Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 266
Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, Volume II 19 Draft Revision of Policy on Integrity of Research University of California, San Diego I. POLICY Integrity of the research enterprise is central to the search for new knowledge. All individuals engaged in research at the University of California, San Diego, are responsible for adhering to the highest standards of intellectual honesty. Faculty and supervisors of research personnel (including graduate students, postdoctoral scholars) have a special obligation to set an example and create an environment which encourages absolute intellectual integrity. Open communication, an emphasis on quality (not quantity) of research and publications, appropriate supervision of personnel, maintenance of accurate and detailed records of research procedures and results, and suitable assignment of credit and responsibility for research and publications are all elements of intellectual honesty. Types of research misconduct include plagiarism; failure to provide appropriate citations; falsification of data (from fabricating data to selective reporting); abuse of confidentiality; and deception or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scholarly and scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. Misconduct does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data. University policies set forth expectations for high standards of ethical behavior for faculty and students involved in research and provide procedures for addressing allegations of misconduct in research. Those policies and procedures are set forth in the Bylaws of the Academic Senate, the University Policy on Faculty Code of Conduct and the Administration of Discipline, and University Policies Applying to NOTE: Draft revised June 12, 1991; revision is ongoing. Reprinted with permission from the University of California, San Diego.
OCR for page 267
Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, Volume II Campus Activities, Organizations, and Students—Part A, Student Conduct and Discipline. Procedures for administration of discipline also exist for other academic and staff employees in accordance with applicable personnel policies and collective bargaining agreements. (A list of policies that pertain to integrity of research at UCSD is attached.) To foster intellectual honesty, schools, departments, and research units at UCSD are expected to develop guidelines and procedures which implement the above principles and which are designed to fit the distinctive research climate and needs of their individual disciplines. These guidelines may cover responsibilities of research supervisors, assignment of credit for publications, training of research apprentices, requirements for record keeping of experimental procedures and data storage, and standards for merits and promotions which value quality over quantity. It is the responsibility of each individual engaged in research at UCSD to be informed of University policies relating to research and of the policies and procedures of the agencies funding his or her research. Copies of relevant policies are available in the office of the department in which the individual is working and will be provided at no cost. Each new employee engaged in research should be given a copy of this policy statement. II. PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT The University will continue to take prompt and vigorous action to investigate and address allegations of misconduct in research, based on the following principles: Institutional and academic responsibility for self-regulation; Mechanisms to protect to the greatest extent possible the due process rights of the accused, the interests of those making allegations, and the public interest; Compliance with requirements for timely notification of funding agencies; The highest degree of confidentiality compatible with an effective response and applicable sponsor reporting requirements (Appendix, item 3); and Precautions against real or apparent conflict of interest.
OCR for page 268
Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, Volume II A. Reporting Misconduct Suspicion of fraudulent or unethical research practices should be reported immediately to the chair of the department or the director of the organized research unit. A complaint may alternatively be made to the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research, Dean of the School of Medicine, the Dean of Marine Sciences, or their designees. Designees will be identified to persons who call the deans' offices and may be consulted confidentially by any faculty, student, or staff member with a question or concern about misconduct. Requests for investigations from outside the university should be directed to the appropriate dean. The individual filing a complaint may choose to keep his or her identity confidential. If the individual has directly observed unethical behavior, however, he or she should be informed that it may be necessary in the absence of sufficient other evidence to testify before a faculty committee to that fact in order for an investigation to proceed. If the person receiving the complaint determines that it is groundless, a preliminary inquiry should not be undertaken. The person making the complaint should be informed of the decision not to proceed. A brief memorandum to the file should be prepared and maintained by the chair, director, dean, or designee. If the individual receiving the complaint determines from the complaint and/or from other information that unethical conduct may have occurred, then a preliminary inquiry shall be undertaken. If the initial report of misconduct is oral, the individual receiving the complaint shall put it in written form, with supporting documentation if available, before a preliminary inquiry can proceed. A copy of the written complaint should be forwarded to the dean. B. Preliminary Inquiry The dean, upon receiving the complaint, shall appoint an investigator or a faculty committee to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that the policies and regulations of the University have been violated. The preliminary inquiry should be initiated immediately and the appropriate funding agency notified if required. Within fifteen (15) days of receiving the written complaint, the dean shall, after seeking advice of General Counsel, inform the accused in writing of the complaint, the name of the person or committee members who will conduct the inquiry, and the process to be followed.
