Procedures for Investigating Allegations of Research Misconduct

Version: December 2025

In accordance with Lewis & Clark College’s Research Misconduct Policy, this document outlines the procedures for the reporting, assessment, inquiry, investigation, and documentation of allegations of Research Misconduct.

I. Reporting Allegations

An initial report of suspected research misconduct should be brought to the attention of the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) or an institutional official, either verbally or in writing, including anonymous reports. The RIO shall inform the Dean of the school in which the respondent is employed, unless the allegation involves the Dean. The President will be informed of any allegations involving a Dean or any other member of the Executive Council.

II. Preliminary Assessment

Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO (or a designated institutional official who is not the Institutional Deciding Official) will conduct the preliminary assessment. The RIO will assess whether the allegation (1) falls within the definition of research misconduct and (2) is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. If these two criteria are met, an Inquiry must be conducted. If the allegation does not meet both of these requirements, the RIO will dismiss the complaint.

Lewis & Clark owns research data generated by institutional members using the institution’s facilities. The RIO has the authority and obligation to sequester evidence that, in the RIO’s judgment, may be germane to an allegation of misconduct under review.

The preliminary assessment period should be brief, preferably concluded within a week. In conducting the preliminary assessment, it is not necessary to interview the complainant, respondent, or other witnesses, or to gather data beyond any that may have been submitted with the allegation, except as necessary to determine whether the allegation meets the aforementioned criteria. The preliminary assessment shall be documented and all records pertaining to the review of allegations will be retained by the RIO for a period of seven (7) years following completion of the assessment.

The RIO has the authority to stay any proceeding under the Research Misconduct Policy if it is determined that other institutional procedures mandated by law must be completed prior to the institution’s further review of the allegation of misconduct. The order of precedence is: 1) protect public health and safety and the safety and well-being of research subjects; 2) protect evidence necessary to review an allegation of misconduct or alleged violations under other regulated areas of research; and 3) protect the public interest (See Section V. Other Procedures and Special Circumstances).

At any time during a research misconduct proceeding, the RIO will notify the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) immediately if it has reason to believe that any of the special circumstances outlined in 42 C.F.R. Part 93 exists. Further, the RIO will notify the appropriate compliance committee if the sufficiently credible allegation of research misconduct involves a related regulatory area (e.g., human subjects or vertebrate animals).

III. Inquiry

If the allegation meets both of the above-stated requirements, the RIO will begin an inquiry in the manner set forth below. The purpose of the inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the available evidence to determine whether to conduct an investigation. An inquiry does not require a full review of all the evidence related to the allegation.

Sequestering Evidence and Notifying the Respondent

The RIO must, on or before the date on which the respondent is notified or the inquiry begins, whichever is earlier, and whenever additional items become known or relevant, promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding. When original research records cannot be obtained, copies of records that are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value will fulfill the sequestration requirement. The RIO is responsible for inventorying records and evidence, and sequestering them in a secure manner.

Convening the IP/DO

The RIO shall appoint an IP/DO to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of possible research misconduct to warrant an investigation. This panel will include at least three but no more than five persons who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved with the research misconduct proceeding. The IP/DO must include at least one faculty member from each of the three schools (CAS, Law, GSEC), and at least one subject matter advisor. The RIO will seek recommendations for faculty members to be appointed to this panel from the Dean of each school. The IP/DO should include individuals with the appropriate subject matter expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation; interview the principals and key witnesses; and conduct the inquiry. Members of the panel must be fair, objective, and impartial and must possess, where required, the competence to understand the research in question. When necessary to secure the necessary expertise or to avoid conflicts of interest, the RIO may appoint panel members from outside the institution.

In lieu of a panel, the College may task the RIO or a Designated Official (DO) to conduct the inquiry, provided this person utilizes subject matter experts as needed to assist in the inquiry.

