacement.
    3. Committee meetings. The RIO will convene the first meeting of the RMC to review the duties and responsibilities, the inquiry report, and the prescribed procedures and standards for the conduct of the investigation. This includes the necessity for confidentiality, for developing a specific investigation plan, and for ensuring a thorough and sufficiently documented investigation. The RMC will make, and the UI will maintain, transcripts or recordings of any witness interviews.  It is within the purview of the RMC to review prior allegations and research integrity concerns, including those that were not brought forward from the inquiry phase. If the evidence raises concerns about new research integrity concerns, those also may be reviewed by the RMC. The RIO will provide written notice of any new allegations.
    4. Use of consultants or content experts. Consultants or content experts may be used at the discretion of the RMC to provide information or specialized content knowledge but should not be present during final committee deliberations and are not members of the committee.
    5. Investigation report. The RMC will prepare a comprehensive written investigation report. If federal funds are involved, the RIO will follow the appropriate Reporting Contact’s requirements for an investigation report. If there are no federal funds involved, the RIO may opt to adopt the requirements outlined by the most relevant Reporting Contact. In the instance of a research misconduct proceeding with multiple respondents, the RMC will issue separate investigation reports and research misconduct determinations for each respondent.
    6. Opportunity for comment. The RMC will provide the respondent a copy of its draft investigation report for comment and rebuttal. The respondent will be allowed 30 days to review and comment on the draft report. The respondent's comments will be attached to the final investigation report. The report will take into consideration the respondent's comments in addition to all other evidence. The RMC may provide factual corrections or consider any new evidence provided in the respondent’s response to the draft investigation report.
    7. Investigation timeline. The RMC’s investigation should be completed within 180 days of the first meeting of the RMC. If the RMC determines that it will not be able to complete the investigation in 180 days, the RIO will notify the DO and submit to the Reporting Contact, if applicable, a written request for an extension that explains the delay, reports on the progress to date, estimates the date of completion of the report, and describes other necessary steps to be taken.
    8. Institutional decision. It is the responsibility of the DO to make a final determination of research misconduct findings.  The RMC submits its initial findings to the RIO. The RIO incorporates the RMC’s findings into the investigation report.  The RIO meets with the DO to discuss the report, which includes the respondent’s response to the investigation report. The DO makes the final institutional decision whether to accept the RMC’s findings, reject the RMC’s findings, or send the findings back for the RMC’s further consideration.
       1. If the DO accepts the RMC's findings without substantial modification, the DO's determination, together with the RMC's investigation report, constitutes the final institutional report.
       2. If the DO substantially alters the recommended administrative actions or sanctions, the DO will explain in the decision letter the basis for altering those administrative actions or sanctions. A substantial modification to the RMC’s recommended administrative actions or sanctions is one that changes the outcomes of the RMC’s administrative actions or sanctions. If the DO rejects the RMC’s findings, then the DO’s written explanation must be consistent with this policy and its definition of research misconduct and must be based on the evidence reviewed by the RMC to which the respondent has had an opportunity to respond. The institutional final report will be provided to the appropriate UI officials and the Reporting Contact(s).
       3. The DO has 30 days to render the decision on the RMC’s findings.
    9. Notification. The respondent will be notified in writing at the conclusion of the investigation of its outcome. The respondent will be provided a copy of the institution's final investigation report.
16. Sanctions and/or administrative actions. If the findings of the investigation or an admission of research misconduct warrant personnel or other administrative actions, the VPR will meet with the appropriate UI leader who has oversight responsibility for the respondent. The VPR will provide the final investigation report to the person with oversight. After reviewing the RMC’s recommended sanctions and/or administrative actions, the person with oversight will determine the appropriate UI leader who is responsible for enacting the administrative actions or sanctions. The VPR will ensure the scientific record is corrected. The university will also ensure that Reporting Contact funds are returned, if applicable.
17. Appealing sanctions and administrative actions.The final institutional report’s findings are final and are not subject to the UI appeal process. However, the respondent may appeal the sanctions and administrative actions resulting from a finding(s) or admission of research misconduct. Respondents must follow the appropriate UI grievance policy that corresponds to their position at the university. The sanctions and administrative actions will be enacted and enforced prior to and during the UI appeal process.
    1. Grievance Process for Faculty:III-15.3b, III-29, III-29.7
    2. Grievance Procedure for P&S Staff:III-28.4
    3. Grievance Procedure for Merit Staff:III-28.3
    4. Grievance Procedure for Postdoctoral Trainees: Graduate College Postdoctoral Employment Standards
    5. Grievance Process for Graduate Assistants:III-12.4
18. Notice to Reporting Contact. The UI will comply with any actions required by the Reporting Contact, which may include the obligation to make restitution for the funding or other grant-related actions. The responsible vice president or Executive Vice President and Provost, as applicable, oversees any audits and corrective action that may be required because of the findings of the investigation.
19. Finding of no research misconduct. If the institutional final report has no finding(s) of research misconduct, the RIO will consult with the respondent and all appropriate UI leadership to undertake all reasonable, practical, and appropriate efforts to restore the respondent's reputation.& For faculty, this includes, but may not be limited to, guidance and resources discussed in the “Faculty Support & Guidance” document. Any institutional actions to restore the respondent's reputation must first be approved by the Executive Vice President and Office of the Provost.
20. Retaliation; reputation of complainant and others. Regardless of whether the institution or the Reporting Contact determines that research misconduct occurred, the RIO will undertake all reasonable and practical efforts during all stages of the research misconduct proceedings to protect complainants who make allegations of research misconduct in good faith, witnesses, committee members, and UI administrators and staff. Those who make allegations of research misconduct with knowing or reckless disregard for the truth will be subject to discipline under applicable UI policies. If an allegation of retaliation is made, the RIO will assess and make a determination if the allegation is in accordance with II-27.8 Anti-Retaliation Policy for Reporting of Misconduct in Research. This assessment is separate from the underlying research misconduct investigation and may require other UI action or notification.
21. Early termination of inquiry or investigation. If the university terminates an inquiry or investigation for any reason without completing all relevant requirements of the applicable funding agency regulations (other than closing an inquiry because no investigation is warranted or a finding of no misconduct from a completed investigation), the RIO will submit a report to the Reporting Contact, including a justification for the proposed termination.
    
