Research Misconduct

General Principles

The Evergreen State College (hereafter Evergreen or the 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. Both the institution and its members have an affirmative duty to protect the integrity of all research conducted on behalf of Evergreen.

Evergreen’s definition of research misconduct and the procedures for responding to allegations of research misconduct are intended to conform to the definitions and requirements of regulations regarding research misconduct involving federally funded research. In case of discrepancy between this policy and federal regulations, the federal regulations will prevail.

Definitions

The Institution adopts the following Public Health Service (PHS) definition of research misconduct:

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion (42 CFR §93.234).

and the following PHS requirements for determining a finding of research misconduct: 

A finding of research misconduct made under this part requires that:

1. There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
2. The misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
3. The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence (42 CFR §93.103).

Other terms are defined by PHS Policies on Research Misconduct — 42 CFR Part 93. To the extent the definitions are restricted to PHS research, Evergreen adopts the definitions to apply to all research misconduct regardless of funding source, unless a term is defined differently by the funding entity supporting the research in question.

Applicability

This policy applies to:

• Research proposed, conducted, or reported at Evergreen by those with an appointment or official affiliation with Evergreen, i.e., faculty, staff, students, and all personnel participating in research on behalf Evergreen
• Conduct that occurred within six years of the date Evergreen or a funding entity received an allegation, subject to subsequent use and health and safety exceptions

Other misconduct not within the definition of research misconduct may constitute breach of other ethical and professional standards and shall be addressed as provided in other applicable policies, procedures, and collective bargaining agreements.

Confidentiality

To the extent allowed by law, Evergreen shall maintain the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses securely and confidentially and will maintain confidentiality to the maximum extent permitted by law and funding entity requirements, except to: (1) those who need to know in order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective and fair research misconduct proceeding; and (2) PHS’s Office of Research Integrity, the National Science Foundation’s Office of Inspector General, or other funding entity-required contacts as it conducts its review of the research misconduct proceeding and any subsequent proceedings.

To the extent allowed by law, any information obtained during the research misconduct proceeding that might identify the subjects of research shall be maintained securely and confidentially and shall not be disclosed, except to those who need to know in order to carry out the research misconduct proceeding.

Evergreen’s commitment to confidentiality does not prohibit the institution from managing published data or acknowledging that data may be unreliable. The limits on disclosure no longer apply upon a final determination of research misconduct findings.

Responsibilities

The responsibility for maintaining research integrity is held by those directly involved in research at Evergreen. Evergreen expects its members to carry out research with integrity, to report in good faith all allegations of research misconduct, fully cooperate with any research misconduct proceedings, and adhere to confidentiality requirements and prohibitions on retaliation.

Evergreen is responsible for addressing complaints of research misconduct against its faculty, academic personnel, students, and staff with respect to research carried out by them at or on behalf of Evergreen. The Office of the Provost in Academic Affairs is responsible for these duties.

• The Vice Provost for Academic Operations will act as Research Integrity Officer (RIO) to administer this policy, oversee the procedures, and maintain Evergreen’s compliance with laws and regulations applicable to research misconduct proceedings.
• The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs will act as the Institutional Deciding Officer (IDO) to assure on behalf of the institution that Evergreen’s written policies and procedures are in compliance with the requirements of the relevant funding entity, certify the content of Evergreen’s reporting on research misconduct, and make final determination of findings and any associated corrective actions.

In the event the assignment of these responsibilities is in conflict with a funding entity’s requirements, the Provost will consult Evergreen’s executive leadership to determine appropriate alternative assignment(s).

Research Misconduct Proceedings—Criteria, Reports, and Time Limitations

Unless otherwise specified by the relevant funding agencies, Evergreen will follow timelines and guidance for exceptions as set by PHS regulations (42 CFR Part 93).

After receiving an allegation of research misconduct, defined as a disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication to Evergreen or to a funding entity, the RIO shall assess the allegation to determine if: 1) it meets the definition of research misconduct; 2) it involves research, research applications, or research records; and 3) the allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. In the process of fact-finding, the RIO may interview the respondent and/or witnesses and seek advice from subject matter experts.

