Policies & Procedures

Miscellaneous

Policy and Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Research and Academic Misconduct - 1Q5

1. Introduction
   
   Southern Illinois University Edwardsville (SIUE) believes that a positive climate for the exchange of information among scholars is an important factor in the maintenance of professional standards of competence and responsibility. The encouragement of intellectual honesty at all levels within the academic community is the foundation that fosters such a climate, and therefore, SIUE does not condone or tolerate research or academic misconduct. This document articulates SIUE’s policy on academic integrity in scholarship and research and prescribes procedures for impartial investigation and fair resolution of allegations of misconduct.
   
   In addition to meeting SIUE’s responsibilities under the Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct, SIUE is aware that many professional associations have ethical codes or guidelines for the conduct of research. SIUE personnel are expected to comply with all such standards. Violations of such standards are a matter for peer review and censure and may, in some instances, also become grounds for disciplinary action by SIUE.
   
   
2. Policy Implementation
   
   
   1. Scope and Applicability
      
      This policy is intended to carry out SIUE’s responsibilities under the Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct, 42 CFR Part 93, corresponding policies on research misconduct of other funding agencies, and any other conduct that seriously conflicts with accepted ethical standards in research and scholarship.
      
      This policy applies to all SIUE Institutional Members involved in funded or unfunded research, applications for federal funding, as well as scholarly and creative activities. Student academic misconduct shall be handled in accordance with Student Academic Code Policy 3C2 and Plagiarism Policy 1I6, except in cases where allegations against a student are directly related to a student’s participation in an externally-funded project from a sponsor, such as the Public Health Service (PHS), that requires following the research misconduct procedure outlined in this policy.
      
      This policy does not apply to differences of opinion or interpretation, or authorship or collaboration disputes (see Policy 1M12 Authorship Policy regarding authorship disputes.
      
      
   2. Evidentiary Standards
      
      
      1. Standard of Proof. An institutional finding of Research Misconduct or Academic Misconduct must be proved by a Preponderance of the Evidence.
         
         
      2. Burden of Proof.
         
         
         1. SIUE has the burden of proof for making a finding of Research Misconduct or Academic Misconduct.
            
            
         2. A Respondent's destruction, absence of, or Respondent's failure to provide relevant records when requested is evidence of misconduct where SIUE establishes by a Preponderance of the Evidence that the Respondent Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly (i) had relevant records and destroyed them, or (ii) had the opportunity to maintain the records but failed to do so, or (iii) maintained or claimed to possess relevant records but failed to produce them in a timely manner upon request, and in addition to any one or more of the prior three conditions (iv) that the Respondent's conduct constitutes a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research or academic community.
            
            
         3. The Respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a Preponderance of the Evidence, all relevant affirmative defenses, such as honest error or scientific differences of opinion, and any mitigating factors relevant to a decision to take institutional actions.
   3. Time Limitations and Exceptions
      
      This policy only applies to research misconduct occurring within six years of the date the oversight agency, funding entity, or SIUE receives an allegation of Research Misconduct or Academic Misconduct. Exemptions to the six-year limitation include the following:
      
      
      1. Subsequent Use Exception: The six-year time limitation does not apply if the Respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged Research Misconduct or Academic Misconduct that occurred before the six-year period through the use of, republication of, or citation to the portion(s) of the Research Record alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized, for the potential benefit of the respondent.
         
         
      2. Public Health or Safety Exception: The six-year time limitation also does not apply if SIUE determines that the alleged Research Misconduct or Academic Misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public.
   4. Roles and Responsibilities
      
      
      1. Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs ("Provost"). The Provost is the Deciding Official for Research and Academic Misconduct investigations. The Provost will receive the recommendations of the applicable committees and, in consultation with the "Research Integrity Officer" (RIO), will make the final institutional determination on allegations of Research and Academic Misconduct. As the Deciding Official, the Provost may also take institutional actions, in accordance with established SIUE policies procedures. The Provost may delegate the responsibilities of Deciding Official to another institutional official when the Provost determines such delegation is necessary and appropriate.
         
         
      2. Research Integrity Officer ("RIO"). The RIO has primary responsibility for overseeing this policy and applicable standards imposed by government or external funding sources and for promoting the responsible conduct of research at SIUE. The RIO has the authority and responsibility to take all reasonable and practical steps to sequester relevant Research Records and other evidence. The RIO also has the responsibility to review any disclosure of a potential, perceived, or actual Conflict of Interest relative to the parties (i.e. Complainant, Respondent, witnesses) to determine what steps, if any, are necessary to address them, and if an unresolved Conflict of Interest exists to determine what steps, if any, are necessary to ensure such conflicts do not influence participants in carrying out their duties under the policy.
         
         The RIO (a) determines whether the Assessment of Academic or Research Misconduct allegations results in an Inquiry, (b) is a member of the Standing Committee on Research and Academic Integrity and the Inquiry Committee, (c) oversees the activities of both committees, and (d) assists in administering and enforcing any institutional actions.
         
         The RIO ensures proper and timely reporting to relevant oversight agencies, as dictated by sponsor regulations and policies. When the Research or Academic Misconduct proceeding or allegations involve outside institutions, the RIO coordinates with outside institutional officials, including determining the lead institution for joint proceeding, as necessary and appropriate. The RIO is responsible for ensuring the appropriate actions are taken to protect the integrity of the Research Record, including but not limited to notifying journals, professional societies, law enforcement agencies, sponsors, and others, as necessary and appropriate. The RIO may also take institutional action at any stage in the proceedings to protect SIUE, the research community, and/or the Research Record. The RIO can delegate these responsibilities as necessary and appropriate.
         
         
      3. Complainant. The Complainant is responsible for making allegations in good faith, maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating with all proceedings under this policy. The Complainant will be informed by the RIO of the results of the Assessment, Inquiry, and Investigation.
         
