Research Misconduct Policy

Policy Statement

Lewis & Clark College expects all faculty, staff, and students to maintain the highest standards of ethical behavior and integrity in all research, scholarship, and creative endeavors. Research misconduct, which, as defined below, includes fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, is expressly prohibited. While rare, if it does occur, Lewis & Clark is committed to reviewing, investigating, and reporting allegations of research misconduct, and protecting the privacy of those who report misconduct in good faith to the maximum extent possible. This policy, along with the written procedures, is intended to comply with federal regulations, particularly 42 CFR Part 93, which require that institutions receiving federal research funding have written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct.

For definitions of terms used in this section and elsewhere, see the Definitions section.

Scope

This policy applies to any person who, at the time of the alleged research misconduct, was employed by, was an agent of, or was affiliated by contract or agreement with Lewis & Clark College. This policy and related procedures apply to allegations of research misconduct involving any research, research training, or related activities proposed, performed, presented, published, reviewed, or reported; or any research records generated from that research, regardless of whether an application or proposal resulted in a grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or other form of intramural or extramural support.

This policy applies only to research misconduct occurring within six years of the date that Lewis & Clark or the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) 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 Lewis & Clark determines is not subject to the exception, the College 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 ORI proceeding.
• The six-year time limitation also does not apply if Lewis & Clark or the ORI, following consultation with ORI, determines that the alleged research misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public.

If the relevant activities were not federally funded, the College may elect to use a more streamlined approach to investigating and responding to allegations of research misconduct.

Definitions

• Allegation: disclosure of possible research misconduct via any method of communication.
• Complainant: a person who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct.
• Designated Official (DO): an institutional official identified by the RIO to help administer the College’s response to a research misconduct allegation(s).
• 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 42 CFR Part 93. 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: a process involving preliminary information gathering when an allegation of research misconduct is made and believed by the RIO or DO to be sufficiently credible.
• Institutional Deciding Official (IDO): Lewis & Clark official appointed by the President to make final determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any institutional administrative actions. The same individual cannot serve as the Institutional Deciding Official and the Research Integrity Officer. The IDO may be a dean or other high-ranking College official, including the President themself, at the discretion of the President.
• Institutional record: the institutional record comprises: (a) The records that the College compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the College did not consider or rely on. These records include but are not limited to (1) documentation of the assessment; (2) if an inquiry is conducted, the inquiry report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the inquiry, including, but not limited to, research records and the transcripts of any transcribed interviews conducted during the inquiry, information the respondent provided to the College, and the documentation of any decision not to investigate; (3) if an investigation is conducted, the investigation report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the investigation, including, but not limited to, research records, the transcripts of each interview conducted, and information the respondent provided to the College; (4) written decision(s) from the Institutional Deciding Official; (b) a single index listing all the research records and evidence that the College compiled during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the College did not consider or rely on; and (c) a general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.
• Intentionally: to act intentionally means to act with the aim of carrying out the act.
• Investigation: a formal process to develop and examine a factual record, leading to a determination about whether or not research misconduct occurred.
• Knowingly: to act knowingly means to act with awareness of the act.
• Office of Research Integrity (ORI): the federal office that oversees and directs Public Health Service (PHS) research integrity activities on behalf of the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the exception of the regulatory research integrity activities of the Food and Drug Administration.
• Plagiarism: the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving appropriate credit whether committed by an individual directly or through the use or assistance of other persons, entities, or tools, including artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools. (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: proof by evidence that, compared with evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely true than not.
• Public Health Service (PHS): comprised of federal offices and agencies that provide extramural and intramural funding for health research and development in the United States, primarily in the biomedical and behavioral sciences.
• Recklessly: to propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.
• Research Integrity Officer (RIO): Lewis & Clark official who has primary responsibility for implementation of the institution’s policies and procedures on research misconduct. The RIO is the Assistant Vice President for Sponsored Projects and Research Compliance or equivalent. The RIO may choose a designated official, select a committee, or appoint individuals with subject matter expertise to assist with review of allegations and/or inquiry and investigation proceedings. The RIO is responsible for notifying sponsors at the appropriate time and keeping others well informed about the compliance requirements placed upon them.
• Research Misconduct: 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. In order for a finding of misconduct to be made, the following three criteria must be met: 1) There must be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and 2) The misconduct must be committed intentionally, knowingly or recklessly, and; 3) The allegation must be proven by a preponderance of evidence.
• Research record: 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.
• Respondent: the person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding.

