Policy on Misconduct in Research

Section I. General Policy Guidelines

A. Applicability

This policy applies to all research conducted at Baylor University ("Baylor") and research supported by outside organizations, including the Public Health Service, the National Science Foundation, and any other governmental entity. This policy applies to any person employed by, subject to the rules and policies of, or affiliated with Baylor including, but not limited to all "Researchers," as defined in Section IC(14).

B. Introduction

Most researchers conduct themselves in a manner that is above reproach and take great pride in the reliability of their own research. Any instance of research misconduct, however, presents a serious threat to the integrity of research processes, the reputation of Baylor, and the credibility of the research community as a whole. All Researchers at Baylor are expected to engage in research and research activities that maintain a level of ethical and moral behavior supportive of and consistent with the Christian mission of Baylor. Research misconduct will not be tolerated at Baylor. Each and every Researcher must bear responsibility for monitoring and evaluating the procedures and related activities which the Researcher conducts, supervises, or participates. Each Researcher is expected to be familiar with, and act in accordance with, this policy and all applicable local, state, and federal laws. Researchers must adhere to commonly accepted practices and standards governing research activities and report each act of research misconduct which is known or believed to have occurred.

All actions undertaken pursuant to this policy will proceed promptly and with due regard for the reputations and rights of all persons involved. However, because of the inherent unfairness and difficulties presented by any attempt to assess stale evidence, allegations of misconduct based on events that occurred six or more years ago will not be subject to review under this policy unless (I) the respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct that occurred outside the six-year limit through the citation, republication or other use for the potential benefit of the respondent of the research record that is the subject of the allegation; or (2) it is determined that the alleged misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public.

C. Definitions

1. Allegation means any written or oral statement or other indication of possible research misconduct made to a Baylor official.

2. Complainant means a person who makes an allegation of research misconduct.

3. Conflict of Interest means the real or apparent conflict of one person's interests with the interests of another person or entity, where the potential bias may occur due to prior or existing personal or professional relationships.

4. Deciding Official means the Baylor official who makes final determination on allegations of research misconduct and any responsive Baylor actions.

5. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

6. Good Faith Allegation means an allegation made with the honest belief that research misconduct may have occurred.

7. Inquiry means gathering information and conducting initial fact-finding to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of research misconduct warrants an investigation.

8. Investigation means the formal examination and evaluation of all relevant evidence to determine if research misconduct has occurred, and, if so, to determine the responsible person and the seriousness of the research misconduct.

9. ORI means the Office of Research Integrity in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). ORI is responsible for the research misconduct and research integrity activities of the U.S. Public Health Services (PHS).

10. Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

11. Research Integrity Officer means the Baylor official responsible for making an inquiry into allegations of research misconduct and determining when such allegations warrant an investigation. The Research Integrity Officer will be responsible for communicating to all persons and agencies involved during the inquiry and investigation unless otherwise provided below. The Research Integrity Officer is appointed by the Vice Provost for Research and the Provost.

12. Research Misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. As described in 42 CFR Section 93.103: Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

13. Research Record means any data, document, computer file, computer diskette, or any other written or non-written account or object that reasonably may be expected to provide evidence or information regarding the proposed, conducted, and/or reported research that constitutes the subject of an allegation of research misconduct. A research record includes, but is not limited to, grant or contract applications, whether funded or unfunded; grant or contract progress and other reports; laboratory notebooks; notes; correspondence; videos; audio tape; photographs; x-ray film; slides; biological materials; computer files and printouts; manuscripts and publications; equipment use logs; laboratory procurement records; animal facility records; human and animal subject protocols; consent forms; medical charts; and patient research files.

14. Researcher means any person employed by, subject to the rules and policies of, or affiliated with, Baylor including, but not limited to:

a. Faculty: Those bearing a title including the terms "Assistant Professor," "Associate Professor," "University Professor," "Distinguished Professor," "Professor," "Assistant Research Professor," "Associate Research Professor," "Research Professor," "Visiting Scholar," "Academic Professional," "Senior Lecturer," or "Lecturer" (part-time or full-time). Any individual with emeritus standing is considered to be a faculty member for the purposes of this Policy as long as that individual is actively associated with Baylor or is utilizing Baylor facilities.

b. Students: Anyone seeking a degree and/or research experience at Baylor including, but not limited to, undergraduate students, graduate students, and part-time students.

c. Staff: Non-faculty, non-student employees of Baylor.