         
      4. Respondent. The Respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating with all proceedings under this policy, including sequestration of research records and evidence relevant to each allegation. The Respondent is responsible for identifying and providing research records and any relevant evidence related to the proceedings. The Respondent is responsible for working with the RIO and any institutional official to ensure the appropriate actions are taken to protect the integrity of the Research Record, including but not limited to notifying journals, professional societies, law enforcement agencies, sponsors, and others, as necessary and appropriate.
         
         
      5. Standing Committee on Research and Academic Integrity. The RIO shall appoint a standing committee of at least three (3) senior faculty members and one alternate faculty member from at least three schools/colleges to the Standing Committee on Research and Academic Integrity for the purpose of participating in the Inquiry, if requested, and completing the investigation process. Ad hoc voting members from within or outside of SIUE may be appointed by the RIO to ensure the membership of the Standing Committee on Research and Academic Integrity has the proper expertise during the Research or Academic Misconduct proceedings. The RIO shall be a non-voting member of the Standing Committee on Research and Academic Integrity.
         
         Appointments of the committee members shall be for staggered three-year terms, which are renewable. The RIO will take into consideration a faculty member's research portfolio, rank, relevant expertise, and years of experience when appointing these individuals to the Standing Committee on Research and Academic Integrity. Committee members will be free of real or perceived Conflicts of Interest with any of the involved parties.
         
         For all allegations of Research or Academic Misconduct that involve violations of federal or institutional rules and regulations governing the conduct of research involving human subjects, animals, or biohazardous materials, the Chair or designee of the relevant compliance committee (e.g., Institutional Review Board, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, or Institutional Biosafety Committee) will serve as a voting ex officio member of the Standing Committee on Research and Academic Integrity.
         
         
      6. Inquiry Committee. The Inquiry Committee is responsible for conducting an initial review of the available evidence and determining if an allegation has substance and falls within the definition of Research or Academic Misconduct to warrant an Investigation. The Inquiry Committee may also identify issues that would justify broadening the scope beyond the initial allegations, including the addition of Respondents, and may recommend that SIUE examine these issues. The Inquiry Committee is not required to perform a full review of all the evidence related to each allegation. For all allegations of Academic or Research Misconduct that involve violations of federal or institutional rules and regulations governing the conduct of research involving human subjects, animals, or biohazardous materials, the Chair or designee of the relevant compliance committee (e.g., Institutional Review Board, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, or Institutional Biosafety Committee) will serve as a voting ex officio member of the Inquiry Committee.
3. Definitions
   
   Academic Misconduct
   
   
   • Conduct which violates accepted ethical standards in research and scholarship, including intentionally misleading or false reporting of academic credentials or other academically related information, not giving proper citation credit(s), and breaches of institutional policies.

• Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
  
  
• Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
  
  
• Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
  
  
• Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism includes but is not limited to the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another's work that materially misleads the reader regarding the contributions of the author. Plagiarism does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology.
  
  
• Serious deviation from accepted practices includes but is not limited to: 1. Abusing confidentiality, including the use of ideas and preliminary data gained from: a. Access to privileged information through the opportunity for editorial review of manuscripts submitted to journals; and b. Peer review of proposals being considered for funding by agency panels or by internal committees, such as the Institutional Review Board (IRB), and the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). 2. Stealing, destroying, or damaging the research property of others with the intent to alter the research record; and 3. Directing, encouraging, or knowingly allowing others to engage in fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism

Academic Misconduct and Research Misconduct excludes differences of opinion or interpretation, honest (unintentional or inadvertent) error, authorship or credit disputes, and self-plagiarism.

Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research or Academic Community means those practices established by federal regulations, as well as commonly accepted professional codes or norms within the overarching community of researchers and institutions.

Allegation means a disclosure of possible academic or research misconduct through any means of communication, written or oral, brought to the attention of an institutional official.

Assessment means a consideration of whether an allegation of misconduct appears to fall within the definition of Research or Academic Misconduct and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of misconduct may be identified. The assessment only involves the review or readily accessible information relevant to the allegation.

Complainant means a person who in good faith makes an allegation of academic or research misconduct.

Conflict of interest means financial, personal, or professional relationships that may compromise, or appear to compromise, an individual's decisions.

Day means calendar day unless otherwise specified. If a deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the deadline will be extended to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday.

Deciding Official means the SIUE official who makes final determinations on allegations of academic and research misconduct and any administrative actions. The Deciding Official will not be the same individual as the Research Integrity Officer and should have no direct prior involvement in SIUE's Inquiry, Investigation, or allegation Assessment. A Deciding Official's appointment of an individual (1) to assess allegations of research misconduct or (2) to serve on an Inquiry or Investigation committee is not considered to be direct prior involvement. The Deciding Official for SIUE is the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

Deputy Research Integrity Officer (DRIO) means the SIUE official responsible for: (1) assisting in the execution of the RIO's responsibilities and (2) serving as the RIO in the event the RIO is unavailable or has a Conflict of Interest. The DRIO for SIUE is the Associate Dean for Research. In the event the DRIO is unavailable or has a Conflict of Interest, a designee shall be appointed by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

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.

Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

Good faith

1. Good faith as applied to a complaint 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 made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for information that would negate the allegation or testimony.
   
   
2. Good faith as applied to an institutional or committee member means cooperating with the Research Misconduct Proceeding by impartially carrying out the duties assigned for the purpose of helping an institution meet its responsibilities under this part. An institutional or committee member does not act in good faith if their acts or omissions during the Research Misconduct Proceedings are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the Research Misconduct Proceedings.

Inquiry means preliminary information-gathering, fact-finding, and review to determine if the criteria for conducting a formal investigation of the alleged misconduct have been met. An Inquiry is not a formal hearing; it is designed to separate allegations deserving of further investigation from frivolous, unjustified, malicious, or clearly mistaken allegations.

