Allegations of Academic Research Misconduct

Prepared for the Board of Trustees February 12, 1997

I. INTRODUCTION

A. GENERAL POLICY

Cleveland State University endorses the principle that its faculty
and staff are entitled to full freedom in research and to full freedom
in the publication of the results of those research endeavors. Corresponding
with this principle of full freedom in research is the obligation to
maintain the highest standards of professional ethics. Membership in
the academic community imposes on faculty, staff , and students the
commitment to foster and to defend intellectual honesty in research
and scholarship. The primary responsibility of the faculty is to their
subject and to seeking and stating the truth. University faculty and
staff pledge quality and integrity in their research and publications
primarily through self-regulation, through adherence to individual ethical
principles, through dependence on accepted disciplinary professional
standards, and by reference to the traditions and standards of collegiality
characteristic of all institutions of higher learning. This document
articulates University policy on academic integrity in research and
publication and prescribes procedures for impartial fact-finding and
fair adjudication of allegations of academic research misconduct.

B. SCOPE

This policy and the associated procedures apply to all individuals
engaged in academic research at Cleveland State University including
faculty members, professional staff, scientists, trainees, technicians
and other staff members, students, fellows, volunteers, guest researchers,
or collaborators. The policy and the associated procedures are derived
from the Office of Research Integrity's Model Policy for Responding
to Allegations of Academic Research Misconduct and as such are particularly
appropriate for scientific research supported by, or for which support
is requested from, the Public Health Service (PHS), the National Science
Foundation (NSF), or any other Federal agency. The Office of Research
Integrity (ORI) is an independent entity within the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services reporting directly to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services. ORI is responsible for protecting the integrity
of PHS extramural and intramural research programs. PHS regulations,
at 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart A, apply to any research, research-training
or research-related grant, or cooperative agreement with the PHS.

These procedures will normally be followed when an allegation of possible
misconduct in academic research is received by a University official.
Particular circumstances in an individual case may dictate variation
from normal procedure deemed in the best interests of Cleveland State
University and the PHS or other Federal agency. Such variations from
normal procedure should be constructed to ensure fair treatment to the
subject of the inquiry or investigation. Any significant variation from
normal procedure should be approved in advance by the Chief Academic
Officer of Cleveland State University.

II. DEFINITIONS

A. Academic research misconduct, herein sometimes referred to as
"misconduct," means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism,
undisclosed conflicts of interest as defined in the Policy for Managing
Conflicts of Interest, or other practices that seriously deviate from
those that are commonly accepted within the academic community for proposing,
conducting, or reporting research. It does not include honest error
or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data.

B. Allegation means any written or oral statement or other indication
of possible academic research misconduct made to an institutional official.

C. Complainant means a person who makes an allegation of academic
research misconduct or inadequate institutional response thereto or
who cooperates with an investigation of such allegation. There can more
than one complainant in any inquiry or investigation.

D. Conflict of interest means the real or apparent interference
of one person's interest with another, where potential bias may occur
due to prior or existing personal or professional relationships.

E. Deciding Official means the institutional official who makes
final determinations on allegations of academic research misconduct
and on any responsive institutional actions. At Cleveland State University
the Deciding Official is the Provost and Senior Vice President.

F. Good faith allegation means an allegation of academic research
misconduct made by a complainant who honestly believes that academic
research misconduct may have occurred. A good faith allegation need
not be objectively made nor be subsequently verified to be made in good
faith. However, a complainant who recklessly disregards evidence available
to him or her that disproves an allegation has not made the allegation
in good faith.

G. Inquiry means information gathering and initial fact-finding
to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of academic
research misconduct warrants an investigation.

H. Investigation means the formal examination and evaluation
of all relevant facts to determine if misconduct has occurred, and,
if so, to identify the responsible person and the seriousness of the
misconduct.

I. ORI means the Office of Research Integrity, an independent
entity within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reporting
to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The ORI is responsible
for protecting the integrity of PHS extramural and intramural research
programs.

J. PHS means the Public Health Service, part of the Department
of Health and Human Services (DHHS) of the Federal government.