OCR for page 269
Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, Volume II The investigator or faculty committee should be extremely circumspect during the inquiry—contacting only those absolutely required and apprising them of the need for confidentiality. No extra-University inquiries should be made at this juncture unless absolutely necessary and only after consultation with the dean. If the investigator or faculty committee determines that the complaint is groundless, is insubstantial, or does not indicate a violation of University policy, no action need be taken other than to prepare a brief report of the preliminary inquiry to be retained by the dean. The dean shall send a copy of the report to the Vice Chancellor-Academic Affairs. The person who filed the complaint and the accused shall be informed in writing of the results of the preliminary inquiry. If the individual who reported the alleged misconduct is dissatisfied with the outcome described in 4 above, he or she may appeal to the Vice Chancellor-Academic Affairs. The vice chancellor will review the report of the preliminary inquiry and the evidence submitted by the accuser in support of the appeal, and determine whether the inquiry should be pursued further, the inquiry should be closed, or a formal investigation should be conducted. If, after a preliminary inquiry, the investigator or faculty committee determines that a violation of university policies or regulations has, or may have, occurred, a written report of the findings, including the evidence to support the findings, shall be submitted to the dean. The person who filed the complaint and the accused shall be informed in writing of the results of the preliminary inquiry. The dean may consult the faculty committee or, if an investigator was used, an ad hoc committee of faculty to decide whether to seek an informal resolution or whether to proceed with a formal investigation. The decision shall take into consideration the seriousness of the violation of ethical standards as well as University policies. If the dean and the accused reach an informal resolution, then the resolution shall be committed to writing, signed by both parties, and maintained by the dean. Those with a need to know should be informed of the outcome. NOTE: In cases involving faculty covered by Academic Senate Bylaw 230, the deans' authority is limited to the imposition of the disciplinary action of Written Censure which has been delegated to the deans by the Chancellor. This stage of the inquiry shall normally be completed within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the formal notification to the accused referred to in II.B.2. above. If an extension of time is required, the accused shall be notified, and the record of the inquiry shall include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the 30-day period.
OCR for page 270
Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, Volume II C. Formal Investigation If an informal resolution cannot be achieved, or if the still-suspected violation is deemed a serious form of research misconduct, the dean, after consultation with the department chair or director of the organized research unit and the Academic Senate, and within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the report of the preliminary inquiry referred to in II.B.6. above, shall appoint an Ad Hoc Investigative Committee which shall be charged to conduct a thorough investigation. The Ad Hoc Investigative Committee shall be composed of at least three faculty members, including at least one with expertise in the research area under investigation and at least one faculty member from another department. If the accused holds an academic appointment but is not a faculty member or a student, then the investigative committee shall have at least one member who holds appointment in the same title series as the accused. The dean and the members of the Ad Hoc Investigative Committee shall take precautions against conflicts of interest by requiring explicit disclosure of possible conflicts and excusing any members of the committee whose conflicts are serious. The person accused of misconduct shall be informed in writing of the appointment of the Ad Hoc Investigative Committee and its membership. The accused shall be informed of his or her right to be represented when being interviewed by the Ad Hoc Investigative Committee. In carrying out its investigation, the Ad Hoc Investigative Committee shall act as promptly as possible, ensure fairness, and secure necessary and appropriate expertise (which may include experts from off campus) to carry out a thorough and authoritative evaluation of the relevant evidence. If requested by the committee, university counsel will be assigned to assist in the investigation. The committee shall provide the accused the opportunity to respond to the allegations in the complaint. The dean, in consultation with the Ad Hoc Investigative Committee, shall inform the funding agency at appropriate times consistent with agency requirements that an investigation is being undertaken and of the results of the investigation. The dean and the Ad Hoc Investigative Committee shall undertake diligent efforts to protect the positions and reputations of those persons who, in good faith, make allegations.