Inquiry Committee means the panel responsible for conducting an Inquiry at SIUE.

Institutional Member means a person who is employed by, is an agent of, or is affiliated by contract or agreement with SIUE. Institutional Members may include, but are not limited to, officials, tenured and untenured faculty, teaching and support staff, researchers, research coordinators, technicians, postdoctoral and other fellows, students, volunteers, subject matter experts, consultants, or attorneys or agents and contractors, subcontractors, and sub-awardees, and their employees.

Institutional Record comprises:

1.  The records that the institution compiled or generated during the Research Misconduct Proceeding, except records the institution did not consider to rely on. These records include, but are not limited to:
   
   
   1. Documentation of the Assessment.
      
      
   2. If an Inquiry is conducted, the Inquiry report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the Inquiry, including, but not limited to, research records and the transcripts of any transcribed interviews conducted during the Inquiry, information the respondent provided to the institution, and the documentation of any decision not to investigate.
      
      
   3. If an Investigation is conducted, the Investigation report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the investigation, including, but not limited to, research records, the transcripts of each interview conducted, and information the respondent provided to the institution.
      
      
   4. Decision(s) by the DO, such as the written decision from the DO.
      
      
   5. The complete record of any institutional appeal.
2. A single index listing all the research records and evidence that the institution complied during the Research Misconduct Proceeding, except records the institution did not consider or rely on.
   
   
3. A general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.

Intentionally means to act with the aim of carrying out the act.

Investigation is the formal development of a detailed, factual record and the examination of that record to determine whether Research or Academic Misconduct has occurred, if so, by whom, and to recommend appropriate institutional actions.

Knowingly means to act with awareness of the act.

Notice means a written or electronic communication served in person or sent by mail or its equivalent to the last known street address, facsimile number, or e-mail address of the addressee. Notice will be deemed to be received upon personal delivery, one (1) day after deposit with express courier, upon confirmation of receipt of facsimile or email or no receipt of error in delivery of the facsimile or email, or five (5) days after deposit in the mail.

Office of Research Integrity (ORI) means the office established by Public Health Service Act section 493 (42 U.S.C. 289b) and to which the HHS Secretary has delegated responsibility for addressing research integrity and misconduct issues related to PHS-supported activities.

Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism includes the unattributed or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another's work that materially misleads the reader regarding the contributions of the author. It does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe commonly used methodology. Plagiarism does not include self plagiarism or authorship or credit disputes, including disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a research project. Self-plagiarism and authorship disputes do not meet the definition of research misconduct.

Preponderance of the evidence means proof by evidence that, compared with evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely true than not, i.e., that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true.

Recklessly means to propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.

Research means a systematic experiment, study, evaluation, demonstration, or survey 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 biological causes, functions, or effects; diseases; treatments, or related matters to be studied. At SIUE “research” includes all scholarly and creative activities and publishing, including artistic exhibits and compositions.

Research Integrity Officer (RIO) means the SIUE official appointed by the Provost to have primary responsibility for administering this policy and any other SIUE procedures adopted to implement it, and for reporting to federal oversight agencies, as necessary and appropriate. The RIO for SIUE is the Associate Provost for Research.

Misconduct Proceeding means any actions related to alleged research or academic misconduct taken under this part, including allegation Assessments, Inquiries, Investigations, agency oversight reviews, and appeals.

Research Record means the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from academic and research Inquiry. Data may be in physical or electronic form. Examples may include, but are not limited to, proposals, raw data, processed data, clinical research records, laboratory records, study records, laboratory notebooks, progress reports, manuscripts, abstracts, theses, records of oral presentations, online content, lab meeting reports, internal reports, and journal articles.

Respondent means the person against whom an allegation of academic or research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a misconduct proceeding.

Retaliation means, an adverse action taken against a Complainant, witness, or committee member by SIUE or one of its Institutional Members in response to (a) a good faith allegation of Academic or Research Misconduct or (b) good faith cooperation with an Academic or Research Misconduct Proceeding.

Standing Committee on Research and Academic Integrity means the standing committee that works in conjunction with the RIO to administer cases of alleged Academic or Research Misconduct.

4. General Principles
   
   
   1. Responsibility to Report Misconduct. All Institutional Members must report observed, suspected, or apparent Research and Academic Misconduct to the RIO. If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of Research or Academic Misconduct, they may meet with or contact the RIO to discuss the suspected Research or Academic Misconduct informally, which may include reporting it anonymously through the Kuali Build Research Misconduct Allegation Intake form found here and/or discussing it hypothetically. If the circumstances described by the individual do not meet the definition of Research or Academic Misconduct, the RIO will refer the individual or allegation to other offices or officials with responsibility for resolving the problem, as applicable. At any time, an Institutional Member may have confidential discussions and consultations about concerns of possible misconduct with the RIO and will be counseled about appropriate procedures for reporting allegations.
      
      The nature of the allegation and the evidence available will determine whether a case can be reviewed effectively without the involvement of Complainant in the proceedings. Cases that depend specifically upon the observations or statements of Complainant cannot proceed without the involvement of that individual; other cases that can rely on documentary evidence may permit Complainant to remain anonymous.
      
      
   2. Responsibility to Respond to Allegations of Misconduct. SIUE will respond to each specific and credible allegation of Academic or Research Misconduct for which the institution is responsible in a thorough, competent, objective, and fair manner. SIUE will perform an Assessment of all allegations brought to the attention of the RIO or other institutional officials. The RIO shall consider and act upon any specific and credible information that comes to their attention indicating that Academic Research Misconduct may have occurred.
      
      
   3. Cooperation with Research or Academic Misconduct Proceedings. Institutional Members will cooperate with the RIO and other institutional officials in the review of allegations and the conduct of inquiries and investigations. SIUE Institutional Members, including respondents, have an obligation to provide evidence relevant to research or academic misconduct allegations to the RIO or other SIUE officials.
      