15. Respondent means the persons against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or the person whose actions are the subject of an inquiry or investigation. There can be more than one respondent in any inquiry or investigation.

16. Retaliation means any action taken by Baylor that adversely affects the employment or other institutional status of a complainant, who, acting in good faith, has made an allegation of research misconduct; a witness; or an investigation committee member. Adverse actions taken against any individual who has cooperated in good faith with an investigation of alleged misconduct also constitute retaliation.

Section II. General Procedures

A. Reporting Misconduct or Retaliation

All Researchers are required to report observed, suspected, or apparent research misconduct, or retaliation for having made such allegations. Reports may be conveyed to the Research Integrity Officer; to the accused person's immediate supervisor and/or an appropriate administrative official such as a department chair, research center director, dean or other administrator; or through Baylor's third-party reporting system, available at www.baylor.edu/about/ethics. An administrative official who receives such a report must immediately contact the Vice Provost for Research and/or the Research Integrity Officer. Failure of a Researcher to report observed research misconduct will subject that Researcher to sanctions up to and including termination or expulsion.

Reports can be made on an informal (oral) or formal (written) basis. Allegations, including those submitted through Baylor's third-party reporting system, should be submitted in sufficient detail as to permit an inquiry into whether an investigation is warranted. The Vice Provost for Research and/or Research Integrity Officer will make reasonable efforts to review and resolve informal reports of alleged misconduct; however, such reports will not be processed through the procedures set out below unless they are submitted in writing and confirmed separately through available evidence.

If an allegation of research misconduct or retaliation creates a real or apparent conflict of interest for the Research Integrity Officer, the Vice Provost for Research and the Provost shall appoint an interim Research Integrity Officer to fulfill the role of the Research Integrity Officer for the inquiry and possible investigation of the allegation.

B. Formal Allegations of Misconduct

1. Baylor's Research Integrity Officer will make an inquiry into all formal allegations of misconduct and, in consultation with the Vice Provost for Research, the Provost and the Office of General Counsel, make an initial determination whether:

a. The allegations concern subject matter and individuals that fall within the scope of this policy;

b. The allegations meet the definition of research misconduct in 42 CFR Section 93.103;

c. The allegations involve PHS supported research, applications for PHS research support, or research records specified in 42 CFR Section 93.102;

d. The allegations are sufficiently credible and specific to allow for their evaluation and the documentation of the conclusion(s) concerning the need for an investigation.

2. If it is found that an investigation is warranted, the Research Integrity Officer, in consultation with the Vice Provost for Research, will:

a. Appoint the investigation committee;

b. Ensure that necessary and appropriate expertise is secured to carry out a thorough and authoritative evaluation of the relevant evidence;

c. Assist the investigation committee and all Baylor personnel in complying with the procedures and applicable standards imposed by the government or other external funding sources;

d. Maintain the confidentiality and security of all documents and evidence;

e. Take reasonable steps to assure that the persons involved in the evaluation of allegations or evidence are fair, competent, and impartial and without a conflict of interest;

f. Report to ORI or other government agencies as required by regulation; and

g. Keep ORI or other government agencies apprised of any developments during the course of an inquiry or investigation that may affect current or potential DHHS funding for the individual under investigation; or of any developments about which the PHS needs to know in order to ensure appropriate use of federal funds and otherwise protect the public interest.

C. The Complainant

1 The Research Integrity Officer will monitor the treatment of those individuals who bring allegations of research misconduct and of those who cooperate in inquiries and investigations to ensure that they are not retaliated against in the terms or conditions of their employment or other status at Baylor.

2 Baylor, will, to the maximum extent possible, protect the privacy of those who make good faith reports of research misconduct and will make diligent efforts to protect their positions and reputations.