K. PHS regulation means the Public Health Service regulation
codified at 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart A, entitled Responsibility
of PHS Awardee and Applicant Institutions for Dealing With and Reporting
Possible Misconduct in Science.

L. PHS support means PHS grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements,
or applications therefor.

M. Research Integrity Officer means the institutional official
responsible for assessing allegations of academic research misconduct
and determining when such allegations warrant inquiries and for overseeing
inquiries and investigations. At Cleveland State University the Research
Integrity Officer is the Vice President for
Research.

N. Research record means any data, document, computer file,
computer disk, or any other written or non-written account or object
that reasonably may be expected to provide evidence or information regarding
the proposed, conducted, or reported research that constitutes the subject
of an allegation of scientific misconduct. A research record includes,
but is not limited to: grant or contract applications, whether funded
or unfunded; grant or contract progress and other reports; laboratory
notebooks; notes; correspondence; videos; photographs; X-ray film; slides;
biological materials; computer files and printouts; manuscripts and
publications; equipment use logs; laboratory procurement records; animal
facility records; human and animal subject protocols; consent forms;
medical charts; and patient research files.

O. Respondent means the person against whom an allegation of
academic research misconduct is directed, or the person who is the subject
of the inquiry or investigation. There can be more than one respondent
in any inquiry or investigation.

P. Retaliation means any deliberate response by Cleveland State
University, or an employee of Cleveland State University, that adversely
affects the employment or other institutional status of a respondent
to whom an allegation of misconduct has been directed but not proven
or of a complainant who, in good faith, has made an allegation of academic
research misconduct or inadequate institutional response thereto, or
who has cooperated in good faith with an investigation of such allegation.

III. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

A. RESEARCH INTEGRITY OFFICER

All records related to a case shall be treated as confidential insofar
as is permitted by the law of the State of Ohio and no materials growing
out of a case shall be placed in the respondent's personnel file prior
to the final disposition of the matter.

The Research Integrity Officer will have primary responsibility for
adherence to the procedural requirements set forth in this document
and, therefore, must be sensitive to the varied demands made on those
who conduct research, those who are accused of misconduct, and those
who report apparent misconduct in good faith.

The Research Integrity Officer will attempt to resolve on an informal
and confidential basis any reported misconduct. Should the RIO determine
there is insufficient reason to pursue the matter, he/she shall notify
the respondent of the complaint and its disposition.

Should such an informal review prove not to be successful in resolving
the problem, the Research Integrity Officer has two options: (a) the
RIO together with the respondent may decide to proceed directly to the
Investigation phase or, (b) if either the RIO or the respondent so desires,
the procedure will move to the Inquiry phase. The RIO will appoint the
inquiry and/or investigation committees and ensure that necessary and
appropriate expertise is secured to carry out a thorough and authoritative
evaluation of the relevant evidence in an inquiry or investigation.
It is the responsibility of the Research Integrity Officer to ensure
that neither the Inquiry nor the Investigation Committee exceeds the
scope of its charge. Moreover, the Research Integrity Officer will ensure
that interim administrative actions are taken, as appropriate, to protect
Federal funds. The Research Integrity Officer will attempt to ensure
that confidentiality is maintained throughout all of these proceedings.

The Research Integrity Officer will assist inquiry and investigation
committees and all institutional personnel to comply with these procedures
and with applicable standards imposed by governmental or external funding
sources. The Research Integrity Officer also is responsible for maintaining
files of all documents and evidence as well as for the confidentiality,
insofar as is permitted by the State of Ohio, and the security of the
files.

The Research Integrity Officer will report to the ORI as required by
regulation and keep the ORI apprised of any developments during the
course of the investigation that may affect current or potential DHHS
funding for the individual(s) under investigation or that the PHS needs
to know to ensure appropriate use of Federal funds and otherwise protect
the public interest.

B. COMPLAINANT

The complainant shall have an opportunity to testify before the inquiry
and/or investigation committees, to review portions of the inquiry and/or
investigation reports pertinent to that testimony, to be informed of
the results of the inquiry and/or investigation, and to be protected
from retaliation.

