Research Misconduct

Integrity in scholarship and research is a fundamental value upon which the University is founded. Without integrity, we cannot justify the privilege of academic freedom intrinsic to scholarship and research, nor can we provide society the advancements of knowledge that derive from free and open inquiry. 

The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) fosters a research environment that prohibits misconduct in all research and deals forthrightly with allegations of research misconduct. The responsibility for preserving the integrity of research conducted at UWM is shared by the administration, faculty, staff, and students. This policy sets forth UWM’s policy and procedures concerning research misconduct. It is intended to ensure impartial and accurate adjudication of allegations of research misconduct that respects the legitimate interests of all parties, enhances professional and public trust, and ensures compliance with professional norms and applicable legal requirements. 

A. Research misconduct is prohibited.  

Allegations of research misconduct shall be addressed in accordance with this policy and applicable regulations.  

Faculty, staff, and students are required to comply with this policy and applicable regulations. Individuals in violation of this policy may be subject to imposition of corrective actions and discipline, including, but not limited to, prohibitions on future research activities, dismissal from employment, and expulsion. 

B. Scope 

The policy is required to meet the federal requirements under 42 CFR §93 and 45 CFR §689; however, the policy applies to any research, whether sponsored or not sponsored, regardless of the funding source, conducted by anyone who, at the time of the alleged misconduct, i) was employed by UWM, was a UWM student, or was acting as an agent of UWM and ii) either was acting within the scope of their UWM affiliation or was acting in a manner that, in the RIO’s discretion, implicates UWM’s interests such that Research Misconduct proceedings should be pursued.   

Except for research misconduct in the context of a Sponsored Program, allegations of research misconduct by undergraduate students may be dealt with through the disciplinary procedures provided through UWS Chapter 14 and UWM Faculty Document 1686 in addition or as an alternative to the provisions of this policy, as determined by the Deciding Official (DO). The DO may, in consultation with the Dean of the Graduate School, determine that an allegation of research misconduct on the part of a graduate student is more appropriately referred to the disciplinary channels provided through UWS Chapter 14 and UWM Faculty Document 1686.  

C. Roles, Rights, and Responsibilities 

1. Deciding Official (DO) is the institutional official who makes the final determination regarding allegations of research misconduct and will transmit any findings of research misconduct to the appropriate body for determination of sanctions. The DO is also responsible for issuing required reports of misconduct findings and sanctions to external agencies. The Vice Chancellor for Research serves as UWM’s DO. 
2. Research Integrity Officer (RIO) is the individual appointed by the DO to assume the responsibilities assigned to the RIO under this policy and applicable regulations. The RIO assesses allegations to ascertain whether they could, if true, constitute research misconduct under this policy; determines when the allegations warrant further inquiry; initiates Inquiries; directs Investigation Panels on compliance with this policy and applicable law, including applicable federal policies. The RIO is also responsible for making timely reports to the relevant external agencies, as required, and for appropriately maintaining documentation of all research misconduct proceedings.  In circumstances where RIO has conflict of interest, the DO may assign another institutional official to act as RIO.  
3. Complainant is the individual(s) who makes a good-faith allegation of research misconduct. The Complainant may be a member of the UWM community but does not have to be affiliated with UWM.   
4. Respondent is the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding. The Respondent is entitled to: 
   1. A good faith effort by the RIO to notify the Respondent that an inquiry is beginning and to provide copies of the policies and procedures that will be followed.  
   2. An opportunity to comment on a draft inquiry reports and draft investigation report (if applicable) and have their comments either addressed therein or attached to the relevant final report. 
   3. An opportunity to review the draft Investigation Report and provide comments. 
   4. An opportunity to request reconsideration of finding of research misconduct. 
   5. Timely written notification of the progress of the proceedings.   
   6. Be interviewed during the investigation and have their comments, including any requested modifications, included in the record of the investigation.  
   7. Access to the evidence on which the inquiry and investigation final reports are based. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the RIO may determine, in their sole discretion, that such access may only be provided in a supervised environment so that confidentiality and control of such evidence may be maintained. 
   8. Be advised and represented by counsel or other representative at their own expense throughout the Research Misconduct Proceedings.  

