Procedures
A. GENERAL
The procedure for handling allegations of academic misconduct
is separated into two stages: an Inquiry to determine whether
there is sufficient credible evidence to justify an investigation;
and, in those instances in which the Inquiry yields sufficient
evidence, an Investigation to make definitive findings of
fact and reach conclusions as to whether a Respondent has
committed academic misconduct.
1. Central
Administration Persons. Allegations concerning a member
of the staff of a unit of the Central Administration should
be transmitted to the Office of the Vice-President for Academic
Affairs. The Vice-President will discharge the responsibilities
assigned herein to a Unit Executive Officer (UEO), Dean,
Vice-Chancellor, and Chancellor in cases involving campus
persons, except that if the Respondent is a member of a
unit that has a director, the director will discharge the
duties assigned to the Unit Executive Officer.
The Vice-President
may request that, on an ad hoc basis, one of the Research
Standards Officers perform the functions assigned to that
officer in cases involving campus persons. All other procedures
shall be the same as those provided for campus persons.
2. Procedural
Responsibility of RSO. The Research Standards Officer
will have primary responsibility for compliance with procedures
and notice requirements mandated by applicable laws and
regulations or by external sponsors of research. The RSO
also will assist Inquiry Teams, Investigating Panels and
all University personnel to comply with these procedures
and with applicable standards imposed by government or external
funding sources. During the course of an Inquiry and an
Investigation, the RSO will provide information about the
status of the proceedings to, and respond to inquiries from,
the Unit Executive Officer and the Respondent. The responsibilities
assigned to the RSO shall not be deemed to constitute rights
of the Respondent.
The Research
Standards Officer will maintain a file of all documents
and evidence, and is responsible for the confidentiality
and the security of the file. All information and items
furnished will be made available to any Inquiry Team or
Investigation Panel that may be appointed.
3. Consultation.
The RSO may consult University Legal Counsel at any time.
The Respondent may consult the Faculty Advisory Committee,
the Professional Advisory Committee, the Senate Committee
on Academic Freedom and/or private counsel, and may be accompanied
by an advisor/counsel of choice at any interview or hearing
for the purpose of providing advice to the Respondent.
4. Conflict
of Interest. If any administrator has a conflict of
interest in a case (i.e., has significant involvement with
the individuals or the facts that are the basis of the case),
that administrator will be replaced for that case. A person
who has such a conflict is responsible for informing the
RSO; if the RSO has such a conflict, the RSO will inform
the Vice-Chancellor for Research.
5. Expedition;
Procedural Changes. All procedures prescribed in this
document should be conducted expeditiously. After consultation
with the Research Standards Officer and the Respondent (if
feasible), the Chancellor for good cause may extend any
of the time periods, and may make other reasonable alterations
of the procedures set forth in this document, provided that
the changes do not infringe upon a Respondent's rights or
impair the ability to defend.
B. INITIATION
OF PROCEDURES
Any member of the University community who becomes aware
of academic misconduct in research or publication (the Initiator)
is obligated to report the incident or practice, and provide
all relevant information or evidence, to the Executive Officer
of the unit in which the person alleged to have committed
the misconduct (the Respondent) holds principal appointment,
or to the Research Standards Officer, each of whom will
notify the other promptly.
If an allegation
of academic misconduct by a University staff member originates
outside the University, it shall be channeled to and through
the Unit Executive Officer and the Research Standards Officer.
1. Transmission
to Dean. Unless the report or allegation of academic
misconduct is clearly frivolous or mistaken, the Unit Executive
Officer, with the assistance of the RSO, will bring the
matter to the attention of the Dean (or equivalent administrator
hereafter included in the term "Dean") to whom
the Unit Executive Officer reports.
2. Decision
by Dean. Within 15 calendar days after the matter has
been brought to the Dean's attention by the RSO, the Dean,
after consultation with the RSO and the Unit Executive Officer,
will determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant
an Inquiry.
If the Dean decides
that the matter is not to be pursued further, the RSO will
make sure that all reference to the matter is expunged from
the Respondent's personnel file. The Respondent, the Initiator
and all persons who have been interviewed or otherwise informed
of the charge shall be notified in writing of the nature
and disposition of the allegation.
3. Interim
Administrative Action. At any time after an allegation
of academic misconduct has been made and before final disposition
of the case, the Research Standards Officer or the Dean,
with the approval of the Chancellor, may take interim administrative
action required to protect the health and safety of research
subjects or patients, to protect the interests of students
and colleagues, to preserve evidence, or to protect resources.