Inquiry

If it is determined that an inquiry (i.e., an initial review of the evidence to determine if the criteria for conducting an investigation have been met) is warranted, the RIO shall review funder-specific requirements, document the assessment, sequester research records and other evidence, and complete the inquiry, including preparation of the inquiry report and giving the respondent a reasonable opportunity to comment on it.

The inquiry report will comply with the requirements of any applicable funding agency and shall generally contain:

• The names, professional aliases, and positions of the respondent(s) and complainant(s)
• A description of the allegations of research misconduct
• The federal or sponsor support involved, including, for example, grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing support
• The identity of the individual conducting the inquiry or members of an 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 or summaries of any interviews conducted
• Inquiry timeline and procedural history
• Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted
• The basis for recommending that the alleged actions warrant an investigation
• The basis on which any allegation does not merit further investigation
• Any comments on the report by the respondent(s) 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
• Other requirements as applicable by funding agency or federal regulation

The RIO will make a written determination of whether an investigation to explore the allegations in detail, to examine the evidence in depth, and to determine specifically whether misconduct has been committed, by whom, and to what extent is warranted.

If an investigation is not warranted, the RIO shall maintain detailed documentation of why Evergreen did not proceed to an investigation, retain evidence and documentation for seven years, and provide such records to funding agencies upon request.

Investigation

If an investigation is warranted, the RIO shall begin the investigation and, on or before the date on which the investigation begins, send the inquiry report and the written determination to any funding entities. The RIO will be responsible for directing the investigation; the RIO may conduct the investigation, select investigator(s), or appoint a committee.

In conducting all investigations, investigators shall: 1) Use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough and sufficiently documented and includes examination of all research records and evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegations; 2) Interview each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent, and record or transcribe each interview, provide the recording or transcript to the interviewee for correction, and include the recording or transcript in the record of investigation; 3) Pursue diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion; and 4) Otherwise comply with the requirements for conducting an investigation in federal regulations.

The RIO shall prepare the draft and final institutional investigation reports in writing and provide the draft report for comment to the respondent. The final investigation report shall comply with the requirements of any applicable funding entity and will include:

• A description of the nature of the allegations of research misconduct
• A description and documentation of any funding support, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing support
• A description of the specific allegations of research misconduct considered in the investigation
• The identity of individual investigators or member of the investigation committee, if used, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise
• Identification and summary of a) the research records and evidence reviewed, b) any evidence taken into custody, but not reviewed, c) any relevant records and evidence not taken into custody and an explanation of that decision, and d) a description of how any sequestration was conducted during the investigation
• Transcripts or summaries of all interviews conducted
• Identification of specific papers published or submitted for publication, funding applications, progress reports, presentations, and other research records that contain the allegedly falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material
• Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted
• The institutional policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted
• Any comments made by the respondent and complainant(s) on the draft investigation report and any considerations made in response
• A recommendation to the IDO as to whether research misconduct did or did not occur for each separate allegation of research misconduct identified during the investigation
  • If the report recommends a finding of misconduct, it must a) identify it as falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism and whether it was intentional, knowing, or in reckless disregard; b) identify any significant departure from the accepted practices of the relevant research community and that the allegation was proven by a preponderance of evidence; c) summarize the facts and the analysis supporting the conclusion and consider the merits of any reasonable explanation by the respondent and any evidence that rebuts the respondent’s explanations; d) identify the specific funding support; e) identify any publications that need correction or retraction; f) identify the person(s) responsible for the misconduct; and g) list any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the respondent(s) has pending with other funding agencies or organizations.
  • If the report does not recommend a finding of research misconduct, it will provide a detailed rationale for its conclusion.
• Any other requirements by a funding entity

Adjudication

The IDO will review the investigation report and make a final written determination, based on a preponderance of evidence, on each allegation and identify any institutional actions and corrective measures. The determination of the IDO with respect to a finding is final for institutional purposes, subject to any rights of review or appeal required by law or funding entity. Any appeal of a disciplinary determination will be handled in accordance with the applicable Evergreen procedure, policy, code of conduct, or collective bargaining agreement.