      
   4. Requirements for Findings of Research Misconduct. A finding of research misconduct requires that: (1) there be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research or academic community; and (2) the research misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and (3) the allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
      
      
   5. Protection. Institutional Members shall not retaliate against and shall take reasonable steps to protect against retaliation relating to the position and reputation of the Complainant, Respondent, and any other individuals who cooperates with SIUE in the Assessment, Inquiry, or investigation of allegations of Research or Academic Misconduct. Any retaliation in violation of this policy may subject Institutional Members to disciplinary action up to and including termination.
      
      
   6. Confidentiality.
      
      All SIUE employees involved in administering this policy and its procedures are expected to make diligent efforts to protect the identities, academic reputations, positions, and rights of those who make good-faith allegations of Academic or Research Misconduct and those who are the subject of such allegations. To the extent possible, SIUE shall maintain the identity of Complainants, Respondents, and witnesses in confidence and shall not disclose any identifying information or details of a misconduct proceeding or report, except:
      
      
      1. to those who need to know as determined by the institution in order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective, and fair misconduct proceeding. Those who need to know may include institutional review boards (IRBs), journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions
         
         
      2. to funding agencies, as required by law, as they conduct a review of the misconduct proceeding and any subsequent proceedings; or
         
         
      3. as otherwise may be required by applicable law.

The limitation on disclosure of the identity of Complainants, Respondents, and witnesses no longer applies once SIUE has made a final determination of research misconduct findings.

To the extent possible, any information obtained during the misconduct proceeding that might identify the human subject(s) of research shall be maintained securely and confidentially and shall not be disclosed, except to those who need to know in order to carry out the misconduct proceedings.

The RIO may use mechanisms such as written confidentiality agreements as needed.

SIUE may take administrative actions for breaches of confidentiality, including but not limited to disciplinary measures.

8. Safeguarding Data and Evidence. Individuals covered under this policy will make reasonable efforts to securely safeguard the integrity of all data and evidence related to the research in question and gathered during the proceeding. No relevant records, including Research Records and institutional records, may be deleted or altered in any way without express permission of the RIO.
   
   
9. Conflicts of Interest. SIUE will take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the misconduct proceeding do not have potential, perceived, or actual personal, professional, or financial Conflicts of Interest with the Complainant, Respondent, or witnesses.

5. Assessment
   
   
   1. Purpose. The purpose of the Assessment is to determine if an allegation warrants an Inquiry.
      
      
   2. Conducting the Assessment
      
      
      • Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO will promptly assess the allegation to determine whether (i) it is sufficiently credible and specific enough so potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified and sequestered, (ii) whether it is within the jurisdictional criteria of 42 CFR § 93.102, and (iii) whether the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct in 42 CFR § 93.103 or SIUE policies. An Inquiry into Research Misconduct must be conducted if all of these criteria are met.
      • Upon receiving an allegation of academic misconduct, the RIO will promptly assess the allegation to determine whether (i) it is sufficiently credible and specific enough so potential evidence of academic misconduct may be identified and sequestered, and (ii) whether the allegation falls within the definition of research or academic misconduct in SIUE policies.  An Inquiry into Academic Misconduct must be conducted if both criteria are met.

In conducting the Assessment, the RIO need not interview the Complainant, Respondent, or other witnesses, or gather data beyond any that may have been submitted with the allegation, except as necessary to determine whether the allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research or academic misconduct may be identified and sequestered.

The RIO will:

• Document the Assessment and maintain the record of the Assessment;
  
  
• Initiate sequestration, if appropriate;
  
  
• Identify the Respondent(s) by, to the extent possible, determining the roles and responsibilities of the individuals involved in the questioned research;
  
  
• Identify, to the extent possible, the potentially implicated funding;
  
  
• Determine if SIUE has jurisdiction over the allegation;
  
  
• Determine if there are issues that would justify broadening the scope beyond the initial allegation(s);
  
  
• Determine, based on the applicable federal regulations, whether time limitations or exceptions to time limitations apply; and
  
  
• Consult with the Provost and/or Deans as appropriate

6. Sequestration
   
   
   1. Purpose. The purpose of a sequestration is to promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to collect and secure all relevant research records and evidence, which may include copies of the data or other evidence so long as those copies are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value, needed to evaluate allegations as part of the research misconduct proceeding.
      
      
   2. Authority
      
      
      1. The RIO has the authority and responsibility to take all reasonable and practical steps to sequester relevant research records, whether physical or electronic, and other evidence, records and materials that the RIO believes may become relevant in the course of an inquiry or an investigation of alleged research misconduct.
         
         
      2. Where the research records or other evidence are located on or encompass scientific instruments shared by multiple users, SIUE 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.
         
         
      3. If research records and potentially relevant evidence exist outside of SIUE, the RIO has the authority to contact the appropriate officials to locate and secure all research records and evidence relevant to the allegation.
   3. Conducting a Sequestration. The RIO will take all reasonable and practicable steps to (a) collect and secure relevant research records and other evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, (b) inventory the research records and other evidence; and (c) create a written record describing how the sequestration was conducted. Whenever possible, the RIO will sequester the research records and other evidence before or at the time the institution notifies the Respondent of the allegation(s) and whenever additional research records and/or other evidence become known or relevant to the inquiry or investigation.
      
      
   4. Respondent's Rights and Responsibilities. The RIO will provide the Respondent with an inventory of items sequestered from the Respondent. When appropriate, the RIO will give Respondent electronic copies of, or reasonable, supervised access to, research records sequestered in accordance with the research misconduct proceeding.
7. Inquiry
   
   
   1. Purpose. The purpose of the Inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the available evidence to determine whether to conduct an investigation. An Inquiry does not require a full review.
      