3 In the event of an investigation, the complainant will have the opportunity to testify before the investigation committee; review portions of the investigation report pertinent to his or her allegations or testimony; be informed of the results of the investigation; and be protected from retaliation. The complainant will be given pertinent portions of draft reports for comment if the Research Integrity Officer determines that he or she may be able to provide relevant information on those portions of the draft.

4 The complainant is responsible for making allegations in good faith; maintaining confidentiality; and cooperating fully with any inquiry or investigation. Individuals who make frivolous allegations or bring them in bad faith shall be subject to disciplinary action.

D. The Respondent

I. The respondent will be informed of the allegations when an inquiry is opened; notified in writing of the conclusion of the Research Integrity Officer; and informed of any actions that may result from that conclusion.

2. Baylor will ensure fair treatment of the respondent and confidentiality to the extent possible without compromising public health and safety or the ability to thoroughly conduct an inquiry or investigation. No person involved in resolving an allegation of research misconduct shall have conflicts of interest in the matter.

3. The respondent will have the opportunity to:

a. Be interviewed as a part of the inquiry;

b. Present evidence to the investigation committee;

c. Review the draft inquiry and investigation reports; and

d. Be informed of the results of the inquiry or investigation.

4. The respondent may employ outside counsel at his or her expense at any stage of the proceedings described in this policy. Counsel may accompany the respondent in meetings but may not ask questions or offer testimony. The role of counsel is limited to that of advisor to the respondent unless a formal grievance hearing is held, pursuant to established Baylor policies, as a result of an investigation.

5. The respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating with the inquiry or investigation.

6. The respondent has the right to receive Baylor's assistance in restoring his or her reputation if found not to have engaged in research misconduct.

E. Interim Protective Actions

At any time during a research misconduct inquiry or investigation, appropriate interim actions may be taken to protect public health, federal funds and equipment, and the integrity of the PHS supported research process. The necessary actions will vary according to the circumstances of each case, but examples of actions that may be necessary include delaying the publication of research results, providing for closer supervision of one or more researchers, requiring approvals for actions relating to the research that did not previously require approval, auditing pertinent records, or taking steps to contact other institutions that may be affected by an allegation of research misconduct.

At any time during a research misconduct inquiry or investigation, ORI shall be immediately notified if there is reason to believe that any of the following conditions exist:

1. Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects.

2. DHHS resources or interests are threatened.

3. Research activities should be suspended.

4. There is a reasonable indication of violations of civil or criminal law. Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.

5. The possibility exists that research misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely, so that DHHS may take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved.

6. The research community or public should be informed.

Section III. Conducting the Inquiry

A. Initiation and Purpose of the Inquiry

1. The Research Integrity Officer will initiate an inquiry immediately upon receipt of allegations of research misconduct and will advise the relevant dean, department chair and/or center director that an inquiry is being initiated. The Research Integrity Officer will clearly identify the original allegations and any related issues that should be evaluated during the inquiry process.

2. The purposes of the inquiry are: to determine if the allegations fall within the scope of this policy; to determine if the allegations are sufficiently specific to allow follow-up; to make a preliminary evaluation of the available evidence and testimony of the respondent, complainant, and essential witnesses; and to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of possible research misconduct to warrant an investigation.

B. Notice to Respondent

As part of the Inquiry, the following notifications shall be provided to all identified respondents:

1. Initiation of Inquiry. Prior to or at the beginning of the inquiry, the respondent(s) shall receive written notification of the inquiry and contemporaneously sequester all research records and other evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding. If the inquiry subsequently identifies additional respondents, they shall be promptly notified in writing.

2. Comment on Inquiry Report. The respondents will be provided an opportunity to comment on the inquiry report in a timely fashion so that any comments can be attached to the report.

3. Results of the Inquiry. The respondent(s) shall be notified of the results of the inquiry and attach to the notification copies of the inquiry report and these institutional policies and procedures for the handling of research misconduct allegations.

C. Sequestration of the Research Records

As a part of the inquiry, the Research Integrity Officer must immediately obtain custody of the Research Record, inventory the Research Record, and sequester the Research Record in a secure manner.

