University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh

PURPOSE

University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific rigor in research. This institution is committed to fostering an environment that promotes research integrity and the responsible conduct of research, discourages research misconduct, and deals promptly with allegations or evidence of possible research misconduct.

All institutional members are expected to conduct research with honesty, rigor, and transparency. Each institutional member is responsible for contributing to an organizational culture that establishes, maintains, and promotes research integrity and the responsible conduct of research.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) is the institutional official responsible for administering University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct.

SCOPE

The policy is required to meet the federal requirements under 42 CFR Part 93 and 45 CFR Part 689; however, the policy applies to any research, regardless of the funding source, conducted by anyone who, at the time of the alleged misconduct:

Was employed by University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, was a University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh student, or was acting as an agent of University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, and
Either was acting within the scope of their University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh affiliation or was acting in a manner that implicates University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh interests, such that research misconduct proceedings should be pursued.

These policies and procedures apply only to research misconduct occurring within six years of the date the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh receives an allegation of research misconduct, subject to the following exceptions:

The six-year time limitation does not apply if the respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research 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 (“subsequent use exception”). For alleged research misconduct that appears subject to this subsequent use exception, but University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh determines is not subject to the exception, the institution will document its determination that the subsequent use exception does not apply and will retain this documentation for the later of seven years after completion of the institutional proceeding or the completion of any federal funding agency proceeding.
The six-year time limitation also does not apply if sponsor, federal agency, or University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, determines that the alleged research misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public.

BACKGROUND

University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh strives to reduce the risk of research misconduct, support all good-faith efforts to report suspected misconduct, promptly and thoroughly address all allegations of research misconduct, and seek to rectify the scientific record and/or restore researchers’ reputations, as appropriate.

DEFINITIONS

Allegation. This term is a 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. Assessment means the initial evaluation 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. 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. Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
Falsification. 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. (a) 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. An allegation or cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding is not in good faith if made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for information that would negate the allegation or testimony. (b) 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 policy. 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 proceeding.
Inquiry. Inquiry means preliminary information gathering and fact-finding conducted to determine whether an investigation is warranted.
Institution. Institution means the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh.
Institutional member. Institutional member and members means an individual (or individuals) who is employed by, is an agent of, or is affiliated by contract or agreement with an institution. 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, attorneys, or employees or agents of contractors, subcontractors, or sub-awardees.
Institutional record. This 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 institutional deciding officer; 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. To act intentionally means to act with the aim of carrying out the act.
Investigation. Investigation means 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. To act knowingly means to act with awareness of the act.
Plagiarism. Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving appropriate credit. (a) 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. (b) 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. 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.
Recklessly. To act recklessly means to propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.
Research. 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. Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in the reporting of research results. Research misconduct does not include honest errors or differences of opinion.
Research misconduct proceedings. Research misconduct proceedings means any actions related to alleged research misconduct taken, including allegation assessments, inquiries, investigations, funding agency oversight reviews, and appeals.
Research record. 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. Retaliation means an adverse action taken against a complainant, witness, or committee member by an institution or one of its members in response to (a) a good faith allegation of research misconduct or (b) good faith cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding.
Sponsored Support. Sponsored support means a formal agreement between the institution and an external sponsor (e.g., federal agency, state government, foundation, or corporation) for specific research, instruction, or public service activities.

POLICY STATEMENT

Research misconduct is prohibited. Allegations of research misconduct shall be addressed in accordance 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. Applicable personnel rules, policies and procedures set forth in Chapters UWS 4, 6, 11, and 13, Wisconsin Administrative Code and related institution policies shall govern discipline or dismissal actions resulting from an investigation of research misconduct.

ROLES, RIGHTS, AND RESPONSIBILITIES

INSTITUTIONAL DECIDING OFFICIAL (IDO):

The Institutional Deciding Official (IDO) makes the final determination of research misconduct findings. The IDO documents their determination in a written decision that includes whether research misconduct occurred, and if so, what kind and who committed it, and a description of the relevant actions the institution has taken or will take. The IDO’s written decision becomes part of the institutional record.