      
   2. Notice to Respondent. At the time of or before beginning an Inquiry, the RIO must make a good faith effort to notify the presumed respondent in writing, if the respondent is known. The notice to respondent shall include the following:
      • timeline for the Inquiry
      • a description of all allegations of research misconduct made against the respondent
      • a copy of this policy
      • the role of the Inquiry Committee
      • a description of the Inquiry process
      • the names of the Inquiry Committee members and any ad hoc members.

The respondent shall have two (2) business days from receipt of the notice to raise concerns regarding any potential Conflicts of Interest of the Inquiry Committee members. SIUE shall make the final determination of whether a Conflict of Interest exists and if a Conflict of Interest is found to exist, individuals who have a Conflict of Interest will not be permitted to participate in the Inquiry or investigation, if applicable. Only allegations specific to a particular respondent are to be included in the notification to that respondent. If the Inquiry subsequently identifies additional respondents, they must also be notified in writing. The relevant Dean, Department Chair or other relevant Institutional Members will also be notified of the determination to convene an Inquiry.

4. Appointment of the Inquiry Committee. To initiate the Inquiry process, the RIO will appoint an Inquiry Committee. The Inquiry Committee shall consist of at least three (3) members: the RIO and two or more members of the Standing Committee on Research and Academic Integrity, as determined by the RIO. The RIO will serve as a non-voting member of the Inquiry Committee. Ad hoc members may be appointed by the RIO to ensure the membership of the Inquiry Committee has the proper expertise during the misconduct proceedings. These individuals will become ad hoc voting members of the Standing Committee on Research and Academic Integrity if an investigation results from the Inquiry for the duration of the case in question. Inquiry Committee members shall be carefully selected in order to minimize either the substance or the appearance of personal or professional Conflicts of Interest. No member of the Inquiry Committee will be assigned to an allegation involving his or her own department.
   
   
5. Inquiry Process. The Inquiry Committee may interview the Complainant, the Respondent, and key witnesses as well as examine relevant research records and materials to determine whether the allegation(s) warrants an Investigation. A quorum of appointed Inquiry Committee members must be present to conduct interviews. The Inquiry Committee will evaluate the evidence, including any testimony obtained during the Inquiry. The scope of the Inquiry is not required to and does not normally include deciding whether misconduct definitely occurred, determining definitely who committed the misconduct or conducting exhaustive interviews and analyses. However, if a legally sufficient admission of Research or Academic Misconduct is made by the Respondent, misconduct may be determined at the Inquiry stage if all relevant issues are resolved. In that case, if applicable, SIUE shall promptly consult with ORI or relevant agency to determine the next steps that should be taken. The Inquiry Committee may also identify issues that would justify broadening the scope beyond the initial allegation(s), and if so, may recommend that SIUE examine these issues. If the Inquiry Committee determines that the scope of the misconduct process should expand beyond the initial allegation(s), and if the RIO deems such expansion reasonable, the RIO will notify the Respondent in writing and the Respondent will have an opportunity to respond to the additional allegation(s). If additional respondents are identified during an Inquiry, SIUE is not required to conduct a separate Inquiry for each new respondent. However, each additional respondent will be provided notice of and an opportunity to respond to the allegation(s).
   
   
6. Time for Completion. The Inquiry, including preparation of the final Inquiry report and the decision of the Deciding Official on whether an investigation is warranted, should be completed within 90 days of initiation of the Inquiry, unless the RIO determines that circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If the RIO approves an extension, the Inquiry record must include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the 90-day period. The Respondent will be notified in writing of the extension.
   
   
7. The Draft Inquiry Committee Report. At the conclusion of an Inquiry, the Inquiry Committee prepares a written draft report that summarizes their findings and recommendations. The Respondent will be provided the draft report along with evidence considered or relied on by the Inquiry Committee and have the opportunity to provide written comments and evidence in response to the draft report. The Respondent must provide any written comments and evidence within 15 days of receipt of the draft Inquiry Committee report. The Inquiry Committee may, but is not required to, provide relevant portions of the report to a Complainant for comment.
   
   
8. The Final Inquiry Committee Report. The Inquiry Committee will consider the comments of the Respondent and may revise the draft Inquiry Committee report, as appropriate. Any written comments to the draft Inquiry report provided by the Respondent or Complainant must be attached to the final Inquiry Committee report. If the final Inquiry report is not completed within 90 days of the convening of the inquiry, the final Inquiry Committee report may need to document the reasons for exceeding the 90-day period, if required by applicable regulations. The final Inquiry Committee report with all attachments is submitted to the RIO.
   
   The final Inquiry Committee report includes, but is not limited to:
   
   
   1. The names, professional aliases, and position of the respondent and complainant.
      
      
   2. A description of the allegation(s) of research or academic misconduct.
      
      
   3. All funding support, including, for example, grant numbers, grant applications, contracts and publications listing funding support, if applicable.
      
      
   4. The composition of the Inquiry committee (i.e., Inquiry Committee members and ad hoc members), including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
      
      
   5. An inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted.
      
      
   6. Transcripts of interviews, if transcribed.
      
      
   7. Inquiry timeline and procedural history.
      
      
   8. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
      
      
   9. The basis for recommending that the allegation(s) warrant an investigation.
      
      
   10. The basis on which any allegation(s) do not merit further investigation.
       
       
   11. Any comments on the Inquiry report by the respondent or the complainant(s).
       
       
   12. Any institutional actions implemented, including internal communications or external communications with journals or funding agencies.
       
       
   13. Documentation of potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion.

9. Decision by Deciding Official. The RIO will transmit the final Inquiry report or report received from a federal agency, and any comments to the Deciding Official. The Deciding Official will, after consulting with the RIO or the Inquiry Committee members, decide whether an Investigation is warranted based on the criteria in this policy and 42 CFR § 93.307(d), if applicable. Any finding that an Investigation is warranted must be made in writing by the Deciding Official. The Deciding Official can make this determination based on an Inquiry report provided by the Inquiry Committee or by any federal agency.
   