1. Either before or when the respondent is notified of the allegation, all reasonable and practical steps shall be taken to promptly obtain custody of all research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory those materials, and sequester them in a secure manner, except in those cases where the research records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments.

2. Where appropriate, give the respondent copies of, or reasonable, supervised access to the research records.

3. Undertake all reasonable and practical efforts to take custody of additional research records and evidence discovered during the course of the research misconduct proceeding, including at the inquiry and investigation stages, or if new allegations arise, subject to the exception for scientific instruments in (1) above.

All records of the research misconduct proceeding, as defined in 42 CFR Section 93.317(a), shall be maintained for 7 years after completion of the proceeding, or any ORI or DHHS proceeding under Subparts D and E of 42 CFR Part 93, whichever is later, unless custody of the records and evidence is transferred to DHHS, or ORI has advised Baylor that the records no longer need to be retained.

D. Inquiry Process

The Research Integrity Officer will conduct the inquiry, which may involve examining all relevant documents and interviewing the complainant, the respondent, and essential witnesses. The Research Integrity Officer may enlist the assistance of a person or persons with relevant technical expertise, selected in accordance with procedures set out below for establishing an Investigative Committee, to examine relevant research records, material and documents. The scope of the inquiry does not include exhaustive interviews or extensive analyses of the Research Record. The inquiry must be completed within sixty (60) days after the Research Integrity Officer receives the allegations that are the subject of the inquiry. Any extension of this period will be based on good cause, as determined by the Vice Provost for Research, and will be recorded in the inquiry file and submitted to any interested agency.

The inquiry report shall contain the following information:

1. The name and position of the respondent(s);

2. A description of the allegations of research misconduct;

3. The PHS support involved, including, for example, grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS support;

4. The basis for recommending that the alleged actions warrant an investigation; and

5. Any comments on the report by the respondent or the complainant.

The Research Integrity Officer will make a written determination, after consultation with the Vice Provost for Research and the Office of General Counsel, whether the allegations are sufficient to warrant an investigation. The purpose of the inquiry is to determine only if an investigation is warranted. No conclusion or presumption that research misconduct occurred is created if the Research Integrity Officer determines that there should be an investigation of the allegations.

E. Inquiry Decision and Notification

The Research Integrity Officer shall prepare and transmit an inquiry report to the Provost, the Vice Provost for Research, the Office of General Counsel, the complainant, and the respondent. This report shall state whether an investigation into the allegations is warranted. This report will conform to PHS and National Science Foundation requirements and will be forwarded to interested government agencies.

Section IV. Conducting the Investigation

A. Initiation and Purpose of the Investigation

If the inquiry results in a determination that an investigation is warranted, the Research Integrity Officer shall begin the investigation within thirty (30) calendar days of that determination and, on or before the date on which the investigation begins, send the inquiry report and the written determination to the ORI. The Research Integrity Officer shall notify the respondent(s) of the results of the inquiry and attach to the notification copies of the inquiry report and the institutional policies and procedures for the handling of research misconduct allegations.

The purpose of the investigation is to: explore in detail the allegations; examine the evidence in depth; determine specifically whether misconduct has been committed, by whom, and to what extent; and, make recommendations regarding possible Baylor actions to be undertaken in accordance with other Baylor policies, after consideration of the investigation results, recommendations made by the funding agency, and advice from the Office of General Counsel. The investigation also will determine whether there are additional instances of possible misconduct that would justify broadening the scope beyond the initial allegations. The findings of the investigation will be set forth in an investigation report.

On or before the date on which the investigation begins, the Research Integrity Officer shall provide ORI with the written finding and a copy of the inquiry report containing the information required by 42 CFR Section 93.309(a). Upon a request from ORI the Research Integrity Officer shall promptly send ORI:

1. A copy of our institutional policies and procedures under which the inquiry was conducted;

2. The research records and evidence reviewed, transcripts or recordings of any interviews, and copies of all relevant documents; and

3. The charges for the investigation to consider.

B. Sequestration of Research Records

The Research Integrity Officer immediately will sequester any additional pertinent research records that were not sequestered previously. The sequestration should occur before or at the time the respondent is notified that an investigation has begun. The Research Integrity Officer will continue sequestering the records during the investigation. Any additional records discovered during the investigation determined to be pertinent to the investigation will also be sequestered.