Multiple Institutions

If the alleged research misconduct involves multiple institutions, Evergreen may work with the other affected institutions to determine whether a joint proceeding will be conducted. If so, representatives from the affected institutions will jointly determine which institution will serve as the lead institution and which will obtain the records and evidence pertinent to the proceeding from the other institutions. Determinations for further inquiry, investigation, findings, and institutional actions may be made jointly or tasked to the lead institution.

Additional Institutional Compliance Requirements

If a proceeding surfaces potential overlapping or conflicting compliance concerns with other areas of the Institution (including but not limited to employment law and policy, collective bargaining agreements, human subject research, financial misconduct, federal conflict of interest requirements, whistleblower protections, and public records), the RIO will coordinate all proceeding with the individuals or offices responsible for oversight in those areas and consult legal counsel if necessary.

Ensuring a Fair Research Misconduct Proceeding

All personnel engaged in the research misconduct process must engage in good faith; complainants and witnesses must have a reasonable belief in the truth of their allegation or testimony, based on the information known to the complainant at the time.

The RIO shall take all reasonable and practical steps to:

• Ensure an impartial and unbiased research misconduct proceeding to the maximum extent practicable.
• Ensure the cooperation of the respondents and other institutional members involved in the proceeding.
• Select those conducting the inquiry or investigation on the basis of scientific expertise that is pertinent to the matter and, prior to selection.
• Screen those conducting the inquiry or investigation for any unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the respondent, complainant, potential witnesses, or others involved in the matter. Any such conflict which a reasonable person would consider to demonstrate potential bias shall disqualify the individual from selection.

Responsibility and Standards of Proof

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 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.

In determining findings, Evergreen will give due consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the respondent. Consistent with applicable federal standards, Evergreen will bear the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, in making a finding unless otherwise required by the funding entity.

Notice to Respondent

During the research misconduct proceeding, Evergreen shall provide the following notifications to all identified respondents:

• Initiation of Inquiry. Prior to or at the beginning of the inquiry, the RIO shall provide the respondent(s) written notification of the inquiry and the sequestered research records and other evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding. If the inquiry subsequently identifies additional respondents, they shall be promptly notified in writing. When appropriate, Evergreen will give the respondent(s) copies of, or reasonable supervised access to, the sequestered materials.
• Comment on Inquiry Report. The RIO shall provide the respondent(s) an opportunity to comment on the inquiry report in a timely fashion so that any comments can be attached to the report.
• Results of the Inquiry. The RIO shall notify the respondent(s) of the results of the inquiry and attach to the notification copies of the inquiry report, the funding entity regulation, and these institutional policies and procedures for the handling of research misconduct allegations.
• Initiation of Investigation. Within a reasonable time after the determination that an investigation is warranted, but not later than 30 calendar days after that determination, the RIO shall notify the respondent(s) in writing of the allegations to be investigated. Evergreen shall give respondent(s) written notice of any new allegations not addressed in the inquiry or in the initial notice of the investigation within a reasonable time after determining to pursue additional allegations.
• Scheduling of Interview. The institution will notify the respondent sufficiently in advance of the scheduling of their interview in the investigation so that the respondent may prepare for the interview and arrange for the attendance of legal counsel, if the respondent wishes.
• Comment on Draft Investigation Report. The RIO shall give the respondent(s) a copy of the draft investigation report, and concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the evidence and witness interview transcripts or summaries on which the report is based with redactions as appropriate to maintain confidentiality. The RIO shall notify the respondent(s) that any comments must be submitted within 30 days of the date on which they received the draft report. The RIO shall ensure that these comments are included and considered in the final investigation report.

All additional respondents identified during an inquiry or investigation will be given the same rights and opportunities as the initial respondent. Evergreen may choose to either conduct a separate inquiry or add any new respondents to the ongoing investigation. Only allegations specific to a particular respondent will be included in notifications to that respondent.

Notice to Complainant

On a case-by-case basis, Evergreen may choose to notify the complainant that there will be an investigation of the alleged misconduct. If Evergreen shares a copy of the draft investigation report or relevant portions of it for comment, the complainant comments will be submitted within 30 days of the date on which they receive the report. If Evergreen takes notification actions for one complainant, all complainants will be notified by the institution, to the extent possible.