   
10. Notification to the Respondent. The RIO shall notify the Respondent whether the Inquiry found an Investigation to be warranted, include a copy of the final Inquiry report, include a copy of or refer to 42 CFR Part 93, if applicable, and SIUE's policies and procedures on Research or Academic misconduct. The RIO may notify the Complainant whether the Inquiry found an Investigation to be warranted.
    
    
11. Notification to ORI or Sponsor, if Relevant. For allegations that fall within the statute of limitations of 42 CFR § 93.105 for Research Misconduct under 42 CFR § 93.307, within 30 calendar days of the Deciding Official's decision that an Investigation is warranted, the RIO will provide ORI with the Deciding Official's written decision and a copy of the Inquiry report. The RIO will also notify those SIUE officials who need to know of the Deciding Official's decision. If applicable, the sponsor or other relevant agency will be notified per their requirements.
    
    
12. Documentation of Decision Not to Investigate. If the Deciding Official decides that an Investigation is not warranted, the RIO shall secure and maintain for 7 years after the termination of the Inquiry, sufficiently detailed documentation of the Inquiry to permit a later assessment by ORI or other agency of the reasons why an Investigation was not conducted. These documents must be provided to ORI, other authorized HHS personnel, or another applicable agency upon request.

8. Investigation
   
   
   1. Purpose. The purpose of the Investigation is to determine whether each allegation constitutes Research or Academic Misconduct and to recommend appropriate institutional actions.
      
      
   2. Timeframe. The Investigation will generally begin within 30 days of the determination to convene an Investigation, or as soon as practicable. The Investigation will generally be completed within 180 days of beginning the Investigation, unless circumstances warrant a longer period as determined by the RIO, with approval from the relevant oversight agency or funding entity, as necessary.
      
      
   3. Additional Sequestration. The RIO will take all reasonable or practical steps to inventory and sequester in a secure manner all research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding that were not previously sequestered during the Assessment or Inquiry. If there are any additional relevant research records that were not previously secured during the Assessment or Inquiry, the RIO will promptly obtain such records in a confidential and secure manner whenever additional items become known or relevant to the Investigation.
      
      
   4. The Committee. The Standing Committee on Research and Academic Integrity plus any ad hoc members appointed by the RIO will conduct the Investigation.
      
      
   5. Notifying ORI or Other Agency and Respondent. For cases of Research Misconduct, on or before the date on which the Investigation begins, the RIO must: (1) in cases of funded research notify the ORI Director or relevant agency of the decision to begin the Investigation and provide a copy of the Inquiry report; and (2) notify the respondent in writing of the allegations to be investigated. In cases of Academic misconduct, on or before the date on which the Investigation begins, the RIO must notify the respondent in writing of the allegations to be investigated. The RIO must also give the respondent written notice any new allegations of Research or Academic misconduct within a reasonable amount of time of deciding to pursue of allegations not addressed during the Inquiry or in the initial notice of the Investigation.
      
      

   6. Investigation Process. The Standing Committee on Research and Academic Integrity determines whether each allegation warrants a finding of Research or Academic Misconduct. A finding of Research or Academic Misconduct requires that (1) there be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research or academic community; and (2) the Research or Academic Misconduct be committed Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly; and (3) the allegation is proven by a Preponderance of the Evidence.
      
      The Standing Committee on Research and Academic Integrity and the RIO will:

      • Use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough and sufficiently documented and includes examination of all research records and other evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of each allegation

      • Take reasonable steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased investigation to the maximum extent practical

      • Interview each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent.
        
        
        1. Interviews must be recorded and transcribed and must be made available to the relevant interviewee for correction.
           
           
        2. Any exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview must be numbered and referred to by that number in the interview.
           
           
        3. The transcript with any corrections and exhibits must be included in the institutional record of the investigation.
           
           
        4. The respondent will not be present during the witnesses' interviews, but the respondent will be provided with a transcript of each interview, with redactions as appropriate to maintain confidentiality.
      • Pursue diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including identifying issues which would justify broadening the scope of the misconduct proceeding beyond the initial allegation and may recommend that SIUE examine these issues. If it is determined that the scope of the research misconduct process should expand beyond the initial allegations, and if the RIO deems such expansion reasonable, the RIO will notify the Respondent in writing and the Respondent will have an opportunity to respond to the additional allegation(s).
        
        
      • Recommend appropriate institutional actions.

7. The Draft Investigation Report. At the conclusion of an investigation, the Standing Committee on Research and Academic Integrity prepares a written report that summarizes its findings and recommendations. The Respondent will be provided the draft report along with evidence considered or relied on by the committee and have the opportunity to provide written comments and evidence in response to the draft report. The Respondent must provide any written comments and evidence within 30 days of receipt of the draft committee report. The committee may, but is not required to, provide relevant portions of the report to a Complainant for comment. In distributing the draft report, or portions thereof to the Respondent, the RIO will inform the Respondent of the confidentiality under which the draft report is made available and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure such confidentiality. For example, the RIO may require that the Respondent sign a confidentiality agreement.
   
   
8. The Final Investigation Report. The Standing Committee on Research and Academic Integrity considers the comments of the Respondent and may revise the Investigation draft report as it deems appropriate. Any written comments to the draft investigation report provided by the Respondent or Complainant must be attached to the final Investigation report. The final Investigation report with all attachments is submitted to the RIO. If the final Investigation report is not completed within 180 days of beginning the Investigation, the final Investigation report may need to document the reasons for exceeding the 180-day period, if required by applicable regulations. The final Investigation report with all attachments is submitted to the RIO.
   
   
9. Elements of the Investigation Report.
   
   The Standing Committee on Research and Academic Integrity is responsible for preparing a written Investigation report for each Respondent that includes:
   
   
   • Description of the nature of the allegation of research or academic misconduct, including any additional allegation addressed during the Research Misconduct Proceeding.
     