Any interim action should be devised and taken so as to
create minimal interference with the regular activities
of the Respondent and others, and in accord with the University
Statutes.
4. Criminal
Activities. If any criminal activities are discovered
during an academic integrity Inquiry or Investigation, the
Office of University Counsel shall be notified; however,
the Inquiry or Investigation should not be suspended.
C. INQUIRY
The purpose of an Inquiry is to determine whether there
is sufficient credible evidence of academic misconduct to
warrant a full-scale Investigation.
1. Appointment
of Inquiry Team.
If the Dean decides that an Inquiry should be conducted,
the Dean, in consultation with the RSO, will appoint an
Inquiry Team consisting of individuals who have no conflicts
of interest in the case, are unbiased, and have appropriate
qualifications to judge the issues raised. Whenever feasible,
the Inquiry Team shall consist of one faculty member or
academic professional from the unit in which the Respondent
holds a primary appointment, or in which the activity in
question has been conducted; and one faculty member or academic
professional from elsewhere within the University. The Dean
may appoint a faculty member or an academic professional
from elsewhere in the University as a third member of the
Inquiry Team. Any exception to the designated composition
of the Inquiry Team shall be made only for good cause and
with the approval of the Chancellor.
2. Notification
of Respondent. Upon initiation of the Inquiry, the RSO
will notify the Respondent in writing of the allegations
and the membership of the Inquiry Team; will transmit a
copy of this document; and will notify the Respondent of
the right to consult the Faculty Advisory Committee, the
Professional Advisory Committee, or the Senate Committee
on Academic Freedom and Tenure and private counsel. The
RSO shall inform the Respondent of the Respondent's right
to submit a written response to the allegation. The RSO
shall explain to the Respondent the obligation and the advantages
of full cooperation in providing information and materials
relevant to the Inquiry/Investigation of the allegation.
The RSO shall notify the Respondent of the obligation and
the right to provide the Inquiry Team with pertinent evidence
and of the ability to challenge a member of the Team for
failure to meet the criteria set forth above. The RSO shall
inform the Respondent that unreasonable refusal to supply
relevant materials or other uncooperative behavior violates
the policies underlying this document.
3. Challenge.
If the Respondent makes a prompt, reasonable, written objection
that any of the persons appointed fails to meet the criteria
stated above, the Dean shall replace the challenged person
with another person who meets the stated criteria. The decision
of the Dean whether the challenge is prompt and reasonable
shall be final.
4. Agreed
Statement of Facts. If the Respondent in written response
agrees with the facts alleged, that may be the basis for
a decision whether there should be an Investigation in lieu
of the continuation of the Inquiry. The Agreed Statement
of Facts will serve as the Inquiry Report.
5. RSO Assistance
to Inquiry Team. The RSO shall convene the first meeting
of the Inquiry Team, review the allegations and describe
appropriate procedures for conducting an Inquiry. The RSO
should be present throughout the Inquiry to advise the Team.
D. THE INQUIRY
REPORT
1. Time Limit
for Report. The Inquiry Team shall complete the Inquiry
and submit its Report in writing no more than 30 calendar
days after the date the Team is appointed. If the Chancellor
approves an extension of this time limit, the reason for
the extension will be entered in the Report and the Respondent
will be notified of the extension.
2. Contents
of Inquiry Report. The Report of the Inquiry Team shall
be drafted with the assistance of the RSO. It shall contain
both findings of fact and descriptions of the evidence upon
which the findings are based, and recommendations as to
whether there is sufficient credible evidence of academic
misconduct to warrant a full-scale Investigation. If the
Report recommends that an Investigation be conducted, it
may propose subject matter to be included in the Investigation.
3. Distribution
of Report. The Report will be delivered to the Dean
who will transmit it promptly to the RSO for inclusion in
the file. The RSO will deliver a copy of the Report to the
Vice-Chancellor for Research and to the Respondent.
4. Comment
by Respondent. If the Inquiry Team recommends that an
Investigation be conducted, the Respondent may, within 10
calendar days of receipt of a copy of the Report, file written
comments on the Report with the Vice-Chancellor for Research.
5. Decision
by Vice-Chancellor for Research. Within 10 calendar
days after receiving both the Report and the written comments
of the Respondent, if any are made, the Vice-Chancellor
for Research, after consulting with the Dean, the UEO, the
Inquiry Team and the RSO, shall determine whether to conduct
an Investigation, to drop the matter, or to take some other
appropriate action.