    The RIO will report to the Reporting Contact as required and will keep the Reporting Contact apprised of any developments during the course of the inquiry or investigation that may affect current or potential funding for the individual(s) under investigation. The RIO will also keep thefunding agency  apprised of any developments to ensure appropriate use of funds and otherwise protect the public interest.
    
    The university will provide full and continuing cooperation with any  funding agency during its oversight review of any alleged research misconduct or any subsequent administrative hearings or appeals resulting from the Reporting Contact review.
22. Records. All records pertaining to an allegation of research misconduct shall be kept in accordance with the record-keeping requirements of the UI Official Record Retention Schedule and the corresponding Reporting Contact.
23. This policy shall be reviewed not more than five years following its implementation.
24. Inquiry report and recommendation. The RIO will produce a written inquiry report including:
    1. the name and position of the respondent;
    2. a description of the allegations of research misconduct;
    3. the source of research support, including identifying any grant or contract and any publications listing such support;
    4. a summary of the inquiry process used;
    5. a list of the research records reviewed;
    6. the basis for recommending that the alleged actions either warrant or do not warrant an investigation; and
    7. the RIO's recommendation as to whether an investigation is warranted and whether any other actions should be taken in the event an investigation is not recommended.
25. Opportunity for comment. The RIO will provide the respondent with a copy of the draft inquiry report for comment and rebuttal. Within 14 calendar days or receipt of the draft report, the respondent will provide comments on the draft inquiry report to the RIO. Comments submitted by the respondent will become part of the final inquiry report and record. Based on those comments, the RIO may revise the report as appropriate.
26. Inquiry timeline. The RIO will complete the inquiry and submit the written inquiry report and recommendation to the VRP for final institutional action within 60 calendar days of initiating the inquiry, unless the VPR determines that circumstances clearly warrant a longer period and approves an extension for good cause. In such cases, the inquiry record must include documentation of the reasons for the extension, and the respondent must be notified of the extension.
27. VPR decision and action on the inquiry report. The VPR will review the inquiry report and either approve or reject the recommendation of the RIO, stating in writing the reasons for that decision. In the course of this review, the VPR may also request additional information to assist in acting on the recommendation of the RIO.
28. Notice to Reporting Contact. Where the VPR approves a recommendation for an investigation in a case involving federal funding, the RIO will notify the Reporting Contact for the relevant federal funding agency on or before the start of the investigation and will provide a copy of the inquiry report and the VPR's written decision to the Reporting Contact.
29. Investigation. The investigation of a research misconduct allegation must be initiated within 30 calendar days of the VPR's decision that an investigation is warranted. The RIO shall notify the respondent in writing of the VPR decision prior to the start of the investigation. Before or at the time the notice is provided to the respondent, the RIO will also sequester any additional research records or evidence required to conduct the investigation not previously sequestered at the inquiry stage.
30. Research Misconduct Committee Pool. The VPR shall maintain a representative pool of scholars, selected from the tenured faculty, the emeritus faculty, or equivalent rank research scientists, research engineers, and research/clinical faculty. Pool membership shall be by nomination by each college's respective Associate Dean for Research; pool members shall serve three-year terms.
31. Research Misconduct Committee. The VPR shall appoint a Research Misconduct Committee (RMC) of seven scholars selected from the Research Misconduct Committee Pool, with no more than one member from any one college. Members of the RMC must have no actual or potential personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest with the complainant, the respondent, or any witnesses and should collectively possess an appropriate level of scientific expertise to competently evaluate the evidence of alleged research misconduct. The RIO attends meetings of the committee to assist the committee in its work.
32. Notice to the respondent of committee composition. The RIO will notify the respondent of the RMC membership within 5 days. If the respondent submits a written objection to any member of the RMC, the RIO will determine whether a conflict or other circumstance exists such that a committee member's continued participation in the investigation would be improper or raise a perception of impropriety sufficient to require replacement of the challenged member with a qualified substitute from the RMC pool.