Notification to the Respondent

At the time of or before beginning an inquiry, the RIO must make a good faith effort to notify the respondent in writing of the accusation, the existence of the inquiry, and the names of the IP/DO members and/or DO, solely for the purpose of identifying any alleged personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest. The respondent will have five (5) calendar days to submit objections based only on conflicts of interest. The RIO will make the final determination as to whether a conflict exists.

The respondent(s) shall comply with all requests for information.

Determining Whether an Investigation is Warranted

The RIO will prepare a charge for the IP/DO or DO (“IP/DO”) with the purpose of the inquiry, the expected timeframe, the IP/DO’s responsibilities, the allegations, and any related issues identified during the preliminary assessment. The charge also shall inform the IP/DO that an investigation is warranted if the IP/DO determines that: 1) there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct; and 2) the preliminary information gathering and fact-finding from the inquiry indicates that the allegation may have substance. At the IP/DO’s first meeting, the RIO will review the charge. The identities of the complainant(s), the respondent(s), the inquiry, and its findings shall not otherwise be disclosed by the IP/DO, except as necessary to carry out the assignment, or as otherwise provided herein. The RIO will be available throughout the inquiry to advise the panel as needed.

The RIO, and members of the inquiry panel or DO, will have all rights necessary to access research records created or maintained by individuals subject to the College’s Research Misconduct Policy. All research data is the property of Lewis & Clark College and may be accessed by the institution without interference. Research records may include digital data relevant to the inquiry for purposes of conducting research misconduct proceedings, including email records. The IP/DO may work with the IT department and will use best practices in sequestering necessary relevant information, including defining records searched in terms of recipients, subjects, and time frames. Efforts will be made to balance the needs of the IP/DO with privacy interests not related to the inquiry. If the research records or evidence includes 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 equivalent to the evidentiary value. Where appropriate, the RIO shall give the respondent copies of, or reasonable supervised access to, the research records.

The IP/DO may interview the complainant, respondent, and key witnesses and may examine relevant research records and materials. Interviews will be recorded or transcribed, with recordings or transcripts provided to the interviewee for correction. The IP/DO will evaluate the evidence, including any testimony obtained during the inquiry, and decide whether an investigation is warranted. The scope of an inquiry does not include deciding whether misconduct definitely occurred, determining definitively who committed the research misconduct, or conducting exhaustive interviews and analyses. However, if the respondent makes a legally sufficient admission of research misconduct and all relevant issues are resolved, the IP/DO may determine that misconduct occurred and prepare a report based on that evidence. In that case, if applicable, the RIO shall promptly consult with the relevant sponsoring agency to determine next steps.

Documenting the Inquiry

The IP/DO will prepare a written report documenting their process and making a recommendation as to whether or not a formal investigation should be initiated; this report shall be submitted to the RIO. It should include the following information:

1. the names, professional aliases, and positions of the respondent and complainant(s).
2. description of the allegations of research misconduct
3. funding support, including, for example, grant numbers, grant applications, contracts and publications listing all support
4. the composition of the inquiry committee, if used, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
5. an inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted.
6. transcripts of interviews, if transcribed.
7. inquiry timeline and procedural history.
8. any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
9. basis for recommending or not recommending that the allegations warrant an investigation
10. any comments on the inquiry report by the respondent or the complainant(s).
11. any institutional actions implemented, including internal communications or external communications with journals or funding agencies.
12. documentation of potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion.

Completing the Inquiry

The RIO shall provide a copy of the IP/DO’s preliminary inquiry report and the College’s Research Misconduct Policy and 42 C.F.R. Part 93 (if applicable) to the respondent; the respondent will have 10 calendar days to respond in writing. Based on the respondent’s comments, the IP/DO may revise their preliminary report and prepare it in final form.

The RIO will review the IP/DO’s determination to ensure procedural completeness and compliance with institutional policy and federal regulation. The RIO will not reweigh evidence or substitute their judgment for the IP/DO on the merits. The RIO will then implement the IP/DO’s determination.