The complainant is responsible for making allegations in good faith,
maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating with an inquiry or investigation.

Allegations of academic research misconduct made in bad faith, having
no basis in fact or put forth merely to discredit the respondent, will
themselves constitute academic research misconduct, which will be subject
to formal review by the Research Integrity Officer as well as the Provost
and academic dean of the college wherein the faculty or staff member
holds an institutional appointment.

C. RESPONDENT

The respondent shall be informed in writing of the allegations if and
when a formal inquiry and/or investigation is initiated; shall be provided
with a copy of this policy and informed of the composition of the Inquiry
and/or Investigative Committee; and shall be notified in writing of
the final determinations and resulting actions as soon as possible following
the conclusion of all formal actions. The respondent shall also have
the opportunity to be interviewed by and to present witnesses and evidence
to the inquiry and investigation committees, to be present at an inquiry
and/or investigative hearing, to review the inquiry and investigation
reports, and to have the assistance of private legal counsel or another
advisor during the inquiry and/or investigative hearing. Those serving
as Counsel or advisor shall not participate directly in the hearing,
but may advise the respondent. Further, the Respondent may write out
questions to be asked of witnesses during an inquiry and/or investigation,
hear the answer(s), and submit for response any follow-up questions.

The respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating
with the conduct of an inquiry or investigation.

D. INSTITUTIONAL OFFICIAL

The Research Integrity Officer will appoint inquiry and, if necessary,
investigation committees and ensure that necessary and appropriate expertise
is secured to carry out a thorough and authoritative evaluation of the
relevant evidence in an inquiry or investigation. The Research Integrity
Officer will also ensure that interim administrative actions are taken,
as appropriate, to protect Federal funds and guarantee that the purposes
of the Federal financial assistance are carried out.

The Research Integrity Officer will receive the reports and written
comments of the respondent and the complainant, if any are made. The
Deciding Official will determine whether to conduct an investigation,
or to recommend that sanctions be imposed, or to take appropriate administrative
actions [see Section X].

IV. GENERAL POLICIES

A. RESPONSIBILITY TO REPORT MlSCONDUCT

All employees or individuals associated with Cleveland State University
are required to report observed, suspected, or apparent academic research
misconduct to the Research Integrity Officer. If an individual is uncertain
whether a suspected incident of misconduct falls within the definition,
he or she may call the Research Integrity Officer at (216) 687-3595
to discuss the suspected misconduct informally. If the circumstances
described by the individual do not meet the definition of academic research
misconduct, the Research Integrity Officer will refer the individual
or allegation to other offices or officials with appropriate responsibility
for resolving the problem in question.

B. EVIDENTIARY STANDARD

Clear and convincing evidence is required for a finding that academic
research misconduct has occurred.

C. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT

Upon receiving an allegation of academic research misconduct, the Research
Integrity Officer shall immediately assess the information to determine
whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant an inquiry. In assessing
the allegation, the Research Integrity Officer also shall determine
whether PHS support or PHS applications for funding are involved, and
whether the allegation falls under the PHS definition of misconduct
in science.

D. COOPERATION WITH INQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATIONS

All Cleveland State University employees shall cooperate with the Research
Integrity Officer in the review of allegations and the conduct of inquiries
and investigations. Employees have an obligation to provide relevant
evidence to the Research Integrity Officer or other institutional officials
on misconduct allegations.

E. PROTECTION OF RESPONDENTS

Inquiries and investigations will be conducted in a manner that will
ensure fair treatment to the respondent(s) of the inquiry or investigation
and confidentiality to the extent possible, insofar as is permitted
by the laws of the State of Ohio, consistent with protecting public
health and safety and with carrying out the inquiry or investigation.

If the respondent is found not to have committed academic research
misconduct, or if after an allegation of academic research misconduct
has been made, there is no inquiry and/or investigation because the
RIO or the Deciding Official has determined that none is warranted,
after consultation with the respondent the University shall undertake
efforts, as it deems appropriate in its sole discretion, to restore
the reputation of the respondent.