RESEARCH INTEGRITY OFFICER (RIO):

The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) is the institutional official responsible for administering the institution’s written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct under this policy and applicable regulations. The same individual will not serve as both the IDO and the RIO. The institution may choose to have the RIO or another designated institutional official conduct the inquiry in lieu of a committee, and, if needed, this individual may utilize one or more subject matter experts to assist them in the inquiry.

COMPLAINANT:

The complainant is the person who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct. The Complainant may be a member of the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh community but does not have to be affiliated with the institution.

RESPONDENT:

The 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 has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of evidence, affirmative defenses raised. The respondent’s destruction of research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where a preponderance of evidence establishes that the respondent intentionally or knowingly destroyed records after being informed of the research misconduct allegations. The respondent’s failure to provide research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where the respondent claims to possess the records but refuses to provide them upon request.

The respondent will not be present during the witnesses’ interviews but will be provided with a transcript of the interview after it takes place. The respondent will have opportunities to (a) view and comment on the inquiry report, (b) view and comment on the investigation report, and (c) submit any comments on the draft investigation report to the institution within 30 days of receiving it.

If admitting to research misconduct, the respondent will sign a written statement specifying the affected research records and confirming the misconduct was falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism; committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

Committee members are experts who act in good faith to cooperate with the research misconduct proceedings by impartially carrying out their assigned duties for the purpose of helping the institution meet its responsibilities under this policy. Committee members will have relevant scientific expertise and be free of real or perceived conflicts of interest with any of the parties involved.

An investigation into multiple respondents may convene with the same investigation committee or anyone acting on behalf of the institution, but there will be separate investigation reports and separate research misconduct determinations for each respondent. Committee members may serve for more than one investigation, in cases with multiple respondents. Committee members may also serve for both the inquiry and the investigation.

WITNESSES:

Witnesses are people whom University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh has reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation. Witnesses provide information for review during research misconduct proceedings. Witnesses will cooperate with the research misconduct proceedings in good faith and have a reasonable belief in the truth of their testimony, based on the information known to them at the time.

PROCEDURES FOR ADDRESSING ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

ASSESSMENT

The purpose of an assessment is to determine whether an allegation warrants an inquiry. An assessment is intended to be a review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation.

Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO will promptly determine whether the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct and is credible and specific enough to identify and sequester potential evidence.

If the RIO determines that the allegation meets these three criteria, they will promptly: (a) document the assessment and (b) initiate an inquiry and sequester all research records and other evidence. The RIO or other institutional official must document the assessment and retain the assessment documentation securely for seven years after completion of the misconduct proceedings. 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 and securely retain this documentation for seven years.

INQUIRY

An inquiry is warranted if the allegation (a) 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. The institution 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.

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 seven years. 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 relevant research records have been sequestered, 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.

Convening the Inquiry

The IDO shall appoint a committee to conduct a prompt inquiry into the allegations or report of misconduct. The institution will ensure that all inquiry committee members understand their commission, keep the identities of respondents, complainants, and witnesses confidential, and conduct the research misconduct proceedings in compliance with this policy. In lieu of a committee, the IDO may task the RIO or another designated institutional official to conduct the inquiry, provided this person utilizes subject matter experts as needed to assist in the inquiry.

Determining Whether an Investigation Is Warranted

The inquiry committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official will conduct a preliminary review of the evidence. In the process of fact-finding, the inquiry committee may interview 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 committee 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.

Documenting the Inquiry

At the conclusion of the inquiry, regardless of whether an investigation is warranted, the inquiry committee, RIO, or other designated institutional officials will prepare a written inquiry report. The contents of a complete inquiry report will include:

The names, professional aliases, and positions of the respondent and complainant(s).
A description of the allegation(s) of research misconduct.
Details about the sponsored funding, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing sponsored support.
The composition of the inquiry committee, if used, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
An inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted.
Transcripts of interviews, if transcribed.
Inquiry timeline and procedural history.
Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
The basis for recommending that the allegation(s) warrant an investigation.
The basis on which any allegation(s) do not merit further investigation.
Any comments on the inquiry report by the respondent or the complainant(s).
Any institutional actions implemented, including internal communications or external communications with journals or funding agencies.
Documentation of potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion.