The RIO will make the determination of whether an investigation is warranted promptly upon receiving the IP/DO’s final report. If the RIO determines that an investigation is warranted in a case involving PHS support, the RIO will, within 30 calendar days of that determination, (1) notify the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and provide a copy of the inquiry report, consistent with 42 C.F.R. § 93.309, and (2) ensure that the investigation begins within 30 calendar days, as required by 42 C.F.R. § 93.310(a).

The inquiry, including preparation of the final inquiry report and the IP/DO’s determination, should be completed within 90 calendar days of its initiation, unless the RIO determines that circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If an extension is approved, the inquiry record must include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the 90-day period.

If an investigation is not warranted, the RIO shall secure and maintain for seven years sufficiently detailed documentation of the inquiry to permit a later assessment of the reasons why an investigation was not conducted.

IV. Investigation

The purpose of the investigation is to develop a factual record by exploring the allegations in detail and examining the evidence in depth, leading to recommended findings on whether research misconduct has been committed, by whom, and to what extent.

If the IP/DO determines that a formal investigation is warranted, the investigation should begin shortly after completion of the inquiry; in the case of PHS funding, an investigation must begin within 30 calendar days.

Convening an Investigation Committee

With input from the Deans of each school (CAS, GSEC, Law), the RIO will appoint a five-member ad-hoc investigation committee to determine if research misconduct occurred. The committee members appointed must include individuals who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved with the investigation and individuals with the appropriate expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation; conduct interviews; and complete the investigation. The investigation committee must include at least one faculty member from each of the three schools (CAS, Law, GSEC), and at least one subject matter advisor. The RIO may appoint external committee members if additional expertise is necessary or to avoid conflicts of interest. Individuals appointed to the investigation committee may have served on the IP/DO.

Notifying the Respondent and Sequestering Evidence

Within 30 days of the RIO’s decision to proceed with an investigation, but before the investigation begins, the respondent will be notified in writing of the specific allegations to be investigated.

The respondent will be notified of the membership of the Investigation Committee solely for the purpose of identifying any alleged personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest. The respondent will have five (5) calendar days to submit objections based only on conflicts of interest. The RIO will make the final determination as to whether a conflict exists.

On or before the date on which the respondent is notified, or the investigation begins, whichever is earlier, the RIO must take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of and sequester in a secure manner all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the investigation that were not previously sequestered. The need to sequester additional records may occur for any number of reasons, including the institution’s decision to investigate additional allegations not considered during the inquiry stage or identification of records during the inquiry process that had not been previously secured. The procedures to be followed for sequestration during the investigation are the same procedures that apply during the inquiry.

If additional respondent(s) are identified during the investigation, the College will notify them of the allegation(s) and provide an opportunity to respond consistent with federal regulations. The College may either conduct a separate inquiry for the new respondent(s) or add them to the ongoing investigation. The College will obtain and sequester any additional research records or evidence relevant to the expanded scope and retain them for seven years, consistent with 42 CFR Part 93.

On or before the investigation begins, if applicable, the RIO will notify ORI (Office of Research Integrity) of the decision to begin the investigation and provide ORI with a copy of the inquiry report (or comply with any other notice obligation to a government agency or other funder).

Conducting the Investigation

The RIO will prepare a written charge to the committee that defines the subject matter of the investigation, identifies the respondent, describes the allegations and related issues identified during the inquiry, informs the committee that it must conduct the investigation as prescribed, defines research misconduct, and instructs the investigation committee on the burden of proof. The charge shall state that the committee is to evaluate the evidence and testimony of the respondent, complainant, and key witnesses to determine whether, based on a preponderance of the evidence, research misconduct occurred and, if so, to what extent, who was responsible, and its seriousness. The charge shall also inform the committee that it must prepare a written investigation report as prescribed below. At the committee’s first meeting, the RIO will review the charge, the IP/DO report, and the prescribed procedures and standards for the conduct of the investigation, including the necessity for confidentiality and for developing a specific investigation plan. The investigation committee will be provided with a copy of the College’s Research Misconduct Policy, applicable procedures, and applicable federal regulations. The RIO will be available throughout the investigation to advise the committee as needed.