Institutional employees who are accused of academic research misconduct
may at any time consult private legal counsel and/or another member
of the University community for personal advice during interviews or
meetings on the case, or private legal counsel for personal advice during
investigative hearings.

F. PROTECTION OF COMPLAINANTS

At any time, an employee may have confidential discussions and consultation
with the Research Integrity Officer about concerns of possible misconduct
and will be counseled about appropriate procedures to report allegations.

The Research Integrity Officer will monitor the treatment of individuals
who bring allegations of misconduct or inadequate institutional response
thereto, or who cooperate in inquiries or investigations. The University
is required to protect from retaliatory actions those persons who, in
good faith, make allegations. The Research Integrity Officer will ensure
that those making an allegation in good faith or cooperating with an
inquiry or investigation into an allegation of academic research misconduct
will not be retaliated against in the terms and conditions of their
employment or other institutional status at Cleveland State University.
Instances of apparent retaliation will be reviewed by the Research Integrity
Officer for appropriate action.

If retaliation is confirmed, complainants will be consulted regarding
appropriate corrective actions to be taken on their behalf to restore
or protect their positions or reputations.

G. SECURING DATA AND EVIDENCE

The first step after determining that an allegation falls within the
definition of academic research misconduct is to sequester all relevant
research records and materials. The PHS Office of Research Integrity
at (301)443-5330 can provide advice and assistance in this regard. The
Research Integrity Officer must ensure immediate securing of all relevant
materials.

Any such actions taken prior to a final determination should be devised
and taken so as to create minimal interference with the regular research
activities of the respondent and other involved parties.

V. INQUIRY

A. PURPOSE OF THE INQUIRY

Cleveland State University must inquire immediately into an allegation
or other evidence of possible academic research misconduct. The purpose
of the inquiry is to evaluate the situation to determine whether there
is sufficient evidence of possible academic research misconduct to warrant
an investigation. The purpose of the inquiry is not to reach
a final conclusion whether misconduct occurred or who was responsible.

B. APPOINTMENT OF INQUIRY COMMITTEE

If the Research Integrity Officer decides that an inquiry should be
conducted, he/she shall initiate the process by appointing an inquiry
committee within ten days of determining that an inquiry is necessary.
The inquiry committee will consist of two or more individuals who have
no real or apparent conflicts of interest in the case, are unbiased,
and have appropriate qualifications to evaluate the issues raised and
to interview the principals and the key witnesses as well as to conduct
the inquiry. Individuals chosen to serve on the inquiry committee may
be scientists, subject matter experts, or other qualified persons, and
they may be from inside or outside the University. The inquiry committee
selects its own chair.

The Research Integrity Officer will notify the respondent of the proposed
committee membership within ten days of making the determination that
an inquiry is required. If the respondent submits a written objection
to any appointed member of the inquiry committee based on bias or conflict
of interest within five working days of receiving the names of the inquiry
committee members, the Research Integrity Officer will determine whether
to replace the challenged member with a qualified substitute. The respondent
retains the right to lodge a written objection to any substitute within
two working days of receipt of notice.

C. CHARGE TO INQUIRY COMMITTEE

The charge to the inquiry committee should specifically limit its scope,
as required by the PHS regulation, to evaluating the facts to determine
only whether there is sufficient evidence of academic research
misconduct to warrant an investigation.

The Research Integrity Officer will define the subject matter of the
inquiry in a written charge to the inquiry committee that describes
the allegations and any related issues identified during the allegation
assessment, defines academic research misconduct, and identifies the
name of the respondent. The charge will state that the purpose of the
inquiry committee is to make a preliminary evaluation of the evidence
and testimony of the respondent, complainant, and key witnesses to determine
only whether there is sufficient evidence of academic research
misconduct to warrant an investigation. The purpose is not to determine
whether academic research misconduct definitely occurred or who was
responsible.

A copy of the charge to the inquiry committee shall be sent to the
respondent.