Completing the Inquiry

University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh will give the respondent a copy of the draft inquiry report for review and comment.

The institution 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 applicable policies and procedures.

If an Investigation Is Not Warranted:

If the inquiry committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official determines that an investigation is not warranted, the institution will keep sufficiently detailed documentation to permit a later review in a secure manner for at least seven years after the termination of the inquiry, and provide them to sponsor or federal agencies upon request, if applicable or required.

If an Investigation is Warranted:

If the inquiry committee, RIO, or other designated institutional official determines that an investigation is warranted, the institution must: (a) 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 misconduct, including any allegations of research misconduct not addressed during the inquiry; and (b) within 30 days of determining that an investigation is warranted, provide federal agencies with a copy of the inquiry report, if applicable and required.

On a case-by-case basis, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh may choose to notify the complainant that there will be an investigation of the alleged misconduct but is required to take the same notification action for all complainants in cases where there is more than one complainant.

INVESTIGATION

The purpose of an investigation is to formally develop a factual record, pursue leads, examine the record, and recommend finding(s) to the IDO, who will make the final decision, based on a preponderance of evidence, on each allegation and any institutional actions. 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. Within 30 days after deciding an investigation is warranted, the RIO will notify the sponsor or federal agency of the decision to investigate and begin the investigation, if applicable and required.

Notifying the Respondent and Sequestering Evidence

The RIO will notify the respondent(s) of the allegation(s) within 30 days of determining that an investigation is warranted and before the investigation begins. If any additional respondent(s) are identified during the investigation, the institution will notify them of the allegation(s) and provide them an opportunity to respond, consistent with this policy. If the institution identifies additional respondents during the investigation, it 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 seven years after its proceeding or any sponsor or federal agency proceeding, whichever is later.

Convening an Investigation Committee

If an investigation is determined to be warranted, the IDO will inform the Chancellor. After vetting investigation committee members for conflicts of interest and appropriate scientific expertise, the Chancellor will convene the committee and ensure that the members understand their responsibility to conduct the research misconduct proceedings in compliance with the institutional and or sponsor regulations. If certain research expertise is required, non-affiliated members may be appointed to the committee as consultants at the discretion of the Chancellor.

The investigation committee will conduct interviews, pursue leads, and examine all research records and other evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegation(s). The institution will use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough, sufficiently documented, and impartial and unbiased to the maximum extent practicable. The institution will notify the respondent in writing of any additional allegations raised against them during the investigation.

Conducting Interviews

The investigation committee will interview each respondent, complainant(s), 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. The institution will number all relevant exhibits and refer to any exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview by that number. The institution will record and transcribe interviews during the investigation and make the transcripts available to the interviewee for correction. The institution will include the transcript(s) with any corrections and exhibits in the institutional record of the investigation. The respondent will not be present during the witnesses’ interviews, but the institution will provide the respondent with a transcript of each interview, with redactions as appropriate to maintain confidentiality.

Documenting the Investigation

The investigation report for each respondent will include:

Description of the nature of the allegation(s) of research misconduct, including any additional allegation(s) addressed during the research misconduct proceeding.
Description and documentation of sponsored support, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing sponsored support. This documentation includes known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with PHS and non-PHS Federal agencies.
Description of the specific allegation(s) of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation of the respondent.
Composition of investigation committee, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
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.
Transcripts of all interviews conducted with redactions as appropriate to maintain confidentiality.
Identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), sponsored funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, or other research records that contain the allegedly falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material.
Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
A copy of these policies and procedures.
Any comments made by the respondent and complainant(s) on the draft investigation report and the committee’s consideration of those comments.
A statement for each separate allegation of whether the committee recommends a finding of research misconduct.

If the committee 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 funding support; and (g) state whether any publications need correction or retraction.

If the investigation committee does not recommend a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the investigation report will provide a detailed rationale for its conclusion.

The investigation committee should also provide a list of any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with PHS and non-PHS Federal agencies.