D. General Principles and Considerations 

1. Requirement for Findings of Research Misconduct: A finding of research misconduct requires a determination, by a preponderance of evidence, that there has been a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant academic community, and that the research misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.  
2. Federal Requirements: The National Science Foundation, the Public Health Service, and other federal agencies have published formal regulations regarding the investigation of allegations of research misconduct in the context of activities supported by those agencies. The University will comply with those statutory and regulatory requirements if applicable. 
3. Protecting Parties: All parties to research misconduct proceedings, including Respondents, Complainants, witnesses, Investigation Panel members, the RIO, and staff assisting these parties, are entitled to be treated with respect. As requested, the RIO and other institutional officials shall make reasonable efforts to protect or restore the reputation of persons alleged to have engaged in research misconduct, but against whom no finding of research misconduct is made. No person may retaliate in any way against any party to research misconduct proceedings, including all those parties listed above. The RIO shall investigate reports of alleged or apparent retaliation and recommend appropriate actions to the DO consistent with UWs Regents Policy 14-6. 
4. Handling of questionable research practices: Concerns in the context of research and scholarship that do not rise to the level of research misconduct, such as carelessness or questionable research practices, as well as authorship disputes, may be referred to other University processes and administrative bodies in the discretion of the RIO. 
5. Good Faith: Complainants, Respondents, witnesses, and other participants in the research misconduct review process are expected to act in good faith at all times. Failure to act in good faith may lead to disciplinary action. 
6. Prompt reporting: Prompt reporting of research misconduct is critical for ensuring timely and appropriate fact gathering. 
7. Responsibility to Report Possible Research Misconduct: Anyone having reason to believe that a member of the faculty, staff or student body has engaged in research misconduct has a responsibility to report pertinent facts in accordance with this policy. The person may discuss the situation with the RIO or may report the facts through other established reporting procedures, such as the University’s ethics hotline. If the circumstances described do not meet the definition of research misconduct, the RIO may refer the individual or allegation to other offices or officials with responsibility for resolving the problem.  Anonymous allegations may be considered in the RIO’s discretion. 
8. Responsibility to Cooperate: All individuals subject to this policy shall cooperate with the RIO and other institutional officials in the review of allegations and the conduct of inquiries and investigations.  All individuals subject to this policy, including Respondents, have an obligation to provide evidence relevant to research misconduct allegations to the RIO or other institutional official(s).  Failure to cooperate or to provide relevant evidence will not prevent the process defined in this policy from proceeding and may lead to other disciplinary actions. The Respondent’s reckless or intentional destruction of evidence may be considered when determining responsibility for research misconduct. 
9. Confidentiality: To the maximum extent possible, the RIO and all participants in the process will endeavor to protect the confidentiality of Respondents and Complainants, and of research subjects identifiable from research records or evidence, by limiting disclosure of information related to the research misconduct proceedings to those who need to know in order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective, and fair research misconduct proceeding or as required by law. At the RIO’s discretion, written confidentiality agreements or other mechanisms may be used when appropriate to maintain the confidentiality required by this policy and any applicable federal, state, and/or local regulations and/or any other funder-specific requirements.  The goal of maintaining confidentiality shall not prohibit University officials from consulting, on a confidential basis and to the extent necessary, with other offices or individuals at the University and/or persons outside the University community with relevant experience or expertise to thoroughly investigate the allegations.  The RIO, in consultation with other University officials and offices as appropriate, shall be the University official responsible for determining when a release of information to University affiliated individuals is necessary or appropriate.  The DO, in consultation with the RIO and other University officials and offices as appropriate, shall be the University official responsible for determining when a release of information outside of the University is necessary or appropriate. 
10. Interim Institutional Actions and Notifying Federal Agencies of Special Circumstances: Throughout the research misconduct proceeding, the RIO will ensure that warranted interim actions are taken to protect public health, safety, and interests, sponsor funds and equipment, and the integrity of the research process, and to ensure that the purposes of the research activity and the financial assistance are carried out.  Such actions may include, for example, temporarily suspending research activities, including activities outside the scope of the research misconduct proceedings, additional monitoring of the research process and the handling of federal funds and equipment, reassignment of personnel or of responsibility for handling federal funds and equipment, additional review of research data and results, and/or delay in publication.  To the extent required by regulation or by the sponsor, the RIO shall, at any time during a research misconduct proceeding, notify appropriate federal or other officials of facts that may be relevant to protect public health, federal or other sponsor funds and equipment, and the integrity of the sponsor-supported research process and shall make other interim reports required by research sponsors. 
11. Conflict of Interest: The integrity of the process will be maintained by disclosure and evaluation of any potentially prejudicial conflict of interest. Actual and potential conflicts shall be disclosed to the DO prior to participation in proceedings under this policy. Individuals judged by the appropriate University official or body (e.g., the DO, the Research Conflict of Interest Committee, etc.) to have a conflict of interest that would jeopardize the credibility of the inquiry or investigation will not be assigned advisory or decision-making roles in the process. 
12. Time Limitation: This policy applies to allegations of Research Misconduct that occurred within six years prior to the date the institution received the allegation, except as otherwise provided by law or policy, including: 
    1. Subsequent use exception: The Respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct that occurred before the six-year limitation through the use of, republication of, or citation to the portion(s) of the research record (e.g., processed data, journal articles, funding proposals, data repositories) alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized, for the potential benefit of the Respondent. 
    2. Exception for the health or safety of the public: If sponsor, federal agency, or the institution determines that the alleged research misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public, this exception applies. 
13. Burden of Proof. Allegations of research misconduct must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. If the Respondent raises affirmative defenses to findings of research misconduct, the burden shifts to the Respondent to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, the affirmative defenses raised.  