At the inquiry committee's first meeting, the Research Integrity Officer
will review the charge with the committee and will discuss the allegation(s),
any related issues, and the appropriate procedures for conducting the
inquiry. It is the responsibility of the Research Integrity Officer
to assist the inquiry committee with plans for organizing the inquiry
and to answer any questions raised by the inquiry committee members.
The Research Integrity Officer and University Legal Counsel will be
present or available throughout the inquiry process to advise the inquiry
committee as needed. The committee also has the right to consult any

additional experts it deems necessary.

During the inquiry, if additional information becomes available that
substantially changes the subject matter of the inquiry or would suggest
additional respondents or require a modification of the initial charge,
the inquiry committee will notify the Research Integrity Officer, who
will determine whether it is necessary to notify the respondent of the
new subject matter or to provide notice to additional respondents, to
modify the original charge, or to initiate a new inquiry rather than
continuing the one currently underway. The respondent must be notified
of any significant change.

D. INQUIRY PROCESS

An inquiry normally will involve interviewing the complainant, the
respondent, all the key witnesses, as well as examining relevant research
records and materials. At the beginning of the inquiry process, the
inquiry committee normally will invite the respondent to prepare a brief
written response to the allegations received from the complainant.

E. TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETING INQUIRY REPORT

The inquiry committee normally will complete the inquiry and submit
its report in writing to the Research Integrity Officer and the respondent
no more than 60 calendar days following the initiation of the inquiry
process, with the initiation being defined as the date upon which the
committee first meets. If the Research Integrity Officer approves an
extension of this time limit, the reason for the extension will be entered
into the records of the case and the report. The respondent and complainant
also will be notified of the extension and its justification.

F. INQUIRY REPORT CONTENTS

A written report shall be prepared that states: the name and title
of each of the inquiry committee members and additional experts consulted,
if any; the allegations; the PHS or other external support; the initial
charge; a summary of the inquiry process used; a list of the research
records reviewed; summaries of interviews; a description of the evidence
in sufficient detail to demonstrate whether an investigation is recommended
and whether any other actions should be taken if an investigation is
not recommended; the comments to the first draft from the complainant
and respondent; and the final report.

G. COMMENTS BY RESPONDENT AND COMPLAINANT

The individual(s) against whom the allegation was made is(are) to be
given a copy of the report by the Research Integrity Officer. If their
identity is known, the person(s) who raised the allegation will be provided
with only those sections of the report that address their role and opinions
in the inquiry as well as a summary of the inquiry findings. Any comments
that the complainant and/or the respondent submit on the report will
become part of the inquiry record.

1. Confidentiality

The Research Integrity Officer may establish reasonable conditions
for review to protect the confidentiality of the draft report insofar
as is permitted by the laws of the State of Ohio.

2. Receipt of Comments

Within fourteen calendar days of their receipt of the draft report,
the complainant and the respondent will provide their comments. Any
comments that the complainant or respondent submits on the draft report
will become part of the final inquiry report and record. Based on the
comments received, the inquiry committee may revise the report as appropriate
within ten days of receipt of comments.

H. INQUIRY DECISION AND NOTIFICATION

After receipt of both the final inquiry report and the written comments
of the respondent and the complainant, if any are made, a determination
shall be made whether to conduct an investigation, drop the matter,
or to take some other appropriate action(s).

1. Decision by Deciding Official

The Research Integrity Officer will transmit the final report and any
comments to the Deciding Official, who will make the determination of
whether findings from the inquiry provide sufficient evidence of possible
academic research misconduct to justify conducting an investigation.
The inquiry process is completed when the Deciding Official makes this
determination.

2. Notification

Within five (5) working days, the Research Integrity Officer will notify
both the respondent and the complainant in writing of the Deciding Official's
decision of whether to proceed to an investigation and will remind them
of their obligation to cooperate in the event that an investigation
is opened. The Research Integrity Officer will also notify all appropriate
institutional officials of the Deciding Official's decision.