In conducting the investigation, the committee shall comply with Lewis & Clark processes as well as any procedures that may be required by the regulations of the sponsoring agency. The investigation committee shall diligently pursue all significant issues and leads that are relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion. This committee may decide that the investigation should include reviewing all research with which the respondent has been involved. If new allegations are identified during the investigation that will be pursued in the investigation, the RIO will give the respondent written notice of such allegations within a reasonable amount of time. Committee members and staff are prohibited from disclosing committee proceedings at any time, except as otherwise provided by these rules or required by law. The findings of this committee will serve as the factual basis for any subsequent disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. As such, the investigation committee and the RIO must:

• 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 each allegation;
• Take reasonable steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased investigation to the maximum extent practical;
• Offer 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, the opportunity to be interviewed, 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 the investigation;
• Allow the respondent(s) to appear before the committee and present testimony. The respondent may be accompanied by, and consult with, counsel when appearing before the committee, but only the respondent may address the committee (counsel may not); and;
• Pursue diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of any additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion.

Documenting the Investigation

The investigation committee and the RIO are responsible for preparing a written draft report of the investigation that:

• Describes the nature of the research misconduct allegation, including identification of the respondent(s)
• Describes and documents financial support for the research subject to the allegations, including, for example, the numbers of any grants that are involved, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing support
• Describes the specific allegations of research misconduct considered in the investigation
• References the institutional policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted
• Describes the investigation committee, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
• Includes an inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence, except records the College 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.
• Includes transcripts of all interviews conducted.
• Provides any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
• Provides any comments made by the respondent and complainant(s) on the draft investigation report and the committee’s consideration of those comments.
• Includes a statement of findings for each allegation of research misconduct identified during the investigation. The statement of findings for each allegation must 1) identify whether the research misconduct was falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism, and whether it was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly (See Definitions [link]); 2) summarize the facts and the analysis that support the conclusion and consider the merits of any reasonable explanation by the respondent, including any effort by respondent to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that they did not engage in research misconduct because of honest error or a difference of opinion; 3) identify the specific funding support (if any); 4) identify whether any publications need correction or retraction; 5) identify the person(s) responsible for the misconduct; and 6) list any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with federal agencies or external funders.

If the investigation committee is considering allegations of other professional conduct violations in addition to allegations of research misconduct, the committee and the RIO may separate the findings into two reports: one concerning research misconduct findings that must be reported to federal agencies, and a second report concerning findings that need not be reported to federal agencies, including allegations concerning non-federally funded research or other professional conduct violations. The General Counsel shall be available to advise the investigation committee and the RIO with respect to the reports. Modifications should be made as appropriate in consultation with the RIO and the investigation committee.

The RIO will submit a copy of the investigation committee’s draft report to the respondent for comments. The RIO will remind the respondent of the confidentiality considerations under which the draft report is being made available, and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure such confidentiality. The respondent will be allowed 10 calendar days from receipt of the draft report to submit comments to the RIO; the respondent’s comments will be considered in the final report.

Completing the Investigation and IDO Review

The investigation committee will prepare a final report for submission to the Institutional Deciding Official (IDO), which must include the respondent’s comments. The IDO will make a written determination as to (1) whether the institution accepts the investigation report, its findings, and the recommended institutional actions, and (2) the appropriate institutional actions in response to the accepted findings of research misconduct. If this determination varies from the findings of the investigation committee, the IDO will explain in detail the basis for rendering a decision different from the findings of the investigation committee; this information will be provided to the committee. Alternatively, the IDO may return the report to the investigation committee with a request for further fact-finding or analysis.

