Ohio Administrative Code
Title 3356 - Youngstown State University
Chapter 3356-10 - Policies on Admission, Retention, and Graduation standards
Section 3356-10-16 - Research misconduct
Universal Citation: OH Admin Code 3356-10-16
Current through all regulations passed and filed through March 18, 2024
(A) Policy statement. Among the basic principles of Youngstown state university (university) are the pursuit of truth and the responsible exercise of academic freedom. From these principles derive such ideals and values as the freedom and openness of inquiry, academic honesty, and integrity in scholarship and teaching. The university affirms and honors the preservation, growth, and flourishing of these values throughout all its activities, including teaching and learning, research, scholarly inquiry, and creative scholarly endeavor. Accordingly, research misconduct is adverse to the concept of academic freedom and its responsible exercise. It is from this background that the board of trustees implements this policy for handling allegations of misconduct in research.
(B) Purpose. To address alleged or apparent misconduct in research and in scholarly and creative activities, irrespective of funding source.
(C) Scope. This policy applies to all individuals involved in research and in scholarly and creative activities, including university faculty, staff, scientists, technicians, students, volunteers, visiting researchers or collaborators engaged in research or individuals working under an independent contract for services, and paid by, under the control of, or affiliated with the university at the time of misconduct.
(D) Definitions (for purposes of this policy).
(1)
Definitions used in this policy shall conform to those
cited in 42 C.F.R. 93 (public health service policies on research misconduct,
department of health and human services) and in 45 C.F.R. 689 (national science
foundation, misconduct in science and engineering research):
(a)
"Allegation" -
any written or oral statement or other indication of possible research
misconduct to an institutional officer that triggers the procedures described
in this policy.
(b)
"Complainant" - a person who in good faith makes an
allegation of research misconduct.
(c)
"Conflict of
interest" - the real or apparent interference of a person's interest with the
interests of another, where potential bias may occur due to prior or existing
financial, personal or professional relationships.
(d)
"Deciding
official (DO)" - the DO is the institutional official who makes final
determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any institutional
administrative actions. The DO will not be the same individual as the research
integrity officer and should have no direct prior involvement in the
institution's allegation, inquiry or investigation assessment. Normally, the
provost is the DO at the university. If the provost has a conflict of interest
or is otherwise unable to fulfill this role, the president shall appoint the
DO.
(e)
"Fabrication" - making up data or results and recording
or reporting them.
(f)
"Falsification" - manipulating research materials,
equipment or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the
research is not accurately represented by the research record.
(g)
"Good faith
allegation" - allegations of research misconduct made by a complainant who
honestly believes that research misconduct occurred based on the information
known at the time.
(h)
"Inquiry" - preliminary information gathering and
fact-finding to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of
misconduct warrants an investigation.
(i)
"Investigation" -
the collection and review of all relevant evidence of the alleged research
misconduct, including but not limited to research records, documentation,
interviews of those involved and knowledge about the activities under
investigation to determine if research misconduct occurred and to recommend
appropriate corrective actions.
(j)
"National science
foundation office of inspector general (NSF OIG)" - the office within NSF that
oversees investigations of research misconduct and conducts NSF inquiries or
investigations into these allegations.
(k)
"Office of
research integrity (ORI)" - the office overseeing and directing public health
service research integrity activities on behalf of the secretary of health and
human services. This includes oversight of research misconduct inquiries and
investigations as well as institutional compliance.
(l)
"Plagiarism" -
the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words
without giving appropriate credit.
(m)
"Preponderance of
evidence" - proof by information that compared with that opposing it, leads to
the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely true than
not.
(n)
"Research integrity officer (RIO)" - the institutional
official responsible for assessing allegations of research misconduct and
determining when such allegations warrant inquiries, overseeing inquiries and
investigations; and other responsibilities described in this policy. The DO
appoints the RIO. Normally, the director of research services will serve as the
RIO of the university.
(o)
"Research misconduct" - fabrication, falsification,
plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting
research results.