If the Vice-Chancellor
for Research decides that the matter is not to be pursued
further, the RSO will make sure that all reference to the
matter is expunged from the Respondent's personnel file.
The Respondent, the UEO, the Initiator and all persons who
have been interviewed or otherwise informed of the charge
shall be notified in writing that the charges have been
dropped.
If the Vice-Chancellor
decides that an Investigation shall be conducted, the RSO
will notify the Respondent and the Initiator in writing,
and remind them of their obligation to cooperate in the
conduct of the Investigation. Also, the RSO will notify
appropriate campus administrators, including the Chancellor,
the Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs, the Dean, and
the Executive Officer of the unit in which the Respondent
holds primary appointment; appropriate collaborators of
the Respondent in the work; external funding agencies; and
appropriate governmental offices.
E. INVESTIGATION
The purpose of an Investigation is to make an official determination
of whether the alleged academic misconduct did occur, and
to consider appropriate sanctions when the finding is in
the affirmative.
1. Subject
Matter of the Investigation. The Vice-Chancellor for
Research, after reviewing the Report of the Inquiry Team,
shall define the subject matter of the Investigation in
a written charge to the Investigation Panel. If during the
Investigation, additional information that substantially
changes the subject matter of the Investigation should come
to the attention of the Panel, the Panel will notify the
Vice-Chancellor for Research. The VCR will determine whether
the Panel should continue its investigation with the original
subject matter, or with altered subject matter; or whether
to initiate a new Investigation based upon the altered subject
matter indicated by the Panel.
2. Appointment
of Panel. Within 15 calendar days after the Respondent
has been notified that an Investigation will be conducted,
the Vice-Chancellor, after consulting with the RSO, shall
appoint an Investigation Panel consisting of persons who
have no conflicts of interest with the Respondent or in
the case in question, are unbiased persons of judicious
temperament, and have academic backgrounds that qualify
them to understand and judge the subject matter of the alleged
academic misconduct. A Panel shall consist of three persons,
each of whom shall be a faculty member or an academic professional;
at least one shall be a faculty member. Whenever feasible,
it will include one person from the unit in which the Respondent
holds primary appointment, one faculty member from elsewhere
in the University, and one peer professional from outside
the University. No member of the Inquiry Team may serve
on the Investigation Panel. The University faculty member
who is not from the unit in which the Respondent holds primary
appointment will chair the Panel.
3. Challenge.
The Respondent may challenge any member of the Panel on
the ground that the person does not meet the criteria stated
above by delivering a prompt, reasonable, written objection
to the RSO for transmission to the VCR. If the objection
is prompt and reasonable, the Vice-Chancellor shall replace
the person with one who meets the stated criteria. The decision
of the VCR whether the challenge is prompt and reasonable
shall be final.
4. RSO Assistance
to Panel. The RSO shall convene the first meeting of
the Panel to review the allegations, the report of the Inquiry
Team, and the prescribed procedures. The RSO should be present
at all meetings throughout the Investigation to advise the
Panel as to available and appropriate investigatory methods,
assure procedural compliance, and provide staff support
to the Panel.
5. Rights
of the Respondent During the Investigation. The rights
of the Respondent shall be listed in the form of a written
notice or letter from the RSO to the Respondent. The Respondent
has a right to:
a. Notice of
the identity of the persons appointed to the Panel.
b. A written
statement of the Investigation Panel's charge (the subject
matter of the Investigation). If additional information
emerges during the Investigation that substantially changes
the subject matter of the Investigation, the Respondent
shall be informed promptly in writing.
c. An opportunity
to submit statements in writing and to meet with the Panel
to present information and respond to the subject matter
of the Investigation.
d. The presence
of private legal counsel or another advisor of choice at
the meeting with the Panel, for the purpose of providing
advice to the Respondent.
e. An opportunity
to review and respond to the Panel's final Report.
F. REPORT
OF THE INVESTIGATION PANEL
1. Contents
of the Investigation Panel Report. Within 120 calendar
days of notice to the Respondent of its appointment, the
Panel shall present its Report in writing to the Vice-Chancellor
for Research. The Report shall generally describe the investigative
process. The Report shall make an explicit finding of fact
with respect to each allegation included in the Investigation
Panel's charge, and list the evidence relevant to that finding.
The Report shall then state the Panel's conclusions as to
whether any of the proven allegations constitutes a violation
of academic integrity.
If the Panel's Report concludes that one or more violations
have been substantiated, the Report may recommend what sanctions,
if any, should be imposed upon the Respondent and what corrective
action, if any, should be taken.