     
   • Description and documentation, if relevant, of the funded support, including, for example, the numbers of any grants that are involved, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing research support.
     
     
   • Description of the specific allegations of research or academic misconduct considered in the investigation of the respondent.
     
     
   • The composition of the Investigation committee, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
     
     
   • SIUE policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted, unless those policies and procedures were provided previously.
     
     
   • An inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence, except records not considered nor relied on; and a description of how any sequestration was conducted during the investigation. This inventory must include manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied on during the investigation.
     
     
   • Transcripts of all interviews conducted.
     
     
   • Identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, or other research records that allegedly contained the falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material.
     
     
   • Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
     
     
   • Any comments made by the respondent and complainant(s) on the draft investigation report and the committee's consideration of those comments.
     
     
   • A statement of findings for each allegation of research or academic misconduct identified during the investigation.

10. Decision by Deciding Official on Investigation Report.
    
    The RIO will assist the Standing Committee on Research and Academic Integrity in finalizing the draft Investigation report, including ensuring that the Respondent's comments are included and considered, and transmit the final investigation report to the Deciding Official. The Deciding Official will determine: (1) whether SIUE accepts the Investigation report and its findings or (2) whether to return the report to the Standing Committee on Research and Academic Integrity with a request for further fact-finding or analysis. The Deciding Official's decision about Research or Academic Misconduct is final and there is no option to appeal this decision. Appeals to implementation of sanctions may exist through discipline processes in collective bargaining agreements.
    
    
11. Notifications. When a final decision on the case has been reached, the RIO will normally notify the Standing Committee on Research and Academic Integrity, the Respondent, the Respondent's chair, the Respondent's unit dean or director, and the Complainant, if known, in writing. After informing ORI or other agency, if applicable, the Deciding Official 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 relevant parties should be notified of the outcome of the case. The RIO is responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification requirements of funding or sponsoring agencies.
    
    
12. Institutional Actions.
    
    If the Deciding Official determines that Research or Academic Misconduct is substantiated by the findings or through an admission of Research or Academic Misconduct, they will decide on the appropriate actions to be taken, after consultation with the RIO and others as needed. The administrative actions may include but are not limited to:
    
    • withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the project in which research or academic misconduct was found
      
      
    • removal of the responsible person from the particular project, letter of reprimand, special monitoring of future work, probation, suspension, salary reduction, or initiation of steps leading to possible rank reduction or termination of employment
      
      
    • restitution of funds to the grantor agency as appropriate
      
      
    • other actions, including disciplinary measures up to and including termination, appropriate to the research or academic misconduct.

13. Notice to ORI or Other Agency of SIUE Findings and Actions. If applicable, unless an extension has been granted, the RIO must, within the 120-day period for completing the Investigation, submit the following to ORI or other agency: (1) a copy of the final investigation report with all attachments, (2) a statement of whether SIUE accepts the findings of the Investigation; (3) a statement of whether SIUE found misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct; and (4) a description of any pending or completed administrative actions against the Respondent.

9. Additional Procedural Rules
   
   
   1. Modifications to Procedures. In some cases, including those in which the Respondent admits responsibility or refutes allegations, the RIO, in consultation with the Deciding Official, and if appropriate, sponsors and/or federal oversight agencies, may consider whether to modify or eliminate any of the procedural stages of the procedures set forth above. The RIO may also consult as appropriate with Deans, and/or Department Chairs regarding modifications. Procedures may also be modified if interim actions are necessary.
      
      
   2. Admission of Misconduct.
      
      If a Respondent has admitted to Research or Academic Misconduct at any stage of the research misconduct proceeding, then the RIO may need to notify the relevant sponsor or oversight agency in advance if SIUE plans to close the research misconduct proceeding.
      
      A Respondent's admission of Research or Academic Misconduct must be made in writing and signed by the Respondent. An admission must specify (a) the Falsification, Fabrication, and/or Plagiarism that occurred and which research records were affected, (b) that the misconduct was committed Intentionally, Knowingly and/or Recklessly, and (c) that there was a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research or academic community. If required by the relevant sponsor or federal oversight agency, the RIO will provide the admission and a statement describing how SIUE (a) determined that the scope of the misconduct was fully addressed by the admission and (b) the Respondent's culpability. A resolution with the Respondent may be reached only with prior approval from the relevant sponsor or oversight agency, if required, and with the concurrence of the Deciding Official.
      
      
   3. Reporting Premature Closure of Research Misconduct Cases to ORI. Generally, all Inquiries and Investigations into Research Misconduct will be carried through to completion and all significant issues will be pursued diligently. The RIO must notify ORI or other agency, if applicable, in advance, if there are plans to close a case prior to completing the Investigation stage on the basis that respondent has admitted guilt, a settlement with the respondent has been reached, or for any other reason, except: (1) closing of a case at the Inquiry stage on the basis that an Investigation is not warranted or (2) a finding of no misconduct at the Investigation stage, which must be reported to ORI or other agency, as prescribed in this policy and 42 CFR § 93.315. For employees represented by a collective bargaining agreement, notification pursuant to this section shall take place only after the conclusion of appropriate discipline processes.
   4. Maintenance of Records. The RIO will maintain the Institutional Record and all sequestered evidence including physical objects (regardless of whether the evidence is part of the Institutional Record) in a secure manner for seven years after the completion of the institutional proceeding or the completion of the sponsor or oversight agency's proceeding, whichever is later.
   5. Interim Administrative Actions and Notifying ORI of Special Circumstances.
      