33. Committee meetings. The RIO will convene the first meeting of the RMC to review the charge, the inquiry report, and the prescribed procedures and standards for the conduct of the investigation, including the necessity for confidentiality, for developing a specific investigation plan, and for ensuring a thorough and sufficiently documented investigation. The RMC will make and the University will maintain transcripts or recordings of any witness interviews.
34. Use of consultants or content experts. Consultants or content experts may be used at the discretion of the RMC to provide information or specialized content knowledge, but should not be present during final committee deliberations and are not members of the committee.
35. Investigation report. The RMC will prepare a written investigation report that:
    1. describes the specific allegation(s) of research misconduct;
    2. describes the source(s) of funding, if any;
    3. describes the policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted;
    4. describes the research record and the evidence reviewed, as well as any evidence sequestered but not reviewed; and
    5. states the committee's recommended findings relative to each allegation and explains the basis for each finding. Where the committee recommends a finding of research misconduct, the report will include recommendations for appropriate institutional actions, including, for example, whether any publications should be corrected or retracted, and will list any current support or known applications for support that the respondent has pending with any federal research sponsor.
36. Opportunity for comment. The RMC will provide the respondent a copy of its draft investigation report for comment and rebuttal. The respondent will be allowed 14 days to review and comment on the draft report. The respondent's comments will be attached to the final investigation report. The report will take into consideration the respondent's comments in addition to all other evidence.
37. Investigation timeline. An investigation by the RMC should be completed within 120 calendar days of initiation, with the initiation being defined as the first meeting of the RMC. This includes conducting the investigation, preparing the report of findings, making the draft report available for comment, submitting the report to the VPR for final institutional action, and submitting the institution's final report to the Reporting Contact. If the RMC determines that it will not be able to complete the investigation in 120 days, the RIO will notify the VPR and submit to the Reporting Contact a written request for an extension that explains the delay, reports on the progress to date, estimates the date of completion of the report, and describes other necessary steps to be taken. If the Reporting Contact grants the request the RIO will file periodic progress reports on behalf of the committee as requested by the Reporting Contact.
38. Institutional decision and action on investigation report. The RMC submits the final written report of its recommended findings to the RIO, who meets with the VPR to discuss the report. The VPR makes the final institutional decision whether to accept, modify, or reject the committee report recommendations.
    1. If the VPR accepts the RMC's recommendations without modification, the VPR's determination, together with the RMC's investigation report, constitutes the final institutional report for purposes of federal funding agency review.
    2. If the VPR's determination differs from the committee's recommendations, the VPR will explain in the institution's letter transmitting the RMC report to the Reporting Contact the detailed basis for reaching a conclusion different from the RMC's recommendations. The VPR's written explanation should be consistent with this policy and its definition of research misconduct and should be based on the evidence reviewed by the RMC to which the respondent has had an opportunity to respond.

39. Notification. The respondent will be notified in writing at the conclusion of the investigation of its outcome and the respondent will be provided a copy of the institution's final investigation report.

    If the findings of the investigation warrant personnel or other administrative actions, the VPR will meet with the appropriate senior administrator who has oversight responsibility for the respondent's department/unit or the respondent's University classification (either the Executive Vice President and Provost or other vice president) and appropriate action will be initiated in accord with University policy as follows: In addition to the foregoing, the University may take other administrative actions appropriate to the outcome of the investigation. For example, in the case of a finding of research misconduct, the University may require the withdrawal of pending abstracts and publications emanating from the research, and give notice in sufficient detail to editors of journals in which previous abstracts and publications have appeared to inform the relevant academic and public communities and to correct the public record.