2. Comments
by the Respondent. The Report shall be transmitted by
the RSO to the Respondent. The Respondent may submit written
comments within 10 calendar days of receipt of the Report.
Any such comments shall be transmitted by the RSO to the
VCR.
3.Transmission
of Report to Chancellor. The VCR shall promptly transmit
the Report, together with the comments of the Respondent,
if any, to the Chancellor, with the VCR's recommendations.
4. Action
by the Chancellor. The Chancellor, after consultation
with the Dean, the Vice-Chancellor for Research, and the
Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs, shall determine what
disposition to make of the case. The determination shall
be communicated to the Respondent promptly.
If the Chancellor
determines that the allegations have not been proved, the
case will be disposed of as provided for in Section IV D
5 above, and the RSO will notify the Respondent, the Initiator,
the Unit Executive Officer and all persons who have been
interviewed or otherwise informed of the charges that the
charges have been dropped.
If the Chancellor
concurs with the Panel's conclusion that misconduct has
been proven and determines that a sanction should be imposed,
the Chancellor will proceed in accordance with the University
Statutes and relevant University rules and regulations.
Whether or not sanctions are imposed, the Chancellor may
prescribe corrective action responsive to the alleged misconduct
and take other appropriate action. The Research Standards
Officer shall notify the Dean and the Unit Executive Officer
of sanctions imposed and/or other actions taken.
G. APPEAL
The Chancellor is the final adjudicator of all allegations
of academic misconduct that arise at the campus level, subject
only to an appeal to the President of the University on
procedural grounds.
Within 14 calendar
days of receipt of written notification of the Chancellor's
determination, the Respondent may appeal to the President
of the University on the sole question of whether the procedures
prescribed in this document have been followed correctly.
The appeal must be filed in writing and must specify the
nature of the procedural error. The President shall issue
a decision within 30 calendar days, either affirming or
vacating the Chancellor's determination in whole or in part
based on whether fundamental fairness was denied to the
Respondent.
H. NOTIFICATIONS.
The Chancellor will determine whether law enforcement agencies,
professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors
of journals in which deceptive reports may have been published,
collaborators of the Respondent in the work, or other concerned
parties, including the Initiator, should be notified of
the outcome of a case. The Research Standards Officer will
be responsible for compliance with all requirements for
notification of funding or sponsoring agencies.
I. TERMINATION OF UNIVERSITY EMPLOYMENT
The termination of University employment of the Respondent,
by resignation or otherwise, after initiation of procedures
under this policy, will not terminate academic misconduct
procedures. Inquiries and Investigations may be conducted,
and appropriate internal and external notifications of the
proceedings and of their outcome will be made.
J. MALICIOUS CHARGES
Bringing unfounded charges motivated by malice constitutes
a violation of the purposes and standards for ethical conduct
that underlie this document. Where relevant, the Inquiry
Team's Report and the Investigation Panel's Report each
will state explicitly whether there was a reasonable basis
in fact and honest belief for making charges. If either
Report should determine that the making of the original
charges or the testimony of any person was maliciously motivated,
that finding shall be communicated to the Chancellor. The
Chancellor may enter a finding of malicious conduct in the
person's personnel file and communicate the finding to the
person's Unit Executive Officer. Such a finding may be the
basis for disciplinary action or other personnel decisions
in accordance with University rules and regulations.
K. DISPOSITION OF FILE
After termination of a case and all ensuing related actions,
the Research Standards Officer shall prepare a complete
file, including the original records of all proceedings
conducted by the Inquiry Team and the Investigation Panel,
and copies of all documents and other materials furnished
to the RSO or to those bodies. The RSO shall seal the file
and retain it for three years. Access to the materials in
the file shall be available only upon authorization of the
Chancellor for good cause, such as court process, legally
binding demand by external agency, or the involvement of
the same subject matter in subsequent Academic Integrity
procedures initiated by or against the Respondent.
The Research
Standards Officer shall return all original documents and
materials to the persons who furnished them.
After three years,
the RSO will destroy the file unless the RSO makes a written
finding that there is good reason to retain the file. The
writing will state explicitly the reasons why and the period
during which the file is to be maintained, and will be entered
in the file. The Respondent shall receive either a notice
that the file has been destroyed, or a copy of the written
finding that the file will be retained.
For further information
contact:
Howard Guenther
Associate Vice Chancellor for Research
Research Standards Officer
416 Swanlund Administration Building
(217) 333-0030
rsofficer@uiuc.edu