C. Appointment of and Charge to the Investigation Committee

1. The Research Integrity Officer, in consultation with the Vice Provost for Research, Office of General Counsel, and the appropriate dean, will appoint an investigation committee within fifteen (15) days of the notification to the respondent that an investigation is planned. Such committees will be composed of three (3) persons, including a committee chair. Committee members may be scientists, subject matter experts, administrators, lawyers, or other qualified persons within or outside Baylor, but at least one (1) Baylor faculty member shall be appointed to each such committee. Members of the investigation committee also may have assisted in the inquiry concerning the allegations. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure an impartial and unbiased research misconduct proceeding to the maximum extent practicable. Committee members shall be selected on the basis of scientific expertise that is pertinent to the matter and, prior to selection, all committee members will be screened for any unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the respondent, complainant, potential witnesses, or others involved in the matter. Any such conflict which a reasonable person would consider to demonstrate potential bias shall disqualify the individual from selection.

2. The Research Integrity Officer will notify the respondent of the proposed committee membership. If the respondent submits a written objection to any appointed member of the investigation committee based upon bias or conflict of interest within five (5) days, the Vice Provost for Research will determine whether to replace the challenged member with a qualified substitute.

3. The Research Integrity Officer will prepare a charge for the investigation committee that describes the allegations and any related issues identified during the inquiry, defines research misconduct, and identifies the name of the respondent. The charge will state that the committee is to evaluate the evidence and testimony of the respondent, complainant, and witnesses to determine whether, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, research misconduct occurred and, if so, to what extent, who was responsible, and its seriousness.

4. If during the investigation additional information becomes available that substantially changes the subject matter of the investigation or would suggest additional respondents, the committee will notify the Research Integrity Officer who will then determine whether it is necessary to notify the respondent of the new subject matter or to provide notice to additional respondents.

5. The Research Integrity Officer, with the assistance of the Office of General Counsel, will convene the first meeting of the investigation committee to review the charge, the inquiry 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 these instructions and, where applicable, regulation of interested government agencies.

D. Investigation Process

The investigation committee will be appointed and the investigation process initiated within thirty (30) days of the completion of the inquiry. The investigation normally will involve examination of all documentation including, but not necessarily limited to, relevant research records, computer files, proposals, manuscripts, publications, correspondence, memoranda, and notes of telephone calls. In conducting all investigations, the investigation committee shall:

1. Use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough and sufficiently documented and includes examination of all research records and evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegations;

2. Interview each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent, and record or transcribe each interview, provide the recording or transcript to the interviewee for correction, and include the recording or transcript in the record of investigation;

3. Pursue diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion; and

4. Otherwise comply with the requirements for conducting an investigation in 42 CPR Section 93.310.

All interviews should be transcribed or tape recorded. Tape recordings or transcripts should be prepared, provided to the interviewed party for comment or revision, and included as part of the investigation file. The committee will notify the respondent sufficiently in advance of the scheduling of his/her interview in the investigation so that the respondent may prepare for the interview and arrange for the attendance of legal counsel, if the respondent wishes.

An investigation must be completed within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days of the first meeting of the investigation committee. This includes: conducting the investigation; preparing the report findings; making the draft report available to the subject of the investigation for comment; submitting the final report to the Provost and the Vice Provost for Research, and sending the final report to ORI. Any extension of this final report will be based on good cause as determined by unanimous decision of the investigation committee and will be reflected in the investigation file and submitted to any interested agency.