Completing the Investigation

The institution will give the respondent 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 committee considered or relied on. The respondent will submit any comments on the draft report to the institution within 30 days of receiving the draft investigation report. If University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh chooses to share a copy of the draft investigation report or relevant portions of it with the complainant(s) for comment, the complainant’s comments will be submitted within 30 days of the date on which they received the report. The institution will add any comments received to the investigation report.

University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh will complete all aspects of the investigation within 180 days. The institution will conduct the investigation, prepare the draft investigation report for each respondent, and provide the opportunity for respondents to comment. The institution will document the IDO’s final decision and transmit the institutional record (including the final investigation report and IDO’s decision) to sponsor or federal agency, if applicable and required. If the investigation takes more than 180 days to complete, the investigation committee will ask the RIO for an extension. If applicable and required, the RIO will ask the federal sponsor or agency, in writing, for 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.

IDO Review of the Investigation Report

The IDO will review the 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 IDO will include a description of relevant institutional actions taken or to be taken. The IDO will not make a determination as to sanctions for individual employees or students. Any determination that a faculty member committed research misconduct shall be treated as a complaint by the IDO under Ch. UWS 4 or 6, as appropriate. The IDO shall forward any determination that an employee committed research misconduct to the Human Resources Office for further action to determine the appropriate response. The IDO shall forward any determination that a student committed research misconduct to the Dean of Students for appropriate action under Ch. UWS 14.

If the IDO decides that no misconduct occurred, the institution shall make all reasonable and practical efforts, if requested and as appropriate, to protect or restore the reputation of any Respondent, Complainant, or witnesses who have 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.

If the IDO decides that research misconduct has occurred, the IDO will send their draft decision to the Respondent. The Respondent may, within 10 calendar days of receiving the IDO’s draft decision, file a written appeal for reconsideration. If the Respondent does not file a timely appeal, the IDO’s draft decision becomes final; if the Respondent does file a timely appeal, the IDO will consider such appeal and issue a final decision.

Creating and Transmitting the Institutional Record

After the IDO has made a final determination of research misconduct findings, the institution will add the IDO’s written decision to the investigation report and organize the institutional record in a logical manner.

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 IDO’s final decision 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.

If the respondent filed an appeal, the complete record of any institutional appeal also becomes part of the institutional record. The respondent shall be entitled to appeal the IDO’s determination that they committed research misconduct to the Provost, or, if the Provost was the IDO, to the Chancellor. The RIO will wait until the appeal is concluded to transmit the institutional record to any relevant sponsor or federal agency. Also, the institution will wait until the appeal is completed to begin any disciplinary action against an individual respondent. After the IDO has made a final written determination, and any institutional appeal is complete, the RIO must transmit the institutional record to any relevant sponsor or federal agency, as applicable.

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:

If the Respondent admits that Research Misconduct occurred and that he/she 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.
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.
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.

OTHER PROCEDURES AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

Multiple Institutions and Multiple Respondents

If the alleged research misconduct involves multiple institutions, the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh 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, the institution 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 allegations and an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

Other Special Circumstances

At any time during the misconduct proceedings, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh will immediately notify the relevant research compliance oversight program (IRB, IACUC, IBC, etc.), sponsor or federal agency, if applicable, when appropriate, and when not prohibited by other applicable law, if any of the following circumstances arise:

Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects.
Sponsor or federal agency resources or interests are threatened.
Research activities should be suspended.
There is reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law.
Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.
Sponsor or federal agency may need to take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved.

RECORDS RETENTION

University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh 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 proceeding or the completion of any sponsor or federal agency proceeding, whichever is later, unless custody has been transferred. In addition, the institution will comply with all relevant record retention schedules under the Wisconsin Public Records Law.

POLICY HISTORY

Original Issuance Date: 01/01/2026 (Replaced Policy # GEN 1.5. (2): Scientific Misconduct in Research Funded by the Federal Government to align with new federal regulations.
Revision: 12/22/2025; Technical revisions to align with WCAG 2.1 AA digital accessibility standards.
Revision: 02/25/2026: Technical revisions to align with WCAG 2.1 AA digital accessibility standards.

SCHEDULED REVIEW

01/01/2029

Research Misconduct Policy (GEN 1.5(2))