Allegation means disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication. The disclosure may be by oral or written statement or other communication to an institutional official. 

Assessment refers to the initial evaluation by the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) to determine whether the allegation of misconduct is sufficiently credible and specific, and falls within the scope of this policy. The Assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation. 

Evidence means any document, whether in hard copy or electronic form, tangible item, information, or testimony offered or obtained during the Research Misconduct proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact. 

Evidentiary Standards means that a finding of Research Misconduct requires that: 1) there has been a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant professional community; 2) the Research Misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and 3) the allegation is confirmed by a preponderance of the evidence. 

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

Falsification means 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, as applied to a Complainant or witness, means having a reasonable belief in the truth of one’s allegation or testimony, based on the information known to the Complainant or witness at the time. Knowingly or recklessly withholding relevant information or acting with disregard for the truth of information provided may negate the allegation or testimony. This includes actions or omissions that are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the Research Misconduct proceeding. 

Inquiry refers to the procedure for preliminary information gathering and fact finding conducted to determine whether an investigation is warranted. Inquiry is undertaken by RIO. 

Institution means the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. 

Institutional Record comprises records that the institution compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the institution did not consider or rely on. This includes documentation of the Assessment; the Inquiry Report and all records considered or relied on during the inquiry; the Investigation Report and all records considered or relied on during the investigation; all transcripts; decisions by the DO; records of any appeals; an index listing all the research records and evidence that the institution compiled during the research misconduct proceeding; and a general description of records collected 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 factual record and the examination of that record following the procedures of this policy to determine whether the alleged research misconduct occurred. 

Knowingly means to act with awareness of the act. 

Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving appropriate credit. 

1. Plagiarism includes 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. It does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology. 
2. 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 information that, compared with that opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not.  

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. 

Research Misconduct: fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research or in reporting research results, and that such acts were committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.  Research misconduct requires a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant academic community and does not include honest error, author disputes, or differences of interpretation inherent in the scientific and creative process that are normally corrected through further research and scholarship. Research misconduct is established by a preponderance of the evidence. 

Research Misconduct Proceedings means any actions related to alleged research misconduct taken, including allegation Assessments, inquiries, investigations, federal agency oversight reviews, and appeals. 

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

Retaliation means an adverse action taken against a Complainant, witness, or an Inquiry or Investigation Panel member by an individual in response to a good faith allegation of Research Misconduct or good faith cooperation with a Research Misconduct proceeding. 

Sponsored Program means a formal agreement between UWM and an external sponsor (e.g., federal agency, state government, foundation, or corporation) for specific research, instruction, or public service activities. 

University means the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. 

Allegations should be made to the RIO. Upon receipt of allegations, the Research Misconduct Proceeding is conducted in three phases: Assessment, Inquiry, and Investigation. The RIO may, but is not required to, alert the Complainant to the status and resolution of any of these phases. This discretionary determination shall be made based on a balancing of the facts and considerations in each case. 

A. Assessment

ld fall within the definition of research misconduct and is sufficiently credible and specific to identify and begin collecting potential evidence.  

If the RIO determines that the allegation meets these criteria, they will promptly document the Assessment and initiate an Inquiry. The RIO must document the Assessment and retain the Assessment documentation securely for the greater of seven years after completion of the misconduct proceedings and the time period mandated by applicable records laws. If the RIO determines that the alleged misconduct does not meet the criteria to proceed to an Inquiry, they will write sufficiently detailed documentation to permit a later review.

B. Inquiry

An Inquiry is warranted if the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. An Inquiry’s purpose is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine whether an allegation warrants an investigation. An inquiry does not require a full review of all related evidence. UWM will complete the inquiry within 90 days of initiating it unless circumstances warrant a longer period, in which it will sufficiently document the reasons for exceeding the time limit in the inquiry report. 

1. Sequestering Evidence and Notifying the Respondent: Before or at the time of notifying the Respondent(s), the RIO will obtain the original or substantially equivalent copies of all research records and other evidence that are pertinent to the proceeding, inventory these materials, sequester the materials in a secure manner, and retain them for the greater of seven years after completion of the research misconduct proceedings and the time period mandated by applicable records laws. The institution has a duty to obtain, inventory, and securely sequester evidence that extends to whenever additional items become known or relevant to the inquiry or investigation. 
   
   At the time of or before beginning the inquiry, the RIO will make a good-faith effort to notify the presumed Respondent(s), in writing, that an allegation(s) of research misconduct has been raised against them, the research records have been sequestered to date, and an inquiry will be conducted to decide whether to proceed with an investigation. If additional allegations are raised, the institution will notify the Respondent(s) in writing. When appropriate, the institution will give the Respondent(s) copies of, or reasonable supervised access to, the sequestered materials. 
   
   If additional Respondents are identified, the RIO will provide written notification to the new Respondent(s). All additional Respondents will be given the same rights and opportunities as the initial Respondent. Only allegations specific to a particular Respondent will be included in the notification to that Respondent.   
2. Convening the Inquiry: The RIO conducts the Inquiry, convening subject matter experts as needed to assist. 
3. Determining Whether an Investigation Is Warranted: The RIO will conduct a preliminary review of the evidence, which may, in the RIO’s discretion, include interviews with the Respondent and/or witnesses. An investigation is warranted if (a) there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct and (b) preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding from the Inquiry indicates that the allegation may have substance.  
   
   The Inquiry phase will not determine if research misconduct occurred, nor assess whether the alleged misconduct was intentional, knowing, or reckless; such a determination is not made until the case proceeds to an investigation.  
4. Documenting the Inquiry: At the conclusion of the Inquiry, regardless of whether an investigation is warranted, the RIO will prepare a written Inquiry report. The contents of a complete Inquiry report will include:  
   1. The names, professional aliases, and positions of the Respondent and Complainant(s). 
   2. A description of the allegation(s) of research misconduct. 
   3. Details about the sponsored funding, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing sponsored support. 
   4. The name(s), position(s), and area(s) of expertise of any subject matter experts. 
   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. 
   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. 
5. Completing the Inquiry: UWM will give the Respondent a copy of the draft Inquiry report for review and comment.  
   
   UWM will notify the Respondent of the Inquiry’s final outcome and provide the Respondent with copies of the final Inquiry report, federal regulations, as applicable, and these policies and procedures. 
6. If an Investigation Is Not Warranted: If the RIO determines that an investigation is not warranted, UWM will keep sufficiently detailed documentation to permit a later review in a secure manner for the greater of seven years after completion of the misconduct proceedings and the time period mandated by applicable records laws . 
7. If an Investigation is Warranted: If the RIO determines that an investigation is warranted, the RIO will: 
   1. within a reasonable amount of time after this decision, provide written notice to the Respondent(s) of the decision to conduct an investigation of the alleged research misconduct, including any allegations of research misconduct not addressed during the inquiry;  
   2. initiative the investigation as described below; and 
   3. within 30 days of determining that an investigation is warranted, provide federal agencies with a copy of the inquiry report, if applicable and required. 