(p)
"Research record" - the record of data or results that
embody the information resulting from research as well as the record of methods
and analysis that led to those data or results, including but not limited to
proposal or contract applications, funded or unfunded grants or contracts,
progress and other reports, lab notebooks, notes, correspondence, videos,
photographs, x-ray files, equipment use logs, biological materials, laboratory
procurement records, animal facility records, human and animal subjects
protocols, medical charts, patient research files, abstracts, theses, oral
presentations, computer files, codes and printouts, manuscripts and
publications, musical scores and composition, and choreography.
(q)
"Respondent" -
the person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is made or who is
the subject of the research misconduct proceeding.
(r)
"Retaliation" -
an adverse action taken against an individual in response to a good faith
allegation of research misconduct or good faith cooperation with research
misconduct proceedings of the university.
(2)
Nothing in these
definitions shall be deemed to include honest error or differences in opinion
as research misconduct.
(E) Guidelines.
(1)
Responsibility to
report research misconduct. Any person, upon observing or having evidence of
suspected research misconduct or believing specific actions, activities, or
conduct constitutes research misconduct, as defined in this policy, may make an
allegation. Such persons contemplating an allegation are encouraged to first
discuss the allegation in confidence with the RIO, who will advise the
person(s) about the procedures to be followed under this policy.
(a)
If an allegation
of research misconduct is made to an institutional official other than the RIO,
details of the substance of the allegation will be immediately transmitted to
the RIO in writing.
(b)
If the allegation is against the RIO or there is an
apparent or actual conflict of interest, the DO will appoint a substitute RIO
to act as the RIO in implementing this policy.
(2)
This policy
applies to allegations of research misconduct within six years of the date the
university, oversight agency or funding entity receives an allegation of
research misconduct (42 C.F.R.
93.105) . Exceptions include:
(a)
The respondent(s)
continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct that happened
before the six-year limitation through the citation, republication or other use
of research record(s) that is alleged to have been fabricated, falsified or
plagiarized for the benefit of the respondent(s).
(b)
The university
determined that the alleged research misconduct may have a substantial adverse
effect on the health or safety of the public.
(3)
A finding of
research misconduct under this policy requires that:
(a)
There be a
significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research
community;
(b)
The misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly,
or recklessly; and
(c)
The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the
evidence.
(4)
Cooperation with research misconduct proceedings.
(a)
Respondent(s),
complainant(s) and witness(es) are responsible to fully cooperate with the RIO
and other university officials in the review of allegations and in the conduct
of inquiries and investigations of research misconduct. These individuals are
obligated to provide evidence relevant to the research misconduct proceedings
to the RIO, the inquiry and investigation committees, other university
officials and any appropriate oversight agency or funding
entity.
(b)
Failure to cooperate with research misconduct
proceedings constitutes grounds for disciplinary proceedings against students,
faculty and staff under the student code of conduct, applicable collective
bargaining agreements, or office of human resources disciplinary proceedings.
Failure to cooperate constitutes grounds for termination of a volunteer's
agreement with the university.
(c)
If third parties
and other non-university personnel refuse to cooperate in research misconduct
proceedings upon request, their refusal may constitute grounds for termination
of their affiliation with the university.
(5)
Confidentiality.
(a)
The RIO will limit the disclosure of the identity of
respondent(s) and complainant(s), if known, and any records of evidence from
which research subjects might be identified, to individuals who need to know in
order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective and fair research
misconduct proceeding and except as required under certain circumstances,
including but not limited to by law, the oversight agency, the rules of the
contract or award with the funding entity, the need to inform the research
community to protect the research integrity or the human subjects involved, or
as part of a corrective action.
(b)
Except as
otherwise required by this policy or by federal, state, or local law or
regulation, it is a violation of this policy for any member of the faculty,
professional administrative staff or classified staff, an individual providing
services pursuant to an independent contract, or a member of the student body
to violate the confidentiality of a proceeding under this
policy.
(c)
The RIO, in consultation with the DO, may in their
discretion consult with experts outside the university community for proper
conduct of the review and proceedings and inform other institutional personnel
and officials responsible for oversight of the respondent's research activities
and institutional response or corrective actions.
(6)
Protections.
(a)
The university will not tolerate retaliation in any way
against complainants, respondents, witnesses, or committee members
participating in a research misconduct proceeding. Any alleged or apparent
retaliation from other university members against these individuals should be
reported immediately to the RIO, who will review and make all reasonable and
practical attempts needed to protect or restore the position and reputation of
the person whom the retaliation is against. Retaliation by university members
will be grounds for university disciplinary procedures.