OCR for page 271
Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, Volume II If the Ad Hoc Investigative Committee determines that the allegations are not supported by the evidence, it shall inform the dean in writing. The dean will notify the appropriate funding agency and will inform everyone who has knowledge of the case of the outcome of the investigation. If the Ad Hoc Investigative Committee determines that the accused has engaged in unethical or fraudulent research practices, it shall submit a written report of its findings and recommendations to the dean and may recommend a disciplinary action. To the greatest extent possible, the committee's decision should be supported by documentary evidence. If documentary evidence is not available, the testimony and reasoning that led the committee to its conclusion should be presented in detail. The Ad Hoc Investigative Committee shall submit its findings and recommendations, along with the documentary evidence, within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days of its appointment. Extensions of time for good cause may be granted by the appointing authority. D. Discipline The dean shall as soon as possible provide the accused with a copy of the Ad Hoc Investigative Committee's findings and recommendations and with an opportunity to respond in writing within fourteen (14) calendar days. The dean may propose a disciplinary action. If the accused accepts the disciplinary action, the dean will take appropriate steps to implement the disciplinary action. If the accused is subject to the provisions of Academic Senate Bylaw 230, the disciplinary action, excepting Written Censure which has been delegated to the deans, must be approved by the chancellor. If the accused does not accept the proposed disciplinary action, the dean shall submit the findings of the committee to the appropriate administrative officer indicated below with the recommendation that disciplinary proceedings be initiated in accordance with Section E of these procedures. Disciplinary proceedings shall normally be completed within sixty (60) days from the date the complaint was received. Extensions of time for good cause may be granted by the Vice Chancellor-Academic Affairs.
OCR for page 272
Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, Volume II Category Recommdendation to Faculty covered by Bylaw 230 Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs Non-Senate Academic Appointee (unrepresented) Department Chair or ORU Director Non-Senate Academic Appointee (represented) See Memorandum of Understanding with UC-AFT Staff Appointee Immediate Supervisor or Department Chair Postdoctoral Scholar, Fellow or Trainee, or Visiting Scholar Dean of Graduate Studies, Dean of SOM, or Director of SIO, as appropriate Graduate Student Dean of Graduate Studies Graduate Medical Student Dean of SOM House Staff Dean of SOM Librarian (represented) See Memorandum of Understanding with UC-AFT Librarian (unrepresented) University Librarian Undergraduate Student Vice Chancellor, Undergraduate Affairs E. Application The disciplinary procedures to be applied are indicated below for each category of appointee who may engage in research. Academic Senate Members. The Academic Senate has agreed to allow the investigation by the Ad Hoc Investigative Committee to stand in lieu of the appointment of the administrative officer called for in Academic Senate Bylaw 230. The Academic Senate has also agreed to extend coverage of Bylaw 230 to the following: Adjunct Professor
OCR for page 273
Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, Volume II Series, the Clinical Professor Series, Acting Assistant Professors, and Supervisor of Physical Education Series. Non-Senate Academic Appointees. Discipline of unrepresented appointees in this category must conform to the requirements of APM 140 and PPM 230-5. Included in this category are Academic Administrators, Academic Coordinators, Program Coordinators, Continuing Education Specialists, CME Fellows, Postgraduate Researchers, Professional Research Series, Research Associates, Research Fellows, Specialist Series, Visiting Researchers, Clinical Affiliates, Visiting Professor Series, Language Assistants, Readers, Research Assistants, Teaching Assistants, Teaching Fellows, Visiting Scholars, and Librarians excluded from the bargaining unit because of their supervisorial status. Discipline and dismissal actions involving exclusively represented non-Senate academic appointees must conform to the requirements of Article XXXI of the Memorandum of Understanding between the University of California and the University Council-American Federation of Teachers. Staff Appointees. Appointees in this category are either (a) exclusively represented by a union, in which case the Memorandum of Understanding applies to disciplinary actions taken against them, or (b) covered by staff personnel policies, specifically Staff Personnel Policy 740, Dismissal of Regular Status Employees. Postdoctoral Scholars, Fellows, and Trainees. (Grievance and disciplinary procedures for this classification are under development.) Students. Charges of misconduct by a student will be processed in accordance with existing procedures for disciplining students. House Staff. Section J, Personnel Records, Discipline, Dismissal, Due Process of the House Officer Policy and Procedure Document, approved by the chancellor on June 13, 1985, governs the discipline and dismissal of House Staff. Librarians. Librarians are exclusively represented by the University Council-American Federation of Teachers, and discipline and dismissal actions involving non-excluded Librarians must conform to the requirements of Article XXIV, Corrective Action, Dismissal, Release. Discipline and dismissal of excluded librarians (those excluded from the bargaining unit because of their supervisorial status) are covered in Category 2.
Representative terms from entire chapter: