Administrative Procedure 12.211 Administrative Procedure 12.211

Procedure for Responding to Allegations of Research and Scholarly Misconduct

Administrative Procedure Chapter 12, Research
Administrative Procedure AP 12.211, Procedure for Responding to Allegations of Research and Scholarly Misconduct
Effective Date: January 1, 2026
Prior Dates Amended: November 2014
Responsible Office: Office of the Vice President for Research and Innovation
Governing Board and/or Executive Policy: RP 12.201, Ethical Standards of Conduct; EP 12.211, Policy for Responding to Allegations of Research and Scholarly Misconduct
Review Date: Three-year Review Cycle

Note: The University of Hawaii’s Interim Administrative Procedure AP 12.211 is a provisional policy to meet the University’s compliance obligations while it consults with various stakeholders, including the exclusive collective bargaining representatives of the University’s faculty and staff under HRS, Chapter 89.

Description of the procedures, considerations, and requirements associated with the University of Hawaii’s (University or UH) Executive Policy (EP) 12.211, Policy for Responding to Allegations of Research and Scholarly Misconduct.  The references to the Office of Research Integrity (US ORI) and 42 CFR part 93 involve Allegations within the Public Health Service (PHS) definitions of Research Misconduct and includes PHS support.

The definitions in EP 12.211 are incorporated herein by reference.  The references to “this Policy” mean the UH policies and procedures contained in EP 12.211 and AP 12.211.

A.  The Assessment.
    1.  Purpose.
The purpose of the Assessment is to determine whether an Allegation warrants an Inquiry.

    2.  Complainant or Informant
        a.  The Complainant is responsible for making an Allegation in Good Faith, maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating with the conduct of an Assessment, Inquiry, or Investigation.  The Complainant may be interviewed at the Assessment and provided the transcript or recording on the interview for correction. 
        b.  The Informant is responsible for making an Allegation in Good Faith, maintaining confidentiality and, to the extent possible, cooperating with the Research Misconduct Proceeding.

    3.  Conducting the Assessment.
Upon receiving an Allegation of Research Misconduct, the RIO, in consultation with an Ethics Committee (EC) Representative, must promptly assess the Allegation to determine whether the Allegation:
        a.  Falls within the definition of Research Misconduct under this Policy and 42 CFR part 93;
        b.  Is within the applicability criteria of § 93.102; and
        c.  Is sufficiently credible and sufficiently specific so that potential Evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified.
        d.  The RIO, in consultation with an EC Representative, must promptly assess the Allegation after the RIO has had a reasonable opportunity to gather the available Evidence, to assess the Allegation.  In conducting the Assessment, the RIO need not interview the Complainant, Respondent, Informant, or other witnesses, or gather data or other Evidence beyond any that may have been submitted with the Allegation, except as necessary to determine whether the Allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential Evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified.
The Assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the Allegation.

    4.  Assessment results.
        a.  An Inquiry must be conducted if the Allegation meets the three (3) Assessment criteria.
        b.  If the RIO, in consultation with an EC Representative, determines that the requirements for an Inquiry have been met, they must:
          (1)  Document the Assessment; and
          (2)  Promptly sequester all research records and other Evidence consistent with this Policy or § 93.305(a), as appropriate, and promptly initiate the Inquiry.
        c.  If the RIO, in consultation with an EC Representative, determines that requirements for an Inquiry are not met, they must keep sufficiently detailed documentation of the Assessment to permit a later review by the US ORI, of the reasons why the University did not conduct an Inquiry.  Such documentation must be retained in accordance with § 93.318.
        d.  Where the requirements for an Inquiry are not met, the Complainant may resubmit the Allegations based upon newly discovered Evidence or Evidence that was not reasonably available at the time the Allegations were originally submitted to the RIO.

B.  The Inquiry
    1.  Purpose.
The purpose of an Inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the Evidence to decide if an Allegation warrants an Investigation.  An Inquiry does not require a full review of the Evidence related to the Allegation.

    2.  Notice to the Respondent.
        a.  At the time of or before beginning an Inquiry, the RIO must make a Good Faith effort to notify in writing the presumed Respondent, if any.  If the Inquiry subsequently identifies additional Respondents, the RIO must notify them.  Only the Allegations specific to a particular Respondent are to be included in the notification to that Respondent.  If additional Allegations are raised, the Respondent(s) must be notified in writing of the additional Allegations raised against them.

    3.  Sequestration of the research record.
        a.  The RIO, in consultation with the Inquiry Panel, must obtain all research records and other Evidence needed to conduct the Research Misconduct Proceeding, consistent with this Policy or § 93.305(a), as appropriate.

    4.  Appointment of the Inquiry Panel.
        a.  Persons conducting the Inquiry.  The RIO, in consultation with an EC Representative, will appoint EC members to an Inquiry Panel and panel chair within ten (10) days of the decision to conduct an Inquiry or as soon thereafter as practical.  The Inquiry Panel members will be qualified by practice and/or other experience to evaluate the Evidence and issues related to the Allegations, conduct interviews, and support or participate in the Research Misconduct Proceeding.
        b.  Composition of the Inquiry Panel.  The Inquiry Panel may have three (3) members and at least one (1) alternate.  The Inquiry Panel members may serve on both the Inquiry and Investigation Panels in the same matter.
        c.  Panel chair’s duties.  The panel chair shall control the proceeding and determine the admissibility of Evidence.  The panel chair shall have the ability to limit the presentation of irrelevant or repetitious Evidence.  The panel chair shall keep the RIO informed of the status of the Inquiry.
        d.  Conflicts of Interest.  The Inquiry Panel must consist of persons who do not have a potential, perceived, or actual personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the Research Misconduct Proceeding, including the Complainant, Respondent, or witnesses.  The RIO, in consultation with the EC Representative, will determine whether a conflict exists and take appropriate action, including appointing an alternate EC member to the Inquiry Panel, as appropriate.  The RIO will notify the Respondent of the proposed Inquiry Panel members to give the Respondent an opportunity to object to a proposed member or members based on a potential, perceived, or actual personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest.  The Respondent will have ten (10) days to submit an objection.  The RIO, in consultation with the EC Representative, will determine whether a conflict of interest exist.
        e.  Use of subject matter experts.  The Inquiry Panel may utilize one or more subject matter experts from outside the Ethics Committee or the University where special qualifications, expertise, or experience is required or where a conflict of interest exists, to assist them in the Inquiry review.
        f.  Pursue leads.  The Inquiry Panel must diligently pursue all significant issues and leads discovered in information obtained from Evidence and/or testimony during the Inquiry that are determined relevant to the Inquiry, including any Evidence of additional instances of possible Research Misconduct.  The pursuit of any such issues and/or leads may extend to the examination of additional research records (e.g., published papers, grant applications) of the Respondent(s) that contain similar data elements as that of the initial Allegation(s).  If additional Allegations are raised during the Inquiry, the Respondent(s) must be notified in writing of the additional Allegations raised against them.

    5.  Time for completion.
The Inquiry must be completed within ninety (90) calendar days of its initiation unless circumstances warrant a longer period.  The Inquiry commences with the first meeting of the Inquiry Panel.  If the Inquiry will take longer than ninety (90) calendar days to complete, the Inquiry Report must document the reasons for exceeding the 90-day period.  The RIO will notify the Respondent of any extensions.

    6.  Instructions to the Inquiry Panel and first meeting.
The RIO, in consultation with the EC Representative, will prepare instructions for the Inquiry Panel that:
        a.  Sets forth the time for completion of the Inquiry;
        b.  Describes the Allegations and any related issues identified during the Assessment for the Inquiry Panel to consider;
        c.  States that the purpose of the Inquiry is preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding to determine whether an Allegation of Research Misconduct warrants an Investigation;
        d.  Advises the Inquiry Panel that it may, but is not required to, interview the Complainant, witnesses or the Respondent to gather additional information or Evidence for the Inquiry Panel’s review.
        e.  Advises the Inquiry Panel than an Investigation is warranted if the Inquiry Panel determines:
          (1)  There is a reasonable basis for concluding that the Allegation falls within the definition of Research Misconduct under this Policy and whether the Allegation involves PHS-supported biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or research training, as provided in § 93.102; and
          (2)  Preliminary information gathering and fact-finding from the Inquiry indicates that the Allegation may have substance.
        f.  Informs the Inquiry Panel that they are responsible for preparing or directing the preparation of a written report of the Inquiry that meets the requirements of this Policy or § 93.309 (a), as appropriate.
        g.  Advises the Inquiry Panel that Findings of Research Misconduct, including the determination of whether the alleged misconduct is Intentional, Knowing, or Reckless, cannot be made at the Inquiry stage.
        h.  Notifies the Inquiry Panel that it may consult with the OGC, as appropriate.
        i.  Informs the Inquiry Panel that it may determine whether any other actions should be taken if an Investigation is not recommended.
At the Inquiry Panel’s first meeting, the RIO will review the instructions with the panel, discuss the Allegations, any related issues, and the appropriate procedures for conducting the Inquiry, assist the panel with organizing plans for the Inquiry, and answer any questions raised by the panel.  The RIO will be present or available throughout the Inquiry to advise the panel, consult with the OGC and UH officials, keep the DO and UH officials apprised of the panel’s progress, as appropriate, and to provide staff support to the panel.

    7.  Elements of the Inquiry Report
The Inquiry Panel must prepare a written report that meets the following requirements:
        a.  The names, professional aliases, position, and department of the Respondent and Complainant, unless the Complainant wishes to remain anonymous;
        b.  A description of the Allegation(s) of Research Misconduct;
        c.  The funding support, including for example, grant numbers, grant applications, contracts and publications listing the funding support;
        d.  The composition of the Inquiry Panel, including names, positions, and  subject matter expertise;
        e.  Inventory of sequestered research records and other Evidence, and description of how sequestration was conducted;
        f.  Transcripts of any transcribed interviews;
        g.  Timeline and procedural history;
        h.  Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted;
        i.  The basis for recommending or not recommending that the Allegations warrant an Investigation;
        j.  The basis on which any Allegation does not merit further Investigation;
        k.  Any institutional actions implemented, including communications with journals or funding agencies;
        l.  The charges for the Investigation Panel to consider;
        m.  A description of any potential Evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the Respondent;
        n.  A description of any other actions that should be taken if an Investigation is not recommended.
        o.  If the Inquiry takes longer than ninety (90) days to complete, the Inquiry Report must document the reasons for exceeding the 90-day period.

    8.  Review and comments to the Inquiry Report
        a.  The Inquiry Panel must provide the Respondent an opportunity to review and comment on the Inquiry Report and have any comments received attached to the final Inquiry Report.  Any comments from the Respondent that are submitted within thirty (30) calendar days will be attached to the final Inquiry Report.  Based on the comments, the Inquiry Panel may revise the draft Inquiry Report as appropriate and prepare it in final form.
        b.  The Inquiry Panel, on a case-by-case basis, may provide relevant portions of the Inquiry Report to the Complainant for comment.  Any comments from the Complainant that are timely received within thirty (30) calendar days will be attached to the final Inquiry Report.  Based on the comments, the Inquiry Panel may revise the draft Inquiry Report as appropriate and prepare it in final form for transmission to the DO.

    9.  Notification of the results of the Inquiry.
        a.  Notice to the Respondent.  The RIO must notify the Respondent whether the Inquiry found an Investigation to be warranted.  The notice must include a copy of the Inquiry Report and include a copy of or refer to this Policy and 42 CFR part 93, as appropriate.
        b.  Notice to the Complainant.  The RIO is not required to notify the Complainant whether the Inquiry found that an Investigation is warranted.  The RIO may, but is not required to, provide relevant portions of the Inquiry Report to the Complainant for comment.  If the RIO provides notice to one Complainant in a case, it must provide notice, to the extent possible, to all Complainants in the case.

    10.  Institutional Decision by Deciding Official.
        a.  The RIO will transmit the final Inquiry Report, records, and any comments to the DO, who will determine whether an Investigation is warranted.  Any finding that an Investigation is warranted must be made in writing by the DO.  The Inquiry is completed when the DO makes this determination.
        b.  The RIO will also notify those institutional officials who need to know of the DO’s decision.
        c.  The DO’s determination as to whether an Investigation is warranted is final and binding within the University.

    11.  Reporting to US ORI on the decision to initiate an Investigation
        a.  Within thirty (30) days of the DO’s decision that an Investigation is warranted, the RIO must provide the US ORI, as appropriate, with a copy of the Inquiry Report, that meets the requirements of this section and § 93.309, as appropriate.
        b.  The RIO must also provide the following information to the US ORI, whenever requested:
          (1)  The University’s policies and procedures under which the Inquiry was conducted;
          (2)  The research records and other Evidence reviewed and copies of all relevant documents; and
          (3)  The charges for the Investigation to consider.
        c.  Documentation of decision not to investigate.  The RIO must keep sufficiently detailed documentation of inquiries to permit a later assessment by US ORI, as appropriate, of the reasons why the University decided not to conduct an Investigation.  Such documentation must be retained in accordance with § 93.318.
        d.  In accordance with § 93.305(g), the RIO must notify the US ORI of any special circumstances that may exist.

    12.  Review by the OGC.
The Inquiry Report, in all its forms, will be transmitted to the OGC for a review of its legal sufficiency.  Modifications will be made as appropriate, in consultation among the RIO, the EC Representative, the Inquiry Panel, and the OGC.

    13.  Pursue leads.
The University must diligently pursue all significant issues and leads, consistent with the requirements of this Policy and § 93.305(f), as appropriate.

C.  The Investigation
    1.  Purpose.
The purpose of the Investigation is to develop a factual record and to examine that record in accordance with the applicable criteria and following the procedures set forth herein or as required by §§ 93.310 through 93.317 of the federal regulations, in order to reach either a decision recommending no finding of Research Misconduct or recommending a finding of Research Misconduct, which may include a recommendation for other appropriate actions, including institutional and administrative actions.
The Investigation will also determine whether there are additional instances of possible Research Misconduct that would justify broadening the scope beyond the initial Allegations.  This is particularly important where the alleged Research Misconduct involves clinical trials or potential harm to human subjects or the general public, or if it affects research that forms the basis for public policy, clinical practice, or public health practice.  The findings of the Investigation will be set forth in an Investigation report.

    2.  Time.
        a.  Initiating the Investigation.  The Investigation must begin within thirty (30) calendar days after the DO’s determination that an Investigation is warranted.
        b.  Completing the Investigation.  The panel must complete all aspects of the Investigation within 180 calendar days of beginning it, including conducting the Investigation, preparing the draft Investigation report for each Respondent for comment, and sending the final Institutional Record including the final Investigation Report and final decision by the DO to the US ORI.  If the Allegation falls under another sponsor’s research misconduct policy, the Investigation will be conducted in accordance with the sponsor’s requirements.
        c.  Extension of time limit.  If the Investigation Panel is unable to complete the Investigation in 180 calendar days, the panel must ask the US ORI for an extension in writing that includes the circumstances or issues warranting additional time.
        d.  Progress reports.  If the US ORI grants an extension, it may direct the panel to file periodic progress reports.
        e.  Investigation Report.  If the Investigation takes longer than 180 calendar days to complete, the Investigation Report must include the reasons for exceeding the 180-calendar day period.

    3.  Notice to the US ORI.
The RIO will notify the US ORI of the decision to begin an Investigation on or before the date the Investigation begins and provide an Inquiry Report that meets the requirements of this Policy and where required by §§ 93.307 and 93.309 of the federal regulations.

    4.  Notice to the Respondent.
        a.  The RIO must notify the Respondent in writing of the Allegation(s) of Research Misconduct within a reasonable amount of time after the DO’s determination that an Investigation is warranted, but before the Investigation begins.
        b.  The RIO must give the Respondent written notice of any Allegation(s) of Research Misconduct not addressed during the Inquiry or in the initial notice of Investigation within a reasonable amount of time of deciding to pursue such Allegation(s).
        c.  If the Investigation Panel identifies additional Respondents during the Investigation that were not identified during the Inquiry, the panel is not required to conduct a separate Inquiry for each new Respondent, provided there is a sufficient link between the original Allegation(s) and the additional Respondents.  If any additional Respondents are identified during the Investigation, the RIO must notify them of the Allegation(s) and provide them with an opportunity to respond.
        d.  While an Investigation into multiple Responding Parties can convene with the same panel, separate Investigation reports and Research Misconduct determinations are required for each Respondent.
        e.  The Respondent shall be notified of the following:
          (1)  A Respondent’s destruction of research records documenting the questioned research is Evidence of Research Misconduct where the University establishes by a Preponderance of the Evidence that the Respondent Intentionally or Knowingly destroyed records after being informed of the Research Misconduct Allegations.
          (2)  A 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.
          (3)  A Respondent’s conduct during the Research Misconduct Proceeding is not in Good Faith if, for example, the Respondent did not respond to document requests; withheld Evidence or information relevant to the Allegations; engaged in conduct, including, but not limited to, to delay, suspend, or terminate the Assessment, Inquiry, or Investigation; or communicated directly with the DO or other institutional officials to influence the direction or outcome of the Research Misconduct Proceeding.

    5.  Sequestration of records.
The RIO, in consultation with the EC Representative or Review Panel, will obtain all Research Records and other Evidence needed to conduct the Investigation.

    6.  Documentation.
        a.  The RIO and Investigation Panel will use diligent efforts to ensure that the Investigation is thorough and sufficiently documented and includes examination of all Research Records and other Evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the Allegation(s).

    7.  Ensuring a fair Investigation.
The University will take reasonable steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased Investigation to the maximum extent practicable, including participation of persons with appropriate scientific or subject matter expertise who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest relevant to the Investigation.

    8.  Interviews.
The Investigation Panel must interview each Complainant, Respondent, 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, provided these persons are willing to be interviewed.
        a.  Interviews during the Investigation must be recorded and transcribed.
        b.  Any exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview must be numbered and referred to by that number in the interview.
        c.  The transcript of the interview must be made available to the relevant interviewee for correction.
        d.  The transcript(s) with any corrections and numbered exhibits must be included in the institutional record of the Investigation and represent the official testimony of the relevant interviewee.
        e.  The Respondent must not be present during the Complainant or witnesses’ interviews, but must be provided a transcribed copy of the interview.
        f.  The Investigation Panel may request persons who are not willing to be interviewed to submit written responses to questions from the panel.
        g.  The corrected and certified transcript will represent the official record of the interview for purposes of the institutional record of the Research Misconduct Proceeding.
        h.  The Respondent may request the assistance of an Advisor, who may be a union agent or legal representative, to provide support and consultation, but who may not respond for the Respondent or disrupt the Respondent’s interview or meeting with the Respondent.  If the Advisor is disruptive or otherwise fails to respect the limited of the advisor role, the interview or meeting will be ended, or other appropriate measures implemented.  The Respondent is responsible for securing the Advisor’s assistance.
        i.  The Respondent is responsible for contacting and securing the attendance of any witnesses on his/her behalf.

    9.  Appointment of the Investigation Panel.
        a.  Persons conducting the Investigation.  The RIO, in consultation with an EC Representative, will appoint an Investigation Panel and the panel chair within ten (10) days of the DO’s determination that an Investigation is warranted, or as soon thereafter as practical.  The Investigation Panel members will be qualified by practice and/or other experience to evaluate the Evidence and issues related to the Allegations, conduct interviews, and support or participate in the Research Misconduct Proceeding.
        b.  Composition of the Investigation Panel.  The Investigation Panel may have five (5) members and at least one alternate.  The University may use the same panel members from the Inquiry in their subsequent Investigation.
        c.  Panel chair duties.  The panel chair shall control the proceeding and determine the admissibility of Evidence.  The panel chair shall have the ability to limit the presentation of irrelevant or repetitious Evidence.  The panel chair shall keep the RIO informed of the status of the Investigation.
        d.  Conflicts of interest.  The Investigation Panel must consist of persons who do not have a potential, perceived, or actual personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the Research Misconduct Proceeding, including the Complainant, Respondent, or witnesses.  The RIO, in consultation with the EC Representative, will determine whether a conflict exists and take appropriate action, including appointing an alternate EC member to the panel, as appropriate.  The RIO will notify the Respondent of the proposed Investigation Panel members to give the Respondent an opportunity to object to a proposed member or members based on a potential, perceived, or actual personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest.  The Respondent will have ten (10) calendar days to submit an objection.  The RIO, in consultation with the EC Representative, will determine whether a conflict of interest exist.
        e.  Use of subject matter experts.  The Investigation Panel may utilize one or more subject matter experts from outside the Ethics Committee or the University where special qualifications, expertise, or experience is required or where a conflict of interest exists, to assist them in the Investigation.
        f.  Pursue leads.  The Investigation Panel must diligently pursue all significant issues and leads discovered in information obtained from Evidence and/or testimony during the Inquiry that are determined relevant to the Inquiry, including any Evidence of additional instances of possible Research Misconduct.  The pursuit of any such issues and/or leads may extend to the examination of additional research records (e.g. published papers, grant applications) of the Respondent(s) that contain similar data elements as that of the initial Allegation(s).  If additional Allegations are raised during the Inquiry, the Respondent(s) must be notified in writing of the additional Allegations raised against them.

    10.  Multiple Respondents.
The Investigation Panel will consider, consistent with this Policy and where required by § 93.305(d) of the federal regulations, the prospect of additional individuals being responsible for the alleged Research Misconduct.

    11.  Multiple institutions.
A joint Research Misconduct Proceeding must be conducted consistent with this Policy and when required by § 93.305(e) of the federal regulations.

    12.  Opportunity to comment on the draft Investigation Report and access to Evidence
        a.  The Respondent must be provided with a copy of the draft Investigation Report for comment and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to the research record and other Evidence that the Investigation Panel considered or relied on.  The Respondent must submit any comments to the panel within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the draft Investigation Report.  The Respondent’s comments must be considered by the panel and included with the final Investigation Report when submitted to the DO.
        b.  On a case-by-case basis the Investigation Panel may provide the Complainant a copy of the draft Investigation Report, or relevant portions of that report.  If the panel chooses this option, the Complainant’s comments, if any, must be submitted within thirty (30) calendar days of the date on which the Complainant received the draft Investigation Report, or relevant portions of that report.  The Complainant’s comments must be considered by the panel and included with the final Investigation Report when submitted to the DO.
        c.  In distributing the draft Investigation Report, or portions thereof, for comment to the Respondent (and Complainant, as appropriate), the RIO will inform the recipient of the confidentiality under which the draft Investigation Report, or relevant portions of that report, is made available and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure such confidentiality.

    13.  Instructions to the Investigation Panel and the first meeting.
The RIO, in consultation with the EC Representative, will define the subject matter of the Investigation in a written set of instructions to the panel that:
        a.  Describes the Allegations and related issues identified during the Inquiry;
        b.  Identifies the Respondent;
        c.  Informs the Investigation Panel that it must conduct the Investigation as prescribed in this section;
        d.  Defines Research Misconduct;
        e.  Informs the Investigation Panel that it must evaluate the Evidence and testimony to determine whether, based on a Preponderance of the Evidence, recommended charges of Research Misconduct will be forwarded to the DO.  If so, the type and extent of the charges and who is being held responsible will be stated;
        f.  Informs the Investigation Panel that in order to determine that the Respondent should be charged with Research Misconduct, it must find that: (1) the Research Misconduct is a significant departure from Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community; and (2) the Respondent committed the Research Misconduct Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly; and (3) the Allegation was proven by a Preponderance of the Evidence;
        g.  Informs the Investigation Panel that it must prepare or direct the preparation of a written Investigation Report that meets the requirements of this Policy and where required by § 93.313; and
        h.  Describes the procedures and standards for the conduct of the Investigation as prescribed in this procedure, including the necessity for confidentiality and for developing a specific Investigation plan.
        i.  The panel will be provided with copies of EP 12.211 and AP 12.211, along with 42 CFR part 93, as appropriate.

    14.  Evidentiary standard.
        a.  Standard of proof.  A University finding of Research Misconduct must be proved by a Preponderance of the Evidence.
        b.  Preponderance of the Evidence means there is more Evidence supporting the Allegations than opposing it, leading to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely true than not.
        c.  Burden of Proof.  The University has the Burden of Proof for making a finding of Research Misconduct.
        d.  The Respondent has the responsibility of going forward with and proving, by a Preponderance of the Evidence, all affirmative defenses raised.  In determining whether the University carried the burden of proof imposed by this part, the Review Panel shall give due consideration to admissible, credible Evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the Respondent.
        e.  The Respondent has the responsibility of going forward with and proving, by a Preponderance of the Evidence, any mitigating factors relevant to a decision to impose administrative action after a Research Misconduct Proceeding.

    15.  Investigation process.
The Investigation Panel must:
        a.  Use diligent efforts to ensure that the Investigation is thorough and sufficiently documented and includes an examination of all Research Records and Evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of each Allegation;
        b.  Interview each Respondent, Complainant, and persons who have been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the Investigation, including witnesses identified by the Respondent, as provided in this procedure, provided these individuals are willing to be interviewed.
        c.  The Investigation commences with the first meeting of the Investigation Panel.
        d.  The RIO will be present and available throughout the Investigation to advise the panel as needed and to provide staff support.

    16.  Elements of the Investigation Report.
A final Investigation Report for each Respondent must be in writing and include:
        a.  The names, professional aliases, position, and department of the Respondent and Complainant, unless the Complainant wises to remain anonymous;
        b.  A description of the nature of the Allegation(s) of Research Misconduct, including any additional Allegation(s) addressed during the Research Misconduct Proceeding;
        c.  A description and documentation of the  PHS support, including, for example, any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS support;
        d.  A description of the specific Allegation(s) of Research Misconduct for consideration in the Investigation of the Respondent;
        e.  The composition of the Investigation Panel, including names, positions, and subject matter expertise;
        f.  An inventory of sequestered Research Records and other Evidence, except records the Investigation Panel did not consider or rely on; and a description of how any sequestration was conducted during the Investigation.  This inventory must include manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied on during the Investigation.
        g.  Transcripts of all transcribed interviews conducted.
        h.  Identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), PHS funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, or other research records that allegedly contained the falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material.
        i.  Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
        j.  The University’s policies and procedures under which the Investigation was conducted.
        k.  Any comments made by the Respondent and Complainant on the draft Investigation Report and the Investigation Panel’s consideration of those comments.
        l.  A statement for each separate Allegation of whether the panel recommends a finding of Research Misconduct.
        m.  If the Investigation Panel recommends a finding of Research Misconduct for an Allegation, the Investigation report must for that Allegation:
          (1)  Identify the individual(s) who committed the Research Misconduct.
          (2)  Indicate whether the Research Misconduct was Falsification, Fabrication, and/or Plagiarism.
          (3)  Indicate whether the Research Misconduct was committed Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly.
          (4)  State whether the other requirements for a finding of Research Misconduct, as described in this procedure and § 93.103 of the federal regulations, have been met:
              (a)  There is a significant departure from Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community;
              (b)  The misconduct be committed Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly; and
              (c)  The Allegation be proven by a Preponderance of the Evidence.
          (5)  Summarize the facts and the analysis which support the conclusion and consider the merits of any reasonable explanation by the Respondent.
          (6)  Identify the specific PHS support, support from non-PHS Federal agencies, or other extramural funding sources.
          (7)  Identify whether any publications need correction or retraction.
        n.  If the Investigation Panel does not recommend a finding of Research Misconduct for an Allegation, the Investigation Report must provide a detailed rationale.
        o.  List of any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the Respondent has pending with PHS and non-PHS Federal agencies.

    17.  Review by the OGC.
The Investigation Report, in all its form, will be transmitted to the OGC for a review of its legal sufficiency.  The Investigation Panel may modify the Investigation Report, as appropriate, in consultation among the RIO, EC Representative and the OGC.

    18.  Decision by the Deciding Official.
The RIO will assist the panel in finalizing the Investigation Report, including ensuring that the Respondent’s and Complainant’s comments, if afforded the opportunity and timely received, are included and considered in finalizing the Investigation Report for transmission to the DO.  The DO is responsible for making a final determination of Research Misconduct findings.  This determination must be provided in a written decision that includes:
        a.  Whether the University found Research Misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct; and
        b.  A description of relevant institutional actions taken or to be taken in response to accepted findings of Research Misconduct. 
        c.  If the DO’s determination varies from the panel’s findings, the DO will, as part of the DO’s written determination, explain in detail the basis for rendering a decision different from the findings of the panel.  Alternatively, the DO may return the Investigation Report to the panel with a request for further fact-finding or analysis.

    19.  Notice of the DO’s decision.
        a.  When a final decision on the case has been reached, the DO shall inform the Respondent in writing. 
        b.  At the discretion of the RIO and EC Representative, the Complainant may be notified of the final decision of the case.
        c.  After informing the US ORI, as appropriate, the DO will also determine, in consultation with other UH officials, whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals which may have been published, collaborators of the Respondent in the work, or other relevant parties, should be notified of the outcome of the case.  The RIO is responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification requirements of funding or sponsoring agencies.

    20.  Notice to the US ORI of Institutional Findings and Actions.
        a.  After the DO has made a final determination of Research Misconduct findings in accordance with this Policy and where required by § 93.314 of the federal regulations, the RIO must transmit the institutional record to the US ORI.  The institutional record must be consistent with § 93.220 of the federal regulations and logically organized.
        b.  Unless an extension has been granted, the RIO must, within the 180-calendar day period for completing the Investigation submit the following to the US ORI:
          (1)  A copy of the final Investigation Report with all attachments and the record of any proceeding involving institutional administrative actions;
          (2)  A statement of whether the University accepts the findings of the Investigation Report or the outcome of any institutional administrative actions;
          (3)  A statement of whether the University found Research Misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct; and
          (4)  A description of any pending or completed administrative actions against the Respondent (42 CFR § 93.315).

D.  Deciding Official’s Final Determination.
    1.  The DO’s determination on Allegations of Research Misconduct is final and binding within the University.  If the DO determines that the corrective action, including but not limited to, appropriate action to correct the research record and/or training or remedial action to educate and assist the Respondent(s), is necessary, the DO may include such actions in the final determination and require that they be taken.  Such corrective action is not disciplinary in nature.

    2.  If the DO determines that discipline, ranging from a reprimand up to and including suspension or termination, may be warranted, the DO may include a recommendation to the appropriate administrator (Chancellor/Provost for faculty, Dean/Director/Supervisor for staff) for disciplinary action or may choose to refer the matter directly to the Respondent’s Dean or equivalent executive for consideration of appropriate disciplinary action.

    3.  Respondents who are included in the bargaining unit may challenge any disciplinary actions through the procedures specified in the prevailing UH faculty and staff bargaining unit agreements.

    4.  The complete record of the institutional proceeding will become part of the institutional record of the Research Misconduct Proceeding.

    5.  The RIO must promptly notify the US ORI of any grievance initiated by the Respondent in response to any disciplinary action.

    6.  If the University has not transmitted its institutional record to the US ORI in accordance with § 93.316 of the federal regulations prior to the filing of a grievance, the RIO must wait until the grievance process is concluded to transmit its institutional record.  The RIO must ensure that the complete record of any proceeding involving institutional administrative action is included in the institutional record consistent with § 93.220(a)(5).

    7.  If the University has transmitted its institutional record to the US ORI in accordance with § 93.316 of the federal regulations prior to the filing of a grievance, the University must provide the US ORI a complete record of the grievance once the grievance process in concluded.

E.  General conduct of Research Misconduct Proceedings.
    1.  The RIO
        a.  The RIO will have primary responsibility for implementation of the University’s policies and procedures on Research Misconduct;
        b.  The RIO will receive Allegations of Research Misconduct;
        c.  The RIO may consult with persons confidentially and/or hypothetically who are uncertain about whether to submit an Allegation of Research Misconduct.
        d.  The RIO will keep the DO and other institutional officials who need to know apprised of the Review Panel’s progress in the Research Misconduct Proceeding;
        e.  The RIO will consult with the OGC and other UH offices and institutional officials, as appropriate;
        f.  The RIO, in consultation with an EC Representative, will determine whether any person considered for appointment to a Review Panel has an unresolved personal, professional, or financial relationship with either the Complainant, Respondent, or witness; and taking appropriate action, including recusal, to ensure that no person with such unresolved relationship is involved in the Research Misconduct Proceeding;
        g.  The RIO will ensure that institutional administrative actions taken by the University and/or US ORI are enforced and notifying other involved parties of those actions, such as sponsors, law enforcement agencies, professional societies, editors of journals, and licensing boards;

    2.  The Deciding Official (DO)
        a.  The DO shall not be the same person as the RIO and may not have any direct prior involvement with the principals and specific Allegations under review in the Assessment, Inquiry, or Investigation of an Allegation of Research Misconduct.
        b.  The DO will appoint persons to the Ethics Committee (EC).  Such appointments to the EC are not considered to be a direct prior involvement on the part of the DO in a Research Misconduct Proceeding.
        c.  The DO is responsible for making final determinations on an Allegation of Research Misconduct and any institutional administrative actions.  The DO will receive the Inquiry Report and may consult with the RIO and an EC Representative to decide whether an Investigation is warranted.  Any finding that an Investigation is warranted must be made in writing by the DO and must be provided to the US ORI, as appropriate, together with a copy of the Inquiry Report within thirty (30) calendar days of the DO’s determination.  If it is found than an Investigation is not warranted, the DO and the RIO will ensure that detailed documentation of the Inquiry is retained for at least seven (7) years after termination of the Inquiry, so that the US ORI may assess the reasons why the University decided not to conduct an Investigation.
        d.  The DO will receive the Investigation Report and may consult with the RIO and other appropriate institutional officials, to decide the extent to which the University will accept the findings and recommendations of the Investigation.  If Research Misconduct is found, the DO will decide what, if any, institutional administrative actions are appropriate.  The DO shall ensure that the final Investigation Report, the findings of the DO and a description of the any pending or completed institutional administrative actions are provided to the US ORI, as appropriate.
        e.  The DO is responsible for making final determinations on an Allegation of Research Misconduct and whether any institutional administrative actions are appropriate.

    3.  The Complainant.
        a.  The Complainant is considered a witness who can provide testimony or identify potential Evidence of Research Misconduct.  The Complainant does not dictate or control the direction of the Research Misconduct Proceeding.  The RIO, EC, Review Panels, or the OGC, do not represent the Complainant’s personal or professional interests in a Research Misconduct Proceeding.

    4.  Informant.
        a.  The Informant is under no obligation to be interviewed and retains the right to remain anonymous.  However, it must be noted that although the University may be able to control its own Research Misconduct Proceeding, anonymity cannot be guaranteed in a court of law or in arbitration of a grievance.
        b.  The RIO need not inform the Informant of the status or outcome of the case or offer the Informant an opportunity to review any Reports or Evidence gathered.

    5.  Respondent.
        a.  The Respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality, cooperating in Good Faith with the conduct of an Assessment, Inquiry, or Investigation, including providing Good Faith testimony and Evidence relevant to the Allegation, and refraining from retaliatory actions.

    6.  Confidentiality.
        a.  Disclosure of the identity of Respondents, Complainants, Informants, and witnesses while conducting the Research Misconduct Proceedings is limited, to the extent possible, to those who need to know, as determined by the University, consistent with a thorough, competent, objective, and fair Research Misconduct Proceedings, and as allowed by law.  Those who need to know may include, but are not limited to, institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions.  This limitation on disclosure of the identify of Respondents, Complainants, Informants, and witnesses no longer applies once the University has made a final determination of Research Misconduct findings.  The University, however, must disclose the identity of Respondents, Complainants, Informants, or other relevant persons to the US ORI pursuant to a UH ORI review of Research Misconduct Proceedings under this procedure.
        b.  The University must inform Respondents, Complainants, and witnesses before they are interviewed, if and how their identity may be disclosed to those who need to know.  Provided, however, that the University must disclose the identity of Respondents, Complainants, or other relevant persons to US ORI pursuant to a US ORI review of Research Misconduct Proceedings where required by 42 CFR part 93.
        c.  Except as may otherwise be prescribed by applicable law, confidentiality must be maintained for any records or Evidence from which research subjects might be identified.  Disclosure is limited to those who need to know to carry out a Research Misconduct Proceeding.
        d.  This section does not prohibit the University from managing published data or acknowledging that data may be unreliable.

    7.  Completion of Cases; Reporting Premature Closure to ORI; Admission by the Respondent.
        a.  The US ORI expects the University to carry Inquiries and Investigations through to completion and to pursue diligently all significant issues and credible Allegations of Research Misconduct.  The RIO must notify US ORI in advance if the University plans to close a Research Misconduct Proceeding at the Assessment, Inquiry, Investigation, or Appeal stage on the basis that the Respondent has admitted to committing Research Misconduct or a settlement with the Respondent has been reached.
        b.  The Respondent shall be given the opportunity to admit that Research Misconduct occurred and that the Respondent had committed the Research Misconduct.  With the advice of the OGC, the DO may terminate the Review Panel’s review of the Allegation that has been admitted if the Review Panel’s acceptance of the admission is approved by the US ORI, where required by 42 CFR part 93.
        c.  A Respondent’s admission of Research Misconduct must be made in writing and signed by the Respondent.  An admission must specify the Falsification, Fabrication, and/or Plagiarism that occurred and which research records were affected.  The admission must meet all the elements required for a Research Misconduct finding under this Policy and § 93.103 and must be provided to the US ORI before the Inquiry or Investigation Panel closes the Research Misconduct Proceeding.  The panel must also provide a statement to the US ORI describing how it determined that the scope of the misconduct was fully addressed by the admission and confirmed the Respondent’s culpability.  The Panel may consult with the OGC on the legal sufficiency of the admission.
        d.  After consulting with the University on its basis for closing the case under paragraph (a) of this section, the US ORI may conduct an oversight review of the University’s handling of the case and take appropriate action including:
          (1)  Approving or conditionally approving close of the case;
          (2)  Directing the University to complete its process;
          (3)  Directing the University to address deficiencies in the Institutional Record;
          (4)  Referring the matter for further investigation by HHS; or
          (5)  Taking a compliance action.

    8.  Sequestration of research records and other Evidence.
The RIO, in consultation with the EC Representative or Review Panels, must promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain all research records and other Evidence, which may include copies of the data or other Evidence so long as those copies are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value, needed to conduct the Research Misconduct Proceeding; inventory the records and other Evidence; and sequester them in a secure manner.  Where the research records or other Evidence are located on or encompass scientific instruments shared by multiple users, the RIO may obtain copies of the data or other Evidence from such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments.  Whenever possible, the RIO must obtain the research records or other Evidence:
        a.  Before or at the time the RIO notifies the Respondent of the Allegation(s); and
        b.  Whenever additional items become known or relevant to the Inquiry or Investigation.
        c.  Utilize other sources where the Respondent does not cooperate with requests for copies of the Respondent’s research record, data, or other Evidence relevant to the Inquiry or Investigation.

    9.  Access to research records.
Where appropriate, the RIO must give the Responding Party copies of, or reasonable supervised access to, the research records that are sequestered in accordance with this Policy and § 93.305(a).

    10.  Multiple Respondents.
If the Review Panel identifies additional Respondents during an Inquiry or Investigation, the University is not required to conduct a separate Inquiry for each new Respondent.  However, each new Respondent must be provided notice of and an opportunity to respond to the Allegation.

    11.  Multiple institutions.
When multiple institutions are involved in the Allegations, one institution must be designated as the lead institution if a joint Research Misconduct Proceeding (Inquiry and/or Investigation) is conducted.  In a joint Research Misconduct Proceeding, the lead institution should obtain research records pertinent to the Inquiry/Investigation and witness’ testimonies 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 to further Inquiry and/or Investigation is warranted, whether Research Misconduct occurred, and which institutional actions are to be taken may be made by the institutions jointly or the responsibilities tasked to the lead institution.

    12.  Notifying the US ORI of special circumstances.
At any time during a Research Misconduct Proceeding, the RIO must notify the US ORI or appropriate federal agency immediately if the RIO or Review Panel have reason to believe that any of the following conditions exist:
        a.  Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects.
        b.  HHS resources or interests are threatened.
        c.  Research activities should be suspended.
        d.  There is reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law.
        e.  Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the Research Misconduct Proceeding.
        f.  HHS may need to take appropriate steps to safeguard Evidence and protect the rights of those involved.

    13.  Retention and custody of the institutional record.
        a.  Maintenance of the institutional record and all sequestered Evidence.  The University must 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 (7) years after completion of the proceeding or the completion of any HHS proceeding involving the Research Misconduct Allegation, whichever is later, unless custody has been transferred to HHS under § 93.318(b).
        b.  Provision for HHS custody.  On request, the University must transfer custody, or provide copies, to HHS of the institutional record or any component of the institutional record and any sequestered Evidence (regardless of whether the Evidence is included in the institutional record) for the US ORI to conduct its oversight review, develop the administrative record, or present the administrative record in any proceedings under subparts D and E of 42 CFR part 93.

    14.  Notifying Non-Federal Sponsors.
The RIO will inform Non-Federal Sponsors of the outcomes of Inquiries and Investigations based on contractual obligations.  The DO, in consultation with the RIO, UH officials, and the OGC, may inform Non-Federal Sponsors even if notification is not contractually required.

F.  Other Considerations
    1.  Interim Administrative Actions and Notifying the US ORI of Special Circumstances.
        a.  Interim administrative action means remedial or corrective action (rather than punitive or disciplinary) taken by the RIO, in consultation with the DO, EC Representative, the OGC, or UH officials, as appropriate, in response to an Allegation or finding of Research Misconduct.  Interim administrative actions might include:
          (1)  Additional monitoring of the research process;
          (2)  Handling of federal funds and equipment;
          (3)  Reassignment of personnel or of the responsibility for the handling of sponsor funds and equipment;
          (4)  Additional review of research data and results, or delaying publication; and
          (5)  Monitoring and review of new grant proposals submitted to funding agencies.
        b.  Throughout the Research Misconduct Proceeding, the RIO will assess whether there is any threat of harm to public health, federal funds, and equipment; or to the integrity of the supported research process.  In the event of any threat, the RIO will, in consultation with other institutional officials and the US ORI, as appropriate, take appropriate interim action to protect against any threat.  Interim action may include additional monitoring of the research process and the handling of federal funds and equipment; reassignment of personnel or of the responsibility for the handling of federal funds and equipment; additional review of research data and results; or delaying publication.
        c.  If at any time during an Assessment, Inquiry, or Investigation, it appears that there has been a violation of criminal law, the Research Misconduct Proceeding will be suspended.  The RIO will notify the DO, who will consult with the OGC to determine the next action to be taken.

    2.  Institutional administrative actions.
If the DO determines that Research Misconduct is substantiated by the findings, the DO will decide on the appropriate administrative actions to be taken after consultation with the RIO, Review Panel, the OGC, and other UH officials, as appropriate.  The administrative actions may include:
        a.  Corrective actions, including, but not limited to, withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers, and presentations emanating from the research where Research Misconduct was found.  The determination of appropriate corrective action is final and binding within the University;
        b.  Restitution of funds to the grantor agency as appropriate;
        c.  Additional monitoring of the research process;
        d.  Handling of federal funds and equipment;
        e.  Reassignment of personnel or of the responsibility for the handling of sponsor funds and equipment;
        f.  Additional review of research data and results, or delaying publication;
        g.  Monitoring and review of new grant proposals submitted to funding agencies; and
        h.  Other institutional administrative action appropriate to the misconduct.
        i.  If the DO determines that disciplinary action, ranging from reprimand to suspension or termination, may be warranted, the DO may either recommend appropriate discipline or refer the matter to the Respondent’s dean or equivalent executive for consideration of appropriate disciplinary action.  Respondents who are included in the bargaining unit may challenge any disciplinary action pursuant to the applicable collective bargaining agreement.

    3.  The Respondent’s Unavailability Prior to Completing Inquiry or Investigation.
        a.  The termination of the Respondent’s institutional employment, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an Allegation of possible Research Misconduct has been reported, will not preclude, delay, or terminate the Research Misconduct Proceeding, or otherwise limit any of the University’s responsibilities under this Policy and 42 CFR part 93.
        b.  If the Respondent, without admitting to the misconduct, elects to resign his or her position after the University receives an Allegation of Research Misconduct, the Assessment of the Allegation will proceed, as well as the Inquiry and Investigation, as appropriate based on the outcome of the preceding steps.
        c.  If the Respondent refuses to participate in the Research Misconduct Proceeding for any of the other reasons, the RIO and any Inquiry or Investigation Panel will use their best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the Allegations, noting in the report the Respondent’s absence from the Inquiry or Investigation and its effect on the Evidence.

    4.  Restoration of the Respondent’s Reputation.
        a.  Following a final finding of no Research Misconduct, including the US ORI concurrence where required by 42 CFR part 93, the RIO will, at the request of the Respondent, undertake all reasonable and practical efforts to restore the Respondent’s reputation.
        b.  Depending on the particular circumstances and the views of the Respondent, the RIO should consider notifying those persons aware of or involved in the Investigation of the final outcome, publicizing the final outcome, publicizing the final outcome in any forum in which the Allegation of Research Misconduct was previously publicized, and expunging all reference to the Research Misconduct Allegation from the Respondent’s personnel file.
        c.  Provide for all reasonable and practical efforts, if requested and as appropriate, to protect or restore the reputation of persons alleged to have engaged in research misconduct but against who no finding of research misconduct is made.

    5.  Protection of the Complainant, Informant, Witnesses, and Institutional Officials
        a.  The RIO will take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of Good Faith Complainants, witnesses, and Review Panel members and to protect these individuals from retaliation by Respondents and/or other Institutional Members.
        b.  The DO may consult with the RIO, Complainant, Informant, witnesses, EC members, or Review Panel members to determine what steps, if any, are needed to restore their respective positions or reputations or to counter potential or actual retaliation against them.  The RIO is responsible for implementing any steps approved by the DO.

    6.  Allegation(s) or Testimony Not Made in Good Faith.
        a.  If relevant, the DO, in consultation with the RIO, EC Representative, Review Panels, and other institutional officials, as appropriate, will determine whether the Complainant’s Allegation(s) of Research Misconduct were made in Good Faith, or whether a witness, Respondent, EC member, or Review Panel member acted in Good Faith. 
        b.  If the DO determines that there was an absence of Good Faith, the DO will determine whether any administrative action should be taken.

There is no administrative procedure specific delegation of authority.

Office of the Vice President for Research and Innovation
Telephone number: (808) 956-5006
Email: uhovpri@hawaii.edu

Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct, 42 CFR part 93
National Science Foundation Research Misconduct Policy, 45 CFR 689
Regents Policy (RP) 12.201, Ethical Standards of Conduct
Executive Policy (EP) 12.211, Policy for Responding to Allegations of Research and Scholarly Misconduct
Executive Policy (EP) 7.208, Systemwide Student Conduct Code
Link to superseded UH Executive Polies in old format https://www.hawaii.edu/policy/archives/ep
Link to UH Administrative Procedures in old format https://www.hawaii.edu/policy/archives/apm/sysap.php

None

    Interim Vice President for Research and Innovation