General Policy

1. Responsibility to Report Misconduct: All members of the institution have the responsibility to report observed, suspected, or apparent research misconduct to the RIO or other institutional official, either verbally or in writing, including anonymous reports. Allegations brought to individuals other than those listed will promptly be forwarded to the RIO.
2. Confidentiality: To the extent allowed by law, Lewis & Clark will maintain the identity of respondents, complainants, research subjects, witnesses, and committee members securely and confidentially. Confidentiality will be maintained for any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified. This includes not disclosing any identifying information or information obtained during the research misconduct proceeding except to: a) those who need to know in order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective and fair research misconduct proceeding; and b) sponsors that may require information about the research misconduct proceeding. Lewis & Clark will take all reasonable steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased research misconduct proceeding to the maximum extent practicable.
3. Cooperation: A complainant is responsible for making allegations in good faith, maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating with any inquiry and/or investigation. Members of the Lewis & Clark community will cooperate with institutional officials in the review of allegations and the conduct of inquiries and investigations. Community members may not retaliate against complainants, witnesses, or committee members; any alleged or apparent retaliation should be reported immediately to the DO and/or RIO. See Financial Reporting and Whistleblower Protection Policy
4. Assessment of Allegations: Promptly after receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO (or a designated institutional official who is not the IDO) will determine if it meets the definition of research misconduct and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. Allegations that meet these criteria will trigger an inquiry. All reasonable and practical steps shall be promptly taken to obtain custody of all research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory those materials, and sequester them in a secure manner.
5. Inquiry into Allegations of Research Misconduct: Process by which the RIO gathers preliminary evidence and testimony of the respondent, complainant, and key witnesses to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of possible research misconduct to warrant an investigation. The RIO will prepare an Inquiry Report to summarize findings and provide a written determination as to whether an investigation is warranted. The inquiry process should be completed within 90 calendar days, but may be extended at the RIO’s discretion if more time is warranted. Lewis & Clark will notify the complainant, when appropriate and consistent with confidentiality protections, of the general outcome of the inquiry.
6. Investigation of Allegations of Research Misconduct: When an inquiry process determines there is sufficient evidence of possible research misconduct to warrant an investigation, the RIO will begin an investigation in a timely manner. For PHS-supported research, the investigation must begin within 30 calendar days of the RIO’s determination that an investigation is warranted. The investigation will explore the allegations in detail and determine specifically whether misconduct has been committed, by whom, and to what extent, and will otherwise comply with the investigation requirements in 42 CFR Part 93. The respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of evidence, affirmative defenses raised (e.g., honest error or difference of opinion). If the misconduct occurred with regard to PHS-supported research activities of any kind, an investigation report that includes findings, conclusions and a determination of research misconduct will be submitted to ORI for oversight review within 180 calendar days of the start of the investigation. The RIO may submit a written request for extension from the ORI if more time is needed to conclude the investigation.
7. Records Retention: All records of the research misconduct proceeding will be maintained by the RIO or SPARC office for seven years from termination of the inquiry, any related proceeding of a research sponsor, or the period required by Oregon law, whichever is longer.
8. Interim Protective Actions: The RIO will notify ORI and/or the relevant authorities at any stage of this process if there is reason to believe that any of the following exist: 1) Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects; 2) Federal resources or interests are threatened; 3) Research activities should be suspended; 4) There is a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law; 5) Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding; 6) The research misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely and federal action may be necessary to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved; 7) The research community or public should be informed.
9. Cooperation with ORI: Lewis & Clark will cooperate fully and on a continuing basis with ORI as required, specifically with regard to any misconduct that is related to PHS-supported research activities. This may include providing information in Lewis & Clark’s custody to develop a complete record of relevant evidence, witnesses, and research records. The RIO will report to ORI as required 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. 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.
10. Restoring Reputations: Lewis & Clark will undertake reasonable, practical, and appropriate efforts to a) protect and restore the position and 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 his/her legal counsel or other authorized representative requests that we do so; b) protect and restore the position and reputation of any complainant, witness, or committee member; and c) counter potential or actual retaliation against those complainants, witnesses and committee members. The College may also take steps to manage published data or acknowledge that data may be unreliable.

Related Lewis & Clark Policies

• Procedures for Investigating Allegations of Research Misconduct
• Responsible Conduct of Research Policy and Training Plan
• Research Integrity Policy (Faculty Handbook)
• Whistleblower Process and Protection Policy

External References:

• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct (42 CFR Part 93)
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, The Office of Research Integrity (ORI)