(b)
The RIO and other
institutional officials will make all reasonable and practical attempts to
protect or restore the reputation of persons alleged to have engaged in
research misconduct, but against whom no finding of research misconduct or any
other violation is made. The university may, to the extent possible, work with
the respondent(s) to rectify the reputation of the respondent(s), including
providing a letter stating that there were no findings of research
misconduct.
(7)
Notifications of oversight agencies and funding
entities.
(a)
The RIO will make notifications to oversight agencies and
funding entities, including but not limited to ORI and the NSF OIG, when
allegations of research misconduct relate to sponsored research, on or before
the start of the investigation and at the conclusion of the
investigation.
(b)
The RIO will immediately notify the appropriate
oversight agency if there is reason to believe that any of the following
conditions exist:
(i)
The health or safety of the public is at risk,
including an immediate need to protect human or animal
subjects;
(ii)
Federal resources or interests are
threatened;
(iii)
Research activities should be
suspended;
(iv)
There is indication of possible violations of civil or
criminal law;
(v)
Federal action is required to protect the interests of
those involved in the research misconduct proceeding;
(vi)
The research
misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely and agency action may be
necessary to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved;
or
(vii)
The research community or public should be informed, as
determined by the institution or appropriate oversight agency or funding
entity.
(F) Resolutions and corrective action.
(1)
Interim institutional administrative actions.
(a)
The RIO will
review the circumstances throughout the research misconduct proceedings to
determine if there is any threat of harm to public health, federal funds and
equipment, or the integrity of externally supported research.
(b)
If such a threat
exists, the RIO will, in consultation with the DO, other institutional
officials and the relevant oversight agency, take appropriate interim action to
protect against any such threat. This may include, but is not limited to:
(i)
Additional
monitoring of the research activities and the handling of external funds and
equipment;
(ii)
Reassignment of personnel or of the responsibility for
the handling of external funds and equipment; or
(iii)
Additional
review of research data and results or delaying publication.
(2)
Admissions and resolutions. The respondent(s) should be
given the opportunity to admit that research misconduct occurred and that the
respondent(s) committed research misconduct, at any phase of the proceedings
under this policy. The RIO will acquire a written admission describing the
specifics of the research misconduct. The DO, in consultation with the RIO,
committee members and other university officials may terminate the proceedings
when an allegation has been admitted and all relevant issues are resolved, and
further determine corrective actions. The RIO will notify the relevant
oversight agency or funding entity. A resolution may be reached when the
oversight agency agrees with terminating the research misconduct proceedings
and approves the proposed resolution.
(3)
Institutional
corrective actions.
(a)
If the DO determines the presence of research
misconduct, the DO will decide on the appropriate corrective actions to be
taken, after consultation with the RIO and other university
officials.
(b)
Appropriate corrective actions may include, but are not
limited to:
(i)
A letter of reprimand;
(ii)
Special
monitoring of respondent(s) of future work;
(iii)
Removal of
respondent(s) from the particular project;
(iv)
Termination of
the active award;
(v)
Restitution of funds from the agency;
(vi)
Correction or
withdrawal of all pending or published abstracts, manuscripts, publications and
grant applications originating from research where misconduct was determined
(42 C.F.R.
93.313);
(vii)
Disciplinary
actions for faculty, staff or students, in accordance with the applicable
collective bargaining agreement, disciplinary proceedings established by the
office of human resources, or the student code of conduct (rule 3356-8-01.1 of
the Administrative Code; university policy 3356-8- 01.1 "The Student Code of
Conduct"); or
(viii)
Termination of an individual's volunteer agreement with
the university.
(G) Procedures.
(1)
The office of
research services is charged with developing procedures to implement this
policy.
(2)
Procedures and other information concerning research
misconduct, including regulations, charges of committees and outlines for
inquiry and investigation reports are available in the office of research
services and "PI handbook" at
https://ysu.edu/office-research-services.
Replaces: 3356-10-16
Disclaimer: These regulations may not be the most recent version. Ohio may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