E. Investigation Report

The committee shall prepare a final report of its investigation for submission to the University President, the Provost and the Vice Provost for Research. The report shall describe the policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted, including 42 CFR Section 93.312, how and from whom information relevant to the investigation was obtained, the findings, and the basis for the findings. It shall also contain an accurate summary of the views of any person(s) found to have engaged in misconduct. The final investigation report shall:

1. Describe the nature of the allegations of research misconduct;

2. Describe and document the PHS support, including, for example any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS support;

3. Describe the specific allegations of research misconduct considered in the investigation;

4. Include the institutional policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted;

5. Identify and summarize the research records and evidence reviewed, and identify any evidence taken into custody, but not reviewed. The report should also describe any relevant records and evidence not taken into custody and explain why;

6. Provide a finding as to whether research misconduct did or did not occur for each separate allegation of research misconduct identified during the investigation, and if misconduct was found,

i. identify it as falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism and whether it was intentional, knowing, or in reckless disregard;

ii. summarize the facts and the analysis supporting the conclusion and consider the merits of any reasonable explanation by the respondent and any evidence that rebuts the respondent's explanations;

iii. identify the specific PHS support;

iv. identify any publications that need correction or retraction;

v. identify the person(s) responsible for the misconduct;

vi. list any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the respondent(s) has pending with non-PHS Federal agencies; and

vii. include and consider any comments made by the respondent and complainant on the draft investigation report.

Baylor shall maintain and provide to ORI upon request all relevant research records and records of our research misconduct proceeding, including results of all interviews and the transcripts or recordings of such interviews.

The committee shall give the respondent(s) a copy of the draft investigation report, and concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the evidence on which the report is based and notify the respondent(s) that any comments must be submitted within thirty (30) days of the date on which he/she received the draft report. The committee shall ensure that these comments are included and considered in the final investigation report. The committee shall also provide the complainant with those portions of the report that address the complainant's role and opinions. The Research Integrity Officer will inform the respondent and complainant, when providing them with the reports or portions of it, that the report is confidential, and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure that confidentiality. The respondent's comments will be attached to the final report and the findings of the final report should take into account the respondent's comments as well as all other evidence. The complainant's comments should be considered by the committee and the report modified as appropriate prior to its submission. The committee's report shall be submitted to Office of General Counsel for a review of its legal sufficiency prior to its submission to the University President, Provost, and ORI.

F. Investigation Decision and Notification

The Provost is the deciding official and will make the final determination whether to accept the investigation report, its findings, and the recommended Baylor actions. If this determination or recommendation varies from that of the investigation committee, the Provost will explain in writing the basis for rendering a decision or recommendation different from that of the committee. The explanation of the Provost should be consistent with the definition of research misconduct, Baylor's policies and procedures, and the evidence reviewed and analyzed by the investigation committee. The Provost also may return the report to the investigation committee with a request for additional fact finding and analysis. The determination of the Provost, together with the report of the investigation committee, constitutes the final report and decision.

The Research Integrity Officer will notify the respondent and the complainant in writing of the final decision of the case. The Provost 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. The Research Integrity Officer is responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification requirements of funding or sponsoring agencies, including submissions of the final report to ORI or other appropriate agencies.

Baylor shall cooperate fully and on a continuing basis with ORI during its oversight reviews of this institution and its research misconduct proceedings and during the process under which the respondent may contest ORI findings of research misconduct and proposed DHHS administrative actions. This includes providing, as necessary to develop a complete record of relevant evidence, all witnesses, research records, and other evidence under our control or custody, or in the possession of, or accessible to, all persons that are subject to our authority.

The Research Integrity Officer will report to ORI any proposed settlements, admissions of research misconduct, or institutional findings of misconduct that arise at any stage of a misconduct proceeding, including the allegation and inquiry stages, including:

1. A copy of the investigation report, all attachments;

2. A statement of whether the institution found research misconduct and, if so, who committed it;

3. A statement of whether the institution accepts the findings in the investigation report; and

4. A description of any pending or completed administrative actions against the respondent.

G. Restoring Reputations

Baylor shall undertake all reasonable, practical, and appropriate efforts to protect and restore the reputation of any respondent alleged to have engaged in research misconduct, but against whom no finding of research misconduct was made, if that person or his/her legal counselor other authorized representative requests that Baylor do so.

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

For assistance: Questions regarding policy should be directed to the Office of the Vice Provost for Research.