      Throughout the Research or Academic Misconduct proceeding, the RIO will review the situation to determine if there is any threat of harm to public health, federal funds and equipment, or the integrity of the research process. In the event of such a threat, the RIO will, in consultation with other institutional officials and the U.S. Public Health Service's Office of Research Integrity (ORI), if needed, take appropriate interim action to protect against any such threat. Interim action might include additional monitoring of the research process and the handling of federal funds and equipment, reassignment of personnel or of the responsibility for the handling of federal funds and equipment, additional review of research data and results or delaying publication. The RIO shall, at any time during a Research or Academic Misconduct proceeding, notify, if needed, ORI or other relevant agency immediately if the RIO has reason to believe that any of the following conditions exist:
      
      
      • health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animals
        
        
      • federal sponsor resources or interests are threatened
        
        
      • research activities should be suspended
        
        
      • a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law exist
        
        
      • federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research or academic misconduct proceeding
        
        
      • the misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely and HHS or other agency action may be necessary to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved
   6. Transcription. All interviews conducted during the Assessment, Inquiry or Investigation will be transcribed. Each interviewee will be provided with a copy of the transcript and given five (5) business days to review the transcript of their interview(s) for accuracy. Changes to the transcript are limited to factual errors. The final corrected versions of all transcripts will be part of the official record of the misconduct proceedings.
   7. Termination or Resignation Prior to Completing Inquiry or Investigation. The termination of the Respondent's SIUE employment, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation of possible Research or Academic Misconduct has been reported, will not preclude or terminate the misconduct proceeding or otherwise limit any of SIUE's responsibilities, including those under 42 CFR Part 93, when applicable.
      
      If the Respondent, without admitting to misconduct, is terminated or elects to resign their position after SIUE receives an allegation of Research or Academic Misconduct, the Assessment of the allegation will proceed, as well as the Inquiry and Investigation, as appropriate based on the outcome of the preceding steps. If the Respondent refuses to participate in the process after resignation or termination, the RIO and any Inquiry or Investigation committee will use their best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the allegations, noting in the report the Respondent's failure to cooperate and its effect on the evidence.
      
      
   8. Restoration of the Respondent's Reputation.
      
      Following a final finding of no Research or Academic Misconduct, including ORI concurrence where required by 42 CFR Part 93, if applicable, the RIO shall, at the request of the Respondent and as appropriate, undertake reasonable and practical efforts to restore the Respondent's reputation. Depending on the particular circumstances and the views of the respondent, the RIO should consider notifying those individuals aware of or involved in the investigation of the final outcome, publicizing the final outcome in any forum in which the allegation of research or academic misconduct was previously publicized, and expunging all reference to the research or academic misconduct allegation from the respondent's personnel file. Any administrative actions to restore the respondent's reputation should first be approved by the Deciding Official.
      
      
   9. Anonymous Complainant. SIUE will review allegations raised anonymously under this policy. Anonymous Complainants will not be afforded the same rights as named Complainants, and SIUE will not notify anonymous Complainants of the outcome of the Assessment, Inquiry and/or Investigation.
   10. Referrals. Regardless of the misconduct proceeding phase, if SIUE's review of the allegation(s) identifies potential misconduct under the jurisdiction of another institution, the RIO will contact the appropriate institution to apprise it of the concerns. If concerns other than Research Misconduct are identified during SIUE's review, the RIO will refer these matters to the proper SIUE institutional or federal office for action.
   11. Extension Requests by Respondent. Respondents requesting additional time to provide a response to the allegations, the draft report, for an interview, or for any other reason, must submit any such requests in advance of the relevant deadline to the RIO in writing. All extension requests must be timely, supported by a reasonable justification, and (if requested) by evidence. The RIO will make the final determination on all extension requests, however some may also require preapproval by relevant oversight agencies or funding entities, with which the RIO will consult as needed.
   12. Advisors. 
       
       1. Interviewees generally may not have their legal counsel present during interviews by the Inquiry Committee or the Standing Committee on Research and Academic Integrity, except at the express invitation of the relevant committee. Requests to invite legal counsel to a meeting of either committee must be submitted in writing to the RIO at least 7 business days before the scheduled meeting. If an interviewee's legal counsel is invited, the invitation will also be extended to legal counsel for the committee. When invited, legal counsel may observe but shall not participate in the proceeding (e.g., legal counsel will not be directly involved in interviews, or other case-related activities). Legal counsel may not direct questions to the committee other than simple requests for clarification.
          
          
       2. Except as provided otherwise by an applicable collective bargaining agreement, a union-represented SIUE employee may, upon request, have a union representative present during any interview that the employee reasonably believes could lead to discipline. Requests for participation by a union representative must be made in writing to the RIO at least 7 business days before the scheduled interview.
          
          
       3. With the prior approval of the committees, an interviewee may request to be accompanied by a non-attorney colleague at meetings of the committees. This approval request must be submitted in writing to the RIO at least 7 business days before the scheduled meeting. If attendance of the non-attorney colleague is approved by the committee, the non-attorney colleague may observe but shall not participate in the proceeding (e.g., the non-attorney colleague will not be directly involved in interviews, or other case-related activities).
          
          
       4. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the RIO, the committees, and all other SIUE officials and entities may seek the advice and/or representation of university-provided legal counsel on any and all aspects and at any stages of the proceeding.
   13. Access to Research Records. The RIO shall maintain, and upon request, provide to authorized federal officials, records of the research misconduct proceeding, including: (1) records secured by SIUE for the Assessment, Inquiry and Investigation; (2) the Inquiry report and final documents produced in the course of preparing that report, including the documentation of any decision not to investigate; and (3) the Investigation report and the records in support of that report, including the recording or transcript of each interview conducted. Otherwise, access to the materials in the file shall be available only upon authorization of appropriate institutional officials for good cause.

Approved by Chancellor effective 4/8/2026
This policy was issued on April 13, 2026, replacing the February 18, 2022 version.
Document Reference: 1Q5
Origin: GR 1-87/88; OP 12/13/88; OP 8/2/95; GR 1-05/06; GR 3/21/13; GR 14/15-21; OC 4/20/19; GR 20/21-03; GR 21/22-03; GC 01-25/26