    1. Faculty. Research misconduct is in violation of III-15.3b Responsibilities to Scholarship concerning professional ethics and academic responsibilities, and all such matters are governed by III-29 Faculty Dispute Procedures and, more specifically, by the portion of the dispute procedures dealing with faculty research ethics (III-29.9).

    2. Professional and scientific staff. Disciplinary actions resulting from investigations of misconduct are taken by the vice president responsible for the unit employing the respondent staff member.

       Appeals from administrative actions involving professional and scientific personnel are governed by III-28 Conflict Management Resources for University Staff.

    3. Merit staff. Disciplinary action resulting from investigations of misconduct involving merit staff personnel are taken in accordance with the Regent Merit System Rules, with applicable appeal procedures including III-28 Conflict Management Resources for University Staff.
    4. Graduate assistants. Disciplinary procedures, including dismissal of graduate assistants, is covered by III-12.4 Graduate Assistant Dismissal Procedure.
    5. Others. Disciplinary action related to other categories of individuals within the University, not covered in paragraphs (c) through (f) above, including postdoctoral trainees, professional students, and undergraduates, will be undertaken by the Executive Vice President and Provost or the vice president responsible for such individuals, as applicable.

40. Notice to Reporting Contact of completion of investigation. Once the institution has accepted the investigation report and determined any administrative action(s) to be taken in response to it, the RIO is responsible for complying with any notice requirements of federal agencies funding the research. The University will comply with any actions required by the funding agency, including the obligation to make restitution for the funding, if applicable.

    The responsible vice president or Executive Vice President and Provost, as applicable, oversees any audits and corrective action that may be required as a result of the findings of the investigation.

41. Finding of no research misconduct. If no investigation is warranted following an inquiry, or if the alleged misconduct is not substantiated by the finding of an investigation and the Reporting Contact concurs in that conclusion, the RIO will consult with the respondent and undertake all reasonable, practical, and appropriate efforts to restore the respondent's reputation. Depending on the particular circumstances, the RIO should consider notifying those individuals aware of or involved in the investigation of the final outcome, publicizing the final outcome in forums in which the allegation of research misconduct was previously publicized, or expunging all reference to the research misconduct allegation from the respondent's personnel file. Any institutional actions to restore the respondent's reputation must first be approved by the VPR.

42. Retaliation; reputation of complainant and others. Regardless of whether the institution or the Reporting Contact determines that research misconduct occurred, the RIO will undertake all reasonable and practical efforts during the inquiry and/or investigation stages to protect complainants who make allegations of research misconduct in good faith, witnesses, and committee members. Those who make allegations with knowing or reckless disregard for their truth will be subject to discipline under applicable University policies.

    Upon completion of an investigation, the VPR will consult with the complainant and determine what steps, if any, are needed to restore the position and reputation of the complainant. The same process will also be followed to protect or restore the position and reputation of any witness or committee member, if needed. The RIO is responsible for implementing any steps the VPR approves.

43. Circumstances requiring immediate reporting. The RIO will notify the Reporting Contact at any stage of the inquiry or investigation if:
    1. there is an immediate public health or safety hazard involved;
    2. there is an immediate need to protect sponsoring agency funds, interests, or equipment;
    3. research activities should be suspended;
    4. there is an immediate need to protect the interests of the person(s) making the allegations or of the individual(s) who is/are the subject of the allegations, as well as their co- investigators and associates, if any;
    5. it is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly, so that the agency may take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved;
    6. the research community or public should be informed (e.g., where the allegation involves a public health-sensitive issue such as a clinical trial); or
    7. there is a reasonable indication of possible violation of civil or criminal law. In this instance, the institution must inform the Reporting Contact within 24 hours of obtaining that information.

44. Interim administrative actions and reports. Interim administrative actions will be taken, as appropriate, to protect federal agency funds and equipment and the public health, and to ensure that the purposes of the financial support from the federal agency are carried out.

    If the University of Iowa plans to terminate an inquiry or investigation for any reason without completing all relevant requirements of the applicable federal agency regulations (other than closing an inquiry because no investigation is warranted or a finding of no misconduct from a completed investigation), the RIO will submit a report of the planned termination to the Reporting Contact, including a description of the reasons for the proposed termination.

    The RIO will report to the Reporting Contact as required by regulation and keep the Reporting Contact apprised of any developments during the course of the inquiry or investigation that may affect current or potential funding for the individual(s) under investigation or that the federal agency needs to know to ensure appropriate use of funds and otherwise protect the public interest.

    The University will provide full and continuing cooperation with any federal funding agency during its oversight review of any alleged research misconduct or any subsequent administrative hearings or appeals resulting from agency oversight review.

45. Records. All records pertaining to an allegation of research misconduct shall be kept in accordance with the record-keeping requirements of the federal funding agency.