"OP 74.08  Allegations of Misconduct in Research or Scholarly Activity

......

"POLICY

        Recent experience at several United States universities indicates that, from time to time, an allegation of misconduct in research or scholarly activity may be made against a member of an institution's faculty. "Misconduct" means:  

            ●Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other serious deviation from accepted practices in proposing, conducting, or reporting results from research

            ● Material failure to comply with federal requirements for protection of researchers, human subjects, or the public, or for ensuring the welfare of laboratory animals; or

            ●Failure to meet other material legal requirements governing research.

            ●Fraudulent conduct in research and scholarship is antithetical to accepted academic practice. All members of the university community are responsible for reporting instances of misconduct in research or scholarly activity.

[Comment:  This fourth bullet does not belong with the other three: it is not a definition of misconduct. It should probably moved to the beginning of “Policy.”]
 

PROCEDURE

        If an allegation of misconduct in research or other scholarly activity is made against a member of the Texas Tech University faculty, staff, or student body, the allegation shall be dealt with in the following manner:

 1. Inquiry

         a. Allegations of fraud or misconduct should be directed to the dean of the college or school in which the faculty or staff member is appointed or in which the student is enrolled.  Allegations concerning staff members who are not a part of a college or school and allegations that involve more than one college or school should be directed to the associate vice president for research (AVPR). Upon receipt of a formal, signed allegation of misconduct or fraud, the dean or the AVPR [1] shall initiate an inquiry.

[Comment:  The last sentence seems to permit the AVPR to initiate an inquiry even when the allegation was made to a Dean because only one college was involved. Perhaps it should read something like: “Upon receipt of a formal, signed allegation of misconduct, the person to whom the allegation was filed (either a dean or the AVPR) shall initiate an inquiry.”]

        b. An inquiry shall consist of information gathering and initial fact finding to determine whether an allegation of misconduct warrants an investigation. Inquiry procedures will be determined by the circumstances of the allegations, but shall include notification of the individual against whom the allegation is made. The inquiry shall be completed within 60 days after receipt of the allegation.

        c. All persons involved in the inquiry shall make diligent efforts to protect the identity of the complainant during the inquiry phase.  If the process reaches the investigative phase, the right of the respondent to confront the complainant may require the identity of the complainant be revealed.

[Comment:  The accused should have a right to know the identity of the accuser except (perhaps) is most unusual circumstances. ]

        d. A report of the inquiry shall be made in writing. If a dean conducts the inquiry, the dean shall forward the report to the AVPR. Reports of inquiries shall be maintained in the office of the AVPR for a period of three years.

[Comment:  As indicated above, the OP should be clearer about under what circumstances a dean would conduct the inquiry and under what circumstances the AVPR would do so.  The implication of the policy is that a dean would handle a matter limited to one college, the AVPR a problem extending to multiple colleges, but this is not stated explicitly.]

         e. If results of the inquiry indicate that the allegation was made with malicious intent, the AVPR shall determine what action should be taken against the complainant.

[Comment:  Obviously this must be rewritten so it refers only to false accusations. Perhaps it should say that whoever knowingly makes a false accusation is subject to action under this clause. Reference to ‘intent’ can then be omitted. Suggested wording: “If the results of the inquiry indicate that the complainant knowingly made a false accusation, the AVPR shall determine what action should be taken against the complainant.” ]
 

2. Investigation

         a. If the finding of the inquiry is that an investigation is warranted, the AVPR shall appoint an ad hoc committee within 30 days of receiving the report of the inquiry to:

            • Review and investigate the charges;
            • Hear testimony from the parties concerned; and, after careful deliberation,
            • Report to the AVPR the committee's findings as to whether or not the allegations have, in the committee's opinion, sufficient basis in fact for the university to consider disciplinary action against the individual.

         b. The ad hoc committee will consist of five persons chosen by the AVPR, in consultation with the chairperson or other appropriate official having administrative jurisdiction over the academic unit in which the individual holds principal academic appointment. Insofar as possible, the members of the committee will be persons having sufficient acquaintance with research and scholarship in the discipline in question so that they can assess the allegation. In appointing the investigating committee, the AVPR shall select impartial experts and make efforts to avoid real or apparent conflicts of interest.

         c. The investigating committee shall complete the investigation within 120 days. If the committee judges that disciplinary action is warranted, the committee will also make a recommendation to the AVPR concerning what action should be taken. Possible disciplinary actions include, but are not limited to:

            • Issuing a formal reprimand;
            • Requiring special administrative arrangements to ensure compliance with applicable regulations;
            • Restricting particular research activities;
            • Removing the individual from the graduate faculty; and
            •  Filing a formal charge of unfitness for continued employment at Texas Tech University.
 

 3. Action

            a. If the investigation involves a project funded by the Public Health Service (PHS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), or other agencies that have mandated notification policies, the AVPR shall immediately inform the agency in accordance with agency policy and, throughout the course of the investigation, shall continue to notify the agency as required by agency policy.

             b. Following the investigation, the AVPR shall forward the committee's findings and recommendation to the VPRTTED, who shall decide in consultation with the provost what action should be taken. If appropriate, the AVPR shall take interim administrative actions to protect federal funds and ensure that the purposes of the grant or contract are being carried out. If the VPRTTED determines that a faculty member should be formally charged with unfitness for employment, the further disposition of the case will be in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the current faculty handbook.

 [Comment:  If the VPRTTED consults with the Provost at this stage, then it would be inappropriate for the Provost to be the person who handles an appeal. ]

             c. Documentation substantiating the committee's findings shall be maintained in the office of the AVPR for a period of three years following the close of the investigation and the acceptance of any reports required by federal agencies.
 

4. Appeal

             a. Any person who has been found by the preceding procedures to have committed misconduct in research or scholarly activity shall have the right to appeal that finding to the provost, if it can be shown that the committee:

            • Did not consider all available evidence;
            • Did not provide for due process for the accused; or
            • Made the determination in an arbitrary, capricious, or prejudicial manner.

[Comment:  This implies that, in order to make an appeal, one must show one of the three things listed, but whether that can be shown is what the appeal is supposed to determine. The accused should simply be required to contend that one of the three failings occurred. If the accused has no evidence, then presumably the Provost will not uphold the appeal. Presumably what 4a intends to say is that there are only three grounds for an appeal to the Provost. ]

             This appeal must be filed in writing within 14 days after the accused is informed of the committee's finding. Failure of the accused to appeal to the provost within the prescribed time limits will make the decision of the AVPR final.

[Comment:  This language on time limits does not contain the safeguards specified in other OPs.  Consider for example, the language of OP 32.05:  "After the grievance is presented, the time periods for action prescribed in these procedures should be followed unless reasonable extension is required by unusual circumstances or because a deadline occurs between semesters or in summer, when relevant persons are away for extended periods. In the absence of the foregoing conditions, times for action should be extended only for university holidays or by mutual agreement of the parties and, in an appeal, with concurrence of the Grievance Committee."   Something like this should be included. If the Provost’s judgment is handed down on December 15, it could be very hard to construct an appeal in 14 days. There might be a need to consult people who will not be on campus for several weeks. ]