VI. CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION

A. PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION

The purpose of the investigation is to explore in detail the allegations,
to examine the evidence in depth, and to determine specifically whether
academic research misconduct has been committed, and if so, the responsible
person and the seriousness of the misconduct. The investigation also
will determine whether there are additional instances of possible academic
research misconduct that would justify broadening the scope beyond the
initial allegations. This is particularly important where the alleged
misconduct involves clinical trials, or potential harm to human subjects
or the general public, or if it affects research that forms the basis
for public policy, clinical practice, or public health practice. The
findings of the investigation will be set forth in an investigation
report.

B. SEQUESTRATION OF THE RESEARCH RECORDS

The Research Integrity Officer will immediately sequester any additional
pertinent research records not previously sequestered during the inquiry
process. This sequestration should occur before or at the time the respondent
is notified that an investigation has begun. The need for additional
sequestration of records may occur for any number of reasons; for example,
the University's decision to investigate additional allegations not
considered during the inquiry stage may require additional documentation
contained within the research records, or the inquiry process may identify
additional research records that will be needed during the investigation.

Any such administrative actions taken prior to a final determination
should be devised and taken so as to create minimal interference with
the regular research activities of the respondent and other involved
parties.

C. APPOINTMENT OF THE INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE

Within ten days of the notification to the respondent that an investigation
will be conducted, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Research
Integrity Officer, in consultation with other University officials as
appropriate, will appoint an investigation committee. Appointees may
not have served on the inquiry committee. The investigation committee
should consist of at least three individuals who do not have any real
or apparent conflicts of interest with the respondent or the case in
question. The members of the investigation committee must have the necessary
expertise to examine the evidence, interview the principals and key
witnesses, and conduct the investigation. The investigation committee
members may be scientists, subject matter experts, or other qualified
persons, and they may be from inside or outside the University. The
investigation committee selects its own chair.

The Research Integrity Officer will notify the respondent of the proposed
investigation committee membership within ten days of the time of the
notification to the respondent that an investigation will be conducted.
If within five working days of receiving the names of the investigation
committee members, the respondent submits a written objection to any
appointed member of the investigation committee based on bias or conflict
of interest, the Research Integrity Officer will determine within five
working days whether to replace the

challenged member with a qualified substitute. Substitute members may
also be challenged by the respondent within two working days.

D. CHARGE TO INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE AND THE FIRST MEETING

1. Charge to the Committee

The Research Integrity Officer will define the subject matter of the
investigation in a written charge to the committee that describes the
allegation(s) and related issues identified during the inquiry, defines
academic research misconduct, and identifies the complainant and the
respondent. The charge will state that the committee is to evaluate
the evidence and testimony of the respondent, the complainant, and key
witnesses to determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence
that academic research misconduct occurred and, if so, to what extent,
who was responsible, and its seriousness.

During the investigation, if additional information becomes available
that substantially changes the subject matter of the investigation or
would suggest additional respondents or a modification of the original
charge, the committee will notify the Research Integrity Officer, who
will determine whether it is necessary to notify the respondent of the
new subject matter or to provide notice to additional respondents, to
modify the original charge, and to initiate a new inquiry or continue
the investigation underway. The respondent must be notified immediately
of any significant change.

A copy of the charge will be sent to the respondent.

2. First Meeting

The Research Integrity Officer, with the assistance of University Legal
Counsel, will convene the first meeting of the investigation committee
to review the charge, the inquiry report, and the prescribed procedures
and standards for conducting the investigation. It is the responsibility
of the Research Integrity Officer to assist the investigation committee
with plans for organizing the investigation and to answer any questions
raised by the investigation committee members. The Research Integrity
Officer and University Legal Counsel will be present or available throughout
the investigation process to advise the investigation committee as needed.

E. INVESTIGATION PROCESS

The investigation normally will include examination of all documentation
including, but not necessarily limited to, relevant research data materials,
proposals, publications, correspondence, memoranda, and notes of telephone
calls. Whenever possible, interviews should be conducted of all individuals
involved either in making the allegation or against whom the allegation
is made, as well as other individuals who might have information regarding
key aspects of the allegations. All interviews should be tape recorded.
Copies of these interview tapes should be prepared, provided to the
respondent, and included as part of the investigatory file. A copy of
the tape of his/her interview may be provided to the interviewed party
upon request.

F. TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETING THE INVESTIGATION REPORT

An investigation should ordinarily be completed within 120 days of
its initiation, with the initiation being defined as the date upon which
the committee first meets. This includes time for conducting the investigation--including
providing the respondent with the opportunity to confront and question
all witnesses, preparing the report of findings, making the report available
for comment by the subjects of the investigation, as well as submitting
the report to the Research Integrity Officer and the ORI.

G. THE INVESTIGATION REPORT

The final report, if submitted to ORI, must state the policies and
procedures under which the investigation was conducted, describe how
and from whom information relevant to the investigation was obtained,
state the findings, and explain the basis for the findings. Any final
report will include the actual text or an accurate summary of the views
of any individual(s) found to have engaged in misconduct, as well as
a description of any intermediate administrative actions taken by the
University.

H. COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT INVESTIGATION REPORT

1. Respondent

The Research Integrity Officer will provide the respondent with a copy
of the draft investigation report for comment and rebuttal. The respondent
will be allowed fourteen days to review and to comment on the draft
report. The respondent's comments will be attached to the final report.
In addition to all the other evidence, this report should take into
account the respondent's comments.

22. Complainant

The Research Integrity Officer will provide the complainant, if she
or he is identifiable, with those portions of the draft investigation
report that address the complainant's role and opinions in the investigation.
The report should be modified in its final version, as appropriate,
based on the complainant's comments.

3. Confidentiality

In distributing the draft report, or portions thereof, to the respondent
and to the complainant, the Research Integrity Officer will inform the
recipient of the confidentiality under which the draft report is made
available. The Research Integrity Officer may establish reasonable conditions
to ensure such confidentiality insofar as permitted by the law of the
State of Ohio. For example, the Research Integrity Officer may request
that the recipient sign a confidentiality statement or to come to his
or her office to review the report.

I. TRANSMITTAL OF THE FINAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

After comments have been received and the necessary changes, if any,
have been made in the draft report, the investigation committee should
transmit the final report with attachments, including the respondent's
and complainant's comments, to the Deciding Official, through the Research
Integrity Officer.

J. DECISION BY INSTITUTIONAL OFFICIAL

Based on the findings presented in the final investigation report,
the Deciding Official will determine whether misconduct has occurred,
and what sanctions or administrative actions are to be undertaken (see
Section X).

VII. NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

A. REPORTING TO ORI

(1) The University determines that it will not be able to complete
the investigation in 120 days, the Research Integrity Officer shall
submit to the ORI a written request for an extension and an explanation
for the delay that includes an interim report on the progress to date
and an estimate for the date of completion of the report and other necessary
steps. If the request is granted, the Research Integrity Officer will
file periodic progress reports as requested by the ORI. If satisfactory
progress is not made in the University's investigation, the ORI may
undertake an investigation of its own or take other steps as appropriate.

(4) When Public Health Service funding or applications for funding
are involved and an admission of academic research misconduct is made,
the Research Integrity Officer must notify the Office of Research Integrity
immediately for consultation and advice. Normally, the individual making
the admission will be asked to sign a statement attesting to the occurrence
and extent of misconduct. When the case involves PHS funds, the University
will not accept an admission of academic research misconduct as a basis
for closing a case or not undertaking an investigation without prior
approval by ORI.

(5) The Research Integrity Officer shall keep ORI apprised of any developments
during the course of the investigation that disclose facts possibly
affecting current or potential Department of Health and Human Services
(or other Federal agency) funding for the individual(s) under investigation
or that the PHS (or other Federal agency) needs to know to ensure appropriate
use of Federal funds and otherwise protect the public interest.

The Research Integrity Officer shall notify ORI at any stage of the
inquiry or investigation when:

(a) There is an immediate health hazard involved;

(b) There is an immediate need to protect Federal funds or equipment;

(c) 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 his/her co-investigators and associates,
if any;

(d) It is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported
publicly; or

(e) There is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violation.