When a final decision on the case has been reached, the RIO will notify the respondent in writing. In consultation with institutional officials, the RIO will determine whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals in which falsified reports may have been published, collaborators of the respondent in the work, or other relevant parties should be notified of the outcome of the case. Further, in consultation with institutional officials, the IDO will determine appropriate sanctions for research misconduct. Sanctions shall be based on the seriousness of the misconduct, including but not limited to the degree to which the misconduct: a) was intentional, knowing, or reckless; b) was an isolated event or part of a pattern; and c) had significant impact on the research record, research subjects, other researchers, institutions, or the public welfare. The range of administrative actions includes, but is not limited to, the correction of the public record including the withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the research where misconduct was found; removal of the responsible person from the particular project; special monitoring of future work;; restitution of funds as appropriate; suspension or termination of an active award; letters of reprimand; employment actions, up to and including the termination of employment, pursuant to applicable processes in the Faculty Handbook or other Lewis & Clark policies, if any; and any other action appropriate to the research misconduct.

The entire investigation should be completed within 180 calendar days, including conducting the investigation, preparing the report of findings, providing the draft report for comment, finalizing the report, and making necessary notifications. However, if the RIO determines that the investigation cannot be completed within this 180-day period, the rationale for the delay will be documented and the RIO will, if applicable, notify federal agencies as required and in accordance with federal regulations. The RIO is responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification requirements to funding or sponsoring agencies, including periodic progress reporting. The RIO shall notify the individuals and agencies of the decision as required. Lewis & Clark will enforce any federal agency sanctions (e.g., debarment).

V. Other Procedures and Special Circumstances

Multiple Institutions and Multiple Respondents

If the alleged research misconduct involves multiple institutions, Lewis & Clark 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, Lewis & Clark 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 and an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

Respondent Admissions

Lewis & Clark will promptly notify ORI in advance if at any point during the proceedings (including the assessment, inquiry, investigation, or appeal stage) it plans to close a research misconduct case because the respondent has admitted to committing research misconduct or a settlement with the respondent has been reached. If the respondent admits to research misconduct, the College will not close the case until providing ORI with the respondent’s signed, written admission. The admission must state the specific fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism that occurred, which research records were affected, and that it constituted a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community. The College must not close the case until giving ORI a written statement confirming the respondent’s culpability and explaining how the College determined that the respondent’s admission fully addresses the scope of the misconduct.

Notification to Complainants

Lewis & Clark will notify the complainant, when appropriate and consistent with confidentiality protections, of the general outcome of the inquiry and investigation stages.

Other Special Circumstances

Throughout the research misconduct proceedings, the RIO will notify ORI and/or the relevant agency immediately if there is 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

• Federal resources or interests are threatened
• Research activities should be suspended
• There is a 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
• 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
• The research community or public should be informed

The termination of the respondent’s employment, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation of possible research misconduct has been reported, will not preclude or terminate the research misconduct proceeding or otherwise limit any of Lewis & Clark’s responsibilities to pursue allegations. Allegations will be pursued even if the respondent, without admitting to the misconduct, elects to resign the respondent’s position after the institution receives an allegation of research misconduct. If the respondent refuses to participate in the process after resignation, the RIO and any inquiry or investigation committee will use their best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the allegations, noting in the report the respondent’s failure to cooperate and its effect on the evidence.

Following a final finding of no research misconduct, including ORI concurrence where required by 42 CFR Part 93 (or, for non-PHS funded research, other applicable federal agency requirements), Lewis & Clark will, at the request of the respondent, undertake reasonable and practical efforts to restore the respondent’s reputation.

If relevant, the RIO will determine whether the complainant’s allegations of research misconduct were made in good faith, or whether a witness or committee member acted in good faith. If the RIO determines that there was an absence of good faith, the RIO will determine whether any administrative action should be taken against the person who failed to act in good faith.

VI. Records Retention

Unless Lewis & Clark transferred custody of the records of research misconduct proceedings to the funding agency in accordance with applicable law, the RIO shall maintain the records in a secure manner for seven (7) years after completion of the research misconduct proceeding, or completion of any agency oversight proceeding, or as required by any applicable record retention provision, whichever is later. The outcome of the fact-finding shall be reported to the sponsoring organization or government agency given prior notice as required.