C. Investigation

The purpose of an investigation is to formally develop a factual record, examine the record, and recommend finding(s) to the DO, who will make the final decision, based on a preponderance of evidence, on each allegation. As part of its investigation, the institution will pursue diligently all significant issues and relevant leads, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion.  The RIO will notify the Respondent in writing of any additional allegations raised against them during the investigation. Within 30 days after deciding an investigation is warranted, UWM will notify sponsor or federal agency of the decision to investigate if applicable and required.

1. Notifying the Respondent and Sequestering Evidence: The RIO will notify the Respondent(s) of the allegation(s) before the investigation begins. Investigation must begin within 30 days after deciding an investigation is warranted. If any additional respondent(s) are identified during the investigation, the RIO will notify them of the allegation(s) and provide them an opportunity to respond consistent with this policy. If the investigation identifies additional Respondents, the RIO may choose to either conduct a separate inquiry or add the new Respondent(s) to the ongoing investigation. The RIO will obtain the original or substantially equivalent copies of all research records and other evidence, inventory these materials, sequester them in a secure manner, and retain them for the longer of i) seven years after completion of the research misconduct proceedings, ii) seven years after completion of any sponsor or federal agency proceedings, and iii) the time period mandated by applicable records laws. 
2. Convening an Investigation Panel: The Investigation Panel shall be composed of at least three individuals appointed by the RIO who do not have unresolved personal, professional or financial conflicts of interest with the Respondent or the Complainant, who are unbiased, and who together have the competence and expertise to conduct the investigation, evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation, and conduct interviews of the Respondent, Complainant and other witnesses. The chair of the Investigation Panel shall be a tenured faculty member. If the Respondent is a faculty member, the majority of the Investigation Panel shall be faculty.  If the Respondent is a student, the RIO will consult with the Dean of Students or the Dean of the Graduate School regarding the composition of the panel. When necessary to secure the needed expertise or to avoid conflict interest, the RIO may appoint Investigation Panel members external to the University, preferably from UW System institutions or institutions with which UWM has consortial arrangements. The RIO appoints the chair of the Investigation Panel. 
   
   The RIO will prepare a written charge for the Investigation Panel that: 
   1. identifies the Investigation Panel members;  
   2. identifies the Respondent; 
   3. describes the allegation(s) and related issues identified during the inquiry; 
   4. informs the Investigation Panel that it must conduct the investigation as written in this policy and according to any applicable regulations; 
   5. specifies Research Misconduct as defined in this policy; 
   6. informs the Investigation Panel of the expectation of confidentiality of the Research Misconduct Proceeding; 
   7. informs the Investigation Panel that it must evaluate the evidence and testimony to determine whether, based on a preponderance of the evidence, Research Misconduct occurred and, if so, the type and extent and who was responsible; 
   8. informs the Investigation Panel that in order to make a recommendation of Research Misconduct the Investigation Panel must find that a preponderance of the evidence meets the Evidentiary Standards as defined in this policy; 
   9. informs the Investigation Panel that any defenses raised by the Respondent must be proven by the Respondent by a preponderance of the evidence;  
   10. informs the Investigation Panel that it must prepare a written report of the investigation that meets the requirements of this policy and any federal regulations; and, 
   11. sets a time for the completion of the investigation. 
       