Notice to Funding Entities

On or before the date on which the investigation begins, Evergreen shall provide the written finding by the IDO and a copy of the inquiry report to the applicable funding entity in accordance with that entity’s requirements. Upon request, the institution shall promptly send them: 1) a copy of Evergreen’s institutional policies and procedures under which the inquiry was conducted; 2) the research records and evidence reviewed including transcripts, recordings, or summaries of any interviews and copies of all relevant documents; and 3) the charges for the investigation to consider.

After the investigation, Evergreen shall promptly provide the funding entity: 1) A copy of the investigation report, all attachments, and any appeals; 2) A statement of whether the institution found research misconduct and, if so, who committed it; 3) the IDO’s statement of whether the institution accepts the findings in the investigation report; and 4) A description of any pending or completed administrative actions against the respondent.

Additional and immediate notification to a funding agency shall be made if the funding entity so requires and, in the case of a federal funding agency, if Evergreen has reason to believe that any of the following conditions exist:

• Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects.
• Funding agency resources or interests are threatened.
• Research activities should be suspended.
• There is a reasonable indication of violations of civil or criminal law.
• Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.
• The research misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely, so notification is needed in order to allow the funding agency or others to take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved.
• The research community or public should be informed.

Evergreen will report any proposed settlements, admissions of research misconduct, or institutional findings of misconduct that arise at any stage of a misconduct proceeding, including the allegation and inquiry stages to any applicable funding entity with notice, if such is required, and comply with any other applicable funding agency requirements.

Maintenance and Custody of Research Records and Evidence

Evergreen’s institutional record will contain all required elements, i.e., research records that were compiled and considered during the proceedings, assessment documentation, an index listing all research records and evidence, the inquiry and/or investigation reports, and the final determination. The institutional record will also include a description of any records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on during the inquiry or investigation.

Evergreen shall take the following specific steps to obtain, secure, and maintain the research records and evidence pertinent to the research misconduct proceeding:

1. Either before or when the institution notifies the respondent of the allegation, the RIO shall promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all original or substantially equivalent research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory those materials, and sequester them in a secure manner. In those cases where the research records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments.
2. Where appropriate, give the respondent copies of, or reasonable, supervised access to the research records.
3. Undertake all reasonable and practical efforts to take custody of additional research records and evidence discovered during the course of the research misconduct proceeding, including at the inquiry and investigation stages, or if new allegations arise, subject to the exception for scientific instruments in 1 above.
4. Evergreen shall maintain all records of the research misconduct proceeding in a manner consistent with applicable state and federal record retention requirements unless the institution has transferred custody to the funding entity or Evergreen has been advised that the institution no longer needs to retain the records.

Interim Protective Actions

At any time during a research misconduct proceeding, Evergreen shall take appropriate interim actions to protect public health, federal funds and equipment, and the integrity of the research process that are proportionate, documented, and consistent with funding entity guidance. The necessary actions will vary according to the circumstances of each case, and may include delaying the publication of research results, providing for closer supervision of one or more researchers, requiring approvals for actions relating to the research that did not previously require approval, auditing pertinent records, or taking steps to contact other institutions that may be affected by an allegation of research misconduct.

Protecting and Restoring Reputations

Respondents

The institution shall undertake all reasonable, practical, and appropriate efforts to protect and restore the reputation of any person alleged to have engaged in research misconduct, but against whom no finding of research misconduct was made, if that person or their legal counsel or other authorized representative requests it of the institution.

Complainants, Witnesses, and Committee Members

The institution shall undertake all reasonable and practical efforts to protect and restore the position and reputation of any complainant, witness, or committee member and to counter potential or actual retaliation against those complainants, witnesses, and committee members.

Cooperation with Funding Entities

Evergreen, and its faculty and staff, shall cooperate fully and on a continuing basis with the reasonable requests of any entity funding the research throughout the research misconduct proceeding and during any proceeding, oversight review, administrative hearing, or appeal provided for by the funding entity’s process. This includes providing, as necessary to develop a complete record of relevant evidence, all witnesses, research records, and other evidence under Evergreen’s control or custody, or in the possession of, or accessible to, all persons that are subject to Evergreen’s authority.