In these instances, the Research Integrity Officer must inform ORI
within 24 hours of obtaining that information.

B. NOTIFICATION OF OTHER INVOLVED INDIVIDUALS OR PARTIES

When a final decision on the case has been reached by the Deciding
Official, the Research Integrity Officer will notify both the respondent
and the complainant in writing. In addition, the Research Integrity
Officer will determine whether law enforcement agencies, professional
societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals in which
falsified reports may have been published, collaborators of the respondent
in the work, or other concerned parties, should be notified of the outcome
of the case. The Research Integrity Officer is responsible for ensuring
compliance with all notification requirements of funding or sponsoring
agencies.

VIII. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

A. TERMINATION OF INSTITUTIONAL EMPLOYMENT OR RESIGNATION PRIOR
TO COMPLETING INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION

The termination of employment at Cleveland State University of the
respondent, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation
of possible academic research misconduct has been reported, will not
preclude or terminate the academic research misconduct procedures.

If the respondent, without admitting to the misconduct, elects to resign
his or her position prior to the initiation of an inquiry, but after
an allegation has been reported, or during an inquiry or investigation,
the inquiry or investigation will proceed. If the respondent refuses
to participate in the process after resignation, the committee will
use its best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the allegations,
noting in its report the respondent's failure to cooperate and the resulting
effect on its review of all the evidence.

B. RESTORATION OF REPUTATIONS

The Research Integrity Officer will ensure that the respondent's personnel
file contains a copy of the original allegation and of the final report.
If the inquiry or investigation results in the conclusion that clear
and convincing evidence of academic research misconduct has not been
found, all persons who have been interviewed or otherwise informed of
the charge will be notified in writing that the charges have been investigated
and that the Committee has been unable to find clear and convincing
evidence of academic research misconduct. Respondents in such cases
should be consulted regarding other actions that might be taken on their
behalf to restore their reputations.

C. INTERIM ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

The Research Integrity Officer will take interim administrative actions,
as appropriate, to protect Federal funds and insure that the purposes
of the Federal financial assistance are carried out.

IX. RETENTION OF RECORDS

Sufficiently detailed documentation of inquiries that do not proceed
to an investigation shall be maintained for at least three years after
the termination of the inquiry to permit later assessment of the case.

After completion of a case and all ensuing related actions, the Research
Integrity Officer will prepare a complete file, including the original
records of any inquiry or investigation, and copies of all documents
and other materials furnished to the Research Integrity Officer or committees.
The Research Integrity Officer will retain the file for three years
from the date that the University closes the case, or if the inquiry
or investigation is reported to ORI, from the date that ORI completes
its review of the case and all related actions. Access to materials
in the file shall be available to the ORI or other authorized personnel
upon request.

The respondent's permanent file shall contain a copy of the initial
allegation and of the final report.

X. SANCTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

When an allegation of misconduct has been substantiated, Cleveland
State University shall recommend appropriate sanctions through the procedures
specified by the collective bargaining agreement or, in the case of
non-bargaining unit members, by the applicable procedure.

If the Deciding Official determines that the alleged misconduct is
substantiated by the findings, the Deciding Official, after consultation
with the Research Integrity Officer, will decide on the appropriate
sanctions to be recommended through the procedures specified in the
collective bargaining agreement. The possible actions may include:

1. restitution of funds to any sponsoring agency as appropriate;

2. withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and
papers emanating from the research in question;

3. removal from the particular project, letter of reprimand, special
monitoring of future work, probation, suspension, salary reduction,
or initiation of steps leading to possible termination of employment.

Mailing Address
Sponsored Programs and Research Services
2121 Euclid Avenue
Parker Hannifin Hall, 2nd Floor
Cleveland, OH 44115-2214

Campus Location
Parker Hannifin Hall, 2nd Floor
2258 Euclid Avenue
Fax: 216.687.9382
sprs@csuohio.edu