       The RIO will also provide the Investigation Panel with evidence the RIO collected during the inquiry. The RIO will provide the Respondent with a copy of the charge. 
3. Conduct of the Investigation: The Investigation Panel will: 
   1. use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough and sufficiently documented; 
   2. examine all research records and evidence relevant to making a decision on the merits of the allegation(s); 
   3. take reasonable steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased investigation to the maximum extent practical including presentation of research records and evidence that supports or disputes the misconduct; 
   4. inform Respondent, and witnesses of the expectation of confidentiality of the Research Misconduct Proceedings; 
   5. interview the Respondent and any other person who has been identified as having information about any relevant aspects of the investigation (without the Respondent’s presence), including witnesses identified by the Respondent;  
   6. record or transcribe each interview and provide the recording or transcript to the interviewee for correction; 
   7. include the recording or transcript, with any corrections, in the record of the investigation; 
   8. pursue all reasonable significant issues and leads discovered that are determined to be relevant to the investigation including evidence of any additional instances of possible Research Misconduct; and, 
   9. request expert opinion and/or additional information, records or data, if determined to be necessary. 
4. Documenting the Investigation: The investigation report for each Respondent will include: 
   1. Description of the nature of the allegation(s) of research misconduct, including any additional allegation(s) addressed during the research misconduct proceeding. 
   2. Description and documentation of any sponsored support, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing sponsor support. This documentation includes known applications or proposals for support that the Respondent has pending with PHS and non-PHS Federal agencies. 
   3. Description of the specific allegation(s) of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation of the Respondent. 
   4. Composition of Investigation Panel, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise. 
   5. Inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence, except records the institution did not consider or rely on. This inventory will include manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied on during the investigation. The inventory will also include a description of how any sequestration was conducted during the investigation. 
   6. Transcripts of all interviews conducted with redactions as appropriate to maintain confidentiality. 
   7. Identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), PHS funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, or other research records that contain the allegedly falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material. 
   8. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted. 
   9. A copy of these policies and procedures. 
   10. Any comments made by the Respondent and Complainant(s) on the draft investigation report and the Investigation Panel’s consideration of those comments. 
   11. A statement for each separate allegation of whether the Investigation Panel recommends a finding of research misconduct.  

If the Investigation Panel recommends a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the Investigation Report will present a finding for each allegation. These findings will (a) identify the individual(s) who committed the research misconduct; (b) indicate whether the misconduct was falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism; (c) indicate whether the misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; (d) identify any significant departure from the accepted practices of the relevant research community and that the allegation was proven by a preponderance of the evidence; (e) summarize the facts and analysis supporting the conclusion and consider the merits of any explanation by the Respondent; (f) identify the specific sponsored support, if any; and (g) state whether any publications need correction or retraction. 

If the Investigation Panel does not recommend a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the Investigation Report will provide a detailed rationale for its conclusion.   

5. Completing the Investigation: The Investigation Panel will provide the RIO with its draft investigation report, and the RIO will give the Respondent(s) a copy of the draft investigation report and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the research records and other evidence that the Investigation Panel considered or relied on. The Respondent will submit any comments on the draft report to the RIO to convey to the Investigation Panel within 30 days of receiving the draft investigation report. If the Respondent disputes the findings in the report, their comments should be focused on the following bases: 1) specific procedural defects with the research misconduct process that materially impacted the outcome, 2) bias or other lack of fairness in the proceedings, or 3) failure to consider relevant evidence. The Investigation Panel may consider these comments in drafting its final report. 
   
   Except as provided for below, UWM must complete all aspects of an investigation within 180 days of beginning it, including conducting the investigation, preparing the draft investigation report for each Respondent, providing the draft report to each Respondent for comment and transmitting the institutional record including the final investigation report and decision by the DO to sponsor or federal agency, if applicable and required. 
   
   If the Investigation takes more than 180 days to complete, the Investigation Panel will ask the RIO for an extension. If applicable and required, the RIO will contact federal sponsor or agency in writing to request an extension and document the reasons for exceeding the 180-day period in the Investigation Report. If these procedures are not applicable, the RIO will issue a decision on whether to grant the extension and document their reasons for doing so. 
6. DO Review of the Investigation Report: The DO will review the final Investigation Report and make a final written determination of whether the institution found research misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct. In this statement, the DO will include a description of relevant institutional actions taken or to be taken.  
   
   The institution will document the DO’s final decision and transmit the institutional record (including the final Investigation Report and DO’s decision) to relevant sanctioning entity, and or sponsor/federal agency, as appropriate. 
   
   If the DO decides that no misconduct occurred, UWM shall make all reasonable and practical efforts, if requested and as appropriate, to protect or restore the reputation of any Respondent, Complainant, or witness who has participated in the Research Misconduct Proceedings. The efforts may include but are not limited to notifying individuals involved in or aware of the investigation of the final outcome; publicizing the final outcome in any forum in which the allegation of Research Misconduct was previously publicized. 
7. If the DO decides that research misconduct has occurred, the DO will send their draft decision to the Respondent. The Respondent may, within 10 work days of receiving the DO’s draft decision, file a written appeal for reconsideration with the DO. If the Respondent does not file an appeal in this time period, the DO’s draft decision becomes final; if the Respondent does file a timely appeal, the DO will consider such appeal and issue a final decision. The Respondent may request an extension of the appeals period, which shall be considered by the DO in their sole discretion.  
   
   If the DO’s final decision maintains the conclusion that research misconduct occurred, the DO shall refer the matter to the appropriate entity to determine appropriate sanctions/discipline depending on the relationship of the Respondent to the University with a copy to the Chancellor and Provost. Additionally, the DO may make permanent any interim protective measures implemented during the research misconduct proceedings or may take such additional measures as necessary to protect the integrity of UWM research. 
8. Creating and Transmitting the Institutional Record: After the DO has made a final written determination and the sanction process, if any, has been initiated, the DO will transmit the institutional record to the sponsor or federal agency if applicable and required.  
   
   The institutional record consists of the records that were compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the institution did not rely on. These records include documentation of the Assessment, a single index listing all research records and evidence, the Inquiry report and Investigation Report, and all records considered or relied on during the investigation. The institutional record also includes the appeal and appeal decision, if applicable, DO’s final decision, the determination of or referral for sanctions, and any information the Respondent provided to the institution. The institutional record must also include a general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on. 
9. Completion of the Case: All inquiries and investigations will be carried through to completion and the RIO will notify applicable federal or other sponsors with information about the finalization of the case to the extent required.  The following outlines disposition of special circumstances that may affect the completion of the case. 
   1. If the Respondent admits that Research Misconduct occurred and that they committed the Research Misconduct or if a settlement with Respondent has been reached, or for any other reason except the closing of a case at inquiry phase on the basis that an investigation is not warranted or a finding at the investigation phase of no misconduct, the RIO may, with approval of the applicable federal agency or sponsor of the research if applicable, determine that the proceedings for review of the allegation be terminated and the case be referred as appropriate. The RIO may alternatively, in their discretion, elect to continue all or a portion of the research misconduct proceedings under such circumstances. 
   2. If the Respondent’s institutional employment or enrollment is terminated by resignation or otherwise, the RIO will ensure that the process for addressing the allegations is appropriately completed. Such termination shall not automatically result in the conclusion of the research misconduct proceedings. 
   3. If the Respondent refuses to participate in the process after resignation, the RIO in consultation with the appropriate panel will determine whether to proceed in the absence of the Respondent. Such resignation shall not automatically result in the conclusion of the research misconduct proceedings. 

D. Other Procedures and Special Circumstances

1. Multiple Institutions and Multiple Respondents: If the alleged research misconduct involves multiple institutions, the DO may work closely with the other affected institutions to determine whether a joint research misconduct proceeding will be conducted. If so, the cooperating institutions will choose an institution to serve as the lead institution. In a joint research misconduct proceeding, the lead institution will obtain research records and other evidence pertinent to the proceeding, including witness testimony, from the other relevant institutions. By mutual agreement, the joint research misconduct proceeding may include committee members from the institutions involved. The determination of whether further inquiry and/or investigation is warranted, whether research misconduct occurred, and the institutional actions to be taken may be made by the institutions jointly or tasked to the lead institution.  
   
   If the alleged research misconduct involves multiple Respondents, UWM may either conduct a separate Inquiry for each new Respondent or add them to the ongoing proceedings. The institution must give additional Respondent(s) notice of and an opportunity to respond to the allegations. 
2. Other Special Circumstances: At any time during the misconduct proceedings, UWM will immediately notify the relevant research compliance oversight program (IRB, IACUC, etc.), sponsor or federal agency, if applicable, when appropriate, and when not prohibited by other applicable law, if any of the following circumstances arise:  
   1. Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects.  
   2. Sponsor or federal agency resources or interests are threatened.  
   3. Research activities, related to the research misconduct proceedings or otherwise, should be suspended.  
   4. There is reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law.  
   5. Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding. 
   6. Sponsor or federal agency may need to take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved. 

E. Records Retention

UWM 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 the longest of i) seven years after completion of the research misconduct proceedings, ii) seven years after completion of any sponsor or federal agency proceedings, and iii) the time period mandated by applicable records laws., unless custody has been transferred. 

November 21, 2018

Original

March 14, 2024

Reviewed

December 3, 2025

Revised